So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 526
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Last I heard, Elon has no power to make any cuts and they are all approved by Trump before any changes are made.

That is how it should be for any questionable cuts related to DEI.
Click to expand...
LOL. You think Trump is looking through the wall of receipts? Is that in the golf cart or in the clubhouse?

I don't know why you trust anything DOJ says to the courts right now. They have lied, fudged, contradicted themselves, refused to answer, pleaded ignorance in every case, multiple times in most of them. They got rid of the attorneys who stood on principle to honor their ethical requirements. Whether or not Trump is ignoring the courts, he's clearly trying to gaslight them and the judges have noticed.
 
ZenMode said:
The general approach of shoot first and ask questions later seems like malicious compliance to me.
Click to expand...
No, it's the plan. Elon even admitted as much. Whether he's just "an advisor" or not, it's clear his judgment is being implemented, and he's said that he will make mistakes. Of course, there are a lot more mistakes than he lets on, and the wall of receipts is mostly fraudulent, but anyway . . .
 
nrsair said:
I’m quite sure the administration doesn’t give a damn which articles are being removed or re-instated, they just want to be seen as strongly anti-DEI.

And I’m also sure that there’s no malice among the compliance with the anti-DEI executive order, only some communications manager somewhere struggling to interpret what they’re supposed to do and scared to lose their job if they don’t go far enough.
Click to expand...
I suspect the first statement is more true than the second. I suspect it because we heard about it. It's not like there's a journalist anywhere that is daily perusing the Arlington national memorial web page just in case someone gets removed.

The only reason a journalist would know about it is that someone told them about it, almost certainly one of the team members that took down the page. And that's okay. Americans deserve to know and the administration deserves to get push back. I think it's an effective way to make Trump take accountability for some of these decrees and think a little harder about future ones.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I suspect the first statement is more true than the second. I suspect it because we heard about it. It's not like there's a journalist anywhere that is daily perusing the Arlington national memorial web page just in case someone gets removed.

The only reason a journalist would know about it is that someone told them about it, almost certainly one of the team members that took down the page. And that's okay. Americans deserve to know and the administration deserves to get push back. I think it's an effective way to make Trump take accountability for some of these decrees and think a little harder about future ones.
Click to expand...
It is not almost certainly one of the team members who took it down.

I know, this might shock you, but there are 330M+ people in the country. If 0.01% of them looked at that page, that's 30K people. Maybe one of them noticed and contacted someone.

The odds of it being a leak are much less, in my view, than the odds of user-detected error.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I suspect the first statement is more true than the second. I suspect it because we heard about it. It's not like there's a journalist anywhere that is daily perusing the Arlington national memorial web page just in case someone gets removed.

The only reason a journalist would know about it is that someone told them about it, almost certainly one of the team members that took down the page. And that's okay. Americans deserve to know and the administration deserves to get push back. I think it's an effective way to make Trump take accountability for some of these decrees and think a little harder about future ones.
Click to expand...
With the telegraphing of what Trump wanted to do and the adoption of so many P2025 items, it’s very likely that there are hundreds of people, more citizen activists than journalists, who watch this stuff on the regular.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
The only reason a journalist would know about it is that someone told them about it, almost certainly one of the team members that took down the page. And that's okay. Americans deserve to know and the administration deserves to get push back. I think it's an effective way to make Trump take accountability for some of these decrees and think a little harder about future ones.
Click to expand...
Originally, probably, but now that the Administration is known to have purged the Arlington and DoD websites, journalists are perusing the wayback Machine to see what used to be there and comparing to the whitewashed sites. By using a “DEI” tag to mark urls for deletion, DOGE or whoever is running that is also making it easier to track through the hatchet work.
 
nycfan said:
Originally, probably, but now that the Administration is known to have purged the Arlington and DoD websites, journalists are perusing the wayback Machine to see what used to be there and comparing to the whitewashed sites. By using a “DEI” tag to mark urls for deletion, DOGE or whoever is running that is also making it easier to track through the hatchet work.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
superrific said:
1. Again, do you think maybe you're not understanding what dei is all about? It's not a fucking quota system. It's not about giving minorities a leg up.
2. I wonder when you will realize that most of today's GOP uses DEI as a derogatory term for minorities in general, without discrimination. It's not exactly the n-word, but it's meant to be stigmatizing.
Click to expand...
My claim has been that DEI is about hiring/promoting non-white, non-male, non-straight, non-cis people.

If that is incorrect, then explain how DEI works and for whom it works.
 
ZenMode said:
If that is incorrect, then explain how DEI works and for whom it works.
Click to expand...
It has been explained to you literally dozens of times. If you want to know, use the google. Or the ChatGPT.

