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

[ChileG]

If the best person for a job HAPPENS to be gay, GREAT! Hire them.

So…do the thing that DEI is trying to achieve.

Yes, I know you will counter with something that conforms to your own idea of what DEI is. Super covered this a couple of posts ago.

 

[ZenMode]

So…do the thing that DEI is trying to achieve.

Yes, I know you will counter with something that conforms to your own idea of what DEI is. Super covered this a couple of posts ago.

DEI takes irrelevant characteristics into consideration when making decisions. It would be like caring if my tax guy had acid reflux.

 

[ChileG]

DEI takes irrelevant characteristics into consideration when making decisions. It would be like caring if my tax guy had acid reflux.

Yes, I covered this in my last post.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, I covered this in my last post.

If you agree, then I'm not mischaracterizing DEI.

 

[superrific]

DEI takes irrelevant characteristics into consideration when making decisions. It would be like caring if my tax guy had acid reflux.

No matter how many times you say it, it remains completely untrue that race and gender are "irrelevant." They are two of the most relevant characteristics a person has, in terms of social and cultural meaning. That you keep referring to race as like "acid reflux" or "red hair" or other trivialities that have no social relevance is disgraceful.

 

[TarSpiel]

DEI takes irrelevant characteristics into consideration when making decisions. It would be like caring if my tax guy had acid reflux.

I don't know if you've ever been at the very top of your field. Not like big fish in a small pond, but like there aren't people out there who are better at you and your group at what you're doing.

When you look at people applying to join, there's a certain level of people who fit. You can cull the rest, but you'll end up with a bunch of highly qualified people. Each of them brings some strengths to the table, and has other areas where they're not so strong. There are no obvious, objective markers of distinction that clearly mark one person as more qualified or a better fit than another. I think some people with simple minds imagine that there are, but really there aren't. Just sit in on any hiring committee.

In that situation, it is asinine *not* to take into account a person's life story, their culture, their background, their worldview, the obstacles they've overcome, and how they've demonstrated grit, character and want-to in the face of those obstacles. The populations served by DEI are chock full of eminently qualified and amazing people who bring those sorts of stories and perspectives to the table, and you'd be a damned fool not to take those things into consideration. It doesn't mean you discount a person just because they've had an easy life, but you don't count it as a point in their favor if they say "Well, over a snifter of brandy one night Muffy joked that I should apply, and so here I am"

I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth with you on this issue, but I think you are incredibly naive with respect to the positive impacts a former foster youth who has attained excellence could bring to a group, and it's just straight moronic that anyone demands that people *not* take DEI categories into consideration when reviewing applications.

 

[ZenMode]

No matter how many times you say it, it remains completely untrue that race and gender are "irrelevant." They are two of the most relevant characteristics a person has, in terms of social and cultural meaning. That you keep referring to race as like "acid reflux" or "red hair" or other trivialities that have no social relevance is disgraceful.

We are talking about different things. If you're talking about the qualifications and ability to perform a job, race is irrelevant in 99% of cases, as is sexual preference, etc.

Are there people who are racist toward black, white, brown, yellow, etc? Yes. Will there always be people who are racist toward black, white, brown, yellow, etc? Most likely.

This is part of what drives me crazy about a portion of the Democratic Party. It's not enough to make discrimination illegal and start getting out the message about the importance of treating everyone equally and viewing everyone as equal, regardless of skin color, sexual preference, etc. Democrats (not only in government) have to constantly tinker.... they have to force the issue with Affirmative Action and DEI which, again, is an initiative to put continued attention on characteristics that we should be teaching people to view as irrelevant.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't know if you've ever been at the very top of your field. Not like big fish in a small pond, but like there aren't people out there who are better at you and your group at what you're doing.

When you look at people applying to join, there's a certain level of people who fit. You can cull the rest, but you'll end up with a bunch of highly qualified people. Each of them brings some strengths to the table, and has other areas where they're not so strong. There are no obvious, objective markers of distinction that clearly mark one person as more qualified or a better fit than another. I think some people with simple minds imagine that there are, but really there aren't. Just sit in on any hiring committee.

In that situation, it is asinine *not* to take into account a person's life story, their culture, their background, their worldview, the obstacles they've overcome, and how they've demonstrated grit, character and want-to in the face of those obstacles. The populations served by DEI are chock full of eminently qualified and amazing people who bring those sorts of stories and perspectives to the table, and you'd be a damned fool not to take those things into consideration. It doesn't mean you discount a person just because they've had an easy life, but you don't count it as a point in their favor if they say "Well, over a snifter of brandy one night Muffy joked that I should apply, and so here I am"

I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth with you on this issue, but I think you are incredibly naive with respect to the positive impacts a former foster youth who has attained excellence could bring to a group, and it's just straight moronic that anyone demands that people *not* take DEI categories into consideration when reviewing applications.

I want to clarify what you mean in the bolded section above. I'm picturing Lebron James in basketball as an example of the "there aren't people out there who are better than you".

 

[4thgenheel]

We are talking about different things. If you're talking about the qualifications and ability to perform a job, race is irrelevant in 99% of cases, as is sexual preference, etc.

Are there people who are racist toward black, white, brown, yellow, etc? Yes. Will there always be people who are racist toward black, white, brown, yellow, etc? Most likely.

