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

[ZenMode]

whoooooooosh.

again, the vast majority of them never put their lives on the line and are well aware that they never will when they join up.

it is far more dangerous to work in various sectors of construction, logging, trucking, commercial fishing, oil/gas/mining, etc. etc. than it is to join the military.

I don't know how else to explain this. Volunteering to put your life on the line, if called to do so, is still more than being born with a lot of melanin in your skin.

And again, I don't support the government picking winners, so I don't support the requirements to give veteran owned companies a certain amount of business. It's just less offensive than giving business based on irrelevant, surface level characteristics.

 

[ChileG]

Right. We agree. It's all the government picking winners. The only difference is that the veteran policy doesn't fall under DEI, so I can't call it DEI.

I’m a member of the veteran DEI group at work (though I myself am not a veteran).

 

[altmin]

It's good that we are exporting shithead ideas concocted in the shit minds of bags of shit.

Librarians in UK increasingly asked to remove books, as influence of US pressure groups spreads

Anecdotal evidence suggests a rise in requests to take books off shelves, particularly LGBTQ+ titles

www.theguardian.com

 

[4thgenheel]

I don't know how else to explain this. Volunteering to put your life on the line, if called to do so, is still more than being born with a lot of melanin in your skin.

And again, I don't support the government picking winners, so I don't support the requirements to give veteran owned companies a certain amount of business. It's just less offensive than giving business based on irrelevant, surface level characteristics.

"more" what? that's your opinion, its not fact.

here are some facts: its a paid job, the vast majority of them never see conflict (and know that very well when they join) and there are TONS of much more dangerous essential jobs sprinkled all over various industries in our country.

 

[ZenMode]

"more" what? that's your opinion, its not fact.

here are some facts: its a paid job, the vast majority of them never see conflict (and know that very well when they join) and there are TONS of much more dangerous essential jobs sprinkled all over various industries in our country.

Of course "more" is opinion, but it's based on the fact that at least they did something. They may not have had to fight and risk their lives, but they decided to serve their country and decided to put themselves into a situation where fighting, and the associated risks, may be necessary. The other side of DEI is all people who just happened to fall into a bucket (melanin level, homosexual, trans etc) by chance. They didn't decide anything.

 

[Healing]

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.

 

[superrific]

Of course "more" is opinion, but it's based on the fact that at least they did something. They may not have had to fight and risk their lives, but they decided to serve their country and decided to put themselves into a situation where fighting, and the associated risks, may be necessary. The other side of DEI is all people who just happened to fall into a bucket (melanin level, homosexual, trans etc) by chance. They didn't decide anything.

We get it now, dude. You've said it a thousand times. Your see DEI solely in terms of giving advantages to people, and particularly people you've never spoken up for on this board and to whom you have directed a LOT of animus. Of course, in order to play out this narrative, you have to consistently mischaracterize DEI programs and what they do/don't actually do. And no, I'm not doing that discussion again.

The rest of us see the value -- to everyone -- of a diverse society where most cultures are accepted, celebrated and woven into the national fabric. No, not melted in a pot. That shit is what brought us abominations like Olive Garden. When I would go the Brooklyn Academy of Music to see music or dance, I would usually eat West African food from one of the nearby West African places, run by people actually from West Africa. It was delicious. It was also pretty much the only time I would get quality West African food, as those restaurants aren't everywhere. My life became richer for the experience.

See, where you see melanin, I see culture. Where you see tits and ass, I see a valuable perspective from which I can potentially learn. Where you see undifferentiated masses, I see the distinctive qualities that make the tapestry of humankind so variegated, intricate and beautiful. Humans are at their absolute best -- on average -- when creating art and music. I've seen tons of cross-cultural concerts (e.g. pretty much the entire Silk Road concert series, klezmer musicians and jazz musicians collaborating to create New York Jazzmer, percussion festivals featuring North and South Indian drumming and usually other areas from the Middle East) and I've never seen anything other than joy from the musicians.

There's a reason why diverse companies are successful companies, and most successful companies are diverse. There's a reason that diverse corporate boards outperform companies with homogenous boards. There's a reason so much of the world's great music has a complex cultural lineage, borrowing from many different traditions.

That's the part of this whole discussion that you just toss out like unopened mail. I don't know if you can't get it or just refuse to try, but my life is way, way, way richer because of immigrants and diversity. It's richer the more I come into contact with them. The Indians who sell spices in their markets at 25-40% the cost of grocery store has allowed me to experiment and learn to cook delicious food from many traditions. The Indians who play tabla at graduation events make my life better, as tabla are (in my view) the greatest drums ever invented. My son's Chinese and Korean friends have opened his eyes to a whole culture that he hadn't seen before. Those are just a couple of many, many, many examples.

 

[ZenMode]

We get it now, dude. You've said it a thousand times. Your see DEI solely in terms of giving advantages to people, and particularly people you've never spoken up for on this board and to whom you have directed a LOT of animus. Of course, in order to play out this narrative, you have to consistently mischaracterize DEI programs and what they do/don't actually do. And no, I'm not doing that discussion again.

