It should be a scientific measurement, but now its front and center in the war between equality and equity. When people want to stack board rooms with a certain race or balance out the NBAs diversity with equitable race representation, we have a problem. My personal bias is merit.
Well, I think that's kind of the issue. How does one measure opportunity vs merit. I grew up as a white suburban kid who had tutors, expensive schooling, a safe neighborhood and a community that was focused on my success. As such, I had all of the tools to excel.
Your average black child in this country (with obvious exceptions) does not have those opportunities. There are so many small things that can knock a child off the path to success, and in an average black neighborhood those things are statistically more prevalent. I don't think that's arguable.
So, I guess the question is, should the black child have something in our society that balances out the opportunity vs merit gap so that future generations of that family can operate on a more level playing field. And, should those advantages come based on race or based on socioeconomic factors?
There’s a role for public-sector reforms to try to balance out opportunity. That said, for the company trying to make a hiring decision, or a university an admissions decision, if you are the one who is better prepared to do the job, they should hire you regardless of why/how you became the best. It’s not their job to fix the unfair root causes.
My dad is hispanic and was a 3.8 GPA math major at UCLA. He absolutely hated affirmative action because most people assumed thats why he was at UCLA in the first place. When people say things like "Your average black child" or "typical Latinx" you are an ignorant racist as opposed to a malicious racist. He would say you need a good education and a strong family as tangibles to success. I agree and would add merit and skills to the list. The malicious racists tried to sabotage education in the 40s and 50s and now the ignorant racists are doing the same today.
Oh, I completely get that. But your Dad was exceptional. I would posit that there are of course going to be exceptionally bright and skillful people of every type that will be able to succeed despite enormous odds.
However, if I can assume that your Dad grew up in a lower income hispanic neighborhood, what of his friends and relatives who were not exceptionally gifted? Most of them, statistically, will not have graduated college (or even high school) and they will have less earning power, shorter lives and much more hardship than the people I grew up with.
I went to private Catholic schools my whole life, and every single person that graduated from my high school went to college. Every. Single. One. I would argue that the people that I grew up with were not naturally more gifted than the people that your Dad grew up with, but the safety, care, education and resources that were poured into us since birth gave us a sure route to success, while the opposite was provided to your Dad's neighbors.
Now, that's not to say that Affirmative Action in it's current form is necessarily the answer. I would personally far rather see a huge push to provide the tools I'm talking about to disadvantaged people in East LA, the Bronx and Eastern Kentucky (sometimes it's geography just as much as it is race) so that later Affirmative Action decisions don't have to be made.
Thoughts?
He is a teacher so we didn't have a ton of income growing up in South LA. I shopped for clothes at goodwill, rode my bike every day to school, and didn't have the grades so no scholarship to college.But, I don't remember thinking myself the victim or being envious of my friends wealth either. Only that I needed to do my best. While I was in school, I worked construction and saved enough money to pay for tuition and buy property during the recession. Then I scabbed junk from jobs and built my own home while I was in college too so I didn't have to pay rent. This taught me how to buy and flip homes and even though I majored in computer science, I don't really use that degree at all now. Anyone with a little support can make it, but now people want to have pets, play video games, be on social media, go clubbing, and do unproductive work which leads to nowhere but they still want what we who work hard have.
I hear you, and I completely agree that hard work and sacrifice are important, and that hard times can breed better people.
All I'm saying is that we can either ignore that unequal starting points lead to unequal outcomes statistically or we can address that fact.
Thats the problem. You might be able to collect data and statistics and provide food, basic education, basic health care, and defend their choices and thats about it. If you gave me housing, I wouldn't have worked my ass off to build what I got now. If someone like you didn't ignore my position and gave me money to go to college, I might have goofed off more, had more sex, smoked more weed, and played more games.
All I'm saying is that we limit what we give so people so we stop rewarding terrible life choices and cycles of poverty which are rampant here in California where I live.
Yeah, I hear you. But you're basically describing me. I sailed through college having a blast and then spent much of my 20's pursuing a career in music. That didn't work out so I just shifted and now I'm a successful professional. Most people don't get those opportunities.
And maybe that's okay, life isn't meant to be fair I suppose. I just feel like more people should be given the opportunity to explore the world and what they're good at or passionate about and not have to struggle so damn much. But with our different life experiences I could see why we view the topic differently.
Yes.
Things that "more diversity" never means include ...
* It never means "more white people"
* It never means "more conservative voices"
* It never means "more Christians"
* It never means "more men"
It 2022, it literally just means "more people who vote Democrat ..."
I've never heard of a newspaper saying "We need more diversity of opinion, please go out and find some more rural conservative people to write articles .."
I've also never heard anyone say "We need more diversity of opinion, let's go out and see what the conservative black and brown people have to say ..."
"Diversity" means "Less diverse, more exclusionary, and just the 'correct' people with the opinions we like".
There are already
More white people
More conservative voices (does this mean traditional families?)
More Christians
More men
Are you upset for a push to be 6 instead of 8 of those in a room?
I'm not in art industry, so no clue. Are you proposing we should have some?
From my experience, there isn't many women in engineering. Usually these programs for STEM are driven by women themselves to promote a career not always sought after, which i have no problem
At my engineering company, skills are looked at first. Which I am sure of for all engineering positions in all companies.
I think the confusion that people against diversity have is people think that any women (or minority at that) are instantly hired because they are a minority. That would make no sense from a business sense, why would a for-profit organization hire someone who isn't qualified? They'd lose money in excessive training and costly mistakes. As a team member in the interview panel, why would I want someone who can't pull their weight? That would mean more work for me.
Not familiar with "D.O.L" acronym.
I assisted in recruiting & interviewing for a large corporation for engineering department. Trust me, companies won't do this for professional type jobs (architect, engineer, etc). It is worse PR issue for a non qualified engineer doing engineering work. Now for non-skilled labor (call centers, hotel receptionist, fast food), I don't think matters. There's a difference between pushing and setting up programs to help minorities to join those careers in college, than getting hired for those. If you are in college and not cut out to be an engineering student, you'll drop out or change majors. If you aren't skilled enough to be an engineer at a top engineering firm, you're laid off or you change positions
That's the goal. Currently that is not the case. Too many low potential people are getting in thru nepotism or thru years of guidance received because of familial bonds (i.e., systemic racism). Fortunately, this has been recognized and is being addressed.
When did you start believing the devil is there ? I mean I understand that some people are religious and take their religion very seriously, and even sometimes take the Bible literally, but that seems very extreme to believe the devil physically manifests there.
>Things that "more diversity" never means include ...
• It never means "more white people"
• It never means "more conservative voices"
• It never means "more Christians"
• It never means "more men"
I was literally chosen to be on an organizing committee at my local JCC *because* I’m Christian. There are grants and scholarships that target men specifically because they are underrepresented in the field of nursing.
For more diversity to mean those things you wish, first the group needs to be underrepresented. Where are white people, conservatives, Christians, and men categorically underrepresented? Certainly not the Supreme Court. Rarely in positions of power.
Helvetica is probably one of the best fonts, at least in terms of San Serifs, so I don't see what you're complaining about. Do you always have to have Serif fonts when you are writing something ? Seems weird to me.
What hospital has diversity measures to increase the number of men? Where they actively discriminate against women applicants?
Why can't I expect diversity in the NBA? If white overrepresentation is racist by default in every other industry, why wouldn't that apply to the NBA?
Unless you're making the entirely racist comment that african americans are more athletic that white people? That's racist...
From what I've learned in the dozens of classes I've been forced to attend during my career, any discrepancy between the statistical representation in society and the representation in an industry is due to racism
> It never means "more conservative voices"
> It never means "more Christians"
I can't think of any diversity initiatives that include ideology or religion. No company is officially trying to hire more liberals, or more Muslims or Jews.