This is part of what drives me crazy about a portion of the Democratic Party. It's not enough to make discrimination illegal and start getting out the message about the importance of treating everyone equally and viewing everyone as equal, regardless of skin color, sexual preference, etc. Democrats (not only in government) have to constantly tinker.... they have to force the issue with Affirmative Action and DEI which, again, is an initiative to put continued attention on characteristics that we should be teaching people to view as irrelevant.

blah blah blah blah, straight white male who has gotten preferential treatment due to his straight white maleness throughout his ENTIRE life is furious at the thought of anyone different getting a little leg up based on their race, gender or sexuality.

 

[superrific]

We are talking about different things. If you're talking about the qualifications and ability to perform a job, race is irrelevant in 99% of cases, as is sexual preference, etc.


This is part of what drives me crazy about a portion of the Democratic Party. It's not enough to make discrimination illegal and start getting out the message about the importance of treating everyone equally and viewing everyone as equal, regardless of skin color, sexual preference, etc. Democrats (not only in government) have to constantly tinker.... they have to force the issue with Affirmative Action and DEI which, again, is an initiative to put continued attention on characteristics that we should be teaching people to view as irrelevant.

1. No matter how much you say it, DEI is not affirmative action. Here you're lumping them together rather than saying (as you have in the past many times) that they are the same.

2. It does not follow from "discrimination is wrong" that "race is irrelevant." It might make you feel good to divorce yourself from all of American history, but our history is in large measure a history of race relations and race warps everything about our society, our politics, our culture.

And so for most jobs, understanding what race does and doesn't mean, what racial inclusiveness is or isn't, etc. -- those are part of the job.

It is a fact that the best workforces are diverse (see, e.g., Why Diversity and Inclusion Are Good for Business). That's because race is not in fact irrelevant, nor gender nor sexuality.

 

[ZenMode]

blah blah blah blah, straight white male who has gotten preferential treatment due to his straight white maleness throughout his ENTIRE life is furious at the thought of anyone different getting a little leg up based on their race, gender or sexuality.

Yes! I am 'furious' (figuratively speaking) at the concept. How ridiculous is it that anyone would get a leg up because they have more melanin than I do?

Really think about that. I don't know who melanin content is measured, but there's some line drawn between xx per yy and xx per yy where I've earned extra attention? Is the solution to bigotry a counter form of bigotry? You don't fix discrimination by discriminating against a different group.

 

[4thgenheel]

Yes! I am 'furious' (figuratively speaking) at the concept. How ridiculous is it that anyone would get a leg up because they have more melanin than I do?

Really think about that. I don't know who melanin content is measured, but there's some line drawn between xx per yy and xx per yy where I've earned extra attention? Is the solution to bigotry a counter form of bigotry? You don't fix discrimination by discriminating against a different group.

but of course! can't be giving out any legs-up to anyone who isn't a straight white male!

the world's tiniest violin is exactly what you deserve here.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Zen agrees with John Roberts that we're a post racism country, and that the cultural hegemony never decides things for vast swaths of people, to those peoples' detriment. It's merely in the decision of the individual that we're to analyze - in a vacuum, absent of “irrelevant” and “archaic” factors such as well studied and well established systemic bigotries or value of diversified workforces.

Zen (and possibly Roberts as well) is a contrarian troll worthy of Super Ignore. Sorry I missed the post that produced your response. But then again, I'm not sorry at all.

 

[ZenMode]

but of course! can't be giving out any legs-up to anyone who isn't a straight white male!

the world's tiniest violin is exactly what you deserve here.

Nobody should get a leg up or down due to melanin in their skin, a preference for who fondles their junk, etc.

Again, the goal should be to marginalize, Not prioritize, irrelevant characteristics.

 

[wmheel1287]

Nobody should get a leg up or down due to melanin in their skin, a preference for who fondles their junk, etc.

Again, the goal should be to marginalize, Not prioritize, irrelevant characteristics.

But objective evidence of the entirety of history is that your approach actually takes us further from that goal. At what point do you admit that ignoring those traits actually ends up prioritizing them because of millenia of baked in behavior?

 

[ZenMode]

But objective evidence of the entirety of history is that your approach actually takes us further from that goal. At what point do you admit that ignoring those traits actually ends up prioritizing them because of millenia of baked in behavior?

I would like to see the evidence that you're referring to because, in my mind, the current hyper politicized concept of DEI really began within the last few years and I think we would agree that the country was not getting more racist prior to just a few years ago. The example that I've used several times, because it really reflects a change in the entire country, is the diversity in Congress. Congress, like clockwork, has gotten more and more diverse in every election.

 

[altmin]

not US, but UK supreme government severely restricts trans rights.

UK supreme court ruling on legal definition of woman ‘brings clarity and confidence’, says government – live

Judges say definition of women and sex in Equality Act 2010 act refers to biological women and biological sex

www.theguardian.com

Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.

 

[superrific]

The example that I've used several times, because it really reflects a change in the entire country, is the diversity in Congress. Congress, like clockwork, has gotten more and more diverse in every election.

Are you aware that Congress is subject to one of the most stringent DEI laws around? It's called the Voting Rights Act. The reason that there's diversity in Congress is that the law literally requires it.

So I'm glad you brought that up, as salient and important. It undermines your entire argument. Like literally, you have nothing because you just made the argument for us. LOL.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you aware that Congress is subject to one of the most stringent DEI laws around? It's called the Voting Rights Act. The reason that there's diversity in Congress is that the law literally requires it.

So I'm glad you brought that up, as salient and important. It undermines your entire argument. Like literally, you have nothing because you just made the argument for us. LOL.

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

 

[lawtig02]

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

This might be one of the most unintentionally illuminative posts I've ever seen on this board. It almost perfectly captures the difference between punishment as a motivator (conservatism) vs. incentive as a motivator (classical liberalism).