Woke furry hijacks social media of right-wing group that published 'DEI Watch List'
Federal employees are listed for 'offenses' such as using pronouns in their bios.
You're viewing a single thread.
Where are we right now? What are we doing? I'm reading a news and content aggregation system known as Lemmy which pulls the current world to my fingertips. It separates everything into digestible categories so that you can separate based on topic of interest. This can then be used to grasp the context of what society has done with their day, and recap recent events, or just show you a funny comic if you need to be cheered up. I can even browse a community of nothing but cat pictures.
It sounds like an amazing service, so imagine my surprise when I find out that the world around me is just....ya know.....batshit insane.
We're discussing the current ruling government who's PUNISHING people for having empathy, and basic common courtesy towards other people. DEI has been in the news the past few days as being some controversial concept. So I looked it up, and find out it means "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion".
What the hell is so controversial about that??? "Hey Tom, wanna go bowling with us later?" "What?" "We're going bowling after work. Would you like to join us?" "Join you? HOW DARE YOU INCLUDE ME! WE ARE DIFFERENT RACES YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!!" "What.....what just happened?" "I WILL NOT BE PART OF YOUR DEI PROPAGANDIST BULLSHIT!!! NEXT YOU'LL TELL ME YOU WANT ME TO TALK TO A TRANS PERSON!!!" "Tom....your daughter is trans...." "HEEEEEE IS A HEEEEEE!!!!" "Tom......ok, ya know what? Fuck you." "That's more LIKE it!"
I do not understand the world we live in today, where being different and getting along is somehow a bad thing.
They don't know or care what DEI is. They just know that white men like themselves now have to compete with non-white non-men for jobs.
So now they have to make themselves marketable, or shut that whole thing down so they can go back to living in the boys club. And since self-improvement is "woke", they choose the latter.
They get it fed to them during their 2 Minutes Hate and that's all that matters.
It used to be Antifa. They were staunchly against antifa. You know what you call someone who is anti-antifa? Fa. You call them fa.
Much like the word "woke," MAGA conservatives have stripped DEI of its original meaning. As conservatives use it now it's basically just a socially acceptable stand-in for the N-word (or the F-word, depending on context). Like just a couple of days ago I was at a burrito place and the guy a couple spots ahead of me in line said, "This DEI cashier better not fuck up my order again." It was very clear what he meant was, "This N-word better not piss me off."
Any time you hear conservatives say "woke" or "DEI," you can almost always mentally swap it with the N-word or the F-word and what they're saying will make a lot more sense.
I think this sentiment is emotionally valid at this moment.
One thing I’ve been doing, and I know most people don’t want to do it or don’t want to hear it, but I’ve been reading the Bible, not because I’m Christian (I’m a UU), but because people in power supposedly believe it.
Okay, when I read this book, not through a pastor or religious authority telling me what to believe, what do I encounter? What is the message of Jesus that we see consistently?
It’s love, empathy, and support for those who have it the worst. To be like Jesus is to sell your material belongings and share with others. To be like Jesus is to turn the other check when someone strikes you. To be like Jesus is to care for the sick, the downtrodden, the alien in a foreign land.
Republicans have been generally older folks, and what they’ve seen in the last 60 years is a rapid turnover of the world they knew. They are deeply afraid of society. It’s fast. It’s integrated with many people. There’s violence everywhere (even though violence has gone down). People are swearing and using the lord’s name in vain all over media. It powered by essentially magic through technology. They are deeply afraid that the society we’ve built is misaligned in terms of core values.
Fear breeds hate, especially when opportunists see it as a means to grab power. So fear was amplified into a fever pitch via 24/7 news.
Trump comes along, and he naturally spikes all these modern algorithms that don’t care about anything besides “engagement.” Turns out hate is more engaging than love, because Trump supporters watch him and those that hate him watch him. Our systems weren’t built around signal boosting moral people; they are built around “engagement.” If it bleeds, it reads, etc.