I'll just point out that the oft-mocked "my pronouns are" is a DEI effort. Note that it has nothing to do with hiring, promoting or anything like that. It's merely a way to help minimize a stigma for people who choose to go by "they." Remember that ad, "she's for they/them"?
 
BlooVooDoo said:
With the telegraphing of what Trump wanted to do and the adoption of so many P2025 items, it’s very likely that there are hundreds of people, more citizen activists than journalists, who watch this stuff on the regular.
Click to expand...
this exactly. unhinged "citizen activists."

a friend of mine works for the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources and this insane woman who actually lives near me out on the coast got ahold of a bunch of DNCR employee email addresses and sent them all a threatening email talking about how they better remove certain things from their website and dismantle all of their DEI programs and fire all of their DEI employees OR ELSE.
 
nycfan said:
Originally, probably, but now that the Administration is known to have purged the Arlington and DoD websites, journalists are perusing the wayback Machine to see what used to be there and comparing to the whitewashed sites. By using a “DEI” tag to mark urls for deletion, DOGE or whoever is running that is also making it easier to track through the hatchet work.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a very plausible scenario.
 
superrific said:
It has been explained to you literally dozens of times. If you want to know, use the google. Or the ChatGPT.

I'll just point out that the oft-mocked "my pronouns are" is a DEI effort. Note that it has nothing to do with hiring, promoting or anything like that. It's merely a way to help minimize a stigma for people who choose to go by "they." Remember that ad, "she's for they/them"?
Click to expand...
I see how DEI is functional in the world and the Diversity is generally referring to the workplace (non-white, non-straight, etc) Equity is generally a workplace reference as is Inclusion. Both are centered around non-white, non-cis, non-straight, etc.

The specifics of how you make one feel included are things like using their preferred pronouns.

Do you think that description, while probably not complete, is inaccurate?
 
ZenMode said:
I see how DEI is functional in the world and the Diversity is generally referring to the workplace (non-white, non-straight, etc) Equity is generally a workplace reference as is Inclusion. Both are centered around non-white, non-cis, non-straight, etc.

The specifics of how you make one feel included are things like using their preferred pronouns.

Do you think that description, while probably not complete, is inaccurate?
Click to expand...
The reason you haven't gotten promoted is not because of DEI.
 
ZenMode said:
My claim has been that DEI is about hiring/promoting non-white, non-male, non-straight, non-cis people.

If that is incorrect, then explain how DEI works and for whom it works.
Click to expand...
I’ve tried before, but I’ll try again in a different way.

DEI doesn’t say - hire a minority for this role.
DEI attempts to educate the hiring manager so that the manager doesn’t subconsciously exclude a minority for biases they may hold.

DEI is more than my example above, but in terms of hiring or promoting, that is how I understand DEI in both definition and how I see it work in my professional life.
 
ChileG said:
I’ve tried before, but I’ll try again in a different way.

DEI doesn’t say - hire a minority for this role.
DEI attempts to educate the hiring manager so that the manager doesn’t subconsciously exclude a minority for biases they may hold.

DEI is more than my example above, but in terms of hiring or promoting, that is how I understand DEI in both definition and how I see it work in my professional life.
Click to expand...
Right. That's how it is described. In the real world, being "diverse" functionally ends up being some combination of non-white, non-male, non-cis, non-straight. That's why Biden specifically chose, and called his shot on, a black female for SCOTUS. That's why he picked Buttigieg -a highly under-qualifed head of Dept of Transportation. BTW, it's not me calling him under-qualified. It's his previous employer, and liberal media outlet, Slate said he probably isn't even the most qualified blogger on their staff.
 
ZenMode said:
Right. That's how it is described. In the real world, being "diverse" functionally ends up being some combination of non-white, non-male, non-cis, non-straight. That's why Biden specifically chose, and called his shot on, a black female for SCOTUS. That's why he picked Buttigieg -a highly under-qualifed head of Dept of Transportation. BTW, it's not me calling him under-qualified. It's his previous employer, and liberal media outlet, Slate said he probably isn't even the most qualified blogger on their staff.
Click to expand...
I hire people in the real world and we have DEI in my workplace and I can tell you nobody has ever told me to hire a minority.
That’s the real world (as I said in my previous post).

But here we see again you ask for an explanation and when it is given to you, you just respond, “unh-uh.”
 
ChileG said:
I hire people in the real world and we have DEI in my workplace and I can tell you nobody has ever told me to hire a minority.
That’s the real world (as I said in my previous post).

But here we see again you ask for an explanation and when it is given to you, you just respond, “unh-uh.”
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you're wrong in what you said, but can you say that I'm wrong in what I've said?

What I'm saying doesn't conflict with what you're saying, does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top