DEI = Racism

#28
#28
SpaceCoastVol said:
I was hoping this would foster more discussion.

I have been asking for years "why is diversity 'better'", and I have never gotten a good answer. The answers I have gotten usually ran along the lines of 'because it gives us different perspectives' and things like that. While that as a goal might be a noble one, in practice it became a new quota system.

This is where liberalism fails and does so miserably. Human beings do not want to be forced into decisions affecting their lives, especially by the 'tribe' that doesn't represent them. It is laughable to me that the luthers of the world refer to Trump as a fascist, yet fail to acknowledge their own authoritarian boot on our neck.

It's mind boggling really.
Click to expand...

It's always seemed that "diversity" is pretty much the opposite of "inclusion". One is based on the concept of division - something like the parts are more important than the whole. The other is based on the concept of putting separate parts together, and making the whole better than the sum or the parts.

Diversity (as currently used) is like a "team" with a bunch of "I's" more important than the team and expecting the team to function as one. Some of us are old enough to remember "separate but equal" before integration. The new disintegration is very definitely separate and unequal ... with the inequality distributed differently. This certainly seems not to be following any normal evolutionary process because there's little chance of the mutated civilization being better ... unless tribal strife is considered better than a people working together for the betterment of all. To answer that thought I'd compare the US, most of Europe, and other first world countries to much of Africa.
 
#29
#29
AM64 said:
It's always seemed that "diversity" is pretty much the opposite of "inclusion". One is based on the concept of division - something like the parts are more important than the whole. The other is based on the concept of putting separate parts together, and making the whole better than the sum or the parts.

Diversity (as currently used) is like a "team" with a bunch of "I's" more important than the team and expecting the team to function as one. Some of us are old enough to remember "separate but equal" before integration. The new disintegration is very definitely separate and unequal ... with the inequality distributed differently. This certainly seems not to be following any normal evolutionary process because there's little chance of the mutated civilization being better ... unless tribal strife is considered better than a people working together for the betterment of all. To answer that thought I'd compare the US, most of Europe, and other first world countries to much of Africa.
Click to expand...
If that's your experience with Diversity then you worked for a terrible company
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lawrence Wright
#30
#30
volfanhill said:
If that's your experience with Diversity then you worked for a terrible company
Click to expand...
"Diversity" in the currently applied sense almost definitely tells everyone their ideas always matter and that they are a special, unique butterfly who "deserves a voice" or should have the opportunity to "speak truth to power". I take it you haven't worked for a company in a long, long time if you don't see how HR departments have started feeding all kinds of narcissism under the "DEI" banner.

The reality is a diversity of ideas is fine to a point. Another reality is that true diversity has almost nothing to do with skin tone and ethnicity. Last, there are a lot of people whose input is simply useless. Giving time to every moron is why there are ego problems everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, AM64 and allvol123
#31
#31
volfanhill said:
If that's your experience with Diversity then you worked for a terrible company
Click to expand...
I work for one of the largest corps in the US and Globally. What AM64 said is absolutely correct.

Diversity creates a bunch of I's. EVERYONE wants to have their say heard AND included even when not relevant. If you work for a company where this is not the situation, then you either work for a rare group of managers or DEI isn't being enforced like it is intended.

Inclusion creates a unique divisiveness by it's very nature. If you include everyone as their whole being at work, work becomes a social event vs. what you are there to do. I was in a meeting on unconscious bias. I guy stood up and told everyone that he felt like he HAD to let his teammates know he was gay. My first question is why and why do you think I care? The very name alone creates divisiveness by its nature. I have biases both conscious and unconscious. They are innate and part of what make me, me. The very idea that you are going to require me to change me to accept someone else for what they are outside of work is by its nature exclusive.

I won't begin to start on Equity. Giving someone a position or promoting them to a level to be equitable based on a quota is destroying my company slowly but surely.

Thank God I retire in less than 2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol, tbh, AM64 and 2 others
#32
#32
Diversity is fine if it is true diversity - I've seen it mean one specific type of diversity. Too often even broad definitions of diversity fail to include viewpoint diversity which is really the point of diversity

Equity is a sticky one - I suppose there are some instances where you want to ensure equal outcomes but often it undermines merit-based efforts and outcomes. Generally seems it would reduce organization effectiveness.

Inclusion can be at odds with diversity as another poster pointed out. It makes sense in some settings - we try to design classes with assignments that are varied so we don't exclude people who may not be great at one particular type of learning.

