Microblog Memes

'Diversity hire' is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.

They don't know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.

They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.

The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won't make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that's because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.

Same thing as when old people said they were against Antifa or antifa was causing violence. Anti Fascist. You don't support the Anti Fascists. Are you ok with the Fascists then? Shuts the boomers up because they remember daddy fought the Fascists even if their lead addled brains can't remember what that is

Don, Eric, Ivanka

DEI

I think it's important to distinguish between diversity, equity, and inclusion as CONCEPTS and DEI as an organization and initiative.

It is possible to be pro- diversity, equity, and inclusion and be opposed to mismanaged efforts in DEI as a PROGRAM.

This post assumes that DEI as a government initiative is working perfectly and has no downsides, presenting it in a way that closes it off to criticism.

Does every system have to be perfect? Of course not. It's better to have a system pushing for good that's imperfect than none at all, but framing it like this is gaslighting and hurts discussion on both sides.

Reminds me of the "Lets Go Brandon" crap.

Like, if you really dislike Biden, just say "Fuck Joe Biden.". I have zero issue saying "Fuck Trump," because, fuck trump.

Locally in Illinois there were also these signs everywhere that said "Pritzker Sucks" in huge letters, then at the bottom in tiny print "the life out of small business."

Like seriously, I am less disgusted by your stance, than I am about your pussy ass lack of conviction.

If you're opposed to DOGE, does that mean you're opposed to efficiency in government?

This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.

We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.

It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.

That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.

I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.

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.)

As someone outside of the US, all I can see is people fighting over who has a right to a job and who doesn't, while the rich hoard wealth. DEI wouldn't be an issue if there was a safety net, maybe with UBI based on the minimum liveable wage, public housing, public education, public healthcare and government grants to start small business ventures.

Most people who are against DEI are against the "E".

They believe that equality is the end goal, not equity.

Equality = equal opportunity

Equity = equal outcome

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

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.

A friend of mine used to do food runs for his office, where about 40% of the employees were black. The team voted on what they wanted, and they almost always chose Wing Stop because it was popular. Despite this, he was called into a meeting and accused of racial profiling for bringing "fried chicken" to a mostly black workplace. This experience reflects the way DEI programs often operate. They focus almost excessively on race, and identity, and thrive on controversy.

Originally, these initiatives created programs where people who came to companies did so to fix the issues and leave. Apparently that didn't work./ Instead, they’ve become permanent fixtures in workplaces, incentivized to perpetuate problems rather than solve them. With their continued presence, they encourage reporting and policing of behavior, creating a culture of fear and compliance rather than genuine inclusion.

DEI initiatives have failed. They've been in place for several years, yet we always hear constant rhetoric that racism and discrimination is becoming more of a problem? Instead, these programs have probably radicalized more people than any fringe political group. Many now define their views in opposition to their perceived opponents rather than on principles.

Ironically, DEI encourages prejudice. I’ve personally been told to create a bias in favor of minorities to combat existing bias, which only results in a new form of discrimination; it doesn't eliminate the existing biases. The approach based on "privilege" encouraged me to assume all black people are disadvantaged and all white people are privileged and implicitly biased. Guilt and shame are used as tools to enforce conformity, pressuring people to adopt a specific moral stance while condemning those who don’t. People are praised for being sanctimonious. It's become popular to call out others while simultaneously making self-righteous shows of one's own behavior.

I would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.

I mean I certainly don’t oppose getting rid of DEI but let’s not be haste in assuming what something is called is actually what it is.

Is North Korea a Democracy? They are called the DPRK no? Democratic people’s republic?

Edit: Meant to say I do oppose getting rid of DEI. English is hard

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
- Not Voltaire