751–760 of 886 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but can't you at least see how weird it is that 'Women in STEM' is very accepted but a 'Men in STEM' program would never fly? I can see how it might seem weird to an alien who knew what men and women were, but had no context for the existing state and history of society. I can't see how it would seem weird to anyone else, however.
If you include biological and medical sciences in STEM, STEM graduates have been majority female for decades. Where is the DEI for men in the female dominated STEM subjects?
There’s actually quite a bit of outreach-type programs aimed at getting them in the door, and a lot less after that because despite women dominating degrees and entry-level hires, men still disproportionately dominate management and leadership roles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you include biological and medical sciences in STEM Biological sciences are STEM of course. But if we're going to extend the definition, why not include all fields that involve technical skills? How about accountants and lawyers? I'm concerned that you only proposed adding medical and nursing students because it's the only additional field that would support your argument. That strikes me as goalpost moving, so…
Accounting and law schools are also graduating majority women these days. Have you not been paying attention? DEI keeps on saying "more women in universities! More women in universities!" even though universities have been majority women for decades now. It's a one way ratchet that never stops.
No, “DEI” doesn’t keep saying that. Why are you making up a strawman to fight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a good metaphor. You can’t undo racial discrimination against someone who is now dead by discriminating against someone else who is now alive.
No, it’s a bad metaphor. The correct analogy is, “Suppose you were abused by your parent; should you be allowed to establish a benefit specifically and only for the abused children of other parents?” You and 0xDEAFBEAD answer that question no, because that benefit discriminates in your mind against all non-abused children. And against all adults, probably. I don’t know how deep the grievance mobilization goes.
The rationale for racial preferences in 2025 is not that they are a benefit to individuals who were personally harmed by racial discrimination. The institutions engaging in these practices insist that they are otherwise engaged in race blind practices. If such practices existed, DEI as we know it would be unnecessary. We could simply just enforce the existing laws in a race-blind way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok? But that wasn't the OP's argument. Did you reply to the wrong thread?
No. I was just pointing out that your downplaying of the risks in this thread is too cavalier: I believe they think, as do I, that even the cost of testing the legality of a particular interpretation would be crushing for a small non-profit.
There is no language that will magically prevent a government from canceling a grant and requiring a grantee to pursue relief from the court. This type of guarantee does not exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974. And your father/grandfather was enslaved by the government to fight in the Vietnam war until 1975. > What's the theory of harm here? If we continue educating women they may gain too much social mobility? Blatant hypocrisy, you think 60% of college students being women is good, but consider it horrible sexism that at one time 60% of coll…
Wow, way to make up words that the person you're replying to never said, and then arguing with them. Bad-faith arguments seem to be your shtick, given your comment history on this post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roughly 40% supports Trump, but they are often quite loud about putting other things above the rule of law. Not sure why you think roughly 50% give him the benefit of the doubt on dedication to the rule of law.
From Democratic analyst David Shor back in March ( https://archive.is/kbwom ) : " The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points]. " So, not that it brings me any joy to say it but it would seem more like 55%? If anyone has any polling data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Winning by 5% (even assuming no third party votes) is 52.5% (with 47.5% for the opponent) not 55%, if there are any third-party votes, that gets even lower.
A piece written in March 2025 discussing a hypothetical for the November 2024 election is not describing the state of the world in October 2025.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how DEI should work, and probably does in some, or maybe many, cases. In other cases, it boiled down to "this quarter, we only have headcount for 'diverse' candidates", metrics for DEI hiring that turn into goals, and e-mails stating "only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically underrepresented groups". I expect that I'll get accused of making this up, which is why the latter is an exact quote sh…
YC's Jessica Livingston and the founder of TripleByte observed the similar racial and sex quotas from the inside: https://x.com/jesslivingston/status/1884652626467303560 IBM's CEO infamously championed DEI-as-quota which led to wave of lawsuits that IBM was forced to settle. The memory holing on this topic is concerning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of DEI is to enforce what is idealized as the equal outcome, assuming that all observed differences are the result of discrimination. The problem is that it has not been shown that all observed differences are the result of discrimination as opposed to preference, ability, or other uncontrollable factors not related to discrimination but which are reasonable bases for the difference. There are many cases…
“The purpose of DEI is to enforce what is idealized as the equal outcome, assuming that all observed differences are the result of discrimination“ I don’t think a single proponent of DEI has ever said this, and it is telling to me that you are misinterpreting it with such a politicized slant. Maybe you need to think about reading some other opinion pieces on this from a much broader spectrum of perspectives? I’ve bee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know someone whose grant was cancelled for studying genetic diversity in animal populations.
And maybe they'll get that back eventually, but academia can't complain about rough handling when it steadfastly refused as a bloc to fix its own ways for so long. Outsiders trying to fix them will always create a lot more collateral damage than insiders fixing the problems, but when insiders refuse, outsiders will take over. Also, frankly, I heard a bunch of such stories and very often the grantees were misrepresent…
you celebrate the ruin of the career of a highly trained person, frankly a national resource, because they used a word to describe their work that you think has evil connotations.
we are so screwed