Combine this with Democrats being an ineffectual party when it comes to messaging, as well as their own pocket lining, and you get a bunch of pissed off people everywhere: Conservatives want Trump; Liberals angry at the Democratic administration for various sleights; most Americans are too stressed to care. Politics doesn’t matter when you work multiple jobs and barely have time to yourself.
And now we arrive here, where people are more interested in being correct, getting revenge, having any sense of power (even if it’s scoring internet points that don’t matter) and living in fear at the cost of love. Republicans have fully lost the message of their stated savior. The people who shamed me for not knowing Jesus probably couldn’t quote a single Bible verse without google. Church attendance has plummeted because Americans don’t see the value of it, nor have the time. It’s a luxury in our age to have an hour on Sunday and pick community.
I think we can get out of this moment, but it won’t happen with everyone finding their enemy. Humans are 1 race. Acts 10:28
And he said to them, ‘You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.
If I take Republicans seriously, that this is a book they care about, and I engage with it and find these quotes, can I show understanding and love while using a text they believe is sacred? Can we reassert these values of love and care for one another? Can we meet face-to-face more and see I’m not some horror ruining society? If I can quote this book without it in front of me, am I satanic and awful?
To your questions: We’re in the post-modern era. We’re talking through a series of tubes. Algorithms have promoted hate. People are profiting off of it. Christians have forgotten Jesus message.
But none of this gets better with more hate. It’s going to take more offline work: go meet your neighbors, have cookouts, care for one another, find the humanity in your “enemy” and remember they are human, even those that hate you/me.
I have an X marker on my license, so I expect to be taken someday. When I am, I’ll be quoting the Bible to my captors because they tell me they believe this book. You may believe it, but do you live it?
Matthew 25:35. What questions does Jesus ask to separate the goats and the sheep? “Did you clothe me when I was naked? Did you feed me when I was hungry? Did you take care of me when I was sick? Did you visit me in prison? Did you help me when I was an alien in foreign land?”
My goal this year is to get through the New Testament and then read the Buddhist Suttras.
Check out Unitarian Universalism if you’ve made it this far. It’s a great organization and welcoming faith community. Its a modern religion that validates many of the world’s religions as true and inspiring of our best selves rather than dogmatically choose one. It gave me the space to have my own relationship with god and religion. I came as an atheist & now have my own beliefs in god & reality that aren’t captured by any single religion.
The prophecies about the end times, about now. One of them says "and the love of the greater number will grow cold". This, right here. The last few years.
Matthew 24:12
It might be the end times, but many believed this in prior ages as well. Over the last 2000 years, a bunch of humans probably thought, “This is it.”
I do feel like the Christian message, especially the one by Christ for how his followers should act, has been lost to some degree. This is likely the least religious time in history, which isn’t a good or bad thing.
But post-COVID, people are still rebounding when it comes to socially hanging out offline. We all leaned into echo chambers more during that time. A lot of Americans don’t know their neighbors: I didn’t until 2-3 years ago.
This is an amazing breakdown and summarizes exactly how I’ve been reading it also. Thank you for this. 💙
I’m glad it can provide some solace. Wishing the best for you, internet stranger.
Beautiful.
But…
Republicans have been generally older folks, and what they’ve seen in the last 60 years is a rapid turnover of the world they knew.
This is an iffy assumption: https://www.axios.com/2024/09/28/gen-z-men-conservative-poll
The very youngest voters — 18-to-24-year-olds — say they're more conservative than the cohort that's just older, according to the latest Harvard Youth Poll.
The younger generation of men is more likely to identify as conservative than as liberal.
Between the lines: They were hardest hit by COVID-19 and felt ignored by the establishment, John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, told Axios this month.
The youngest members of that group were just 10 years old when Trump was elected president and see this chaotic political era as normal.
"They think of Trump as an anti-hero and not a villain. ... I think it's less about policy and much more about personality," Della Volpe said.
Welcome to the TikTok, podcast and Discord era. It’s not just disillusioned older folks that turned to Trump, but younger folks who are completely immersed in algorithms, influencers, and echo chambers, and understandably feel the system has failed them.
