551–560 of 972 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do worry that my kids won’t be diverse enough to be able to get into a decent school or get a good job like I was able to when they’re older. That comment implies you take for granted that your kids will get into a school, and will have a job.
What does that mean? Just about anyone can get into a school, or get a job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him." Racism is anti-racist. Objective thinking is biased. Burning down cities is mostly peaceful protest.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in the question of who decides which attributes are relevant, and which values of those attributes shall be favored. I think there's the potential for self-contradiction / hypocrisy by those persons, depending on the particular logic they use.
The people who decide which attributes are relevant are the higher ups in the company. These people are making their decisions based off traits that they believe unfairly disadvantage people. The reason for that belief is the political advocacy of people who have those traits. Ideally, I would hope that everyone who has such a trait also has a group to advocate for them, and thus the hiring managers would be making p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is that thing? The people who study this stuff seriously end up concluding that cultural and domestic factors are the biggest predictor. There are plenty of minority groups who at one point didn't have any stuff, and were discriminated against (Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). The main difference seems to be cultural values that prioritize the nuclear family and educational attainment. The SAT…
"The people who study this stuff seriously end up concluding that cultural and domestic factors are the biggest predictor." Wasn't there a Harvard study that concluded the biggest factor was a 2 parent household?
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/new-harvard-study-w... (Slate: What’s the most important factor blocking social mobility? Single parents, suggests a new study.)
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/129/4/1553/1853754 ("Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The new leftist talking point is that there is no possible way to measure merit objectively so we shouldn't even attempt to do so. Therefore, they would counter your point by saying that you're incapable of hiring the best based on merit. Those who believe that there is no possibility of measuring merit are destined to be out-competed by those who can and do measure it at least somewhat accurately.
Unless they can successfully create laws to hamstring their betters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of statement is this? D&I is supposed to be comparatively balanced to the society is serves. Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success. D&I is not a terrible paradigm that needs to be dismantled just because some companies take it to far, it's no different than accounting or other functional considerations withi…
> white nationalist groups are growing in numbers I don't know if it's valid, but let's assume it is. Have you considered that some of this growth can be attributed to DEI and the rest of far-left policies? If you're openly being racist towards certain groups, they can also become racist. When a poor white male gets rejected/fired/demoted because company needed a diversity hire, it's not going to make him more tolera…
This is rational, straightforward, healthy and just righteous in a deep way. It creates an environment bereft of envy and injustice.
Turns out, most high brain mass mammals have a innate sense of fairness. When humans are treated unfairly because of some ostensible moral goal whether through racism or D&I; the end result is not pretty. Humans of all culture are enamored and magnetized by fairness and justice. But those words have been twisted to mean exactly the opposite by contemporaneous social-justice movements.
This was the mainstream view of the Civil Rights movement. It was utterly beautiful. But, post-moderity came and neo-Marxists have reigned for last 40 years in USA at least, gutting out Universities and now, Corporations.
Posts like this seem reactionary and equally anti-intellectual. Sure I know that a lot of the DE&I stuff is frustrating for people. But it seems like if you really want to dig into this you need to take broader approach. Can you actually prove that people are in any way capable of measuring merit, especially for leadership decisions, which is pretty squishy to begin with? It seems to me like throwing some extra diver…
> Reactionary, anti-intellectual. "The Cultural Revolution: A people's history" is a good read. Lot's of people got called reactionary and anti- then too. Yes, you can measure merit. But then, I'm not a Communist.
Never read it, have you read "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China" or "Mao?" by Jung Chang? Great books on the subject as well, I'll check yours out. Not sure what this has to do with my post though. Maybe the term 'anti-intellectual' was wrong, but I was referring to the fact that the article seemed to say "DE&I Bad, Merit Good" with a superiority complex about it, and I was just saying that that position on its own isn't necessarily the intellectually superior position, even though I think "merit" gets assumed as being more necessarily more objective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
minneapolis got hit pretty hard.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s winning in the marketplace because it’s better. You’re 100% right about the funnel, but here’s the thing: junior positions are part of the funnel. About ten years ago I realized that I was screwing up massively by interviewing for current skill level instead of p…
> you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity Diversity, as everything else, has a sweet spot. Too little and too much are equally bad. Of course nobody knows where the sweet spot is, but merely increasing diversity is not a guarantee for improvement. I mean, you can hire someone who hates your gut and doesn't speak your language. This…
The idea that diversity advocates are solely focused on diversity for its own sake is incorrect. There are two factors that typically play into it: one is practical (see my comment) and the other is moral (the belief that it’s inherently better if someone raised in a non-majority culture has an equal chance to succeed).
“Virtue signaling” is a tremendously non-useful term because it is always, always applied inconsistently. The dude I’m responding to used the phrase “CRT.” That ensures that we all know that he’s virtuous and recognizes the evil of leftist thought, but you’re not calling him a virtue signaler.
Don’t assume people who disagree with you are hypocrites. Maybe we’re just misinformed. “Virtue signaling” ends discussion and promotes division, and we really don’t need more of that in this world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure what a “diverse” parent is or how you would know their mind. I expect that all parents, regardless of demographic factors, worry about their kid getting a good job and going to school.
This seems to be forbidden to say, but for all intents and purposes, “diverse” means “not white”.