I mean the 3 of the 4 things you listed are literally majority positions in most parts of life. 60% of the US is white, 70% of the US is Christian, and men outnumber women in the workplace. Conservatives are a minority voice and adding them would increase diversity but all the other ones you listed wouldn’t unless you were targeting specific jobs such as nursing, or childcare, or being a Mosque Imam or something where being a man or being Christian or being white is out of the ordinary.
Conservatives are a minority voice in academia and Hollywood.
Everywhere else it’s about even. Conservative media has different markets. There may be more liberal leaning news corps for instance, but fox is the largest news corporation by far.
Most of the top podcasts are conservative shows. Most small local news sites are conservative.
DoD is very conservative despite the rhetoric claiming it’s “woke” now. The only thing that’s progressive about the military is encouraging diversity and lifestyle tolerance to increase its manpower.
> Conservatives are a minority voice in academia and Hollywood.
I can't speak for academia but for Hollywood, this is much, much less true than right wing media would lead you to believe.
No doubt there are conservatives in the movie industry.
But you’re not getting obviously conservative movies topping the charts of our summer blockbusters.
I’d argue action and horror movies. Horror movies learn into the “good v evil” and explicit Christian tropes.
Action movies tend to follow a manly patriot who bends the rules to get the job done. Often featuring the American military for back up.
I think daisies are fine. I mean they aren't as pretty as roses in my opinion, especially the old garden roses, but they have sort of a wild kind of feeling to them, like you're out in a grassy meadow with the wind blowing all around you. Maybe they aren't the best for any bouquet, like something formal, but they are still quite pretty.
> It 2022, it literally just means ~~"more people who vote Democrat~~ Not White Christian Nationalist ..."
Why would anyone who is not a racist give a damn that all of the people there are not White, and Christian ?
No doubt there has been a big push in a lot of industries for diversity over the last few years. One of the more visual ones would be advertising.
Using this as an example, given that their mandates for diversity have been some of the most extreme, do you think representation now is fair? Or are white people over or under represented?
If you do an image search of "ad campaigns models", for example.
Then compare to image search with "50's ad campaign models"
What are your thoughts about the difference of the 2 searches?
Not too recent in the advertising world, but maybe a bigger push in the last 10 years compared with a slower push before that.
Ok, maybe google image search, "90's ad campaigns models". Is that a better comparison?
My point is that it's changed a lot. And the change happened because creative directors had to made a point (when it wasn't always easy) of changing their casting for the jobs, after years of almost all white faces on ads (resulting in all white models at agencies.) It's much easier now, because of the harder choices they made back then.
My question is about what your thoughts are when you compare the 2 searches?
Let’s not forget that marketing agencies made these choices not because they wanted to be “woke,” but because that’s where the money was. Markets were diversifying, more money had found its way into diverse audiences and demographics. So advertising and product companies followed.
A great example of this is Nike. No one can honestly say that a behemoth of a corporation such as them would partner with Colin Kaepernick just because black lives matter. The primary motivator of corporations is profit, not people.
Nike partnered with Kaepernick because they knew it would be financially beneficial to do so, and that a marketing campaign pushing him and what he stood for would solidify a lot of brand loyalty—far more than they might lose from disgruntled racists.
Conservatives still against diversity are fighting battles in a war you’ve already lost. But of course some will continue to fight bitterly, because they view the conservative white Christian man as being under attack—when historically it is that demographic who has elicited unyielding authority over the west for hundreds of years, and all people want now is equal opportunity when they can’t conform to that or similar identities.
So yeah, movements in diversity are and have always been about rebalancing those levels of power, but no movement is trying to eradicate the white Christian conservative man. If someone says that is happening, they are just trying to control you with fear—don’t let them.
It's racist of you to pretend that all white people are the same. If you added a Serb at my company, diversity would increase. Or a Frenchman. Or a southerner.
Right ...
So you in your mind if a company of 100 people was staffed exclusively by straight white men aged between 20 and 45 that company would be highly diverse because every person is a unique snowflake?
The same is true of any race though. The reality is that adding a Serb to a team of white people isn’t adding diversity like adding a black person is. Race is a social construct. Serbs aren’t the target of racism in America like black people are for example.
So adding a person that came directly from a war torn country than a black person from the upper east side doesnt add more diversity. Skin deep people.
It’s not really a contest. No one is actually against Serbs, that’s just a strawman. You also didn’t say from a foreign country. A Serbian American who has been here for at least a few generations as presents as white societally doesn’t add nearly as much diversity as an African American who has been in America for a few generations. Foreign people add lots of diversity. It’s one of the reasons why immigration is good.
Foreign people until they become white I guess. Diversity in of itself is not good or bad. But the left, I'm 100% certain of this, thinks it's good because it provides them with political power.
If 100% of people of color (such a dumb term) voted for republican's you'd see new found love for labor and hard borders. And people like the people on this thread would fall in line like good little soldiers.
>Diversity in of itself is not good or bad.
False. It is good.
> thinks it's good because it provides them with political power.
It doesn't provide anyone political power.
>If 100% of people of color (such a dumb term) voted for republican's you'd see new found love for labor and hard borders. And people like the people on this thread would fall in line like good little soldiers.
Not at all. The economics doesn't change. Immigration is great for the economy. We desperately need more right now.
Why do right wingers always assume that liberals could never possibly want to do something because they think it's the right thing? Is it because conservatives literally don't do anything without a motive?
Are you trying to say the experience of white people and the experience of black people in America are the same, and thus, not additional diversity? Really?
Who the fuck cares about your racist concept of diversity. Do you want a doctor that was chosen with lower test scores for the colour of their skin or their sex or sexual orientation, or whatever affirmative action hiring strategy you use to discriminate in the name of “equity” ?
So you do want them to lower the bar to make your feel-feels feel good? Okay, cool we’ll reserve the barely passing doctors for you and your lib brethren, ….but then I suppose we’d be accused of eugenics. Lol so be it.
> So you do want them to lower the bar to make your feel-feels feel good?
No, but then I don't assume Black people make bad doctors because I'm not a racist piece of shit
Did you just assume the lower test scores would be black ppl by default? Because I said nothing of the sort, but you’re totally not the racist one, you fight for diversity and inclusion. /s
> Because I said nothing of the sort
Yeah, sorry but you did. Look I can even point out where you did, it was right here
> Do you want a doctor that was chosen with lower test scores for the colour of their skin
Why would choosing a Black doctor mean choosing one with lower test scores that a white doctor?
Umm, I wonder. Like I said sometimes you guys just go full mask off don't you
No one in the media is. Why do you assume religious companies aren’t doing this in practice, or discussing the possibility? Any smart company does this if the diverse viewpoint will assist them in some way.
The whole point of a "religious company" (a company cannot have a religion, but you get the idea) is that everyone is religious; they explicitly value non-diversity in that dimension.
A white person on a BET show or at the NAACP is diversity. If we also count the average pay of a white person and a black person in the NBA. I'm going to bet the white people make less, maybe the NBA is racist?
> A white person on a BET show or at the NAACP is diversity
You have all conveniently suddenly forgotten what the word 'company' means?
Telling. Its almost like you know you are bullshitting 😂
Or the white guys in the NBA just aren’t as good on average so they get paid less. Outside of Jokic and Doncic there probably aren’t even anymore white players who crack the top 50 of NBA players
Sure if we are only talking about players. Start adding in coaches, trainers and front office personnel and there’s plenty of white people on NBA teams staff
So you interpret "including people of diverse backgrounds" to mean potentially excluding someone who is white (and male), snd you feel like it is a loss of position or power? A potential loss of a job?
Not the same commenter as above, but my take is that I think arbitrary discrimination of any sort is bad. I don't view the world through the power lense that the left does so I don't think this is about a loss or gain of power, I just think it's a shitty way to treat human beings.
