[flagged]

Hating on minorities is nothing new, and has always been a powerful political driver. DEI is just another thing to direct that hate to, it doesn't matter what it actually is or does.

Also, establising a link between DEI, a vague group of very mild and mostly ineffectual incentives, and the rise of right wing ideology is really dumb. No one would care about DEI if it hadn't been made a major talking point by right wing propagandists. If DEI didn't exist it would be something else that would "turn young men to the right".

Don't fall for such basic propaganda. The war on these supposedly unfair hiring practices is being led by rich heirs that never did an honest day of work in their entire lives. Those disenfranchised young men buying the hate are made to turn against their own interests by the very same ones that fucked their opportunities in the first place.

▲

ajsnigrutin 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

thrance 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Only a fool would think MAGA stands for equality and against discrimination. Just thinking about it makes me laugh. I wish the anti-DEI folk was honest and stopped hiding behind "ending discrimination" when they have proved times and times again that they are all extremely confortable with other, far worse forms of it.

▲

jachee 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I know HN is gonna downvote me into oblivion for this, but… I’m a cis-het white dude, a this rings true for me:

“When you’ve been in the majority for a long time, equality can feel like oppression.”

Just because a system desires proportional representation does not mean it’s discriminatory against the majority. It just means it’s no longer preferential toward them.

▲

entrox 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the system values proportional representation higher than qualification, than I will either abandon my own strive towards excellence or I will actively support changing that system.

I feel the latter option is more likely than abandoning something that is often shaping one's own identity

▲

jachee 5 days ago | parent [-]

The system should value qualification higher than other factors. But the system is made up of people with inherent biases that has led to imbalanced representation of the majority over actual qualifications.

You can strive for excellence and equality at the same time. It’s not zero sum.

	▲	ajsnigrutin 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		In my country, in high school, you get grades and at the end you have a standardized test. Colleges decide what ratio will be used (and if any special requirements are needed), and in most cases it's 60% standardized test results, 40% grades + some formula to turn that into 0-100 score. This is known well in advance, before even applying to the college. College has 150 open spots, 230 people apply, 20 fail the last year of high school, the other 210 are put on a ranked list by the points they've achieved, at 150th place "a line is drawn" and that's the cuttof for who gets accepted and who doesn't. They just publish "86.5 points needed to be accepted", and you can do the math at home and don't have to wait for the post to arrive. How is that not equal? It has worked since literally the commie times.

▲

beeflet 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

kenjackson 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is it? Almost all outcomes favor the majority. How many straight white males actually think they would have better life outcomes being born black female gay? Even with affirmative action, that only impacts a very small percentage of people at a very narrow window of time.

▲

beeflet 5 days ago | parent [-]

Why is it the job of private institutions to regulate the life outcomes of key political demographics?

Private institutions have the job of selecting the best candidates, and they don't have the right to discriminate against any candidates on the basis of race.

In one breath, supporters of affirmative action in this thread will deny that such discrimination exists, and in the other they will justify its existence. Clearly you must acknowledge on some level that it's not really defensible.

	▲	kenjackson 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		It’s a great question. And I think we are in a bit of a pickle as not doing something is just acting in the opposite way to regulate life outcomes. It’s like gerrymandering districts and then when people want to move things back to a more normal partition you say “let’s just leave things as they are and not tinker”. But you’re now just advantaging the group that tinkered last.

▲

jachee 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When the system is dominated by the majority, and has been for a long time, a correction requires being “discriminatory against the majority”.

“The system” itself was incorrect before. This is why it’s called systemic racism/sexism/etc.

▲

ajsnigrutin 5 days ago | parent [-]

But the kids applying to colleges today had nothing to do with the history. A white (or asian) boy won't get accepted to his chosen college because of something he had no influence on, be it "history" or his skin color and gender.

Is collective punishment of kids for something they had nothing to do with really the answer?

	▲	jachee 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		This thread is specifically about jobs, where people are specifically evaluated on an individual basis. University admissions are a whole different discussion, but are broken in similar ways.

▲

lelanthran 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> No one would care about DEI if it hadn't been made a major talking point by right wing propagandists.

That's a circular argument (post hoc ergo propter hoc/begging the question). It also sounds backwards.

This is how your argument sounds to me:

1. DEI is made into a major talking point by right wing propagandists

2. How do you tell if someone is a right wing propagandist? They make DEI a major talking point.

This is backwards! Politicians adjust their messaging for the most votes[1].

TBH, this whole talking-point mess was not completely made up. The politicians aren't creating talking points and then trying to convert people, they are adjusting their talking points to what matters to the voters.

If DEI didn't matter, and we weren't constantly under a barrage of "If you disagree you're a nazi", the Trump campaign would have found something else to make one of the major talking points.

===================================

[1] Well, the Trump does, anyway. The major difference I, as an outsider, saw between the two parties in the most recent presidential election was in the adjustment and delivery of messaging.

The Left's message was "This is what we stand for. You need to fall in line in order for us to win".

Trumps message was "This matters to you? Okay, then it matters to me too".

It's not hard to see that one of those are backwards.

	▲	thrance 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		My arguments is not what you're making it up to be, at all. It's: 1. DEI is made into a major talking point by right wing propagandists. 2. DEI suddenly becomes a core issues for right wing voters. Conservative politicians didn't adjust their messaging to address what matters to the voters, they made up an issue to galvanize hate against minorities and turn it into political goodwill. It's like the Jews under nazi Germany (but far, far less extreme). DEI/Jews aren't actually making that much of a difference in society, they're just a convenient scapegoat to point to and command hate from the masses. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... As for your note: yes, the democrats are severly lacking in the populism area. But don't mistake Trump's populism for any actual interest in voters' issues. After all, only a fool would think MAGA stands for equality and against discrimination.

▲

nomel 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> why AfD is on the rise

Except for the 6 that just died, right before a local election [1].

[1] https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/germany-afd-ca...

▲

humpty-d 6 days ago | parent [-]

No mention that 2 candidates from other parties died in the run up. Or that it's out of 20,000+ individuals contesting various seats. No mention that they are mostly 59+ years old with preexisting health conditions.

Luckily it gives us the most critical bit of info we could ask for, that Musk tweeted "!!"

In summary this article is shit.

	▲	6 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]