You must log in or # to comment.
I think it’s important to distinguish between diversity, equity, and inclusion as CONCEPTS and DEI as an organization and initiative.
It is possible to be pro- diversity, equity, and inclusion and be opposed to mismanaged efforts in DEI as a PROGRAM.
This post assumes that DEI as a government initiative is working perfectly and has no downsides, presenting it in a way that closes it off to criticism.
Does every system have to be perfect? Of course not. It’s better to have a system pushing for good that’s imperfect than none at all, but framing it like this is gaslighting and hurts discussion on both sides.
This isn’t hard… I don’t like DEI.
But also, I do like diversity, equity, and inclusion.
There is a difference. Understand that, and you’ve leveled up.
I don’t like DEI cause I think human rights, equality and equal opportunity should come default nowardays, rather than be a thing people need to rally behind and hope it gets passed as law in a few decades.
If an demented felon child diddler trans woman and an african nazi with mental defeciencies can run a country, why can’t a trans black woman write some code?
Because the felon child diddler and african nazi with mental defeciencies (using your spelling) are the ones who have always been in charge and are simply the ones who want to make sure that only child diddlers and nazis who also look like them are in charge.
I was just pointing out the unbearable irony. Don’t read too much into it.
Yes. Also put an /s next time.
It’s just like the anti work stuff, being against artifa, etc. They are openly signaling their intention and the fact they won’t just say they are fascists is childish.
A friend of mine used to do food runs for his office, where about 40% of the employees were black. The team voted on what they wanted, and they almost always chose Wing Stop because it was popular. Despite this, he was called into a meeting and accused of racial profiling for bringing “fried chicken” to a mostly black workplace. This experience reflects the way DEI programs often operate. They focus almost excessively on race, and identity, and thrive on controversy.
Originally, these initiatives created programs where people who came to companies did so to fix the issues and leave. Apparently that didn’t work./ Instead, they’ve become permanent fixtures in workplaces, incentivized to perpetuate problems rather than solve them. With their continued presence, they encourage reporting and policing of behavior, creating a culture of fear and compliance rather than genuine inclusion.
DEI initiatives have failed. They’ve been in place for several years, yet we always hear constant rhetoric that racism and discrimination is becoming more of a problem? Instead, these programs have probably radicalized more people than any fringe political group. Many now define their views in opposition to their perceived opponents rather than on principles.
Ironically, DEI encourages prejudice. I’ve personally been told to create a bias in favor of minorities to combat existing bias, which only results in a new form of discrimination; it doesn’t eliminate the existing biases. The approach based on “privilege” encouraged me to assume all black people are disadvantaged and all white people are privileged and implicitly biased. Guilt and shame are used as tools to enforce conformity, pressuring people to adopt a specific moral stance while condemning those who don’t. People are praised for being sanctimonious. It’s become popular to call out others while simultaneously making self-righteous shows of one’s own behavior.
That’s not what DEI even is. Ironically DEI and affirmative action was used in only a few select places that were historically so opposed to anyone from a minority group that they HAD to have some others be put in order to allow people with qualifications and aren’t white to enter.
If you want to know the reality of a what a world without DEI looks like, look at what Trump and the republicans have been doing for the past 20 years. They aren’t concerned with qualifications or ‘meritocracy’ despite their ceaseless whining about it. They are the ones actually pulling an actual agenda and will only hire people willing to push it, even if they do so very badly.
If you think Pete Hegseth is qualified as secretary of defense, then you aren’t concerned with qualifications.
Everything about this post reeks of racism.
Right. So I guess if you hate nazis, you hate socialists.
Every good capitalist country has a socialist democracy that provides an ample safety net. Just cause you want a reasonable society where people don’t need to get lifelong debt for things that have been proven can be free, doesn’t mean you’re some tankie communist who wants to holodomor
You really thought you ate with that one, huh? Nationalists are people who are pro ethnic cleansing in support of an ethno state. See also: White Nationalists, Christian Nationalists. I hate Nazis and Nationalists.