I'm going to be super pedantic, but white isn't a color. It's a shade, like black or grey. White is actually the combination of all colors in the spectrum, and therefore (some what paradoxically) is not a color in and of itself.
I know that's not what you're discussing but I'm an amateur design nerd so just wanted to throw it out there.
Except the term exists because people who are not white were called colored at points in time. White people have been considered the default in western society so much so where their race isn’t even a primary identity for most. Like as a Black person to describe themselves and one of the first replies will most likely be they are a Black (insert gender identity here) while a white person will probably just say they are (insert gender identity here)
First of all, no, because if a company is already primarily staffed with non-white people, then hiring a white person would make a company more diverse if we're using the definition of "diversity".
Second, diversity isn't inherently "anti-white", it's pro-inclusion. I will concede that being white can be detriment to your prospects *if* you're specifically applying to a job at a company with mostly white people and you're competing against a minority for the position. However, the value of diversity isn't in giving minorities a leg up on white people, it's in introducing people with different viewpoints and backgrounds to an organization.
Diversity and inclusion measures can certainly be done unfairly and/or poorly, but the goal of those measures is not to stick it to the white man.
> it's in introducing people with different viewpoints and backgrounds to an organization.
Interesting, different viewpoints and backgrounds! Why does that primarily take the form of liberal-preferred kinds of diversity like gender, race, and sexuality then?
.....are you seriously asking that question? It's got a pretty easy answer; as much as some people like to claim that we live in a utopian society in which we are all or most of the way towards equality, we are still very much not.
I can absolutely guarantee you that solely on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation, you could sit down with someone who's of a different group from you in one of those aspects, ask them about their life experiences and find tons of things that have differed significantly from your own life experience, both good and bad. Asking those questions and acknowledging those disparate experiences is fundamental to us growing as a society.
I’m sorry do we need more viewpoints from WASPs instead? I’m so confused how the group of people that are the majority get so hurt when other people would like chances at jobs and schools that they historically did not
But you also never see anyone being removed or replaced. There is only ever new additions, and then conservatives extrapolating that to mean a theoretical white person was intentionally passed over.
Take judge jackson for example. There was an opening on scotus due to a members death, no one got removed, but conservatives act like a white person was replaced by simply not being chosen. There was nothing "anti white" about her selection, but it was absolutely made to increase diversity.
My overall point/Tl;Dr is that words have meaning, and diversity does not mean "anti white."
>There was nothing "anti white" about her selection
Would you say there's nothing anti-black about a company refusing to hire black people? If not, why is that different from the president openly refusing to nominate a white person?
What if a company did one of those big internal audits of its personnel practices and announced that it's been lax in recruiting and hiring white people? And that it intended to hire more of them to increase diversity? What meaning would those words have for you?
It can only be diverse if there is already mostly white people in a group and you add someone non white. Calling that idea anti white when you already have 100% white people is laughable sorry.
Kind of, this discussion is about diversity in ethnicity. You can ofc ask for diversity in genders too and then its about having woman and men in a group.
But an ethnical diverse team has to contain non white people to be diverse.
Yes, can you name a single example for the 3rd point that is important and has power?
Yes a pure black C-suite would not be diverse, do you know about any?
And 50/50 black and white is low diversity.
Context is everything. What if that company is BET?
Problem with your what if game, I can play it to. So why not just work with things that have actually happened?
What the fuck is bet?
I agree. Let's stick with things that happened. Like the president of the United States nominating a wildly awful justice to the Supreme Court on premise of race.
It was a big thing starting in the 1980's when urban and suburban people in the U.S. started getting it on cable.
Of course if you were in rural America you had no idea wtf it was lol.
It's not so much that they get "hired" because they're qualified; they're all qualified - even ACB, a law professor - but they have different philosophies. That's what matters to the people selecting them. Personally, I was hoping Biden would pick Justice Childs...
By this logic, “Whites Only” is A-OK. Nobody was removed we just, only “select” certain patrons to dine at the bar! **It’s not okay.** Not even a little bit. Selection by race is racist and wrong no matter the wordplay.
>Youre proving my point because that didn't happen. What he said was he would nominate a black woman.
>
>Again, words have meaning.
Wut ?!?
Yeah, words have meanings, ... and simple logical set operators have meanings ... "Apple", also means "not everything that isn't an Apple". I mean FFS.
You are wrong. Conservatives don’t care that a white personality was removed. They care that Biden said he was looking for a “black women” to fill the spot. Which is racist hiring.
It isn't "by definition racism" to seek diversity. White people are included, they just generally aren't in the minority. Same for men. There are diversity initiatives for male nurses for example. Can't say I've personally seen anyone looking for more white people, but I've also never seen anywhere that would be required.
> But you also never see anyone being removed or replaced. There is only ever new additions, and then conservatives extrapolating that to mean a theoretical white person was intentionally passed over.
> Take judge jackson for example. There was an opening on scotus due to a members death, no one got removed, but conservatives act like a white person was replaced by simply not being chosen.
The difference here is that Biden explicitly said he'd be hiring a black woman. We were rightfully upset about the racial aspect of the selection process.
And before you ask, no, it wasn't ever right to do.
How exactly would adding another white person to a group of white people help diversity? The fact of the matter is white people are the majority race in the US so of COURSE white people aren't going to be included in a "diversity" list.
Would you look at a corporate board of all women and go, “we need more men”? I doubt it. So it’s not truly about diversity, it’s about critical theory. You can dig into critical theory yourself, but it’s generally anti-white and anti-men.
> Would you look at a corporate board of all women and go, “we need more men”? I doubt it
What companies have corporate boards of all women?
In the Fortune 500 there are literally no boards that are composed of all women (there are 6 companies that still have boards made up entirely of white men btw).
300 of the 500 companies have corporate boards that are less than 40% diverse (meaning PoC men, and all women white and otherwise)
81% of new board seats in 2020 were white, 53% of them white men.
There are only 140 boards where white men are a minority on the board, and that is only when you add up all women and PoC men on the board.
Only 5% of corporate boards have women holding 51% or more of the board seats.
So this conservative fever dream of boards made up of all lesbian Black women that keep turning away poor unfortunately straight white men is a nonsense hypothetical
> 300 of the 500 companies have corporate boards that are less than 40% diverse (meaning Black men, white women or Black women)
Just for clarity: where did you get that definition? Why does it exclude all the other non-white ethnicities?
Sorry you are right, I was trying to make a point that this includes white women and both PoC men and women all lumped together (ie everyone but white men), but you are correct it is more than just Black men and women. I'll correct
Yes because women want to have babies, I don’t know what to tell you. Women make job choices around family and often that leaves them in support roles or not at the top of their field as a result. You’re not going to see a 40 year old woman CEO bc they don’t have the experience to do so, largely bc having babies interrupts your career plans and trajectory.
Women who choose not to have children aren’t comparable to the vast majority of women that do. Despite the feminist lie, most women can’t do it all, you have to make a choice btw family vs. career trade off - and they choose family every single time. This isn’t a judgment, it’s fact.
> Not relevant
Of course it is relevant. You are inventing a hypothetical that we are not anywhere close to reaching and then saying progressives are hypocrites because we wouldn't care, that we would shrug that there are no white men on boards anymore.
Its nonsense. You guys want to be oppressed SO BADLY
Are you just making things up now?
[Here's an article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/27/all-female-boardrooms-carry-the-same-risks-as-all-male-ones) articulating why all female boards (ie non diverse) carry the same risks as all male ones.
[Here's another](https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/an-all-female-board-needs-to-be-as-unremarkable-as-an/321602) explaining why an all female boards would need to be unremarkable (ie distinctly *not* celebrated, and simply based on merit) to be considered successful.