I just recently saw a video shared of an extremist in Maine who attacked his wife, and then recorded himself during a prolonged shootout with the police.
Given that he finds it possible he may die in the next few hours, there's a sort of honesty to his voice; and it's scary to regard the sort of world he believes in, where vaccines are obviously "lethal", etc. The one bit that stood out to me, and maybe not to himself, was his mentioning that he had been out of work for over a year. It's quite possible any employers saw his violent habits and turned him away, but even if that's a suitable explanation, it's a heavy feeling of abandonment.
I suspect the rise of mental illness has much to do with economy. The more uncertain you are about the future, the easier it becomes to be steeped in resentment.
It is the other end of the wealth horseshoe: The wealthy are free of consequence, and consequence no longer holds meaning among the poor. After all, you don't have friends, a job, or a future. The only way anyone will remember you is if you leave a mark upon them. You may die, but the living are left with the suffering you have left behind.
...that is my guess about the mindset. :(
No doubt many people have been affected, young men included. I think part of the reason the pushback on DEI & feminism exists is because we have new marginalized groups that are difficult to understand just yet.
Zoomers have an incredibly hard time breaking into professional careers. When one group sees themselves as a group; and another “group” is getting favoritism in the system (women, minorities); the natural response is “Why not me?”
This isn’t to discredit systemic racism or misogyny. I think those are real problems. I’m trying to think of how these folks might see the world, see how it lacks love and prospect for them. Putting others down isn’t how people feel loved.
I put more blame on older folks because of the imbalance of wealth, which unfortunately amounts to influence. Zoomer men may be disenfranchised, but they are likely poorer in terms of equity. They help drive engagement and the algos.
It all gets more complicated with geography and so on. I appreciate you adding more context to the situation.
You can’t expect to understand these people by reading the Bible because these people aren’t themselves religious, they just know the common layman is and use that to their advantage to retain/gain power.
My mom is religious and she will side with whoever says is religious too, their argument doesn’t matter much as long as it has a religious coat on top of. So if you say you’re not religious and come with a good argument, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a tribalism thing.
Even though she says she’s Evangelical and cites Jesus and Bible texts often, she nitpicks what is convenient at any time like most people do. It’s really annoying when my father who’s Catholic comes and they start disagreeing on stuff citing different parts of the Bible at the same time and considering X important, but ignoring Y totally as it doesn’t go with their narrative of the fact.
In fact I think the people who take the Bible for the more broader message won’t be very flashy in making sure others see them as religious, cause as you said, what Jesus preached very few even attempt to do.
Matthew 6:5 is interesting for this reason. He tells people not to be boastful about prayer. You’re supposed to pray in quiet, away from others. James 2:2 also tells people to care for the poor before the rich. There’s lots of quotes about not showing off, either in religiosity or wealth.
Because of Newt Gingrich. He started the entire "democrats are the enemy" back in the 90s, fox News amped it up to 11 for 30 plus years, a black man had the temerity to win the white house (twice!), and Russia tactics flooded newly formed social media with a vast bot network to drive a massive wedge in-between the two parties via race issues.
Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party and the Citizens United ruling made the partisan politics this bad, but this plan was put into action in the 70s after Nixon.
It goes back even further than that. Pretty much immediately after the New Deal "they" set about to undo it. It’s a long listen but worth checking out How Conservatism Won by Robert Evans. He lays out in a clear concise way “how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all).”
it's worth remembering that one of the primary ghouls/traitors responsible for the attempted overthrow of our government on J6 was Roger Stone, the same traitorous ratfucker who began his career working for Nixon and has a fucking Nixon tattoo on his back. It's really impossible to overstate just how fuckin' bad these people are and they're winning.
tl;dr the shadowy cabals the rightwing says are behind everything is classic projection again, they're controlled by shadowy cabals of rich people
Yeah. Fucking Mr Rogers' Neighborhood is now offensive to these people
I knew it was going to get bad when the Fox News audience was fine with vilifying Mr. Rogers, but didn't expect them to go full naxi.
It's absolutely tragic.