The rest of us see the value -- to everyone -- of a diverse society where most cultures are accepted, celebrated and woven into the national fabric. No, not melted in a pot. That shit is what brought us abominations like Olive Garden. When I would go the Brooklyn Academy of Music to see music or dance, I would usually eat West African food from one of the nearby West African places, run by people actually from West Africa. It was delicious. It was also pretty much the only time I would get quality West African food, as those restaurants aren't everywhere. My life became richer for the experience.

See, where you see melanin, I see culture. Where you see tits and ass, I see a valuable perspective from which I can potentially learn. Where you see undifferentiated masses, I see the distinctive qualities that make the tapestry of humankind so variegated, intricate and beautiful. Humans are at their absolute best -- on average -- when creating art and music. I've seen tons of cross-cultural concerts (e.g. pretty much the entire Silk Road concert series, klezmer musicians and jazz musicians collaborating to create New York Jazzmer, percussion festivals featuring North and South Indian drumming and usually other areas from the Middle East) and I've never seen anything other than joy from the musicians.

There's a reason why diverse companies are successful companies, and most successful companies are diverse. There's a reason that diverse corporate boards outperform companies with homogenous boards. There's a reason so much of the world's great music has a complex cultural lineage, borrowing from many different traditions.

That's the part of this whole discussion that you just toss out like unopened mail. I don't know if you can't get it or just refuse to try, but my life is way, way, way richer because of immigrants and diversity. It's richer the more I come into contact with them. The Indians who sell spices in their markets at 25-40% the cost of grocery store has allowed me to experiment and learn to cook delicious food from many traditions. The Indians who play tabla at graduation events make my life better, as tabla are (in my view) the greatest drums ever invented. My son's Chinese and Korean friends have opened his eyes to a whole culture that he hadn't seen before. Those are just a couple of many, many, many examples.

Other than the claimed correlation between diversity and success in business, which is disputed, your post is almost entirely a strawman. I never said I don't want cultural diversity in society. Especially when it comes to food, I actively SEEK cultural authenticity. I look for the hole-in-the-wall places, places where my wife often won't eat, because I want authentic Mexican food and not the lowest-common-denominator food from chain restaurants. I have no desire to have a melting pot or homogeneous society. Variety is a great thing. Now, do I want government subsidizing Indian restaurants because they can't survive on their own in a given town? Absolutely not. Do I want the government requiring state employees to spend 10% of their income at Indian restaurants? Absolutely not.

The fact that I don't want preference given by the government based on melanin, sexual attraction, etc is not animus. It comes from a belief that we are all just people and all the things that DEI prioritizes should be viewed as irrelevant. Yes, I believe DEI gives advantages to people. It gives advantages to non-white, non-straight, non-cis, etc people.

 

[superrific]

Other than the claimed correlation between diversity and success in business, which is disputed, your post is almost entirely a strawman. I never said I don't want cultural diversity in society. Especially when it comes to food, I actively SEEK cultural authenticity. I look for the hole-in-the-wall places, places where my wife often won't eat, because I want authentic Mexican food and not the lowest-common-denominator food from chain restaurants. I have no desire to have a melting pot or homogeneous society. Variety is a great thing.

The fact that I don't want preference given by the government based on melanin, sexual attraction, etc is not animus. It comes from a belief that we are all just people and all the things that DEI prioritizes should be viewed as irrelevant. Yes, I believe DEI gives advantages to people. It gives advantages to non-white, non-straight, non-cis, etc people.

Translation: you want diversity on your terms. When you want it, how you want it. When you're up for Mexican food, good thing that there's a small family place -- but otherwise fuck the mexicans.

I'm not talking to you about this any more. Nothing you say on this topic makes any sense, and it continues to be infuriating the way you want to reduce everything to "melanin" and tits and ass.

 

[ZenMode]

Translation: you want diversity on your terms. When you want it, how you want it. When you're up for Mexican food, good thing that there's a small family place -- but otherwise fuck the mexicans.

I'm not talking to you about this any more. Nothing you say on this topic makes any sense, and it continues to be infuriating the way you want to reduce everything to "melanin" and tits and ass.

What are my "terms"? I don't want government requirements to subsidize Mexican restaurants or require that 10% of their catering spending be with Indian restaurants? I want people, restaurants, businesses, etc to succeed or fail based on their quality, not superficial, irrelevant characteristics and I want the government purchasing and doing business with the companies that deliver the best products and best services, not the company that has a guy on their board of directors that likes other guys touching his nuts.... yes, I'm being facetious.

If the best person for a job HAPPENS to be gay, GREAT! Hire them. If the person who qualified Harvard happened to be trans... great! Admit them.

What's next? An initiative to make sure there are enough red headed CEOs in the Fortune 500? Maybe enough brunettes in cheerleading? Should the government subsidize entertainment for brunettes because blondes have more fun?

EDIT: Congress is more diverse than it has ever been. Why? Is it because there was an initiative to "elect more people with more than xxx amount of melanin" or did it happen organically?

 

[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.