Most people who are against DEI are against the “E”.
They believe that equality is the end goal, not equity.
Equality = equal opportunity
Equity = equal outcome
Equity = something you made up?
Equity literally means fairness and impartiality.
I mean I certainly don’t oppose getting rid of DEI but let’s not be haste in assuming what something is called is actually what it is.
Is North Korea a Democracy? They are called the DPRK no? Democratic people’s republic?
If you’re opposed to DOGE, does that mean you’re opposed to efficiency in government?
Yes. Emphatically so.
The more efficient government is, the easier it is to usurp power.
Do you support democracy?
If so then that must mean you support the DPRK.
Government should not be efficient, at least not in what the business class calls “efficiency”.
Government is the entity that performs those tasks that need to be done, but nobody wants to do. If those essential tasks can be done “efficiently”, everyone is going to want to get paid for doing them.
Yes I am
I guess it depends on what is efficient.
The “inefficient” splurges, like the moon project, lead to significant scientific advances…balancing people on a knife edge when it comes to healthcare, etc.
As someone outside of the US, all I can see is people fighting over who has a right to a job and who doesn’t, while the rich hoard wealth. DEI wouldn’t be an issue if there was a safety net, maybe with UBI based on the minimum liveable wage, public housing, public education, public healthcare and government grants to start small business ventures.
Europe is top of the world despite seeing communism first hand. Once you get rid of the ethnic cleansing, genocide, authoritarianism and planned economy, there’s a lot of social policies that work great and are cheaper than american style.
This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.
We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.
It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.
That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.
I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.
You’ll never know how important representation is until you have no one who represents you.
“We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another”
Sure, except no DEI policy worth its salt ever does that. Day 1 on the job in actual DEI, the difference between tokenism and inclusion is taught, and a policy or practice where unqualified people are put in positions solely because of their identity are not DEI policies.
It’s about giving equal access and opportunity to equally qualified diverse candidates that, because of systemic biases and obstacles, they wouldn’t have had access to.
Saying “we need a guy on a wheelchair in the legal team, to look good, so hire this guy without a law degree” is dumb tokenism.
Saying “hey now that we don’t do ‘jog-and-talk’ interviews on the 14th floor of a building without an elevator, we were able to interview and hire Joe, a great lawyer in a wheelchair” is implementing a basic DEI change.
Decently done DEI is about making it easier to select the most qualified talent from a qualified, talented and diverse slate of candidates.
NOTE: I don’t think you seemed to disagree with the above, it was just funny to me that you started highlighting the false dilemma, then articulated another one :)
Your statement is not based on fact. The DEI created metrics that federal employment and federal contractors were required to meet related to DEI.
it’s more on the lines of, one of the women quit so we can only interview women because otherwise we won’t meet our required diversity goal.
Your statement is the dream goal and not the actual case.
I’m sure this happens but isn’t it just gaming the system, rather than taking the goal seriously?
It’s exactly like the claim that standardized testing tends to make schools teach to the test rather than teach the subject. Yeah, it happens but it’s not the goal nor what must teachers want to do. It’s a failure at the policy level or a failure of the metrics that creates pressure to game the system
Source?
I see no facts in your statement either.
And just because something is difficult to achieve automatically means it’s wrong to try?
Especially true in gaming. Look at Concord or DA Veilguard.
Are we just going to ignore games that did well and have DEI. What about all the games without DEI that failed. Your logic is flawed.
DAO was very inclusive. It went as far as implementing implicit bias in NPCs. It allowed you to experience racism the way it’s experienced usually. Which sometimes led to wondering whether or not an NPC hated your elf for being an elf, or just hated everybody. Where a kid, not knowing better asks if you’re really an elf. And explains that his dad said that elves were mean, but your character was nicer than anyone in the refugee camp. Context behind it is that the boy belonged to a family of farmers and may have run into hostile Dalish elves. Or simply bigotry. You never get to know.
