Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[johnny karate]

Imagine, claiming to fight for or support women's rights and then voting for a rapist and adulterer who regularly objectifies and demeans women, has quite the creepy past when it comes to his daughter, already has a history of setting back women's rights by 50 years, and so very much more along those lines. Oh, and voting for that option instead of the *checks notes* woman pointedly fighting for women's rights. One might conclude that their devotion to women's rights might not quite be sincere. But no. That couldn't be it. It's totally justified to protect the US against the virtually nonexistent threat and harm to women caused by trans women and DEI! All it has cost is dramatic, tangible, and all too real harm to women and women's rights that was totally unpredictable for those who willfully blinded themselves!

It's reminiscent of how people can claim to care about the economy so much that they vote for and support a guy who openly proclaimed that he would hold the economy hostage for the sake of forcing changes that would hurt the economy. And then, when he won, gave him one of the highest positions of power in the country, where he proceeded to try to do exactly that.

Yes, but civil service exams, though.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Trump shut down program to end human waste backing into Alabama homes, calling it 'illegal DEI'

A $26 million federal program to help residents of Lowndes County, Alabama, who have dealt with inadequate sewage systems for decades was stopped by an executive order.

www.nbcnews.com

Helping poor people not living in sewage is DEI, because they are black. Oh and it's something with environment, so that must go too.
It's sad to see how the richest nation in the world has problems that belong in third world countries and then actively stops remedying them.

But still, maybe now that money can go to a new golf course or something?

 

[bruto]

Trump shut down program to end human waste backing into Alabama homes, calling it 'illegal DEI'

A $26 million federal program to help residents of Lowndes County, Alabama, who have dealt with inadequate sewage systems for decades was stopped by an executive order.

www.nbcnews.com

Helping poor people not living in sewage is DEI, because they are black. Oh and it's something with environment, so that must go too.
It's sad to see how the richest nation in the world has problems that belong in third world countries and then actively stops remedying them.

But still, maybe now that money can go to a new golf course or something?

Because in this great country of ours the sewage should be coming from above, not below!

 

[bruto]

So do the enemies of DEI here consider the above example actually to be DEI? I really would like to know, since there seems to be a default support of the administration's efforts to do away with it all. We have a problem here that happens to affect black victims disproportionately. One could go on and argue about why that is, but let us imagine that, having color-blinded everything and dismissed all racial information from our operations, we will not. But if that is the case, it is simply a matter of "some people somewhere are being made ill by faulty sewage systems, and that ought to be fixed." But as soon as we open our eyes and see that those some people are black, the program is cancelled because it's "DEI."

This appears to be the same kind of issue as the cancellation of arbor day efforts to plant trees in urban areas where there are not enough trees, with the consquence that the people in those areas disproportionately die of the heat. Such a program can be implemented simply by using a map and counting trees, without thinking one second about which people are affected. And yet, it was cancelled because it was seen as "DEI," because, of course, for reasons we are condemned for pointing out, those areas just happen to be inhabited largely by black people.

Can some one of the brave souls who has spoken so eloquently against DEI programs make an effort to explain why this is not insane?

 

[jt512]

So do the enemies of DEI here consider the above example actually to be DEI?

It's not DEI. But the funding, according to the article, was to fight "environmental racism," which is critical race theory horse-◊◊◊◊. Spending government money to help people because they are poor is one thing; spending it because they are black, another.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's not DEI. But the funding, according to the article, was to fight "environmental racism," which is critical race theory horse-◊◊◊◊. Spending government money to help people because they are poor is one thing; spending it because they are black, another.

The important thing is that basements not be emptied of feces for the wrong reasons.

 

[bruto]

It's not DEI. But the funding, according to the article, was to fight "environmental racism," which is critical race theory horse-◊◊◊◊. Spending government money to help people because they are poor is one thing; spending it because they are black, another.

So if they are, as in this case it appears they are, poor because they're black, they're screwed if it's said the wrong way.

 

[novaphile]

Damnit! I have always worked on the assumption that 'covfefe' was a munged 'kerfuffle'...

Now you're telling me it means coffee?