DEI has been in the news the past few days as being some controversial concept. So I looked it up, and find out it means "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion".
You realize that's just a name, right? They can name things whatever they want.
The argument against it is that people are disadvantaged based on the color of their skin or their race. In other words, racism. That's why some people are upset. People will deny this over and over but they're simply being irrational and disingenuous because they don't want to be associated with the word.
Now I'm gonna tell you something about this that no one else will: This type of racism is good. It's meant to combat other types of much more prevalent racism.
Society just needs to acknowledge that racism isn't an inherently bad word and then we're all just better off.
I'm white, straight, and male. I'm trying to get a book published. Every agent that I've tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I'm writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I've been turned away at every one. Such racism, right?
Except...most published work in bookstores is still by white male authors like myself. And if I take a step back to look at my whole life situation: I'm not reliant on this book. I'm a well-employed engineer, have my own house and mortgage, and had relatively well-off parents. Little of this is true for these other demographics that have received heavy discrimination even less than a generation ago. All things considered, it is very fair for these agents to champion diverse voices, and they're slammed with requests all over the place.
The scarring effects of discrimination are still felt decades later when we feel them gone. It's still a hard truth that employment is hard even today, but those with experience in staffing can usually only point to the occasional anecdote when someone was prioritized for their race - and usually have just as many stories of inverse discrimination or nepotism.
What the current situation is has absolutely zero effect on whether or not it is racism. Being turned away for being a white male is not only racist but sexist and exclusive, plain and simple. There is no other rational argument.
Again, I think this is a good thing. It's also racist. And the fight to redefine the word when it's convenient does not serve the cause.
This is still diving down a rabbit hole of bad definitions, and devalues both what racism is and how it's affected people in their lives.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion like one hiring session. I guarantee you, if an organization's entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well. The fact of the matter is, just about every organization currently hires plenty of white men, so that ends up being many levels removed from reality.
If you're trying to pinpoint statistics around who gets turned away from one particular position, the problem is that companies get so many dozens or hundreds of applicants, you'd be flagging that statistic on enormous groups. Asians over blacks? Women over men? You really can't make a concrete determination there, and when your source cases are singular anecdotes, it fails the critical definition of being "systemic".
You're also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race. If you're attacked on the street anonymously, specifically for being white, and the attacker calls you a "fucking cracker!" then I would have no problems labeling that racism. As it stands, even in 2024, other races deal with that situation far more often from police or other hate groups. I would absolutely call much of the "DEI" labeling racism, given that the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target's performance on their job.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion
Incorrect. What you're referring to is called "systemic racism", but "racism" alone has an entirely different, very simple definition: discrimination based on race, which is what this is. And it can absolutely be applied to individuals and to policies.
if an organization's entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well.
Really? Do you really think that's true? Do you think anyone would "highlight", say, a professional basketball or football team that's 90+% black as "problematic"?
You're also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race.
Wrong again, I explicitly acknowledged this already. It has no bearing on this conversation.
the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target's performance on their job.
You don't need to assess performance. The only thing you need to assess is the policies themselves. How they're applied or what the resulting performance is is irrelevant to a conversation about whether or not they're discriminatory.
Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement? I checked over each of your comments in this thread and don't see it.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making; DEI does not mandate a perfectly smooth ratio. And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves, but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires - based on, you guessed it, race. White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement?
I'll go ahead and do it again, just for you: Racial and sexual bias is present in our systems. In politics, in employment, and in every other industry. They've been dealt a shit hand via generational poverty, which extends from all the way back in the days of slavery. Marginalized people deserve an upper hand.
DEI attempts to bring balance to that inequality, using racism and discrimination. DEI is a net positive. Discrimination is not inherently negative.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making
The point I'm making is the frequency. Unless you want to claim that companies just never hire black men, at which point I expect to see statistics indicating that all black men are unemployed.
Black basketball players comprise ~70% of the NBA, despite making up ~13% of the US population. That's a >500% over-representation. Are you planning to file a complaint?
