5 ms·

Best course of action is symmetrical response.

bbor 2y ago
I’m gonna dip into politics a bit for my assertion that “fight racism with racism” isn’t a great move, either for the societal long term or the personal/legal short term.
- zo1 2y ago
  That is the entire premise of DEI initiatives. It's yet another "an eye for an eye".
  - j45 2y ago
    DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. Yes that makes it more competitive. Or less-competitive at an advantage to some and both others if it stayed the same way.
    - zo1 2y ago
      Oh that may be the "on-paper" goal of DEI, and I'd be all for it if it stayed that way; it sounds very very fair. But it never stays that way, and quotas enter the picture before long.
      - j45 2y ago
        Tricky and slippery rationalizations are something I try to be mindful of. I put forward a single simple point. Since it's resonating in a response, it might be worth considering why, and see how our viewpoints form and how much of it might be rooted in isolating emotions like fear. In discussing, an open mind to me is one that can openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't their own, and seeing if they're open to growing or changing their viewpoint. Maybe.. the way your country does DEI is trying to do the opposite of the race based separation it did prior and doesn't know if any other levers exist? One nice thing is you're inheriting the world and can help make it the way you think it should be instead of wanting to be a passive beneficiary of past gatekeeping baselines. Hypothetically speaking... could openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't our own.. be similar to believing software could be better, if it was only improved, by trying to improve ourselves and building software better?
    - gruez 2y ago
      That's the motte of the DEI motte-and-bailey. The bailey contains policies like race based quotas or preferential treatment.
      - j45 2y ago
        Race based quotas seem like very US things. Theres lots of ways to improve hiring. If holding space for equally qualified candidates is preferential treatment, is it having to exist because of the gatekeeping that existed before it? Still, it remains important for any practice to do a good job of helping everyone understand how it's working better. Too often companies jump to signal trends and keep doing whatever they were all along. Like organizations who's leadership looks nothing like the pool of qualified candidates in the respective country.
    - the_gorilla 2y ago
      > DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. This is the first time I've heard that. The normal party line is that, yes, they're worse at the job but it's because they never got the opportunity to learn. You can observe in colleges that DEI-appointed students do massively worse overall despite probably being given even more leeway than normal students.
      - j45 2y ago
        Wow, ok. So that kind of idea is really completely new, so it can't be valid? I think it's pretty easy to go learn the spectrum of DEI. The world is generally run with gatekeeping, which means withholding access to opportunity to improve one's life to a selected group for a long time. It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way. It might not be a good way of holding space for qualified candidates to get to the same table, or even, not allowing an average person to "get a chance" to fail upwards except if you're from one background. The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe. I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences. It would be like generalizing that lots of rich kids end up doing nothing as well after their parents pay for their way into and school. Doesn't make it true as a generalization of everyone though.
        the_gorilla 2y ago