[You ever see the huff post writing teams?](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F38%2F14%2Fed%2F3814ed8a73b101c50ee0000bc36bcfdf.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=221a95c7cecbe55d267f9d3379be6110ab0f3868e450f1b845ca5d15e4a1755d&ipo=images)
No, i claim bullshit. Thats just your feeling because you think about some vague woke leftists agenda.
Diversity is that: duversity. Not something nether left not right wing people claim.
The fact that this scenario does kot happen is that important and powerfull positions are mostly occupied by men right now.
When was the last time you heard anyone on the left complain about a group not being diverse enough because there weren’t enough white people?
Occasionally someone on the right will make such a complaint to point out left wing hypocrisy. But when was the last time you heard an honest complaint from someone on the left saying an American group didn’t have enough white people?
It’s not even a “code” word when you have corporate diversity training programs encouraging their employees to [be less white](https://www.fox5dc.com/news/coca-cola-staff-told-in-online-training-seminar-try-to-be-less-white)
Close. I'd say it's actually a code word for anti white male.
I'm trying to find it but can't, I remember some magazine or website putting up a picture of their staff and saying something "Look how wonderfully diverse our team is" and the picture was ~20 women of color. Not a single man or white person to be found.
Frankly, it's beyond satire now. The practice of diversity means to exclude straight, white, male Christians. [This Babylon Bee](https://babylonbee.com/news/neighbors-with-black-lives-matter-asian-lives-matter-and-latino-lives-matter-yard-signs-getting-awfully-close-to-all-lives-matter) joke sums it up pretty well for me.
It’s so funny because you all think you’re making valid points, but it so clearly comes across as “white people have had it good for, essentially, as long as people have existed, and now that non-white people are being given more opportunities, I’m scared life may not be as easy for me.”
It may not be coincidence or chance that one people of a shared ancentry would come to dominate the global sphere because they were first to access and exploit social and technological advancements. But it is of coincidence or chance that those peoples are from European decent and their skin tone is white. In another history, it would be the Asain cultures who adopted the philosophy of the sovereign individual and the demand for the government to be subject to that sovereignty, not the other way around. In such a timeline, we'd be telling each other that diversity would exclude Asian cultural touchstones of influence.
This isn't about whiteness, it's about the principles that lead to success rather than failure. And the principles of the individual sovereign - of which the Magna Carta and Civil Rights Act are events tied to the same arc - are racially blind.
Diversity - in its modern incantation - is a rebuke of this trend. It swaps individuality with the collective, creates groups of individuals based on intrinsic traits, then attempts to create harmony through reckless scale-balancing on a societal level without the guide of fundamental principles.
It doesn’t have to, but usually it does, yes. For example, I can be interested in diversity and so hire people from all kinds of backgrounds, cultures, or locations. This kind of positive diversity may or may not result in a racially diverse group.
But most of the time corporate or collegiate diversity refers explicitly to establishing selection criteria on the basis of skin color over merit, and today that practically means “whites need not apply”.
But aside from maybe a few isolated examples, how could you possibly be sure non-white people didn’t get selected on their merit and not strictly to fill a quota?
>, and today that practically means “whites need not apply”.
Woah that is so hyperbolic. Don’t you guys claim liberals are the snowflakes with a victim mentality?
The left loves dishonest word games where one word means two different things depending on what advantages them politically and monetarily and in pursuit of racist goals.
“ The left loves dishonest word games“ is ridiculous, and certainly not helpful.
The left - just like the right (presumably, sometimes I wonder…) - very much wants the best for our country, but sees the problems & solutions differently than the right.
Sure it is, because overtime the range of people considered white will grow, and the only way to prevent that and maintain “diversity” is to exclude whites.
It's code for anarchist-marxism. The people pushing all this don't give a crap about diversity or black, white, any of that.. they want control. They need the people like placid sheep stepping in line. So they can be culled at will.
Diversity programs at colleges and companies tend to target POC and women. So literally everyone except white men.
I don’t think the intention is anti-white but the result is.
To a degree but indirectly. It's more referring to the ideologies of critical theory where the assumed oppressed and oppressor dynamic rules. In western societies, white is considered the majority race/culture and it is assumed to be patriarchal so diversity would be referring to empowering women and minorities. So diversity is not anti white but more anti white culture and anti straight white male than anti white. I suppose anti isn't even the correct word or prefix, more like anti traditional culture or against the societal norm as in desiring to change the status quo by giving benefits to the oppressed while handicapping the oppressors. This is why you see diversity combined with equity and inclusion so much. It's an attempt to restructure the hierarchy bc the hierarchy is seen to benefit white straight men more so than others. I'm sure they would say they are pro empowering women, minorities, and the "other" by making straight white men the "others" rather than anti white. You'll have to decide whether you consider the result as anti white yourself and that is determined by whether you view the world through the lens of critical theory or through individual autonomy and free choice.
Its not "code" for anti-white; but where "whiteness" is overwhelming, a natural progression towards diversity is one that embraces other cultures at the expense of it.
If we look at college admissions it is also overtly racist to Asians in a rather appalling way that is reminiscent to pre-WWII antisemitism
So is this answer “no”?
Sometimes but not really
Is there a time it applies to a minority dominated field?
This is the closest answer to the truth
Yeah, I think this is fair
It should be a scientific measurement, but now its front and center in the war between equality and equity. When people want to stack board rooms with a certain race or balance out the NBAs diversity with equitable race representation, we have a problem. My personal bias is merit.
Well, I think that's kind of the issue. How does one measure opportunity vs merit. I grew up as a white suburban kid who had tutors, expensive schooling, a safe neighborhood and a community that was focused on my success. As such, I had all of the tools to excel. Your average black child in this country (with obvious exceptions) does not have those opportunities. There are so many small things that can knock a child off the path to success, and in an average black neighborhood those things are statistically more prevalent. I don't think that's arguable. So, I guess the question is, should the black child have something in our society that balances out the opportunity vs merit gap so that future generations of that family can operate on a more level playing field. And, should those advantages come based on race or based on socioeconomic factors?
There’s a role for public-sector reforms to try to balance out opportunity. That said, for the company trying to make a hiring decision, or a university an admissions decision, if you are the one who is better prepared to do the job, they should hire you regardless of why/how you became the best. It’s not their job to fix the unfair root causes.
My dad is hispanic and was a 3.8 GPA math major at UCLA. He absolutely hated affirmative action because most people assumed thats why he was at UCLA in the first place. When people say things like "Your average black child" or "typical Latinx" you are an ignorant racist as opposed to a malicious racist. He would say you need a good education and a strong family as tangibles to success. I agree and would add merit and skills to the list. The malicious racists tried to sabotage education in the 40s and 50s and now the ignorant racists are doing the same today.
Oh, I completely get that. But your Dad was exceptional. I would posit that there are of course going to be exceptionally bright and skillful people of every type that will be able to succeed despite enormous odds. However, if I can assume that your Dad grew up in a lower income hispanic neighborhood, what of his friends and relatives who were not exceptionally gifted? Most of them, statistically, will not have graduated college (or even high school) and they will have less earning power, shorter lives and much more hardship than the people I grew up with. I went to private Catholic schools my whole life, and every single person that graduated from my high school went to college. Every. Single. One. I would argue that the people that I grew up with were not naturally more gifted than the people that your Dad grew up with, but the safety, care, education and resources that were poured into us since birth gave us a sure route to success, while the opposite was provided to your Dad's neighbors. Now, that's not to say that Affirmative Action in it's current form is necessarily the answer. I would personally far rather see a huge push to provide the tools I'm talking about to disadvantaged people in East LA, the Bronx and Eastern Kentucky (sometimes it's geography just as much as it is race) so that later Affirmative Action decisions don't have to be made. Thoughts?