 

[johnny karate]

It's not DEI. But the funding, according to the article, was to fight "environmental racism," which is critical race theory horse-◊◊◊◊. Spending government money to help people because they are poor is one thing; spending it because they are black, another.

Yes, if there is someone who you can trust to make a good faith argument about environmental racism, it is definitely a Trump voter.

 

[Aridas]

Damnit! I have always worked on the assumption that 'covfefe' was a munged 'kerfuffle'...

Now you're telling me it means coffee?

For just a moment of seriousness when it comes to 'covfefe,' because purposeful obfuscation by the Trump Administration at the time was a thing and forgetfulness is definitely a thing - covfefe was fairly certainly intended to be coverage -

Six minutes after midnight (EDT) on May 31, 2017, Trump tweeted "Despite the constant negative press covfefe". He deleted the tweet six hours later.

A running theory from the time was that Trump fell asleep on the toilet while trying to type out whatever crap he was intending that to be.

 

[novaphile]

For just a moment of seriousness when it comes to 'covfefe,' because purposeful obfuscation by the Trump Administration at the time was a thing and forgetfulness is definitely a thing - covfefe was fairly certainly intended to be coverage -



A running theory from the time was that Trump fell asleep on the toilet while trying to type out whatever crap he was intending that to be.

Oh I see!

Coverage makes much more sense.

I jumped to 'kerfuffle' because of the two 'f' s...

 

[jt512]

So if they are, as in this case it appears they are, poor because they're black, they're screwed if it's said the wrong way.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they are screwed. They could well get the work done under a different program. But you won't read about that in the news.

 

[bruto]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they are screwed. They could well get the work done under a different program. But you won't read about that in the news.

A brilliant idea. You're sure they could well get this done, so presumably it's their fault they didn't think of that sooner. No hurry anyway, just because they're being made ill by sewage bubbling up in their lawns. Maybe it's just laziness on their part that they haven't shopped around among the myriad of public programs waiting to solve their problem.

If they are predominantly black, and the problem exists in a neighborhood that is predominantly black, and is not privately paid for by them, what magical spell will they have to invoke to prevent it from being cancelled again for being too woke? It's beginning to look as if not only will a program be cancelled if anyone has the gall to mention race, or to refer to it with the wrong jargon, but if they even open their eyes and acknowledge what is staring them in the face.

Your response suggests that using terminology you don't like proves a problem doesn't exist. So you don't like the term "environmental racism," and so perhaps there's a better word for the fact that decades of segregation and economic marginalization and real estate red-lining, and maybe factors which are benign and simply have to do with cultural solidarity, have led to many cities having neighborhoods that are predominantly black, and that in many cities those very neighborhoods just happen to be more rundown, with fewer municipal services, fewer trees, and so forth. So whether you call it environmental racism or an evil conjunction of heavenly bodies or a roll of the dice, why should that cancel a program to prevent people from conspicuous health hazards caused by sewage bubbling up in their lawns? Really! What values are we talking about here?

 

[jt512]

You're sure they could well get this done...

I don't know that they will, and you don't know that they won't. What I strongly suspect is that that news story is not the whole story. That community's sewer project was probably one of many projects funded under a federal "environmental justice" program, and the whole program was likely canceled, because you can't (or at least shouldn't) allocate public funds based on race at all, much less based on a racial theory that some French postmodernist philosopher just made up in the 1960s.

Your response suggests that using terminology you don't like proves a problem doesn't exist.

My response suggests what problem doesn't exist?

 

[bruto]

You can't (or at least shouldn't) allocate public funds based on race at all, much less based on a racial theory that some French postmodernist philosopher just made up in the 1960s.

My response suggests what problem doesn't exist?

Your response suggests that a program to address an actual problem should be canceled. The possibility that other means exist to solve the problem without running into the same obstacle is dubious. In the meantime, the the situation is presumed not to be a problem that needs to be addressed. So maybe it was excessive to say you think it does not exist. You just think it isn't important.