It was no stranger to sexism either, and gave a fascinating perspective from female characters who took advantage of it. Both Morrigan and Liliana. One being aware, and the other less so. And another female companion was literally a walking rock. Who honestly didn’t care about her being a woman before she became a golem. There was gender non-comformity there before and after she turned into a walking statue. Before people heard of GNC. But she did worry about if the crystals made her look fat. A good jab at feminine insecurities in a light hearted way.
It poked fun at Alistair for being an immature man. Which through experiences would change in the story. He’d either stay the same, or learn how harsh life can be and that people look after themselves first. That no one owed him anything. He had to let go of the knightly stories, and grow up to take the lead.
It was not above describing and talking about awful treatment of women either. Not that they were all victims and life sucked, but some men in power took women they wanted for fun. As the targets were elves and therefore not protected by law enforcement either. Rape is a theme not-lightly touched up on in one of the origin stories. While also describing women fighting back and failing/winning depending on the gender of the PC.
DA Veilguard didn’t fail due to incusivity. If failed to greed.
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a message—and not even a very good one.
I once played a D&D game where our party was hired to clear a camp of murderous orcs. When we arrived, the camp was nothing but women and children; the male orcs had already been slaughtered by someone else.
But because they were orcs, and because there was a stigma attached to their existence, we were still expected to kill them. Apparently, their heads were worth the same regardless of gender or age.
We were playing a game, but it still felt wrong, and everyone at the table was uncomfortable. That is how you deliver a meaningful message. Not by saying, “I’m nonbinary”—because, in the context of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, no one cares.
You don’t just ram a message down your players’ throats. You present it in a way that is playable and contextual to the game’s world and lore.
The Veilguard is set in a magical world. There is no reason to have nonbinary or trans people with surgical scars when Dragon Age literally has polymorph magic—they can change their gender whenever they want.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a message—and not even a very good one.
I see! So there was some kind of explicit order, or at least concerted effort with explicit goal, to make a game with “a message”. And I assume we have all the evidence to look at to see the day-to-day chain of events that led to the market failure.
No?
Seriously though, there were many reasons why DAV failed, and “having a Message” was not even in the top 100. Every piece of media has a message.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
…This is literally just the “historical accuracy” argument.
The primary issue with those games is that they sucked fundamentally as games.
The politics in those games not withstanding if they were actually good games they would have done fine even if the fantasy dragon lady living in a world of magic and polymorph is “nonbinary”
Don, Eric, Ivanka
DEI
Can also use “Elon” for the E.
Trump can’t remember his name anyway
When Enlong goes to Mars, can you believe it? They said on Twitter, well, now it’s X but you still tweet. They banned me before Lonnie bought it. They said, “When Eenlin goes to mars, which is a planet by the way. Like Earth but orange. Orange, don’t get me started. They say I’m orange. Do I look orange? Maybe the radical left will call me Marsolini. You people are beautiful. But mars is a planet and Erod is gonna take us there folks. I’ll be the president of mars if you can believe that. Kennedy wanted to go to the moon. Ellen wants to go to mars. Very smart people, with the rockets. They can land them now. Rockets is very powerful stuff. My uncle, very smart, good genes, he said, “Donald, rockets is very powerful stuff.” I always thought that, but who knew? Now everybody is talking about it.
Lmao, I was thinking about Eric but this is way better.
Same thing as when old people said they were against Antifa or antifa was causing violence. Anti Fascist. You don’t support the Anti Fascists. Are you ok with the Fascists then? Shuts the boomers up because they remember daddy fought the Fascists even if their lead addled brains can’t remember what that is
It’s not civil rights, it’s woke
It’s not anti intellectualism, it’s anti woke.
I mean, branding doesn’t always accurately describe a group. It does in this case, antifa is indeed anti-fascist, but people love to say the National Socialist party were socialists because “it’s right there in the name!” You know, despite “First they came for the socialists…”
Unfortunately, they’ll just claim it’s a “newspeak” term…
‘Diversity hire’ is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.
