Split Thread DEI in the US

[wareyin]

The EO feignt again + a new misunderstanding of the scope of the EO along with the question I asked ChatGPT.

You could just admit that your claim ("the presidential executive orders that required all federal science funding agencies to implement DEI requirements") was wrong.

 

[jt512]

The claim is (a) right and (b) irrelevant. Your obsession with it is just part of your multilayered distraction from what the point of the argument was in the first place, which was whether DEI is a form of affirmative action (which it is) or its exact opposite, an colorblind meritocracy, as you absurdly claimed.

 

[wareyin]

The claim is (a) right and (b) irrelevant. Your obsession with it is just part of your multilayered distraction from what the point of the argument was in the first place, which was whether DEI is a form of affirmative action (which it is) or its exact opposite, an colorblind meritocracy, as you absurdly claimed.

I've already demonstrated your foundational claim was factually wrong. Your subsequent pivot to calling those facts "irrelevant" doesn't change what you stated. If it was so irrelevant, why did you spend pages defending it?

But let's address the supposed "point of the argument": You are fundamentally misrepresenting two things.

First, you confuse DEI with affirmative action. They are absolutely not the same thing. Affirmative action (before the Supreme Court ruling) focused on proactively including demographic factors to correct past wrongs. DEI's goal is to remove the hidden barriers that minorities, women, people with disabilities, and others face under the old system, and to create an inclusive culture. DEI is about fixing the system, not managing the demographics.

Second, based on my experience as a hiring manager, DEI initiatives are explicitly designed to make the process more meritocratic. You call for a colorblind meritocracy, but if a system overlooks qualified candidates due to bias against their skin color or background, then by definition, it is not colorblind. It is selectively blind to its own biases. DEI aims to find the best possible talent by identifying and eliminating those blind spots.

Your entire argument relies on a factual claim you can't verify and a definition you can't distinguish. You were factually wrong on the policy and you are conceptually wrong on the goals.

 

[jt512]

I've already demonstrated your foundational claim was factually wrong.

You've shown absolutely nothing. You've only claimed that it is wrong.

Your subsequent pivot to calling those facts "irrelevant" doesn't change what you stated. If it was so irrelevant, why did you spend pages defending it?

I have not pivoted to anything. Rather it is you who have picked on irrelevant details of a peer reviewed article I posted to show the nature of DEI as it is in the real world: giving preferences to supposedly certain groups with favored genetic phenotypes.

But let's address the supposed "point of the argument": You are fundamentally misrepresenting two things.

First, you confuse DEI with affirmative action.

I am not confusing them. I am saying that in practice, they are similar.

They are absolutely not the same thing. Affirmative action (before the Supreme Court ruling) focused on proactively including demographic factors to correct past wrongs. DEI's goal is to remove the hidden barriers that minorities, women, people with disabilities, and others face under the old system, and to create an inclusive culture. DEI is about fixing the system, not managing the demographics.

The claimed "hidden" barriers. The goal of DEI is "equity," which is defined to be equal outcomes for all demographic groups. And to achieve that they sacrifice merit.

Second, based on my experience as a hiring manager, DEI initiatives are explicitly designed to make the process more meritocratic.

If that were true, then conservatives would be championing DEI and progressives would be up in arms about it. Instead it is the other way around.
Biden instituted DEI throughout the federal government by EO 13985 and others. I posted a peer reviewed paper that revealed, in the federal science agencies' own words, that they operationalized it to give favorable treatment to favored demographic groups.

You call for a colorblind meritocracy, but if a system overlooks qualified candidates due to bias against their skin color or background, then by definition, it is not colorblind. It is selectively blind to its own biases.

Yeah if. You claim that there are "hidden barriers" to women being hired. Well, there sure as hell aren't in STEM. It was shown 10 years ago that women have an approximate 2:1 advantage in hiring at the assistant faculty level over equally qualified men (Williams & Ceci 2015).

