You must log in or register to comment.
I am on your side, but:
You do realize that can totally go the other way, right?
The AFD implements a “ministry of crime-prevention” that surveils the public and squashes political discent. Names don’t necessarily reflect what’s actually happening. You should argue with actual policies they did.
I’ve seen the Right’s answer to DEI.
They deny that there is/was inequality so they claim that pushing equality gives an unfair advantage.
They say that any perceived inequality is the lack in the sum of experience and expertise.
They say that forced inclusion is unfair on the meritocracy of others.
They also tend to think that racism and sexism are overblown because they are incapable of believing (or it is otherwise too inconvenient for them to believe) that other people actually have problems if they don’t themselves experience them.
I think qualified people should be hired. May the best person for the job be hired, without even considering race, or anything other than skill. DEI is veiled discrimination.
Shenanigans. We’re not hiring unqualified people. It’s capitalism afterall. There’s no tolerance for throwing out money.
DEI is about making sure you interview people you normally wouldn’t for whatever reason. If they suck, they suck and don’t get the job. It’s not a quota.
I don’t think you understand what DEI is or how it works if you feel that it is discriminatory.
It just exists to make sure that people are given a fair shake not that anyone gets an automatic leg up.
DEI programs are what let the best person for the job be hired. Without them people are discarded simply because of their name or race or etc etc.
If you truly want the best person for the job to be hired you support DEI initiatives because that’s the whole idea and point of it.
DEI programs are what let the best person for the job be hired
That’s called meritocracy not DEI though.
DEI is a tool for increasing meritocracy.
How? Meritocracy means only qualification matters. There’s no Q in DEI but a too much other letters.
By ensuring there aren’t artificial barriers in place due to a person’s race/gender etc etc. DEI isn’t about being exclusionary - it’s about making sure everyone gets a fair shot and tries to remove the internal biases we all have.
What are those artificial barriers? And how do they remove those biases?
That’s a good question, you should google DEI practices and what sorts of things organizations do with it. Just one artificial barrier off the top of my head, hiring managers or folks having bias based on race or where a person lives or is from. Having practices that say you have to interview XYZ candidates if they meet certain criteria regardless or having resumes get anonymized for the reviewer, that’s just a couple basic things.
Did you know that you can give whatever name you want to something? Even a name that isn’t an accurate description of what it is? I was shocked when I found out!
Oh yeah, I’ve also heard you can make up an imaginary version of something and give it attributes you don’t like to justify your hate. Wild stuff, this.
Why, it’s almost as if people discussing politics often debate in bad faith, performing for spectators who already agree with them rather than trying to convince or even understand the person they’re debating.
Are you telling me people would lie in public for personal gain? Dear God, what an era to live in!
I don’t believe in “Equity”, I believe in “Equality”. The difference is that with Equality, everyone gets the same opportunities. They don’t just get opportunities because of their skin color, despite lack of qualifications.
I oppose the existing “DEI” as it exists today because it’s openly racist. It’s openly racist to the people it basically purports to help.
I oppose the existing “DEI” as it exists today because it’s openly racist. It’s openly racist to the people it basically purports to help
I can make that shorter for you for next time:
I don’t understand DEI at all
The real world is calling, wants you to come back to it some time. Plenty of examples in this EXACT thread where people detail DEI hiring someone because of their skin color.
That’s racism.
Sure, it’s the racist that YOU deem acceptable, but it’s still racist.
I’d rather just imagine I know what DEI is than learn
FTFY
ETA: “plenty of examples” you say? I see a total of 0 in this thread, nice try at lying tho
Grow up. Putting words in my mouth isn’t a discussion, it’s childishness.
I’m just paraphrasing what you said, simple as
You straight up lied in your comment, it’s very clear you have no idea what DEI is nor do you care, you just want to whine like a typical cuckservative
Politics is a spectrum you bigot.
He’s not being very inclusive 😏
Here you go bud, hope it helps.
How about they just pay for seats? The stands clearly are accommodating for everyone. And it isn’t ‘equity’ either.
This graphic has been used for too long because of its emotional aspect. Equality is them buying seats and watching the game without boxes at all. In itself, it’s a fallacy because they clearly have accommodations for all of them, and they’ve decided to stand behind a fence.
And, since WHEN do skin colors need special accommodations ANYWAYS?
Dividing people by skin color is the first way the corporate elite divide our nation - so that we fight amongst ourselves against the real discrimination, class-based discrimination.
How about they just pay for seats?
This misses the point. It could be a baseball stadium, a tree with apples, etc. It doesn’t fucking matter what the goal is or how accommodating the stadium is due to the whim of artist filling the seats with blotches of color. None of that is the point.
