Do you plan to maintain a DEI as a priority in the company (s) you own and influence?

[lightbulb27]

Political winds have shifted and this job is now, optional.

Will you continue supporting DEI in your company or those you own (via stocks... proxy voting for the companies)?

Example

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Yes I would. I think all jobs should try to avoid bias as much as possible to get all the best workers, not just the best workers within a certain demographic.

[sawno]

DEI is systemic discrimination against individuals from specific groups. Its inherently biased.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno how is DEI discrimination?

[sawno]

They determine if someone is eligible to be hired or may have certain benefits based on race. How would it not be?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno that's not true. Where did you hear that?

[sawno]

Why is that not true? You have 2 people wanting a job, the quota says they need more black people so the black person gets hired and the other one never had a chance. That's racist discrimination and that's what DEI quota's cause.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno that's not how it works. Sorry, but I think someone lied to you...

[sawno]

So how does it work then?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno you don't know? You should look it up. I'm sure the official websites about it will have way better explanations than I do.

[sawno]

I do know how it works, but your saying I am wrong so then the burden of proof is on you.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno why not on you? I'm the first one who asked for it. & ur the first one who claimed it was different. Burden on u, or u can just look it up anyway & learn something :)

[sawno]

Alright if you want me to proof my claim its discriminatory ill just do so. www.msn.com/.../ar-BB1m6LdE

That is a real examplr of a company getting sued over their DEI initiatives because they fired people to replace them with people who aren't white men. So these white men got discriminated against for being white and male.

[lightbulb27]

@sawno proved your point as far as I'm concerned.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno they got successfully sued? So, they obviously did something wrong and weren't following the official rules? Sounds like this isn't a good example of the program... If you want I can give an example of a company that doesn't have a DEI program getting sued for discrimination against non-white non-men, but I think you know that's a bad faith argument. I'd like to be serious here. Can you try to find a serious source of DEI being discriminatory without it also being illegal so clearly an exception, since most DEI programs do not break laws or get the company sued?

[sawno]

No because DEI is inherently discriminatory like I said and by proxy illegal.

[sawno]

As for you providing an example, yes please do so so I know what your thinking DEI is.

[sawno]

You also mention it backwards in your post, they get sued for discriminating against white men.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno I said YOU provided a clear exception because most companies using DEI do not get sued because they don't break laws in the name of it.

Then I said that I could provide a DIFFERENT example of the opposite of yours: a company not practicing DEI who got sued for breaking laws and discriminating against non-white non-men.

Both those examples would be bad faith, since they are the exception. Most companies don't break discrimination laws and don't get sued for that, whether they use DEI or not. So these kind of exception examples don't work well and won't help serious discussion.

[sawno]

I provided a very clear case of the real world consequences of DEI quotas. But feel free to come with that good example.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno but that's not a consequence of DEI, that's a consequence of illegal discrimination. Most companies who have DEI don't do this. That's why it's an exception, and not a good example.

www.eeoc.gov/.../baronhr-pay-22-million-eeoc-hiring-discrimination-lawsuit this is an example of a company that illegally discriminated against people outside a certain race, women, and disabled people. Part of the remedies they would have to put in place would be "hiring a third-party monitor, significant training and robust reporting mechanisms to ensure applicants and employees can report discrimination and updating the company’s anti-discrimination policies to prohibit discrimination in hiring." That's DEI. This company was discriminating, and the way to fix it was start DEI practices.

Do you think that example proves that all companies need DEI programs or else they will discriminate illegally based on anything from sex to race to religion to age to disability?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Women AND men*. Gender.

[sawno]

I am against discrimination so I am against it no matter how its being done. The example you cite to me is just as wrong as the example I cited which was IBM a very well known corporation. Could also cite the affirmative action in schools which is also discriminatory and also got a lawsuit.

I am sure you will find this a strawman to but I am going to bring it in anyway, this is coca-cola using diversity training to be openly racist towards whites : nypost.com/.../

So I hope we can at least agree that there are multiple real world examples of DEI being used in a discriminatory fashion and that this should not be the case and should be spoken out against. If so we disagree if that is real DEI or not but at least we'd agree on the same principle.

Because I am in favor of not discriminating against workers but I'd like to see that done on a merit based system. If your advocating for a body where you can complain if you feel like you got rejected despite your merit I'm for that. We don't need to call that DEI though, we can just call that anti-discriminatory hiring. DEI tends to go further towards enforcing that with those quota's I mentioned as well as corporate trainings. Both of which I oppose.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno that's exactly the same thing. So we agree discrimination is bad and agree that DEI is good, you just don't want it to be called DEI? Firing white men and discriminating against white people is clearly exclusionary and against the principles of DEI. Just like discriminating against non-white people or girls/women is clearly exclusionary and against merit-based hiring. The only reason DEI has those negative associations are because people who don't know what it is say that it does. What should we change the name to that those same people won't just do the same thing to and make up that it's really a bad and discriminatory practice even tho that's literally the opposite of what it's meant to be (and what it is, in most cases)?

[sawno]

The reason that people like me think DEI is inherently discriminatory is because the programs in multiple corporations use it that way. The hiring one i'd just call merit based hiring. Merit based hiring has the implication that the best candidate wins. However that's not equity, its equality. So the outcome will be organic, not catered to a specific statistic. So on paper it then may look wrong but in practice it would just be because for example women do not want to work in that job.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno again, those are exceptions. MOST companies who practice DEI don't do illegal discrimination, and aren't sued over it. Just like most most companies that don't do DEI also don't get sued. The idea is literally the same as merit based hiring, DEI just takes extra steps to ensure ALL people who are most qualified are hired, not only certain people.

[sawno]

Are you also against internal quota's based on background?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno what do you mean background?

[sawno]

Sex, race, religion, etc.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

@sawno internal quotas for that sort of thing are useful in theory bc if it is off that's a good indicator some bias is happening somewhere, but don't always work in reality bc there are so many different factors & the quota could add a reason for bias as well. I think they can be good for information, but not good for enforcements.

[Syntosi]

I would definitely consider it. Monocultures in groups are deadly for companies as it often results in bad decision making because you only have one opinion that everyone shares.

[NamerOfStars]

It's not optional; it's STILL ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND SEX.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[lightbulb27]

im confused... they've been discriminating as part of policy. maintaining it would mean possibly vilating the law, whereas it was ignored before.

[NamerOfStars]

https://www.eeoc.gov/sex-based-discrimination
https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination

[lightbulb27]

yes thats my point, hiring someone because their color matches some chart for diversity, would be discrimination. the whole DEI thing... was discrimination based upon the law.

[NamerOfStars]

Then they need to be brought up on charges. Or at least sued. Preferably both.

[Agape93]

Nope. But we also don't have any sooo

[DrPepper12]

I will continue to call out the BULLSHIT of DEI!! The trump spawn

Didn't
Earn
It

DEI is RAMPANT among the elites!!

[onedarkcloud]

I never have and never will have DEI. The biggest waste of money and time for stupid shit. It is better to put the wasted money in the paycheck instead of DEI

[Anonymous]

nope. meritocracy >>>>>>>>>>> DEI

[sawno]

I don't want to work for employers that have discriminatory hiring. So as far as my weight goes its a strong no.

[OddBeMe]

Well i don't exclude like repubs so i think I'm good with or without it

[AviatorTom]

Diversity is fine, as a secondary goal. Hire people based on qualifications first, diversity second.

[Avicenna]

Fuck no. It’s discriminatory.

[Pterodon]

Fuck no. I hire the most qualified