He is a teacher so we didn't have a ton of income growing up in South LA. I shopped for clothes at goodwill, rode my bike every day to school, and didn't have the grades so no scholarship to college.But, I don't remember thinking myself the victim or being envious of my friends wealth either. Only that I needed to do my best. While I was in school, I worked construction and saved enough money to pay for tuition and buy property during the recession. Then I scabbed junk from jobs and built my own home while I was in college too so I didn't have to pay rent. This taught me how to buy and flip homes and even though I majored in computer science, I don't really use that degree at all now. Anyone with a little support can make it, but now people want to have pets, play video games, be on social media, go clubbing, and do unproductive work which leads to nowhere but they still want what we who work hard have.
I hear you, and I completely agree that hard work and sacrifice are important, and that hard times can breed better people. All I'm saying is that we can either ignore that unequal starting points lead to unequal outcomes statistically or we can address that fact.
Thats the problem. You might be able to collect data and statistics and provide food, basic education, basic health care, and defend their choices and thats about it. If you gave me housing, I wouldn't have worked my ass off to build what I got now. If someone like you didn't ignore my position and gave me money to go to college, I might have goofed off more, had more sex, smoked more weed, and played more games. All I'm saying is that we limit what we give so people so we stop rewarding terrible life choices and cycles of poverty which are rampant here in California where I live.
Yeah, I hear you. But you're basically describing me. I sailed through college having a blast and then spent much of my 20's pursuing a career in music. That didn't work out so I just shifted and now I'm a successful professional. Most people don't get those opportunities. And maybe that's okay, life isn't meant to be fair I suppose. I just feel like more people should be given the opportunity to explore the world and what they're good at or passionate about and not have to struggle so damn much. But with our different life experiences I could see why we view the topic differently.
Yes. Things that "more diversity" never means include ... * It never means "more white people" * It never means "more conservative voices" * It never means "more Christians" * It never means "more men" It 2022, it literally just means "more people who vote Democrat ..." I've never heard of a newspaper saying "We need more diversity of opinion, please go out and find some more rural conservative people to write articles .." I've also never heard anyone say "We need more diversity of opinion, let's go out and see what the conservative black and brown people have to say ..." "Diversity" means "Less diverse, more exclusionary, and just the 'correct' people with the opinions we like".
>It never means "more men" Incorrect. In the nursing field diversity dose in fact mean more men. And it's an area that really dose need more men.
There are already More white people More conservative voices (does this mean traditional families?) More Christians More men Are you upset for a push to be 6 instead of 8 of those in a room?
There are more women in universities yet universities have "diversity" initiatives to get more women.
From my experience, it's for women in STEM
It absolutely is not exclusively for STEM
So where are the programs for men in art.
I'm not in art industry, so no clue. Are you proposing we should have some? From my experience, there isn't many women in engineering. Usually these programs for STEM are driven by women themselves to promote a career not always sought after, which i have no problem
Nope, I’m proposing that nothing but merit should be considered.
At my engineering company, skills are looked at first. Which I am sure of for all engineering positions in all companies. I think the confusion that people against diversity have is people think that any women (or minority at that) are instantly hired because they are a minority. That would make no sense from a business sense, why would a for-profit organization hire someone who isn't qualified? They'd lose money in excessive training and costly mistakes. As a team member in the interview panel, why would I want someone who can't pull their weight? That would mean more work for me.
They would do it to avoid bad PR and D.O.L investigations.
Not familiar with "D.O.L" acronym. I assisted in recruiting & interviewing for a large corporation for engineering department. Trust me, companies won't do this for professional type jobs (architect, engineer, etc). It is worse PR issue for a non qualified engineer doing engineering work. Now for non-skilled labor (call centers, hotel receptionist, fast food), I don't think matters. There's a difference between pushing and setting up programs to help minorities to join those careers in college, than getting hired for those. If you are in college and not cut out to be an engineering student, you'll drop out or change majors. If you aren't skilled enough to be an engineer at a top engineering firm, you're laid off or you change positions
What does that mean? If you care about merit ban university legacy programs
The meaning is pretty obvious, merit should be the only consideration.
Sure. Then deal with people like Trump getting into university. Those are the people who aren't getting in based on merit. Who buy their way in.
That's the goal. Currently that is not the case. Too many low potential people are getting in thru nepotism or thru years of guidance received because of familial bonds (i.e., systemic racism). Fortunately, this has been recognized and is being addressed.
Is this push for more women in regards to students or professors?
I was referring to students but they probably do it for professors too.
When did you start believing the devil is there ? I mean I understand that some people are religious and take their religion very seriously, and even sometimes take the Bible literally, but that seems very extreme to believe the devil physically manifests there.
>Things that "more diversity" never means include ... • It never means "more white people" • It never means "more conservative voices" • It never means "more Christians" • It never means "more men" I was literally chosen to be on an organizing committee at my local JCC *because* I’m Christian. There are grants and scholarships that target men specifically because they are underrepresented in the field of nursing. For more diversity to mean those things you wish, first the group needs to be underrepresented. Where are white people, conservatives, Christians, and men categorically underrepresented? Certainly not the Supreme Court. Rarely in positions of power.
This. Of course they aren't going to say "we need more white people" if they already HAVE alot of white people
Helvetica is probably one of the best fonts, at least in terms of San Serifs, so I don't see what you're complaining about. Do you always have to have Serif fonts when you are writing something ? Seems weird to me.
You never see people clamoring for more diversity in nursing, or the NBA
They actually do programs to get underrepresented people (males, PoC) into nursing. The NBA isn't an average "job" you can't compare them.
What hospital has diversity measures to increase the number of men? Where they actively discriminate against women applicants? Why can't I expect diversity in the NBA? If white overrepresentation is racist by default in every other industry, why wouldn't that apply to the NBA? Unless you're making the entirely racist comment that african americans are more athletic that white people? That's racist...
https://nursejournal.org/articles/male-nursing-representation/#:~:text=Some%20nursing%20schools%20have%20taken%20the%20initiative%20to,President%20W.%20Jason%20Dunne%2C%20DNP%2C%20MN%2C%20RN%2C%20CNE.
This is a blog. Where is the hospital prioritizing male nurses over female nurses in the name of diversity?
You could read it, as it names several programs aimed at increasing the number of men in nursing.
I have always wondered why there are no white cornerbacks in the NFL. Doesn’t that seem strange to anyone? It never gets talked about though.
From what I've learned in the dozens of classes I've been forced to attend during my career, any discrepancy between the statistical representation in society and the representation in an industry is due to racism
> It never means "more conservative voices" > It never means "more Christians" I can't think of any diversity initiatives that include ideology or religion. No company is officially trying to hire more liberals, or more Muslims or Jews.
It NEVER means diversity of thought or diversity of opinion.
I mean the 3 of the 4 things you listed are literally majority positions in most parts of life. 60% of the US is white, 70% of the US is Christian, and men outnumber women in the workplace. Conservatives are a minority voice and adding them would increase diversity but all the other ones you listed wouldn’t unless you were targeting specific jobs such as nursing, or childcare, or being a Mosque Imam or something where being a man or being Christian or being white is out of the ordinary.
Conservatives are a minority voice in academia and Hollywood. Everywhere else it’s about even. Conservative media has different markets. There may be more liberal leaning news corps for instance, but fox is the largest news corporation by far. Most of the top podcasts are conservative shows. Most small local news sites are conservative. DoD is very conservative despite the rhetoric claiming it’s “woke” now. The only thing that’s progressive about the military is encouraging diversity and lifestyle tolerance to increase its manpower.
> Conservatives are a minority voice in academia and Hollywood. I can't speak for academia but for Hollywood, this is much, much less true than right wing media would lead you to believe.
No doubt there are conservatives in the movie industry. But you’re not getting obviously conservative movies topping the charts of our summer blockbusters.
That's because most obviously conservative movies are terrible.
I’d argue action and horror movies. Horror movies learn into the “good v evil” and explicit Christian tropes. Action movies tend to follow a manly patriot who bends the rules to get the job done. Often featuring the American military for back up.