        > Wow, ok. So that kind of idea is really completely new, so it can't be valid? Theoretically it could be, but you should be aware if your argument directly contradicts years of other people advocating for DEI. The idea being sold isn't "we need jobs to be more merit based" but "we don't have enough merit and have to discriminate". > It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way. My country, the US, codifies that you're not allowed to racially discriminate. Somehow this doesn't stop people from declaring that we must explicitly perform racially discrimination in order to offset some perceived discrimination. > The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe. The relevance is that I'm a race it explicitly disadvantages, and so it my family. It's illegal, racial discrimination is apparently immoral when it's done to anyone else, and it needs to go. > I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences. Go look at medical schools. High scoring Whites and Asians are about as likely to get in as extremely poorly performing Black students. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/med1.jpg?x85095 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/med1.jpg?x850...
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    This is a delusional and hateful lie.
    - zo1 2y ago
      Have you been on the receiving end of DEI? The same way a minority has been on the receiving end of racism? We can all wax lyrical and paint pretty pictures about the noble goals of DEI. But till we get an equal and fair world, the ugly picture is that DEI starts by dividing the pie into smaller parts, and taking from one to give to another, instead of making the pie bigger for everyone. And if history is anything to go by, most "DEI"-like efforts never ever reach that end-goal. They perpetuate indefinitely until they create yet another oppressed or previously-disadvantaged class, and the cycle will just repeat.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        The biggest problem with DEI policies in practice was that companies entrusted HR to implement them. HR at most companies doesn't do nuance or complexity.
    - kshGa 2y ago
      You could perhaps assume idealism in 2020. Four years later it is clear that DEI is used as a wedge to displace those you do not like and replace them with unskilled believers.
      - j45 2y ago
        DEI is hardly about unskilled alternatives. It’s only about getting people to the table who are equally qualified and capable and overlooked and under represented. Often to the chagrin of most people who are lamenting on it changing.
        zo1 2y ago
        Please don't take this personally, or as an attack on you. But having seen DEI first-hand, and the "equally qualified" people it has actively displaced and disenfranchised, I'd have to say that this view avoids the ugly reality on the ground wrt DEI. There is an entire country currently affected by it's poor implementation, and it's failure is just seen as more reason for efforts to be doubled and for more-extreme quotas to be put in place.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    It is if you look at it in a divisive, "us" vs "them" fashion. However, it's to try and make up for hundreds or more years of active suppression and exclusion from society and opportunities. Ask yourselves, who paid for your education? Was it pulled up by the bootstraps rags-to-riches, or did you get help from e.g. family? Where did you grow up, and how did that contribute to your current career / life? Now imagine you didn't have those opportunities, because your family (going back generations) never was able to build up generational wealth and comfort. DEI is an attempt to make up for that. Is it ideal? No. Does it come across as discrimination to the priviledged people / classes? Sure. Does it personally affect you? Probably not, but I don't know you (generalised you, the reader). That said, if you don't like DEI, vote and act accordingly. Work to make sure everyone earns a liveable wage, owns a house, gets a good education and consequent steady job opportunities regardless of familial wealth. Be and act anti-racist and anti-classist, because it's not enough to simply "not be racist".
ErigmolCt 2y ago
It may feel satisfying, but it risks escalating tensions and fostering more division rather than solving the core issue.
eru 2y ago
What makes you think so? Usually, the sanest recourse in these kinds of situations is to cut your losses and vote with your feet.

