DEI did not implode; it was heavily and viciously assaulted.

The implication here that the DEI movement had done nothing wrong is rather naive… it wasn’t all bad, but there was a lot of bad things happening to answer for.

▲

Geezus_42 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I didn't see anyone but you suggest that.

▲

tempfile 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doesn't seem like that's implied at all. There is no implication about whether it is good or bad actually, but if the fact it was attacked is a bad thing, the only inference is that on balance it did more harm than good.

▲

deadbunny 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Could you elaborate on some of these "bad things"?

▲

cmiles8 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many DEI programs were highly discriminatory if not outright racist towards certain minorities that were seen as less worthy. Asians and Jewish individuals were often heavily discriminated against via DEI initiatives. The list goes on.

These programs were, in theory, well intentioned but to suggest they did nothing wrong is simply factually incorrect.

▲

krapp an hour ago | parent [-]

The true motivations of the anti-DEI movement were obvious when they attacked DEI as a concept rather than just the corruption they claimed existed within the system, and proceeded to do things like blame plane crashes on the hiring of black pilots. There were already laws on the books against hiring discrimination.

Maybe a few naive people in the movement had good intentions but they were clearly dupes for what was at its core a right-wing white supremacist and incel ideology.

And the proof is in the pudding. Has the anti-DEI movment (and current administration) created a truly fair and equitable society that focuses on merit in the absence of gender and race? No. It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically attacked, torn down and even erased from the public record.

	▲	randallsquared 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> they attacked DEI as a concept rather than just the corruption they claimed existed People who crusade against DEI generally think that the concept is corruption, rather than being an unrelated side matter. > There were already laws on the books against hiring discrimination. Those are exactly the laws being used to attack DEI practices, though they were by consensus not previously wielded against clear violations that were intended virtuously.

▲

samlinnfer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Racism

▲

tossandthrow 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You could also say that DEI is easier to defend when human work was more valuable and capital was cheaper.

▲

vkou 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You could say that it was easier to practice before the executive (that routinely hires the dumbest troglodytes - whose only qualification is loyalty to the fuhrer - into positions of power) started a witchhunt against anyone practicing it.

Since the only god our corporatations worship goes by power and money, they all started tripping over themselves to kiss the ring.

	▲	tossandthrow 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I should be the last one to defend the existing system. But IMHO DEI answers the wrong question. Worthwhile lives does not come from equal access to the hamster wheel. I am much more pro UBI structures og negative taxation - which are inherently difficult to make descriminatory as there is no personal judgement of the people to receive it.
	▲	JuniperMesos 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You probably don't actually want corporations that do intrinsically care about being able to violate federal civil rights and anti-discrimination law, and are willing to lose money and give up influence in order to keep doing so.

▲

account42 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As should all things evil be.