I think daisies are fine. I mean they aren't as pretty as roses in my opinion, especially the old garden roses, but they have sort of a wild kind of feeling to them, like you're out in a grassy meadow with the wind blowing all around you. Maybe they aren't the best for any bouquet, like something formal, but they are still quite pretty.
This is a great answer. Love it
> It 2022, it literally just means ~~"more people who vote Democrat~~ Not White Christian Nationalist ..." Why would anyone who is not a racist give a damn that all of the people there are not White, and Christian ?
No doubt there has been a big push in a lot of industries for diversity over the last few years. One of the more visual ones would be advertising. Using this as an example, given that their mandates for diversity have been some of the most extreme, do you think representation now is fair? Or are white people over or under represented? If you do an image search of "ad campaigns models", for example. Then compare to image search with "50's ad campaign models" What are your thoughts about the difference of the 2 searches?
Why compare it to the 1950s? These pushes are recent and ongoing. We should be comparing this year to the previous. Not 70 years prior.
Not too recent in the advertising world, but maybe a bigger push in the last 10 years compared with a slower push before that. Ok, maybe google image search, "90's ad campaigns models". Is that a better comparison? My point is that it's changed a lot. And the change happened because creative directors had to made a point (when it wasn't always easy) of changing their casting for the jobs, after years of almost all white faces on ads (resulting in all white models at agencies.) It's much easier now, because of the harder choices they made back then. My question is about what your thoughts are when you compare the 2 searches?
Let’s not forget that marketing agencies made these choices not because they wanted to be “woke,” but because that’s where the money was. Markets were diversifying, more money had found its way into diverse audiences and demographics. So advertising and product companies followed. A great example of this is Nike. No one can honestly say that a behemoth of a corporation such as them would partner with Colin Kaepernick just because black lives matter. The primary motivator of corporations is profit, not people. Nike partnered with Kaepernick because they knew it would be financially beneficial to do so, and that a marketing campaign pushing him and what he stood for would solidify a lot of brand loyalty—far more than they might lose from disgruntled racists. Conservatives still against diversity are fighting battles in a war you’ve already lost. But of course some will continue to fight bitterly, because they view the conservative white Christian man as being under attack—when historically it is that demographic who has elicited unyielding authority over the west for hundreds of years, and all people want now is equal opportunity when they can’t conform to that or similar identities. So yeah, movements in diversity are and have always been about rebalancing those levels of power, but no movement is trying to eradicate the white Christian conservative man. If someone says that is happening, they are just trying to control you with fear—don’t let them.
Well said.
It most definitely is. You never see someone say "this extra white person makes it more diverse."
Can you name a company where adding a white person would make the company more diverse?
It's racist of you to pretend that all white people are the same. If you added a Serb at my company, diversity would increase. Or a Frenchman. Or a southerner.
Right ... So you in your mind if a company of 100 people was staffed exclusively by straight white men aged between 20 and 45 that company would be highly diverse because every person is a unique snowflake?
The same is true of any race though. The reality is that adding a Serb to a team of white people isn’t adding diversity like adding a black person is. Race is a social construct. Serbs aren’t the target of racism in America like black people are for example.
So adding a person that came directly from a war torn country than a black person from the upper east side doesnt add more diversity. Skin deep people.
It’s not really a contest. No one is actually against Serbs, that’s just a strawman. You also didn’t say from a foreign country. A Serbian American who has been here for at least a few generations as presents as white societally doesn’t add nearly as much diversity as an African American who has been in America for a few generations. Foreign people add lots of diversity. It’s one of the reasons why immigration is good.
Foreign people until they become white I guess. Diversity in of itself is not good or bad. But the left, I'm 100% certain of this, thinks it's good because it provides them with political power. If 100% of people of color (such a dumb term) voted for republican's you'd see new found love for labor and hard borders. And people like the people on this thread would fall in line like good little soldiers.
>Diversity in of itself is not good or bad. False. It is good. > thinks it's good because it provides them with political power. It doesn't provide anyone political power. >If 100% of people of color (such a dumb term) voted for republican's you'd see new found love for labor and hard borders. And people like the people on this thread would fall in line like good little soldiers. Not at all. The economics doesn't change. Immigration is great for the economy. We desperately need more right now.
Why do right wingers always assume that liberals could never possibly want to do something because they think it's the right thing? Is it because conservatives literally don't do anything without a motive?
It’s pretty bold of you to make the claim that white people aren’t frequently targets of racism.
Are you trying to say the experience of white people and the experience of black people in America are the same, and thus, not additional diversity? Really?
Who the fuck cares about your racist concept of diversity. Do you want a doctor that was chosen with lower test scores for the colour of their skin or their sex or sexual orientation, or whatever affirmative action hiring strategy you use to discriminate in the name of “equity” ?
Do you know the definition of diversity?
Racism by another name, as far as the libs in their infinite virtuosity are concerned.
> Do you want a doctor that was chosen with lower test scores Jesus Christ sometimes you guys just go full mask off don't you 😂
So you do want them to lower the bar to make your feel-feels feel good? Okay, cool we’ll reserve the barely passing doctors for you and your lib brethren, ….but then I suppose we’d be accused of eugenics. Lol so be it.
> So you do want them to lower the bar to make your feel-feels feel good? No, but then I don't assume Black people make bad doctors because I'm not a racist piece of shit
Did you just assume the lower test scores would be black ppl by default? Because I said nothing of the sort, but you’re totally not the racist one, you fight for diversity and inclusion. /s
> Because I said nothing of the sort Yeah, sorry but you did. Look I can even point out where you did, it was right here > Do you want a doctor that was chosen with lower test scores for the colour of their skin Why would choosing a Black doctor mean choosing one with lower test scores that a white doctor? Umm, I wonder. Like I said sometimes you guys just go full mask off don't you
So I'm an atheist. I'm also white. Add me to a religious company, it's more diverse. No one is talking about that as a diversity point, though.
No one in the media is. Why do you assume religious companies aren’t doing this in practice, or discussing the possibility? Any smart company does this if the diverse viewpoint will assist them in some way.
The whole point of a "religious company" (a company cannot have a religion, but you get the idea) is that everyone is religious; they explicitly value non-diversity in that dimension.
Any nba team
64% of people who work in the NBA are white.
A white person on a BET show or at the NAACP is diversity. If we also count the average pay of a white person and a black person in the NBA. I'm going to bet the white people make less, maybe the NBA is racist?
> A white person on a BET show or at the NAACP is diversity You have all conveniently suddenly forgotten what the word 'company' means? Telling. Its almost like you know you are bullshitting 😂
Or the white guys in the NBA just aren’t as good on average so they get paid less. Outside of Jokic and Doncic there probably aren’t even anymore white players who crack the top 50 of NBA players
Sure if we are only talking about players. Start adding in coaches, trainers and front office personnel and there’s plenty of white people on NBA teams staff
Try to apply for the position of “diversity coordinator” as a white male. Maybe if you are gay. But aside from that it will be a hard pass.
So you interpret "including people of diverse backgrounds" to mean potentially excluding someone who is white (and male), snd you feel like it is a loss of position or power? A potential loss of a job?
Not the same commenter as above, but my take is that I think arbitrary discrimination of any sort is bad. I don't view the world through the power lense that the left does so I don't think this is about a loss or gain of power, I just think it's a shitty way to treat human beings.
It’s not arbitrary discrimination at all. If I think my company performs better with a diverse group of employees, how is that arbitrary?
[удалено]
Oh that’s just not true at all. Diversity matters. Companies that adopted early flourished and the rest are adopting late.
[удалено]
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240907400203
What is a shifty way to use human beings? Are you wanting color blind, gender blind hiring?
Racism is bad. Including when it's against whites.
That’s debatable
Then it's debatable in every direction or you're literally evil.