DEI aims to find the best possible talent by identifying and eliminating those blind spots.

You have yet to show any evidence that it does. I have shown evidence that it preferentially favors certain demographics. You have shown no evidence for "hidden barriers" disfavoring women or minorities. I shown that the bias, at least in STEM (which is what I have data for) is against men. And the reason is real-world DEI.

 

[Trausti]

You have yet to show any evidence that it does.

They don't really need to. DEI proponents live in a demon-haunted world where the only acceptable explanation is invisible power forces, like Greek gods toying with our lives. That these forces can't been seen is just proof of how nefarious the invisible goblins are. Set aside your rational mind, jt512, and just accept it on faith.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Center Media companies hiring far right commentators is DEI in its purest form.
Bari Weiss was the quintessential DEI hire: unwanted, unqualified, only there so the company could say they had one of her type

 

[wareyin]

You've shown absolutely nothing. You've only claimed that it is wrong.

I have not pivoted to anything. Rather it is you who have picked on irrelevant details of a peer reviewed article I posted to show the nature of DEI as it is in the real world: giving preferences to supposedly certain groups with favored genetic phenotypes.

I am not confusing them. I am saying that in practice, they are similar.

The claimed "hidden" barriers. The goal of DEI is "equity," which is defined to be equal outcomes for all demographic groups. And to achieve that they sacrifice merit.

If that were true, then conservatives would be championing DEI and progressives would be up in arms about it. Instead it is the other way around.
Biden instituted DEI throughout the federal government by EO 13985 and others. I posted a peer reviewed paper that revealed, in the federal science agencies' own words, that they operationalized it to give favorable treatment to favored demographic groups.

Yeah if. You claim that there are "hidden barriers" to women being hired. Well, there sure as hell aren't in STEM. It was shown 10 years ago that women have an approximate 2:1 advantage in hiring at the assistant faculty level over equally qualified men (Williams & Ceci 2015).

You have yet to show any evidence that it does. I have shown evidence that it preferentially favors certain demographics. You have shown no evidence for "hidden barriers" disfavoring women or minorities. I shown that the bias, at least in STEM (which is what I have data for) is against men. And the reason is real-world DEI.

I did not just claim your foundational assertion was wrong; I used your own PIER timeline to prove that what you claimed was false. Further, if an author can't get the basics correct and can't keep from contradicting himself within his own paper, those are not "irrelevant details", they are fundamental errors that destroy your source's credibility. Your continued claim that the policy was instituted "throughout the federal government" by Biden's EO is exactly the claim your own PIER timeline already proved false.

And you've now pivoted from claiming DEI is affirmative action to saying they are "similar in practice." This is just denial. In the real world, DEI does not give preference to "favored genetic phenotypes." The goal of equity is defined as ensuring fair access and opportunity, not the impossible target of "equal outcomes." Furthermore, your assumption that these "favored genetic phenotypes" inherently lack the same merit as white men is simply bigoted. DEI does not sacrifice merit; it widens the pool to find the best talent that the old, biased system overlooked.

As for your laughably offbase political claim, conservatives oppose DEI precisely because it is a more meritocratic system. They fear having to compete with those "genetic phenotypes" on a level playing ground because it will show that those other "genetic phenotypes" are not inferior.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

They don't really need to. DEI proponents live in a demon-haunted world where the only acceptable explanation is invisible power forces, like Greek gods toying with our lives.

Kinda like the Biblical book of Job.

For those who haven't read it: The humans never do figure out that all of Job's troubles were caused by an amoral bet God made with Satan. God was bragging about his servant Job, a perfect and upright man. Satan says well sure, you've protected him and blessed him with all sorts of advantages. Remove those unfair advantages, and he'll curse you to your face. God says have at it, but don't touch his person.

Satan arranges to kill Job's sons and daughters, then all his sheep and servants, then destroyed Job's house. But Job does not curse God. So God says to Satan: neener-neener, I won the bet.