bbor 2y ago

I’m gonna dip into politics a bit for my assertion that “fight racism with racism” isn’t a great move, either for the societal long term or the personal/legal short term.

zo1 2y ago
That is the entire premise of DEI initiatives. It's yet another "an eye for an eye".
- j45 2y ago
  DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. Yes that makes it more competitive. Or less-competitive at an advantage to some and both others if it stayed the same way.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Oh that may be the "on-paper" goal of DEI, and I'd be all for it if it stayed that way; it sounds very very fair. But it never stays that way, and quotas enter the picture before long.
    - j45 2y ago
      Tricky and slippery rationalizations are something I try to be mindful of. I put forward a single simple point. Since it's resonating in a response, it might be worth considering why, and see how our viewpoints form and how much of it might be rooted in isolating emotions like fear. In discussing, an open mind to me is one that can openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't their own, and seeing if they're open to growing or changing their viewpoint. Maybe.. the way your country does DEI is trying to do the opposite of the race based separation it did prior and doesn't know if any other levers exist? One nice thing is you're inheriting the world and can help make it the way you think it should be instead of wanting to be a passive beneficiary of past gatekeeping baselines. Hypothetically speaking... could openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't our own.. be similar to believing software could be better, if it was only improved, by trying to improve ourselves and building software better?
  - gruez 2y ago
    That's the motte of the DEI motte-and-bailey. The bailey contains policies like race based quotas or preferential treatment.
    - j45 2y ago
      Race based quotas seem like very US things. Theres lots of ways to improve hiring. If holding space for equally qualified candidates is preferential treatment, is it having to exist because of the gatekeeping that existed before it? Still, it remains important for any practice to do a good job of helping everyone understand how it's working better. Too often companies jump to signal trends and keep doing whatever they were all along. Like organizations who's leadership looks nothing like the pool of qualified candidates in the respective country.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    > DEI is more about getting equally qualified candidates to the table that are ignored or missed. This is the first time I've heard that. The normal party line is that, yes, they're worse at the job but it's because they never got the opportunity to learn. You can observe in colleges that DEI-appointed students do massively worse overall despite probably being given even more leeway than normal students.
    - j45 2y ago
      Wow, ok. So that kind of idea is really completely new, so it can't be valid? I think it's pretty easy to go learn the spectrum of DEI. The world is generally run with gatekeeping, which means withholding access to opportunity to improve one's life to a selected group for a long time. It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way. It might not be a good way of holding space for qualified candidates to get to the same table, or even, not allowing an average person to "get a chance" to fail upwards except if you're from one background. The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe. I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences. It would be like generalizing that lots of rich kids end up doing nothing as well after their parents pay for their way into and school. Doesn't make it true as a generalization of everyone though.
      - the_gorilla 2y ago
        > Wow, ok. So that kind of idea is really completely new, so it can't be valid? Theoretically it could be, but you should be aware if your argument directly contradicts years of other people advocating for DEI. The idea being sold isn't "we need jobs to be more merit based" but "we don't have enough merit and have to discriminate". > It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way. My country, the US, codifies that you're not allowed to racially discriminate. Somehow this doesn't stop people from declaring that we must explicitly perform racially discrimination in order to offset some perceived discrimination. > The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe. The relevance is that I'm a race it explicitly disadvantages, and so it my family. It's illegal, racial discrimination is apparently immoral when it's done to anyone else, and it needs to go. > I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences. Go look at medical schools. High scoring Whites and Asians are about as likely to get in as extremely poorly performing Black students. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/med1.jpg?x85095 https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/med1.jpg?x850...
- skywhopper 2y ago
  This is a delusional and hateful lie.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Have you been on the receiving end of DEI? The same way a minority has been on the receiving end of racism? We can all wax lyrical and paint pretty pictures about the noble goals of DEI. But till we get an equal and fair world, the ugly picture is that DEI starts by dividing the pie into smaller parts, and taking from one to give to another, instead of making the pie bigger for everyone. And if history is anything to go by, most "DEI"-like efforts never ever reach that end-goal. They perpetuate indefinitely until they create yet another oppressed or previously-disadvantaged class, and the cycle will just repeat.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The biggest problem with DEI policies in practice was that companies entrusted HR to implement them. HR at most companies doesn't do nuance or complexity.
  - kshGa 2y ago
    You could perhaps assume idealism in 2020. Four years later it is clear that DEI is used as a wedge to displace those you do not like and replace them with unskilled believers.
    - j45 2y ago
      DEI is hardly about unskilled alternatives. It’s only about getting people to the table who are equally qualified and capable and overlooked and under represented. Often to the chagrin of most people who are lamenting on it changing.
      - zo1 2y ago
        Please don't take this personally, or as an attack on you. But having seen DEI first-hand, and the "equally qualified" people it has actively displaced and disenfranchised, I'd have to say that this view avoids the ugly reality on the ground wrt DEI. There is an entire country currently affected by it's poor implementation, and it's failure is just seen as more reason for efforts to be doubled and for more-extreme quotas to be put in place.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  It is if you look at it in a divisive, "us" vs "them" fashion. However, it's to try and make up for hundreds or more years of active suppression and exclusion from society and opportunities. Ask yourselves, who paid for your education? Was it pulled up by the bootstraps rags-to-riches, or did you get help from e.g. family? Where did you grow up, and how did that contribute to your current career / life? Now imagine you didn't have those opportunities, because your family (going back generations) never was able to build up generational wealth and comfort. DEI is an attempt to make up for that. Is it ideal? No. Does it come across as discrimination to the priviledged people / classes? Sure. Does it personally affect you? Probably not, but I don't know you (generalised you, the reader). That said, if you don't like DEI, vote and act accordingly. Work to make sure everyone earns a liveable wage, owns a house, gets a good education and consequent steady job opportunities regardless of familial wealth. Be and act anti-racist and anti-classist, because it's not enough to simply "not be racist".

ErigmolCt 2y ago

It may feel satisfying, but it risks escalating tensions and fostering more division rather than solving the core issue.

eru 2y ago

What makes you think so? Usually, the sanest recourse in these kinds of situations is to cut your losses and vote with your feet.