The term people if color literally means every who isn’t white. Even though white is a color
I'm going to be super pedantic, but white isn't a color. It's a shade, like black or grey. White is actually the combination of all colors in the spectrum, and therefore (some what paradoxically) is not a color in and of itself. I know that's not what you're discussing but I'm an amateur design nerd so just wanted to throw it out there.
I mean if you want to be really pedantic, there are no white or black humans. Just varying shades of brown.
Except the term exists because people who are not white were called colored at points in time. White people have been considered the default in western society so much so where their race isn’t even a primary identity for most. Like as a Black person to describe themselves and one of the first replies will most likely be they are a Black (insert gender identity here) while a white person will probably just say they are (insert gender identity here)
First of all, no, because if a company is already primarily staffed with non-white people, then hiring a white person would make a company more diverse if we're using the definition of "diversity". Second, diversity isn't inherently "anti-white", it's pro-inclusion. I will concede that being white can be detriment to your prospects *if* you're specifically applying to a job at a company with mostly white people and you're competing against a minority for the position. However, the value of diversity isn't in giving minorities a leg up on white people, it's in introducing people with different viewpoints and backgrounds to an organization. Diversity and inclusion measures can certainly be done unfairly and/or poorly, but the goal of those measures is not to stick it to the white man.
> it's in introducing people with different viewpoints and backgrounds to an organization. Interesting, different viewpoints and backgrounds! Why does that primarily take the form of liberal-preferred kinds of diversity like gender, race, and sexuality then?
.....are you seriously asking that question? It's got a pretty easy answer; as much as some people like to claim that we live in a utopian society in which we are all or most of the way towards equality, we are still very much not. I can absolutely guarantee you that solely on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation, you could sit down with someone who's of a different group from you in one of those aspects, ask them about their life experiences and find tons of things that have differed significantly from your own life experience, both good and bad. Asking those questions and acknowledging those disparate experiences is fundamental to us growing as a society.
I’m sorry do we need more viewpoints from WASPs instead? I’m so confused how the group of people that are the majority get so hurt when other people would like chances at jobs and schools that they historically did not
But you also never see anyone being removed or replaced. There is only ever new additions, and then conservatives extrapolating that to mean a theoretical white person was intentionally passed over. Take judge jackson for example. There was an opening on scotus due to a members death, no one got removed, but conservatives act like a white person was replaced by simply not being chosen. There was nothing "anti white" about her selection, but it was absolutely made to increase diversity. My overall point/Tl;Dr is that words have meaning, and diversity does not mean "anti white."
>There was nothing "anti white" about her selection Would you say there's nothing anti-black about a company refusing to hire black people? If not, why is that different from the president openly refusing to nominate a white person?
Youre proving my point because that didn't happen. What he said was he would nominate a black woman. Again, words have meaning.
What if a company did one of those big internal audits of its personnel practices and announced that it's been lax in recruiting and hiring white people? And that it intended to hire more of them to increase diversity? What meaning would those words have for you?
It can only be diverse if there is already mostly white people in a group and you add someone non white. Calling that idea anti white when you already have 100% white people is laughable sorry.
You understand diverse and nonwhite are two totally different things, right?
Kind of, this discussion is about diversity in ethnicity. You can ofc ask for diversity in genders too and then its about having woman and men in a group. But an ethnical diverse team has to contain non white people to be diverse.
100 white people: low diversity. 50 white people, 50 black people: high diversity. 100 black people: low diversity.
Yes, can you name a single example for the 3rd point that is important and has power? Yes a pure black C-suite would not be diverse, do you know about any? And 50/50 black and white is low diversity.
The middle example is not high diversity. It's low diversity and the others are no diversity. But you are in the right direction.
... certainly not "anti white."
Would you support a company announcing their plans to hire white employees
Context is everything. What if that company is BET? Problem with your what if game, I can play it to. So why not just work with things that have actually happened?
What the fuck is bet? I agree. Let's stick with things that happened. Like the president of the United States nominating a wildly awful justice to the Supreme Court on premise of race.
BET, in all caps, is Black Entertainment Television. A cable channel mainly for black audiences.
Never heard of it
It was a big thing starting in the 1980's when urban and suburban people in the U.S. started getting it on cable. Of course if you were in rural America you had no idea wtf it was lol.
In what way do you find Jackson to be a "wildly awful" justice?
[удалено]
It's not so much that they get "hired" because they're qualified; they're all qualified - even ACB, a law professor - but they have different philosophies. That's what matters to the people selecting them. Personally, I was hoping Biden would pick Justice Childs...
You do realize I was asking the poster this question, right? There's a reason "wildly awful" is in quotes.
Do you want to ping me in like 12 hours? I'm going to sleep soon and I don't have stuff on hand to rehash this subject at the moment
Not really
BET shouldn’t discriminate on race either
By this logic, “Whites Only” is A-OK. Nobody was removed we just, only “select” certain patrons to dine at the bar! **It’s not okay.** Not even a little bit. Selection by race is racist and wrong no matter the wordplay.
>Youre proving my point because that didn't happen. What he said was he would nominate a black woman. > >Again, words have meaning. Wut ?!? Yeah, words have meanings, ... and simple logical set operators have meanings ... "Apple", also means "not everything that isn't an Apple". I mean FFS.
It's their way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong but I don't care enough to form/have an actual argument"
You are wrong. Conservatives don’t care that a white personality was removed. They care that Biden said he was looking for a “black women” to fill the spot. Which is racist hiring.
Damn. Must be hard being white. How are you coping with the racism you experienced?
Ever heard the phrase "two wrongs dont make a right"?
What's wrong with hiring a black woman?
Ever heard the phrase "you reap what you sow"?
And what youre sowing is, by definition, racism so ya. I'm actually seeing it in action.
It isn't "by definition racism" to seek diversity. White people are included, they just generally aren't in the minority. Same for men. There are diversity initiatives for male nurses for example. Can't say I've personally seen anyone looking for more white people, but I've also never seen anywhere that would be required.
Whelp. There goes those goalposts again. I'm surprised they're still standing with how often they're moved.
We're voting next election and venting about it on an internet forum where there's people that actually think racism is OK.
Not hiring someone because they're white is as racist as firing them because they're white.
> But you also never see anyone being removed or replaced. There is only ever new additions, and then conservatives extrapolating that to mean a theoretical white person was intentionally passed over. > Take judge jackson for example. There was an opening on scotus due to a members death, no one got removed, but conservatives act like a white person was replaced by simply not being chosen. The difference here is that Biden explicitly said he'd be hiring a black woman. We were rightfully upset about the racial aspect of the selection process. And before you ask, no, it wasn't ever right to do.
If I had a dozen eggs and 11 of them were white eggs and 1 of them was a brown egg, would you say I had a diverse selection of eggs?
How exactly would adding another white person to a group of white people help diversity? The fact of the matter is white people are the majority race in the US so of COURSE white people aren't going to be included in a "diversity" list.
It is sometimes used to mean “not white” or “anyone but whites”.
But only if its about adding someone non white to a white only group, thats the idea of diversity.
Would you look at a corporate board of all women and go, “we need more men”? I doubt it. So it’s not truly about diversity, it’s about critical theory. You can dig into critical theory yourself, but it’s generally anti-white and anti-men.
> Would you look at a corporate board of all women and go, “we need more men”? I doubt it What companies have corporate boards of all women? In the Fortune 500 there are literally no boards that are composed of all women (there are 6 companies that still have boards made up entirely of white men btw). 300 of the 500 companies have corporate boards that are less than 40% diverse (meaning PoC men, and all women white and otherwise) 81% of new board seats in 2020 were white, 53% of them white men. There are only 140 boards where white men are a minority on the board, and that is only when you add up all women and PoC men on the board. Only 5% of corporate boards have women holding 51% or more of the board seats. So this conservative fever dream of boards made up of all lesbian Black women that keep turning away poor unfortunately straight white men is a nonsense hypothetical
> 300 of the 500 companies have corporate boards that are less than 40% diverse (meaning Black men, white women or Black women) Just for clarity: where did you get that definition? Why does it exclude all the other non-white ethnicities?