But Satan says, double or nothing. Let me afflict his body. God says okay, sure, just spare his life.

Most of the rest of the book consists of Job arguing with his friends, who say Job's misfortunes must somehow be his own fault, because those who deserve to succeed always succeed. Job disagrees.

There's a fun part toward the end, where Job confronts God, demanding to know what that was all about. God answers Job by saying: Puny Human! What makes you think you're so important you get to ask that question?

That these forces can't been seen is just proof of how nefarious the invisible goblins are. Set aside your rational mind, jt512, and just accept it on faith.

@Trausti sounds like a lot of Job's friends.

 

[jt512]

I did not just claim your foundational assertion was wrong; I used your own PIER timeline to prove that what you claimed was false.

I know you believe you are right, but you are not, and anybody who can read can see that.

I leave you to your delusions. Bye.

 

[jt512]

They don't really need to. DEI proponents live in a demon-haunted world where the only acceptable explanation is invisible power forces, like Greek gods toying with our lives. That these forces can't been seen is just proof of how nefarious the invisible goblins are. Set aside your rational mind, jt512, and just accept it on faith.

Moreover, truth irrelevant to progressives. They are so blinkered by their ideology, they reject any and all disconfirming evidence, even if its plainly written in black and white, peer reviewed, or signed by the President of the United States.

 

[arthwollipot]

Moreover, truth irrelevant to progressives. They are so blinkered by their ideology, they reject any and all disconfirming evidence, even if its plainly written in black and white, peer reviewed, or signed by the President of the United States.

Talking about yourself again, I see.

 

[wareyin]

I know you believe you are right, but you are not, and anybody who can read can see that.

I leave you to your delusions. Bye.

Run away if you like, but calling factual rebuttals "delusions" doesn't change the fact that your argument relies on bigoted assumptions about merit. I'll take your exit as a concession.

 

[wareyin]

Moreover, truth irrelevant to progressives. They are so blinkered by their ideology, they reject any and all disconfirming evidence, even if its plainly written in black and white, peer reviewed, or signed by the President of the United States.

It is the height of irony to complain about "disconfirming evidence" when you have spent days ignoring the facts plainly written in your own PIER timeline. You dismiss the peer reviewed studies I provided showing a hiring bias for white people while pretending your one flawed source is infallible. It is clear that "peer review" only matters to you when it aligns with your premise.

As for your vague "signed by the President" comment, if you mean the Biden EOs, your own source already proved your claims about their scope were false. If you mean the Trump EO, you are relying on a document that attacked practices that did not exist. You aren't leaving because of my "delusions". You are leaving because you have no answer for the evidence, including your own, that has dismantled your argument.

 

[arthwollipot]

Run away if you like, but calling factual rebuttals "delusions" doesn't change the fact that your argument relies on bigoted assumptions about merit. I'll take your exit as a concession.

Don't mistake disinclination to engage for concession. I doubt that JT has conceded anything.

 

[wareyin]

Don't mistake disinclination to engage for concession. I doubt that JT has conceded anything.

Fair enough. He has already refused to admit he was wrong multiple times no matter how clear it was. He's probably just trying to save face.

 

[dirtywick]

yeah, save black face

 

[Trausti]

@Trausti sounds like a lot of Job's friends.

Nah, I'm the one asking for evidence not the faith based approach.

 

[Trausti]

Moreover, truth irrelevant to progressives. They are so blinkered by their ideology, they reject any and all disconfirming evidence, even if its plainly written in black and white, peer reviewed, or signed by the President of the United States.

In truth, they have to reject disconfirming evidence. That's the nature of fundamentalist faith; disconfirming evidence is heresy. It sorta like how during the summer of love many DEI proponents believed that thousand of young black men were just being gunned down by cops. Not true in the slightest, but boy did they cling that.

 

[Trausti]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903471498037539014

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Someone copied a story as old as time, when women or minorities had to find a Straight White Guy to pretend to be them?
And pretends it's something new?