You keep saying you shouldn't allocate funds based on race, but what if the beneficiary of the funds happens to be predominantly one race? Forget the reasons. You can cite the right reasons or the wrong reasons, but the problem is the same thing in the same place happening to the same people. That's the part you keep skirting around. The fact, like it or not, is that there is a particular problem in a particular place, and the beneficiaries of fixing it are the same as the victims of the problem, and cancelling the program for being "woke" amounts to discriminating against them on the excuse that solving the problem would be discriminating for them, because of some unrealistically abstract belief that the cessation of legal segregation and discrimination have magically undone centuries of bigoted disadvantage that it's unseemly to mention.

The fact that someone made what you consider the fatally lamentable error of using the wrong terminology to describe the project does not somehow make the language the basis of either the problem or the solution, if in fact the problem is a real one and the solution a reasonable one. If you believe that people in a certain neighborhood in a certain city should not be made ill by municipal sewage bubbling up in their yards, and if you believe that public funds should reasonably be used to correct the problem then why the ***** should you or I or anyone give a flying **** what words are used to get it done?

This like a grownup version of the children's game "Giant Steps." Oh no, take a step back, you forgot to say Pleeeease!

 

[jt512]

Your response suggests that a program to address an actual problem should be canceled.

I asked you what problem it is you think my response suggested doesn't exist, and you are just repeating "a problem," so I'll ask again: What problem did my response suggest doesn't exist.

So maybe it was excessive to say you think it does not exist.

I haven't said any problem doesn't exist. You're just making that up. You can't even name the problem when asked.

You keep saying you shouldn't allocate funds based on race, but what if the beneficiary of the funds happens to be predominantly one race?

I've answered essentially that same question at least twice before. You can allocate federal funds based on need, poverty, low income, etc. If the beneficiaries are disproportionately black because black people are disproportionately poor, that program would be perfectly fine. But the criterion has to be poverty, not race.

 

[Darat]

A brilliant idea. You're sure they could well get this done, so presumably it's their fault they didn't think of that sooner. No hurry anyway, just because they're being made ill by sewage bubbling up in their lawns. Maybe it's just laziness on their part that they haven't shopped around among the myriad of public programs waiting to solve their problem.

If they are predominantly black, and the problem exists in a neighborhood that is predominantly black, and is not privately paid for by them, what magical spell will they have to invoke to prevent it from being cancelled again for being too woke? It's beginning to look as if not only will a program be cancelled if anyone has the gall to mention race, or to refer to it with the wrong jargon, but if they even open their eyes and acknowledge what is staring them in the face.

Your response suggests that using terminology you don't like proves a problem doesn't exist. So you don't like the term "environmental racism," and so perhaps there's a better word for the fact that decades of segregation and economic marginalization and real estate red-lining, and maybe factors which are benign and simply have to do with cultural solidarity, have led to many cities having neighborhoods that are predominantly black, and that in many cities those very neighborhoods just happen to be more rundown, with fewer municipal services, fewer trees, and so forth. So whether you call it environmental racism or an evil conjunction of heavenly bodies or a roll of the dice, why should that cancel a program to prevent people from conspicuous health hazards caused by sewage bubbling up in their lawns? Really! What values are we talking about here?

It's simple, the wrong people are benefiting.

 

[Darat]

I asked you what problem it is you think my response suggested doesn't exist, and you are just repeating "a problem," so I'll ask again: What problem did my response suggest doesn't exist.

I haven't said any problem doesn't exist. You're just making that up. You can't even name the problem when asked.

I've answered essentially that same question at least twice before. You can allocate federal funds based on need, poverty, low income, etc. If the beneficiaries are disproportionately black because black people are disproportionately poor, that program would be perfectly fine. But the criterion has to be poverty, not race.

The criteria used to allocate the funds was a problem of sewage in people's houses and gardens and the subsequent health problems.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's simple, the wrong people are benefiting.

You mean, the wrong kind of people are benefiting.

 

[jt512]

The criteria used to allocate the funds was a problem of sewage in people's houses and gardens and the subsequent health problems.

False. As the originally cited article clearly stated, the goal of the program was "environmental justice." That means allocating money to black people because they have supposedly been deprived of environmental justice (whatever that means) due to systematic racism that is supposedly still ubiquitous in American society in 2025.