The only explicitly shown resources available for the characters is 3 boxes. That’s it. And the correct utilization of those 3 boxes is 0 for the blue shirt, 1 for the red shirt, and two for the purple shirt. Any other utilization is a failure for the goal of everyone seeing the game.
This graphic has been used for too long
And despite that it’s meaning is still lost on you.
because of its emotional aspect.
What emotional aspect?
Equality is them buying seats and watching the game without boxes at all.
No, equality is giving everyone equal resources and pretending that there aren’t earlier prerequisites that aren’t equal, with an end result of not everyone getting an equal end result. Equality is materially worse than equity, and leaves society worse off. You’ve fundamentally missed the point.
they clearly have accommodations for all of them, and they’ve decided to stand behind a fence.
Now you’re just making shit up. There is no story telling you that. It’s a cartoon depicting the allocation of resources and its effects.
And, since WHEN do skin colors need special accommodations ANYWAYS?
This is a strawman.
I hate inclusive.
I’ll never be in the MAGA(neo-Nazis) group.
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.
Edit: the empty down votes here are depressing.
“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.
Please just stop. It is explicitly illegal to hire based on any quota in the federal government or for federal contractors.
The point of affirmative action is to hire so that the composition of a contractor’s workforce reflects, over time, the composition of qualified workers in the relevant labor market from which applicants are recruited and selected.
This just boils down to if there are women and minorities in the field they should be considered instead of just white males.
I am really getting sick of all the DEI propaganda. Jesus Christ, I am a hiring manager and I have taken multiple DEI trainings. There are no quotas and the entire point is to get an average hiring manager, which are mostly white males, to consider hiring someone different than themselves.
You have taken zero FEDERAL DEI training programs. This is obvious by the article you linked and your comment. DEI had no effect outside of working in a federal position or federal contractor. Honestly if I were you I’d be embarrassed of this post. Of course that was when I thought I was on lemmy. I didn’t realize the education level had already dipped to reddit levels.
Btw the DEI explicitly contradicts the civil rights act of 1962 and the protected characteristics of hiring someone and actually makes them the deciding factor. So maybe do 10 mins of research and you will probably change your mind. I understand independent research is difficult but I promise the payoff is worth it.
Please tell me what I have or have not done. I highly doubt you have administered grants for the federal government, hired hundreds of people, worked at the state, or really know anything at this point.
Honestly, after I explained the law you should have crawled back under your rock.
Btw you have no clue what DEI is because you never had the training yourself. I have many times in both the private sector and the public sector. Also you are not a hiring manager like I am so you have no expertise or clue what you are babbling about.
If you continue to make a buffon out of yourself I will happily block you.
The true skilled arguer. Upset that I tell you what you have or have not done and then proceed to do the exact same thing.
You didn’t answer the question. Regardless of who’s more right, the end result is the same. There are diversity “goals or mandates” whatever you want to call it. So you are actively looking for people to fill roles based on protected characteristics. Do you not agree this is a direct contradiction of the civil rights act of 1962?
I see no facts in your statement either.
And just because something is difficult to achieve automatically means it’s wrong to try?
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?
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.
It was an example of “DEI first, story second”. The games that failed wouldn’t be saved by adding DEI. The games that did well was also not because of DEI.
Unless you have proof that’s an assumption. Because it can also be said that the DEI games that failed did so because they were bad games, not DEI.
To be honest, I don’t think there is proof for either, so let’s agree to disagree :)
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”
Well, depends. Would a better story in DA:V save the game at least partially? I’d say so, but it a lot of what-ifs.
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.
You’re misrepresenting my point. I never claimed there was an explicit directive to prioritize “a message” over game quality—I said it feels like that’s what happened. That’s a critique of execution, not a conspiracy theory.
Yes, every piece of media has a message, but there’s a difference between a theme that naturally emerges from storytelling and one that feels forced or out of place. The issue isn’t that the game has a message—it’s how it delivers it.
Claiming messaging wasn’t in the “top 100” reasons for failure is just hand-waving. You provide no evidence for that, and even if it’s not the primary reason, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a factor.
Finally, comparing this to the “historical accuracy” argument is a bad-faith deflection. Dragon Age isn’t real history, but it does have established lore and internal consistency. When a game introduces elements that contradict its own worldbuilding, it breaks immersion. That’s the issue.
I oppose not hiring air traffic controllers because of their race, especially when the towers are already understaffed. But I guess a few deaths is worth it, am I right?
Your comment makes no sense, have a nice day!
I think it make sense. They’re saying its a bad idea to not hire someone who’s qualified, just because of the color of their skin.
