this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
1405 points (97.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

6430 readers
3604 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (7 children)

You know what, let's give it a shot. 3 things I dislike.

  1. Equity based on gender or skin color. So many people pretend that somehow one average working class person should be put ahead in line compared to another, if the other person has the same skin color as some unrelated asshole slaver whose descendants still profit from their riches.

    Most of you would probably agree that a world where the majority are exploited by a few billionaires is not equitable just because the billionaires are diverse. So why push policies that pretend all is equitable as long as you give a few minorities preferential treatment.

    Not only does it not make any real sense, but more importantly, it is divisive. No person struggling in this f**ked up economy wants to hear they should be even worse of, because they have the same skin color as the billionaires exploiting them and they should feel ashamed for that. I would not be surprised if these ideas are intentionally pushed by the rich to divide the working class people and turn them on each other.

  2. Bringing people down in the name of Equity. Equity is definitely what we should strive for, but by lifting disadvantaged people up, not tearing "privileged" people down. The whole message that you should be ashamed for not being disadvantaged is ridiculous to me. Maybe you should be ashamed if you are in a privileged position and you refuse to use it to help the disadvantaged, but just be ashamed of privilege period is a wild take to me. We should be aiming to make everyone privileged enough that they don't have to fear being shot every time they see a cop, that they can make a living wage, ...

    If your movements/policies are hostile towards the very people whose support can help you most, then no wonder you can't make any progress and radicals like Trump take advantage of the divisiveness.

  3. Low quality diversity in media. Adding diverse characters to media should ideally be like adding trees. You add them when it makes sense without even thinking about it and don't add them when it doesn't make sense. We should work slowly and carefully towards that goal. Unfortunately, so many movies, shows and games have tried to awkwardly add diversity with no regard for how it negatively affects the enjoyability of the product. So your goal presumably was to make diverse people feel included and to normalize diversity in peoples mind. But the result for minorities often is that they repeatedly see character like them being badly and lazily written, either by having no proper character beyond being diverse or conversely feel like straight cis white character that just happens to mention they are diverse. On the other hand, the majority just sees these poorly made products and associate diversity and DEI with bad products. So failure on both goals. The answer is of course quality over quantity. It may take a while to get where we want to be, but it will get there without making things even worse with good intentions.

    By the way, there of course are great examples of well made diverse shows, but they are drowned out by the slop. My favorite example is the Owl house. The plot of the first episode is literally about being captured and placed into "the conformatorium" for being different and then escaping and dismantling the place. And it did this so smoothly I did not even realize there was any messaging in it until long after seeing it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I appreciate your comment. I feel that DEI in its current form has a lot of things to hate about it. However I usually don't say anything because I'm worried someone will just call me a Nazi or something.

I'm a Jewish democrat, but as a white man I feel like I'm basically guilty of original sin in these types of conversations.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The alternatives to DEI are:

Conformity Inequity Exclusion

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago

Rearrange the letters to I, C, and E, and they are fully in support.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Are you sure it's not Democrats, Education and Immigrants?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

More like Democracy (Jan 6), Elections (Voter-Roll Purges, and other forms of Voter Suppression), and International Cooperation (Paris Agreement Withdrawl)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (8 children)

Has someone actually been on an interview panel, where you decide to hire someone because they're black?

(I definitely haven't. Although, I haven't been in a position that was in charge of mass hiring.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago

I manage a team of about 50. I've been in management for about the past decade. Prior to that, I was a technical lead heavily involved in hiring. I've also run multiple intern programs that hire by the dozen each summer. I've hired hundreds and been in thousands of interviews.

Ive never once seen someone hired because of the color of their skin.

I do however aggressively look for people from different backgrounds to be in my candidate pools when hiring. That can really mean anything. Mono culture is a huge detriment to the org because then everyone ends up thinking the same way. I look for people willing to challenge the status quo and bring unique perspectives while still being a great teammate.

There are probably people I've hired who normally wouldn't have gotten an interview based on their background but then were the best candidate. When I've had candidates that are equal, I've occasionally hired the one who is most dissimilar in skills/thought process/goals to my current team because that helps us grow. The decision was never someone's skin color, but their background certainly could have influenced the items I chose as my hiring decisions.

DEI is not just hiring. DEI is creating a culture where people of different backgrounds can succeed. There are so many different ways to be successful at the vast majority of the roles I hire. It's my job to make sure my org is setup so that people can be successful through as many approaches as possible. This is the part I see most often missed. If your culture only allows the loud, brash to lead, I would have missed many of my best hires over the years who led in varied ways.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I have been apart of interviews (at a computer repair shop, mostly men) where my boss said we had to hire the only woman interviewee because it looked bad to not to, and we needed diversity, even though she wasn't very qualified. So we hired her instead of the person who had excelled in the interview.

At my next job we had some diversity hires. It was pre-DEI, but we had a diversity intern program. We hired a guy because he was black, he was qualified and was amazing. Later we hired a person who was also black and wasn't very qualified, they struggled for months and eventually quit - we had hired them based on skin color too.

Not saying I'm for or against, but I've seen situations where diversity became more important than qualifications. I've also seen where both were equally important, and that was preferred.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago

I like how this horrible acronym spells out U. S. A.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This is also why "woke" becoming a common word was bad for both sides. Not only is it nonspecific, but it starts to mean different things to different people and diverges over time. It's easier to demonize something with a nonspecific meaning for exactly that reason.

There's a meme that says "everything I don't like is woke", and while it's funny, that's literally the process that happens when such terms become catchalls -- what they catch depends on what any individual speaker wants out of using it.

With DEI, the process has been the same. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who believe it's bad (because they were told that and lack critical thinking skills) and may not even know what the acronym stands for.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 13 hours ago

Reminds me of that time (as if it was only once) a depressing amount of people, mostly conservatives, didn't know that the ACA and "Obamacare" mean the same thing.

Conservative politics depend heavily on placing labels on everything because it's a built-in way of telling the rubes what they should think and feel.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago

I Oppose Deathcamps, Extermination, and Invasion (aka: the nazi f' Elon and the Felon's policies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I've heard the E as both Equity and Equality. Anyone know which it's supposed to be?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago

The way it was explained to me is, equality is giving everyone equal support. Equity is allocating support unevenly to those who need it most.

Those who advocate meritocracy in bad faith really don't like equity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Or you could ask them if they know what DEI stands for.

Spoiler Alert: They don't.

They love hating acronyms and nicknames repeated by their media sources that they know literally nothing about.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

They know what it stands before, but if you ask them to drop the mask they'll start saying racial slurs.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think for the"normal" people who aren't frothing at the mouth racists, it's specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago (10 children)

As far as I understand, DEI as a policy in a university or workplace means giving place to a candidate because not of their merits or test scores, but because of their race or background.

Isn't that racism?

Be gentle, am not USian.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago

Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion.

Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged", and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal."

Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard", and a sense of belonging and integration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

This isn't a good argument in general--you can call anything anything, even if it doesn't fit what it actually is. This would be like accusing someone of being anti-democracy for opposing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), or anti-life for opposing the "pro-life" movement.

Whether the label is accurate in any given circumstance doesn't change the fact.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›