• Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t even know what DEI is.

      It would be nice if at least once a page someone fucking explains an acronym. It’s a little more understandable when you can infer a meaning through context, but when the context is that people are using it as the new woke bogeyman it gives zero clue as to what it even is.

      • UFO@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Many of those adamant against the spooky woke bogeyman don’t know what the words mean either!

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You aren’t wrong with your criticism in general (from a purely journalistic pov). But actually typing DEI into Google and clicking the first hit, would be more constructive than ranting.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          If my only point was to learn what DEI was, sure. But that doesn’t help with the next acronym. Or the next one. Or the next one. Ad nauseum.

          My problem is with the trend of people just using an acronym with no definition, it means you are not making a coherent argument that can be understood by people not already invested in it. It, in and of itself, is little better than a rant to an audience that’s already made up its mind.

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Instead of writing this, simply answering it with “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” would’ve been equally more constructive 😁

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It means trying to diversity your workforce instead of just loading the places up with white people.

        Opponents have lots of idiotic tropes about how hiring minorities makes white people less safe and how it takes good jobs away from more qualified applicants.

        To many whites, equality feels like oppression, I guess, and they would rather feel superior than be equal.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well sure, but that’s not how they would frame it. I’m curious what their arguments against it are. They usually put a little spit and polish on their turds before feeding them to their faithful masses.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I really enjoy those honey badger nature vids online. Watching this angry little weasel go pick a fight with 6 lions. Jumping from one to other and ruining their day. This ball of pure malice and hate that is forever in need of a target. One of the only critters on earth that will kill for the joy of it.

      I am glad I sure don’t know any humans like that. Especially not those in power, not ones who have zero interest in building or even maintaining things. Just rage and the ability to hurt.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      All three of which are the more evil than the devil itself, according to the Republican party.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It continues to be amazing that so many of them are sticking to the lie that there’s a “leftist revolution” going on. How can it be that anyone still falls for it?

  • blahsay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    I thought treating people differently based on race was to be avoided? There’s no good racism right?

    Wouldn’t a better and fairer idea be to give people a hand up based on economic issues?

    You can’t tell if someone has experienced racial discrimination based on the race they ascribe to (ask Megan markle).

    However you can definitely (and without bias) tell someone is going to be disadvantaged if they grew up in a poor neighbourhood, neither parent earned much, no family history of higher education etc etc.

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Too easy and doesn’t let us divide and conquer the US among racial lines. Easier to just make the populace fear and attack each other while the top 1% loots any remaining value.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re talking about affirmative action, this is about DEI.

      I thought treating people differently based on race was to be avoided? There’s no good racism right?

      On the very slim chance you’re asking in good faith, I’ll answer your question.

      Suppose we were playing poker, and I was cheating the whole time. After a long time, and with almost all the chips, I finally agree not to cheat anymore and play the game “with the same rules for everybody, going forward”. That’s fair, right?

      • blahsay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I get that you have good intentions and I hate to tell you this but every racist thinks their racism is right and justified. Best to reject racism mate.

        Also your example plays perfectly into the compromise I suggested. Why not give those with less chips more? They’re not always (insert race you want to preference here).

        I know the intention is to level the playing field but it’s been divisive and often exploited by those who don’t need it. Economic standards are far easier to determine, more accurate measures and aren’t racist.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    10 months ago

    D.E.I. programs explicitly treat people differently based on race. Such programs have no place in modern society.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      That only makes sense if we aren’t already treating people differently based on race, which we do all the time.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        “We can’t stop doing X as long as we’re still doing X” doesn’t exactly make much sense either.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            X, in this case, is “treating people differently based on race.”

            I would love if we were to do un-X.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?

                Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.

                • twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It does if you start with the assumption that you need to do ANYTHING POSSIBLE in the name of equity, including causing further inequities at the individual level.