If that were to happen that would indeed be a bad idea, I agree.
Is that actually a thing you have confirmed happening anywhere though? I can see a qualification tie going to diversity (because diversity has been proven to spark creative solutions, etc.), but the myth that “whites” are just being passed over for anyone “non-whites” sounds like racist propaganda. And repeating it as a “question” is playing, either intentionally or not, into that propaganda.
While I’m sure it does happen …… no one is doing that to the extent they are understaffed. That’s just dumb. If they are understaffed , its almost always budget
Yes it’s a thing. They’re even facing a class action lawsuit over it. https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/us-news/faa-embroiled-in-lawsuit-alleging-it-turned-away-1000-applicants-based-on-race/?lctg=607d91df4adeb921db19b3b8 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/1/editorial-faa-turned-away-qualified-air-traffic-co/
The crux of the lawsuit is that the FAA, under the Obama administration, dropped a skill-based system for hiring controllers and replaced it with a “biographical assessment” in an alleged bid to boost the number of minority job applicants.
Why didn’t Trump fix this the first time?
Too busy golfing?
Are you sure the reason they don’t hire anyone isn’t lack of budget to do so?
I’m opposed to insufficient funding for vital services but you don’t see me blaming DEI
I mostly like DEI. But I’m concerned that it is running cover for corporations. DEI is not about expanding opportunities to people evenly. DEI is about expanding opportunities to people that make the company more money. DEI alone is not enough for a fair and equitable society.
It isn’t, but it sure is an improvement
I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?
How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.
I like how this horrible acronym spells out U. S. A.
Conformity, Patronage and Exclusion.
I like the word conformity, because that’s really what they want. They’re afraid of anybody who acts different, or who has different viewpoints. They want a world where nobody ever makes them feel uncomfortable. If they enjoy making racist jokes, they want a world where everybody finds racist jokes funny, not one where they can be made to feel bad, or feel like their boss might get mad for telling a racist joke.
Patronage isn’t the exact opposite of equity. Equity in this context is about impartiality and fairness. But, I think Patronage fits because it describes the kind of system you get when there is no effort whatsoever to give every candidate a fair shot. Instead you get good-old-boys networks, you get nepotism, etc.
Segregation is pretty good for the last one, but I like exclusion a bit more. To me, segregation implies that there might be an alternative place for someone that’s “separate but equal”, but the reality is they don’t care if that other place exists. The key thing is to be able to exclude them from their own workplaces, sports, etc.
Just like the US PATRIOT act was definitely about being a patriot, right?
And if you don’t support it, then you’re not a patriot, right?
See how that works?
USA PATRIOT.
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/usa-patriot-act
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Such a stupid title.
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.
to mismanaged efforts in DEI
such as?
That’s not what this post assumes. This post is aimed at those using DEI as a dog whistle for their disgusting bigotry. Present all the nuance you want but if you’re missing that then you’re turning a blind eye to the blatant racism gaining power and leverage in the US gov today.
I think diversity and inclusion is a net benefit to society, I don’t think government is capable to enforce diversity and inclusion in private spaces in any real way. Over time I think market forces will result in that diversity naturally as the companies who hire the best qualified people incisively do better than those who prioritize traits that don’t create better outcomes
I’m not sure what equity is in the context of government enforcement but I’m 100% for equality if opportunity. Maybe someone can help me understand equity in the context of these programs: for instance, what equity programs was Biden promoting for the previous for years?
It’s even worse in the corporate world. That acronym is usually attached to consultants who would extort huge fees and not really do much of anything towards actual inclusion, equity, or diversity. It would let the company check a box for PR, though.
Counterpoint: the phrase first proposed by Serj Tankian, an armenian biblical scholar, reading ‘When Angels deserve to DEI’, implies that even the God’s very servants strive to have DEI programs used in their hiring and career proposals.
Why are you snorting blood my friend, did I say something wrong?
If you’re opposed to DOGE, does that mean you’re opposed to efficiency in government?
Do you support democracy?
If so then that must mean you support the DPRK.
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.
Yes. Emphatically so.
The more efficient government is, the easier it is to usurp power.
If you’re opposed to DOGE It’s like people think that neither side has ever created groups to review efficiency in the government.
You create a task force, review the target, make suggestions, argue them, bring the outcome to congress and then force people to act.
You don’t run around firing people for not bending the knee, locking departments who you don’t have control over out of their systems and install half baked command an control systems all over the money handling departments.
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.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not VoltaireI would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.
I think for the"normal" people who aren’t frothing at the mouth racists, it’s specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one
When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric.