They don’t know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.
They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.
The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won’t make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that’s because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
The whole premise of equity is that there is a desired demography of people in a given position, and that positive action should be taken to approach or maintain the desired demography and that qualification, ability and merit are secondary to that. Meaning it doesn’t matter who is better, so long as someone is good enough and the right race or sex they should have preference. Don’t hire the best person, hire the best black person or woman or whatever the desired demographic is.
Most of the people who are angry about “DEI” would be fine with things like blind hiring that exclude race/sex from the process entirely but whether or not blind hiring is a valid DEI approach depends on the result - for example a public works department in Australia tried blind hiring to eliminate gender imbalance and killed that project because they found that not knowing the sex of applicants actually reduced the number of women hired which was opposed to the goal (because the goal wasn’t to remove discrimination but rather to hire more women).
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false
We first note that out of 36 possible outcomes, 23 favour females, as indicated by callback gender ratios > 1. This is interesting, but due to the small sample for each occupation within each country, most of these outcomes are not significant by conventional standards (see right-hand column). In Germany, we find statistically significant hiring discrimination against male applicants for receptionist and store assistant jobs, with callback ratios of 1.4 and 1.9, respectively. In the Netherlands, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants for store assistant jobs, with a callback ratio of 2.2. In Spain, we find clear evidence of hiring discrimination of males in two occupations, with callback ratios of 1.9 (payroll clerk) and 4.5 (receptionist). In the United Kingdom, we find strong evidence of hiring discrimination against males in payroll clerk jobs (callback ratio of 4.8, the highest of all). Interestingly, in the data, we find no evidence of gender discrimination in hiring in Norway or the United States. Thus, the evidence shows hiring discrimination against male, not female, job applicants in 1–3 occupations within four of the six countries.
Based on country-specific regression models, Figure 1 (and Supplementary Table S2) shows the probability of receiving a callback separately for each country. According to these estimates, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants in United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. The gender differences range from 0 per cent in the US to 9 percentage points in Germany. Thus, we observe gender discrimination in hiring against men in four out of six countries.
You left out the important part that actually proves my point.
“In female dominated occupations.”
So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for “team discussion” was:
“Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?”
Evidently one person in the department said “no, they do not”. So I’m sitting there wondering “oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender”. But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there’s no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that’s like 90% white men…
“Those other people are starting to get more fair consideration, so now my advantage is being threatened. No fair!”
It’s the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and “discriminated” against.
It’s because he’s an old guy still working in that department. He doesn’t feel privileged and advantaged because he’s not retired yet.
The MAGAts felt unheard by Democrats because they saw this attack on 99%er privilege while the 1% were unaffected.
In his specific case, he was going to retire next year (at 65) and felt he was going to have a relatively comfortable retirement (he was reasonably well off).
He objected to the existence of minority themed professional development organizations at work (there was one each for women, asian, latin, and black folks). The thing was, none of these orgs actually do anything, they just have speakers come and folks can go listen. But he wanted either none to exist or to have one dedicated to white men. He was offended by their existence and was big on replacement theory, even as these minority organizations had no real power and hadn’t made a dent in the 90% white male workforce. He also would brag about how he got a wife from a country where women knew their place and would take care of the house and listen to what he said.
His younger friend was also ranting about how the South should have won the civil war, and the black guy in the department asked him to explain. His friend didn’t bat an eye to explain that the south represented the natural order of things.
There may be some disenfranchised rural poor suckered by the MAGA while neglected by the left, but these dudes were 100% not this, relatively rich, entitled and super racist and misogynist.
Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.
They want white, cis-male to be the “default” again.
nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.
Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it’s only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they’re superior in every way. But they’re not racist or sexist - they just believe in a “meritocracy!”