In a sensibly applied manner, DEI is fine. Sadly it has zealotry behind some of it's implementations or it used as a Trojan Horse to achieve other goals. Because it is considered sacred, any opposition of the abuses is discouraged and punished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, AM64 and 85SugarVol
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Diversity is fine if it is true diversity - I've seen it mean one specific type of diversity. Too often even broad definitions of diversity fail to include viewpoint diversity which is really the point of diversity

Equity is a sticky one - I suppose there are some instances where you want to ensure equal outcomes but often it undermines merit-based efforts and outcomes. Generally seems it would reduce organization effectiveness.

Inclusion can be at odds with diversity as another poster pointed out. It makes sense in some settings - we try to design classes with assignments that are varied so we don't exclude people who may not be great at one particular type of learning.

In a sensibly applied manner, DEI is fine. Sadly it has zealotry behind some of it's implementations or it used as a Trojan Horse to achieve other goals. Because it is considered sacred, any opposition of the abuses is discouraged and punished.
Click to expand...
True diversity can be a powerful tool for all types of business - especially those that engage in any type of product development. Most of the time though, Diversity is just about making sure the corporate photo is appropriately balanced.

Any thoughts on Justice? (In the context of DEI).
 
#34
#34
85SugarVol said:
True diversity can be a powerful tool for all types of business - especially those that engage in any type of product development. Most of the time though, Diversity is just about making sure the corporate photo is appropriately balanced.

Any thoughts on Justice? (In the context of DEI).
Click to expand...

social justice?

at the most basic level it has merit but it like DEI is used to appropriate power and resources for favored groups. also like DEI, it has a mythical nature that makes critiques dangerous for those offering the critiques.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
social justice?

at the most basic level it has merit but it like DEI is used to appropriate power and resources for favored groups. also like DEI, it has a mythical nature that makes critiques dangerous for those offering the critiques.
Click to expand...
Oh many types of Justice - Social, Economic, Environmental, Legal.

Justice in relation to DEI - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

And lol no… I would not encourage anyone to speak truthfully about Diversity & Inclusion in the workplace. Which is a bit ironic imo. And sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#36
#36
85SugarVol said:
Oh many types of Justice - Social, Economic, Environmental, Legal.

Justice in relation to DEI - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

And lol no… I would not encourage anyone to speak truthfully about Diversity & Inclusion in the workplace. Which is a bit ironic imo. And sad.
Click to expand...

maybe I'm short sighted but I view Justice in the legal sense. applying it to social, environmental, economic, etc is more of a power/oppression based view and I think in almost all cases the word justice is totally in the eye of the beholder whereas at least in the legal sense there is code (now I get the argument that the legal justice reflects power/oppression history but there are remedies to change the code).
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
maybe I'm short sighted but I view Justice in the legal sense. applying it to social, environmental, economic, etc is more of a power/oppression based view and I think in almost all cases the word justice is totally in the eye of the beholder whereas at least in the legal sense there is code (now I get the argument that the legal justice reflects power/oppression history but there are remedies to change the code).
Click to expand...
This would not be in the legal sense - this would be the much more ambiguous social/economic variety.

And you’re dead on that it will be in the eye of the beholder. Will look like whatever it needs to look like.
 
#38
#38
Matt2496 said:
To me, DE and I training is just a pointless waste of time. I've had to attend several DE and I workshops required and just have to ask why? Why force this shallow crap on people? I could be doing so many other more productive things with the time and resources I'm having to expend doing this training.
Click to expand...
because feelz matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and AM64
#40
#40
volinbham said:
Diversity is fine if it is true diversity - I've seen it mean one specific type of diversity. Too often even broad definitions of diversity fail to include viewpoint diversity which is really the point of diversity

Equity is a sticky one - I suppose there are some instances where you want to ensure equal outcomes but often it undermines merit-based efforts and outcomes. Generally seems it would reduce organization effectiveness.

Inclusion can be at odds with diversity as another poster pointed out. It makes sense in some settings - we try to design classes with assignments that are varied so we don't exclude people who may not be great at one particular type of learning.

In a sensibly applied manner, DEI is fine. Sadly it has zealotry behind some of it's implementations or it used as a Trojan Horse to achieve other goals. Because it is considered sacred, any opposition of the abuses is discouraged and punished.
Click to expand...

