13h ago

Which part of DEI do you hate?

You're viewing a single thread.

183 comments

'Diversity hire' is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.
They don't know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.
They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.
The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won't make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that's because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.
- "WELL I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON'T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED"
  They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.
  
  So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for "team discussion" was:
  "Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?"
  Evidently one person in the department said "no, they do not". So I'm sitting there wondering "oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender". But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there's no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that's like 90% white men...
  
  It's the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and "discriminated" against.
  
  Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.
  
  nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.
  
  Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it's only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they're superior in every way. But they're not racist or sexist - they just believe in a "meritocracy!"
  
  They believe that they’re struggling financially, and statistically many of them are. The better argument is to show them abolishing DEI doesn’t even give them a better chance, and there are better ways to make opportunities for everyone.
  
  They'll say they just want the best person for the job to get it, and that DEI gives that job to a [insert minority group] instead of the most qualified person.
  To be fair, they may actually believe that. A lot of these people don't believe they're racist, sexist, pigs. They are, but they don't think they are. It's not part of their calculus. They see a diversity program and feel victimized by it, they may relate troubles they had to getting a job to a diversity program instead of their own qualifications.
  Because, these people are terminally self centered and the hero of their own story.
  They will tell you that liberals just want a hand out, while sucking down every hand out they can get. But THEY earned it, no one else does, but they did. Regardless of their circumstances they worked hard to get what they have, and no one else is willing to.
  There is no argument you can make that they do not have an answer for. They're almost always misinformed misanthropes. You're either in their group or you're the bad guy. There's no winning when you engage them.
  Their monkeys throwing shit. You can throw shit back by the money will have a good time, and you'll still be covered in shit.
  
  It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why "blind" hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.
  
  Except that's not what's happening. Or rather, that's not what DEI was doing.
  DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one's being hired because they look different.
  And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.
  
  What does making more visible mean? I'd personally rather try to make things like race, sex and whatnot less visible so they'd have less effect on the hiring process.

183 comments