And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves
What are you talking about? It's called DEI. The policy is in the name.
but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires
I don't even know what this means?
White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
You just did, in your first reply to me:
I'm white, straight, and male...Every agent that I've tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I'm writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I've been turned away at every one.
Buddy, I've tried to be more patient with you than other commenters, but that truly crosses a line. Taking someone else's experiences, and selectively quoting them to suit your own agenda, so it fits your definition of discrimination, is disgraceful.
If you'd read on in my comment, I described how literary agents are inundated with thousands of requests. It is literally an industry anyone with Word or OpenOffice can try to enter into. There are probably hundreds of minority authors also getting turned away just like me. This is not an instance of "defending one's presence" the way that minorities need to in their workplaces, the way the current administration is scrutinizing them in Federal offices. This is just me trying to be the one in a thousand shot to publicize a book - which is a rare accomplishment. So, NO. You don't get to "own" and weaponize someone else's hardship in that way. Not ever.
Shame on you.
selectively quoting them to suit your own agenda
I didn't "selectively" quote anything...
so it fits your definition of discrimination
...are you under the impression that I invented the word? I'm not quite that old...
If you'd read on in my comment, I described how literary agents are inundated with thousands of requests
...and that should mean something to me?
There are probably hundreds of minority authors also getting turned away just like me.
Okay but you explicitly said you were rejected because of your skin color...
So, NO. You don't get to "own" and weaponize someone else's hardship in that way. Not ever.
That...didn't happen. Don't blame me because you argued against yourself...
Being able to admit that certain groups are systemically disadvantaged and wanting to do something about it is literally the opposite of racism, what are you talking about?
If "doing something about it" means disadvantaging a group of people based on their race or ethnicity, that is the very definition of racism, what are you talking about?
You should really ask yourself why you see raising up one group as necessarily lowering another. One doesn’t follow from the other.
I can ask myself all day but the answer will be the same. Instead, why don't you tell me how that works?
There is a finite amount of positions at any job (unless you're hiring someone to do a made-up job to score points, which would be the textbook definition of "diversity hire"). You can choose to fill those positions with the most qualified applicant, or you can choose to hire one of a specific race. You can't logically do both.
That’s an entirely different conversation, and a strawman to boot. You clearly aren’t interested in actually discussing this. I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists against equally skilled applicants with an “ethnic sounding” name, but why bother, you’re not serious and I’m done engaging with you.
That’s an entirely different conversation
It is a different conversation from the one you want to have. It is the conversation I was having before you showed up and tried to derail it with a strawman.
I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists
I agree and acknowledge that that bias exists. That bias has no bearing on whether or not discrimination based on race (regardless of what race) is racism.
The only gripe i have with DEI is when it supersedes common sense, like when hiring someone for a tech job that only ticks DEI check-boxes but has no tech skills at all. Hopefully it seldom happens (and this phenomenon predates "DEI").
Edit: wow, the echo-chamber vibes are strong on this one. 😆
That doesn't happen with DEI and it didn't happen with 'diversity hires' either.
White men do love to hire other white men who aren't qualified though. That happens all the fucking time.
Source: am white man
They're rejecting DEI in favor of WEI: White, Entitled, and Inept.
Wow, the echo-chamber vibes are strong on this one.
Then it is on you to engage with the replies to your comment instead of whinging into the void.
Not whining or caring either for that matter; and for "engaging" to make sense all the parties involved would have to be ready for some constructive discussion.
Okay. Can you point to any studies performed around performance of diverse hires causing problems in the workplace?
Because a lot of workplaces I know that have had "problem hires" who argue with people or flaunt their position have generally exhibited entitlement that links to being white or male (like myself). Do HR firms ever pick people to check a box, in a rush to avoid an all-white panel? Yes, and they could do better in their practices. Whenever I hear that happen, it tends to be isolated incidents - not a habit that leads to a nonfunctional workplace. I admit, that comes from shared anecdotes, but it often feels common-sense. If you'd like to find proof on that subject, I'd be eager to discuss it.