They believe that they’re struggling financially, and statistically many of them are. The better argument is to show them abolishing DEI doesn’t even give them a better chance, and there are better ways to make opportunities for everyone.
They’ll say they just want the best person for the job to get it, and that DEI gives that job to a [insert minority group] instead of the most qualified person.
To be fair, they may actually believe that. A lot of these people don’t believe they’re racist, sexist, pigs. They are, but they don’t think they are. It’s not part of their calculus. They see a diversity program and feel victimized by it, they may relate troubles they had to getting a job to a diversity program instead of their own qualifications.
Because, these people are terminally self centered and the hero of their own story.
They will tell you that liberals just want a hand out, while sucking down every hand out they can get. But THEY earned it, no one else does, but they did. Regardless of their circumstances they worked hard to get what they have, and no one else is willing to.
There is no argument you can make that they do not have an answer for. They’re almost always misinformed misanthropes. You’re either in their group or you’re the bad guy. There’s no winning when you engage them.
Their monkeys throwing shit. You can throw shit back by the money will have a good time, and you’ll still be covered in shit.
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why “blind” hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.
Look, everyone agrees the best candidate should be the one that’s hired.
Unfortunately, there’s no objective truth in how to rank candidates - minus anything obvious. Humans make the choices and humans are prone to bias. Consciously or not, people are going to favor candidates that meet the expected stereotypes for said positions.
There are plenty of studies out there documenting it. For example, resume response rates can vary drastically based solely on the name of the applicant. (The same resume sent to various companies with changes to the applicant’s name. Masculine names, feminine names, “white” names, “black” names, etc).
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
minus anything obvious
Honestly, not even that.
I’ve been on a hiring panel (for want of a better term) where we interviewed on the ground floor. We all worked up in the building. Post-interview we wouldn’t say anything, we’d just write “yes” or “no” on a piece of paper. In the elevator going back up we’d turn our cards around. It gave a simple litmus test, if we all agreed then we can go to the pub. If we disagree then we find a meeting room and discuss.
To my point. One hire, technically brilliant. They were technically, absolutely the best candidate we’d had for that role. It was clear. We got into the elevator, and all turned around “no”. The candidate was an absolute arse of a person. Clearly the best person for the job. Clearly the last person I wanted to spend 8 hours a day sitting next to. They knew they were fucking good, and they spoke like it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that person, knowing they were good, still goes home and rants about DEI hires or similar. But entirely misses the point on why they were not hired for that role.
That’s why I was suggesting blind recruitment where possible. Name, gender, all that sort of things are hidden so they won’t affect that part of the recruitment process.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
Except that’s not what’s happening. Or rather, that’s not what DEI was doing.
DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one’s being hired because they look different.
And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.
What does making more visible mean? I’d personally rather try to make things like race, sex and whatnot less visible so they’d have less effect on the hiring process.
People don’t have a problem saying they oppose dei or the full phrase and will happily explain that they do not like workplace policy designed around diversity equity and inclusion.
Dei is absolutely something that should be considered but the right managed to absolutely annihilate it with their fake news propaganda campaign. When its brought back it needs to be packaged different. I think having every corporation parrot the phrase over and over doesn’t not help.
When its brought back it needs to be packaged different.
A union is one way of enforcing DEI. They’ve taken away the moderate alternative.
I think people vastly overestimate the impact of DEI anyway. Where I have worked it’s basically you can’t discriminate against women or minorities.
There were no extra points for hiring or promotion. HR had their diversity goals, but it was really out of their hands other than targeted advertising.
The elephant in the room that the anti DEI folk dance around is simply “But we want to discriminate!”
HR had their diversity goals
anti DEI folk dance around is simply “But we want to discriminate!”
Did I read you wrong or weren’t those DEI HR folks actually discriminating?
No? They tried to recruit from places that they wouldn’t traditionally in order to get a more diverse hiring pool. So instead of just hiring the managers buddy, you set up a booth at the traditionally black college’s career fair.
