Split Thread DEI in the US

[Trausti]

And what do you do for the people who systematically and for generations have been treated differently because of their race or sex?

Why would you punish people who had nothing to do with that?

 

[arthwollipot]

Why would you punish people who had nothing to do with that?

Answer the question.

 

[Opcode]

Yes it does

Then show it. You and everybody else keeps dancing around that mythical mechanism.

you're still making the assumption that black=substandard just like Charlie Kirk.

No, I'm pointing out that DEI says that you are given special consideration if you are black, or part of any other grouping that the Progressives want to promote. DEI does not select based on merit, so any program that promotes people through DEI always will lead to the question of what merit the person from the same group has.

There's a term for that kind of thinking.

You are playing the race card.

 

[Trausti]

Answer the question.

You don't treat people differently. That's it. If you think disparate treatment is okay because some bad thing happened in the past, then you're in "Jews killed Jesus" territory.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

You don't treat people differently based on their race or sex. Really not that hard. Treat people as individuals.

Yes, that's how individuals should act. But suppose a company isn't doing that. Suppose an entire industry isn't doing that. It would be a problem, correct? So how would you like to see such things addressed?

Let's not forget, this is about white people, too. There's a fair chance your white sister isn't getting paid what the man in the next cubicle gets, though they're doing the same job. Physically disabled white people -- perfectly capable of doing any number of jobs -- are often disadvantaged in hiring over able-bodied people. Same with folks who have developmental disabilities.

It's not just about color. So how do you deal with all that?

 

[arthwollipot]

No, I'm pointing out that DEI says that you are given special consideration if you are black, or part of any other grouping that the Progressives want to promote. DEI does not select based on merit, so any program that promotes people through DEI always will lead to the question of what merit the person from the same group has.

No, you're wrong. DEI says that you do not deny opportunities for people based on race, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender identity, able-bodiedness, or any other arbitrary criteria. You can't be merit based unless you offer opportunities to a diverse range of people, you offer them equitably, and you include everybody in your pool if candidates. If you're not doing that, you're not merit-based, because there may be some people with plenty of merit who are outside your pool.

Affirmative action says that you should provide extra benefits for those disadvantaged by circumstances. You provide the benefits so that those people can access the same opportunities as people who don't need them. Affirmative action levels the playing field.

You don't treat people differently. That's it. If you think disparate treatment is okay because some bad thing happened in the past, then you're in "Jews killed Jesus" territory.

In other words, people whose circumstances mean that they have less opportunity because of things that have happened in the past do not get the opportunities that more fortunate people get.

That's discrimination, inequity, exclusion. It doesn't matter if someone is the most qualified for your job, if they can't climb stairs because they're confined to a wheelchair they can't get to the job interview. Nobody should be treated differently, right? You shouldn't provide a ramp for people in wheelchairs, right?

 

[Trausti]

Yes, that's how individuals should act. But suppose a company isn't doing that. Suppose an entire industry isn't doing that. It would be a problem, correct? So how would you like to see such things addressed?

We've got federal and state anti-discrimination laws. You know that, right?

Let's not forget, this is about white people, too. There's a fair chance your white sister isn't getting paid what the man in the next cubicle gets, though they're doing the same job.

The gender pay gap is a myth. No matter how often it's debunked, it just won't die.

Physically disabled white people -- perfectly capable of doing any number of jobs -- are often disadvantaged in hiring over able-bodied people. Same with folks who have developmental disabilities.

I have no problem with helping people with disabilities. That's not what DEI is about, though.

It's not just about color. So how do you deal with all that?

Then can we just end the consideration of color?

 

[Trausti]

In other words, people whose circumstances mean that they have less opportunity because of things that have happened in the past do not get the opportunities that more fortunate people get.

How do you divine a person's circumstances or life opportunities based on their skin color? Do you have some sort of magic powers?

 

[arthwollipot]

How do you divine a person's circumstances or life opportunities based on their skin color? Do you have some sort of magic powers?

You ask them, duh.

 

[Trausti]

You ask them, duh.

So there's no reason to care about a person's race or sex. We agree on something. Hurrah!

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

We've got federal and state anti-discrimination laws. You know that, right?

Do you think they're working?

The gender pay gap is a myth. No matter how often it's debunked, it just won't die.

No it isn't.

I have no problem with helping people with disabilities. That's not what DEI is about, though.

What are your main sources of info for understanding DEI?

Then can we just end the consideration of color?

Sure, when color is no longer a point of discrimination.

 

[Trausti]

Do you think they're working?

Yes. If you actually have evidence of a company actively discriminating on race or sex, there's a lawyer out there who'll happily cash in. In those lawsuits, the plaintiff gets attorney fees (which is usually not the case).

No it isn't.

There is no evidence that the "gap" is due to discrimination. The "gap" is actually due to pregnancy - women step back from work to focus on their families. Yet, women who do not have children earn the same as men.

What are your main sources of info for understanding DEI?

Certainly not this thread. I've asked at least once for how its proponents define it, and it is just incoherence. Is it about race? No. Okay, let's not use race. No, race must be considered.

Sure, when color is no longer a point of discrimination.

We already have laws against it. Why would you want to promote discrimination when we already have anti-discrimination laws?

 

[arthwollipot]

So there's no reason to care about a person's race or sex. We agree on something. Hurrah!

