nifty

Either way the reason to attack DEI was always the same, to gain power without reguard to how many people get hurt along the way.

I think one of the issues which comes up are mandates. If there are underemployed minorities in society, then we have a problem. If that happens, then DEI should be brought back. I agree that some people are racist, and that life creates situations which kill individual potential.

That’s why it’s important to have these ideas be part of social discourse. I don’t agree with CRT (that legal and social systems help white people only), or that DEI addresses the core issues with bad luck creating uneven conditions for individuals. The core issue is that people of all races and cultures experience bad luck. Most people are not going to be rich enough to afford even an upper middle class lifestyle. So, if there is a policy which seems to favor only a certain type of people, it will only create resentment or jealousy, and divisions. Poor whites consistently vote republican because they don’t get the kind of help they need from democrats either. We need the Nordic model in the US.

I personally think education is the best option we have to counter the effect of bad luck on people’s lives and their outcomes. So, the ire that people are putting towards USAID or DEI going away should be firmly focused at ensuring that the Dept of Education remains intact for serving the most people.

Edit the danger, I think, is in thinking that just because someone is X they are moral or ethical. I think the inverse of that is that just because someone is not X, then they are immoral and unethical. The kind of reduction of personhood to arbitrary characteristics which forms the basis of predictive policing algorithms, so I can’t support that.

This is my sad hill to die on, I guess, despite my personal feelings on why anti-discrimination across all aspects is important for society. But after reading some informed perspectives, I think I get where some of the DEI pushback is coming from.

It’s not about diversity, equity or inclusion individually, but DEI as a concept, ie as an actionable form of some underlying ideology. It doesn’t matter if the practitioners of DEI may not subscribe to any underlying ideology, the fact is that DEI opponents are unconvinced about the allegiances of DEI practitioners in special contexts, like the military.

I personally don’t care about having DEI in corporate or education contexts, but i think the concern there is that if the public thinks one way, then it will question why the military/govt doesn’t want to. So, I think I get why they removed DEI/CRT from corporate and education as well.

Per my understanding, the pushback is coming jointly from the military, and the main point of contention was the CRT-derived idea of “inherent racism” or “whites as oppressors”. For example,

CRT scholars argue that the social and legal construction of race advances the interests of white people[9][12] at the expense of people of color,[13][14] and that the liberal notion of U.S. law as "neutral" plays a significant role in maintaining a racially unjust social order,[15] where formally color-blind laws continue to have racially discriminatory outcomes.[16]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Here’s an article which says why DEI was necessarily started (the writer is an academic)

DEI policies and practices were created to rectify the government-sanctioned discrimination that existed and systemic oppression that persists in the United States.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-the-cubicle/202411/what-we-get-wrong-about-the-dei-backlash-narrative

You have to appreciate why some part of the American armed forces pushes back on these ideas when your CO may be white, and you a minority. There are practical considerations to having such ideas in the back of your mind when you’re supposed to act without question and as a unit.

Here’s some context for reading https://starrs.us/dei-how-to-have-the-conversation/

Here’s another perspective from a Stanford professor, https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/25/will-dei-end-america-or-america-end-dei/

Edit to clarify, I am not saying that we shouldn’t have anti-discrimination policies across different aspects of being a person. I am saying this is why some people don’t like/want DEI or CRT (which are distinct and separate from the existing anti-discrimination policies). And yes, I know the military has issues regarding race and sex discrimination. But I think people can address those without DEI or CRT.

Because I think the people who criticize the nordic model are simply biased towards achieving an outcome where the workers seize the means of production. That’s why, to them, anything else is wrong, or simply an untenable solution. I am saying that their point of view is not only incorrect, but also lacks insight outside of their own way of thinking.

The Nordic model, but authoritarian people only care about winning, not solutions.

Edit lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged

Dont care if this is fake, just feel like floating some ideas in case someone fr is stuck like this.

— try volunteering with online-only things which don’t require social interaction, like maintaining a code base, maintaining a wiki (on a topic of your choice), doing translation/digitizing or other services for a library.

— do work via Amazon mechanical Turks or similar services.

— read about how to self-care for autistic personalities, or people with neurodivergent traits. Just read everything you can find on the topic.

— volunteer for non-invasive research with universities, like answering psych questions. You’ll get some pocket change. I’d advise against volunteering for clinical stuff where you inject stuff into your body or take pills, it’s too risky.

— join an online dnd group, or other game group.

— don’t talk to people about being vulnerable or lonely, unless you can tell the difference between predators (who prey on lonely people) and normal people.

— get a certification in something, whatever you like. Doesn’t have to be programming or coding related. At least start learning for it, and preparing for it in some way. Don’t spend money on training materials till you know what you want for real. If you don’t have money for training materials, do a gofundme.

— volunteer at your local library, or national parks service to clean up trails.

— volunteer with your local church or food bank or homeless shelter.

— I cannot stress this enough, don’t open to strangers you don’t know/trust unless you’re sure they’re not a predator. Emotionally vulnerable people are like moths to a flame for such people. Read about the signs of narcissistic or cult-like influencer personalities.

And idk what else, but I’ll leave it here. Don’t know if the above would work for everyone, and I am open to corrections

Disagree, but I propose this: the universe is infinite, maybe then we should just have a planet where the socioeconomic system is capitalist, and another one where the socioeconomic system is communist/marxist. I don’t care about winning or being right. I want to live freely, and I want that for others as well.

Better nations on Earth already use what’s known as the Nordic model to help offset the adverse effects of capitalism. Cue (and queue) people who’ll say that “that only works because the ‘imperialists’ exploit the global south”. So again, let’s just make it easier for people who don’t want to live in a world like that.

DEI is for all identities, not just POC. Creating more process is part of the the CIA field manual for fighting fascists, hence the question, are more bureaucratic jobs being created in some misguided attempt to “fight US imperialism”?

I am asking these questions because we already have EO laws and ADA policies. We also have anti-harassment policies. What does DEI add that’s new other than create more bureaucratic jobs?

From my perspective, DEI just creates divisions between groups by splitting people into distinct identities.

Please stop. I literally made this thread a while back

https://lemmy.world/post/15392191

I believe in people getting opportunities. What I don’t like are thought police, or thought correction officers.

Left authoritarianism is still authoritarianism.

I also don’t take it for granted that someone talking about “empathy” or “compassion” necessarily doesn’t have ulterior motives.

So riddle me this, why is it hard to believe that DEI type policies could be plot by some organization or country against the U.S. when there’s literally a field manual which says that such policies should be used against “fascists”. People on Lemmy call the U.S. imperialist all the time.

“To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.”

So is this why DEI exists?

It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

/lazyposting