Diversity can make the whole stronger by bringing in ideas and concepts that others might not normally see and understand. An example would be the amalgam of past US immigrants ... the melting pot, or it could be the task force of the different involved groups that a company brings together to understand why a process isn't working well. Each person brings a different perspective which can explain a problem or can cause others to expand their thought process to understand a broken or faulty interface. However, that generally has everything to do with ideas and broadening the understanding of a process, and very little to do with special accommodation for those those who choose not to blend in.

We're stronger as a whole if the participants bring different but pertinent perspectives, attitudes, and thought processes, but it's still not about individual accommodation beyond common courtesy and respect shown to all.

In a classroom setting it might be discussion of a concept and how one comment slightly different than worded in a book or by a teacher is the thing that turns the lightbulb on for another student. That diversification doesn't include a class clown who by appearance, attitude, or off topic comments/actions disrupts the whole. Where the current "diversity" issue goes off the rails is that the people pushing it are more interested in creating different versions of the class clown and telling everyone else the new disruptors are important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X, ButchPlz and 82_VOL_83
#41
#41
Hunerwadel said:
Never heard of it so I guess I don't know if it is or not.
Click to expand...
Diversity in the context of this latest woke alphabet soup, means hiring people primarily based on sex, race, orientation, etc etc etc. If they happen to have the qualifications to do the job, then that's a bonus, but from the lectures I have been thru on this, qualification isn't even mentioned. I kid you not.

"We need to be hiring more women, and more black people"... not one word mentioning their qualifications. I have been in a primarily caucasian male industry for my entire adult life, and I have never treated any 'minority' any differently than I would a caucasian male. A pilot is a pilot in my eyes, and if they can do the job, they are good to go.

I find this whole thing beyond disgusting and insulting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, HammondB3Vol, OL SMOKEY and 3 others
#42
#42
Gandalf said:
I think a reasonable question is, "are DEI policies effective at reducing racism and bringing people together?". I think even its ardent supporters, if honest would have to admit abject failure there. In fact, by many accounts, we are becoming a MORE polarized society since the widescale push for DEI. Now that indicates either the people at the top who are supporting this are stupid and can't see what they are getting for their money or they are quite smart and can see EXACTLY what they are getting for their money...i.e. division and hatred that keeps people divided. When all the plebes are fighting each other for the scraps, they wont notice the patricians stealing the very walls.
Click to expand...
There is a reason Dr Jordan Peterson refers to the policies of the left as cultural Marxism. The whole fuel that energizes Marxism is grievance and envy and the avid Marxist is always looking for the most potent fuel source. Hence the early debates between the Bolsheviks and the Menesheviks about whether Revolution would come from the rural peasantry or the urban proletariat. The whole point never was who needd help the most, it was who would bring a hotter fire. The marxists never were able to generate enough grievance from economics to fuel American Revolution because even the poorest American is a veritable King compared to most of the rest of humanity. So since the early 80s, there has been a steady drumbeat from the left to exacerbate racial division. The goal is the same; to provide foot soldiers to fuel political chaos. The smoldering embers finally got fanned into open flame with Fergusson and BLM. DEI is nothing short of a nation self funding it’s own suicide. America can only be destroyed through internal division and the left has finally found its race horse..
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, HammondB3Vol, allvol123 and 4 others
#43
#43
In a World in which probably 2/3s of our interpersonal interactions occur as text based online communications, what are the implications of racism. If you chose to not post a photo or have a given name common to a particular race; there would really be no way of knowing what race the person we are interacting with. Sort of like the tree falling in the woods riddle, is structural racism possible if race isn’t known?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#46
#46
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#48
#48
In response to a question from a reporter about whether the president was considering "diversity" in his decision making for the appointment of a new vice chair of the Federal Reserve, Jean-Pierre began listing off the administration's historic feats in hiring minority individuals.
Click to expand...

KJP’s response -

“We're going to look at -- the president is going to look at a highly diverse group of world class economists, just as we did for the previous fed nominations, so we're going to continue that process," she added, noting the president "prides himself on" hiring minority candidates.”

So the Biden Democrats plan on weighing Race, Gender, & Sexual Preference when selecting the next Federal Reserve Chair?

Wonderful. What could go wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#50
#50
SpaceCoastVol said:
Human beings do not want to be forced into decisions affecting their lives, especially by the 'tribe' that doesn't represent them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the fate of minorities from the onset of this country’s history up until around 60 years ago.

That’s barely three generations of legalized civil rights and equality for all races in a country closing in on 250 years of existence.

For the LGBT community it’s less time than that.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top