We've always agreed on something - that discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics is wrong. What we disagree on is what you should do when you discover systematic discrimination. I say that it should be addressed. You say it should be conserved because addressing it is just another form of discrimination.

 

[Trausti]

What we disagree on is what you should do when you discover systematic discrimination.

Can you give us an example of systemic discrimination? What law or regulation are you referring to? I'll stand with you to have that law/regulation repealed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Can you give us an example of systemic discrimination? What law or regulation are you referring to? I'll stand with you to have that law/regulation repealed.

Like I said before, ramps are not built in to older buildings, which means that people who are confined to wheelchairs have difficulty accessing them. Laws or regulations are passed to require ramps to be installed, thereby equitably including those who previously were excluded because of their disability. That's affirmative action.

 

[theprestige]

No, you're wrong. DEI says that you do not deny opportunities for people based on race, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender identity, able-bodiedness, or any other arbitrary criteria. You can't be merit based unless you offer opportunities to a diverse range of people, you offer them equitably, and you include everybody in your pool if candidates. If you're not doing that, you're not merit-based, because there may be some people with plenty of merit who are outside your pool.

Affirmative action says that you should provide extra benefits for those disadvantaged by circumstances. You provide the benefits so that those people can access the same opportunities as people who don't need them. Affirmative action levels the playing field.


In other words, people whose circumstances mean that they have less opportunity because of things that have happened in the past do not get the opportunities that more fortunate people get.

That's discrimination, inequity, exclusion. It doesn't matter if someone is the most qualified for your job, if they can't climb stairs because they're confined to a wheelchair they can't get to the job interview. Nobody should be treated differently, right? You shouldn't provide a ramp for people in wheelchairs, right?

I see you're back to arguing from what you believe is on the tin, rather than from the practices the term actually refers to. I thought you'd taken correction on this point over a year ago.

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh but wait I see you are asking something different.

The White Australia Policy was official government policy that excluded immigration from certain parts of the world. It was discriminatory, exclusive, and inequitable. Between 1949 and 1973, these policies were systematically dismantled and a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive immigration policy was adopted instead.

You agree with that, right?

 

[arthwollipot]

I see you're back to arguing from what you believe is on the tin, rather than from the practices the term actually refers to. I thought you'd taken correction on this point over a year ago.

I agree that a certain part of the rightist community use the term "DEI" to describe practices that are absolutely not diverse, equitable or inclusive. They are using the term wrong, and they are explicitly using it wrong in order to perpetuate discriminatory, inequitable and exclusive policies.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Yes. If you actually have evidence of a company actively discriminating on race or sex, there's a lawyer out there who'll happily cash in. In those lawsuits, the plaintiff gets attorney fees (which is usually not the case).

You make it sound like there's hardly any discrimination in the US, that there's no especially notable problem. Am I reading you right?

There is no evidence that the "gap" is due to discrimination. The "gap" is actually due to pregnancy - women step back from work to focus on their families. Yet, women who do not have children earn the same as men.

Source? The Pew studied showed that full time working women are making less than full time working men. Apples to apples.

 

[Opcode]

Holy crap, you actually don't believe people have unconscious biases? Or that unconscious biases affect our decisions? You are aware of the 2003 study "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination", right? Or 2021's "Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers."

One study means nothing, regardless of subject or discipline. Science is based on repeatability and requires extensive confirmation.

Nonsense. DEI is not affirmative action.

Similar concept, different implementation, especially now that SCOTUS has struck down much of AA. AA is more explicit in its bias towards promoting protected groups (particularly on the basis of ethnicity), while DEI is couched in the conceit that it promotes *all* people equally (while claiming that whites already have all the advantages).

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. There is no preferential treatment for "preferred identity groups".

Obviously, your idea of preferential treatment is defective.

There are no hiring quotas.

I didn't say there were.

It is simply that you, as an angry white guy, are upset that you no longer get the preferential treatment that you have always gotten.

See, this is the final insult. This is vigorously rubbing salt in the wound. I grew up in a single-parent household headed by my school teacher mom. We lived in poverty most of my childhood. I had a lot of access to books because my mom was a teacher and library books were free. I had more access to books than to food or clothes. Most or all of my clothes for the last decade of my childhood were donated to my family. Much of our food was, too. Some charity once gave my family Christmas presents, but we had to give them all back when we were evicted from our home. As an adult, I've done a little better, but I had to work hard to get anything, and I still was homeless a few times. I've managed to earn three associate degrees, but I've spent forty years trying to earn a bachelor's degree, because I keep running out of money or have to move because I can't support myself. I'm a disabled Navy veteran, which gives me a few benefits, but educational benefits were limited to $8200.

My public high school administered a proctored, day-long battery of IQ tests to qualify me for the school's Gifted and Talented program. Those IQ tests place me in the top 1.5% of the general population. I took the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) each year from my sophomore year of high school, and it placed me in the top 1% or 2% of those tested nationwide. I took an aptitude test administered by the state's employment commission, which said that I had the aptitude to become anything for which they had a job code. Despite all that, I've had great difficulty getting hired, earning an income, staying above the poverty line. I'm just a few years away from retirement age, but I have no career, barely any retirement savings, more debt than assets and income, no wife or children. Now, you come along and claim that I've gotten preferential treatment! You are correct that I'm an angry white guy, but you are way off base about the reason for it!