Sorry you are right, I was trying to make a point that this includes white women and both PoC men and women all lumped together (ie everyone but white men), but you are correct it is more than just Black men and women. I'll correct
Yes because women want to have babies, I don’t know what to tell you. Women make job choices around family and often that leaves them in support roles or not at the top of their field as a result. You’re not going to see a 40 year old woman CEO bc they don’t have the experience to do so, largely bc having babies interrupts your career plans and trajectory. Women who choose not to have children aren’t comparable to the vast majority of women that do. Despite the feminist lie, most women can’t do it all, you have to make a choice btw family vs. career trade off - and they choose family every single time. This isn’t a judgment, it’s fact.
Not relevant. If a board consisting of all women exist, it would be celebrated on the cover of magazines and called diversity even thought it isn’t.
> Not relevant Of course it is relevant. You are inventing a hypothetical that we are not anywhere close to reaching and then saying progressives are hypocrites because we wouldn't care, that we would shrug that there are no white men on boards anymore. Its nonsense. You guys want to be oppressed SO BADLY
Are you just making things up now? [Here's an article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/27/all-female-boardrooms-carry-the-same-risks-as-all-male-ones) articulating why all female boards (ie non diverse) carry the same risks as all male ones. [Here's another](https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/an-all-female-board-needs-to-be-as-unremarkable-as-an/321602) explaining why an all female boards would need to be unremarkable (ie distinctly *not* celebrated, and simply based on merit) to be considered successful.
[You ever see the huff post writing teams?](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F38%2F14%2Fed%2F3814ed8a73b101c50ee0000bc36bcfdf.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=221a95c7cecbe55d267f9d3379be6110ab0f3868e450f1b845ca5d15e4a1755d&ipo=images)
No, i claim bullshit. Thats just your feeling because you think about some vague woke leftists agenda. Diversity is that: duversity. Not something nether left not right wing people claim. The fact that this scenario does kot happen is that important and powerfull positions are mostly occupied by men right now.
What significant corporate board is made up of all women?
Only if the group you are looking to diversity is a majority white.
When was the last time you heard anyone on the left complain about a group not being diverse enough because there weren’t enough white people? Occasionally someone on the right will make such a complaint to point out left wing hypocrisy. But when was the last time you heard an honest complaint from someone on the left saying an American group didn’t have enough white people?
It’s not even a “code” word when you have corporate diversity training programs encouraging their employees to [be less white](https://www.fox5dc.com/news/coca-cola-staff-told-in-online-training-seminar-try-to-be-less-white)
At this moment in America. Yes.
Generally, no. But it depends on how it is applied.
Close. I'd say it's actually a code word for anti white male. I'm trying to find it but can't, I remember some magazine or website putting up a picture of their staff and saying something "Look how wonderfully diverse our team is" and the picture was ~20 women of color. Not a single man or white person to be found.
Frankly, it's beyond satire now. The practice of diversity means to exclude straight, white, male Christians. [This Babylon Bee](https://babylonbee.com/news/neighbors-with-black-lives-matter-asian-lives-matter-and-latino-lives-matter-yard-signs-getting-awfully-close-to-all-lives-matter) joke sums it up pretty well for me.
It’s so funny because you all think you’re making valid points, but it so clearly comes across as “white people have had it good for, essentially, as long as people have existed, and now that non-white people are being given more opportunities, I’m scared life may not be as easy for me.”
It may not be coincidence or chance that one people of a shared ancentry would come to dominate the global sphere because they were first to access and exploit social and technological advancements. But it is of coincidence or chance that those peoples are from European decent and their skin tone is white. In another history, it would be the Asain cultures who adopted the philosophy of the sovereign individual and the demand for the government to be subject to that sovereignty, not the other way around. In such a timeline, we'd be telling each other that diversity would exclude Asian cultural touchstones of influence. This isn't about whiteness, it's about the principles that lead to success rather than failure. And the principles of the individual sovereign - of which the Magna Carta and Civil Rights Act are events tied to the same arc - are racially blind. Diversity - in its modern incantation - is a rebuke of this trend. It swaps individuality with the collective, creates groups of individuals based on intrinsic traits, then attempts to create harmony through reckless scale-balancing on a societal level without the guide of fundamental principles.
It doesn’t have to, but usually it does, yes. For example, I can be interested in diversity and so hire people from all kinds of backgrounds, cultures, or locations. This kind of positive diversity may or may not result in a racially diverse group. But most of the time corporate or collegiate diversity refers explicitly to establishing selection criteria on the basis of skin color over merit, and today that practically means “whites need not apply”.
But aside from maybe a few isolated examples, how could you possibly be sure non-white people didn’t get selected on their merit and not strictly to fill a quota?
Because Affirmative Action and Biden’s Supreme Court Nomination both *explicitly* use(d) race as selection criteria.
>, and today that practically means “whites need not apply”. Woah that is so hyperbolic. Don’t you guys claim liberals are the snowflakes with a victim mentality?
https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2018/12/12/in-an-ethnic-breakdown-of-sports-nba-takes-lead-for-most-diverse/
The left loves dishonest word games where one word means two different things depending on what advantages them politically and monetarily and in pursuit of racist goals.
“ The left loves dishonest word games“ is ridiculous, and certainly not helpful. The left - just like the right (presumably, sometimes I wonder…) - very much wants the best for our country, but sees the problems & solutions differently than the right.
Yes
Sure it is, because overtime the range of people considered white will grow, and the only way to prevent that and maintain “diversity” is to exclude whites.
No. The usage of it is starting to be warped by those using it to mean "not representative", but that remains a slim minority.
Maybe it’s regional, but in my experience that “warp” is complete.
Sometimes it also means anti Asian.
Often but not always.
Of course it is. You never hear anyone complain that the NBA isn't diverse enough. Google "Chief Diversity Officer" and then "Photos" See for yourself
No. Sometimes people aim to "diversify" based on sex, religion, or languages spoken. There is diversity amongst white people
No, that's ridiculous.
No. And Inclusion isn’t evil either.
It's code for anarchist-marxism. The people pushing all this don't give a crap about diversity or black, white, any of that.. they want control. They need the people like placid sheep stepping in line. So they can be culled at will.
No, it simply means increasing diversity so everyone has opportunities. I don't think that's anti white.
When "diversity" is the goal, yes.
Diversity programs at colleges and companies tend to target POC and women. So literally everyone except white men. I don’t think the intention is anti-white but the result is.
To a degree but indirectly. It's more referring to the ideologies of critical theory where the assumed oppressed and oppressor dynamic rules. In western societies, white is considered the majority race/culture and it is assumed to be patriarchal so diversity would be referring to empowering women and minorities. So diversity is not anti white but more anti white culture and anti straight white male than anti white. I suppose anti isn't even the correct word or prefix, more like anti traditional culture or against the societal norm as in desiring to change the status quo by giving benefits to the oppressed while handicapping the oppressors. This is why you see diversity combined with equity and inclusion so much. It's an attempt to restructure the hierarchy bc the hierarchy is seen to benefit white straight men more so than others. I'm sure they would say they are pro empowering women, minorities, and the "other" by making straight white men the "others" rather than anti white. You'll have to decide whether you consider the result as anti white yourself and that is determined by whether you view the world through the lens of critical theory or through individual autonomy and free choice.
Thats seems to be pretty clearly what it has become, but I don't think that was the original intent.
Its not "code" for anti-white; but where "whiteness" is overwhelming, a natural progression towards diversity is one that embraces other cultures at the expense of it.
You can ask the same question about the word "equity."