Are DEI critics just being racist and misogynistic toward non‑white men?

[Anonymous]

I've notice a trend among white males. They believe that anyone, that is not a white male, (including white women) is considered a DEI hire. They believe said person was handed that position to fill a quota and is not fit for the job, which should be granted to a white male. In addition, white males also consider shows "WOKE" if the main protagonist is anything but a white male. If a show has white female as the lead, it's considered WOKE as well. Does anyone not see that this is the only group of people that want to have the best jobs and be the only faces shown on tv/movies?

Whoopi Goldberg on TRUMP & DEI: “When you really look up and see who this was for, who benefited from it — it was not Black folks...” pic.twitter.com/mKyQRJimvp

— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) February 19, 2026

Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is just about White boys in plate armor going hard asf for honour pic.twitter.com/v84kaWDk5B

— Severus Chud (@SeverusChud) February 16, 2026

Yes

No

Updates

3 mo

A staff member for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, who was in charge of flagging grants for “DEI,” struggled to define the term during a lawsuit deposition.

https://youtu.be/WpbGF7l-t2w?si=WcMYOXza6xdoRpnR

[KostasKouvalis]

Oh I assure you, at my old job, I wouldn't neccesarily call them "diversity hires", but they were definitely getting special treatment. This girl kept taking time off to get a dick sewn on and they kept her employed, but when I took two weeks off to go to Italy, they ended my season.
There was an Asian guy who wanted to get a promotion after a few days. You normally get one after 6 months. Me and him never got one, but the only Mexican girl got one after just 2 months. I've also had teachers who were 100% diversity hires. I also can't get a job at a hotel, but there's a retard on this website who got one. DEI isn't just racial.

I personally liked "Queen of Swords", even though the actress was horrible, but it got poor ratings and viewership. Same with timeless. But "Sabrina: Teenage Witch", "Lizzy McGuire" and "Xena Worrior Princess" had female leads and were very sucessful shows. Wonder Woman too. We complain about brown washing White characters yes, but as far as their own leads, or gay leads, we could care less. We just don't watch them, because we feel we're not the target audience. But I enjoy Denzel, Wesley Snipes, Jackie Chan and Robert Rodruguez films.

As for wanting to have the best jobs and be the face, of course. We have ambition. What's wrong with that? But other groups want the same. Like the Asian and Mexican girl in my job, they immediately wanted promotion. No White person is saying they don't want non-Whites in TV/movies. We just want them to invent their own characters instead of brown-washing or rather "dirtying" ours. But I'm not gonna watch those, since I'm not the target audience and can't relate to those shows. The only thing I hate is having LGBT contestants/characters just for the sake of having them. Although CBS instituted a diversity quota for their reality shows which doesn't sit well with me.

[beefcakebradybatson]

YEP !!!

[Ariesman81]

DEI...

"Why should I hire you?"

"Because I'm a minority."

"It doesn't matter to me that you're a minority."

"Racist pig"

"Thanks for stopping by and good luck on your job search"

[Asker]

Except that's not what DEI does. The term has lost all meaning because it's been hijacked by racist to encourage discrimination of non-whites for jobs.

[Ariesman81]

Then remove DEI so racists lose a weapon.

[Asker]

DEI provides racist with a weapon. Your understanding of DEI is false because racist have warped the meaning of it to undermine any minority obtaining a decent job.

[Ariesman81]

No... my understanding of DEI is it's typically fought for by people who blame the color of people's skin.

[Asker]

Please explain what your understanding of DEI is. This way a conversation with you can be more productive rather than being vague.

[Ariesman81]

DEI in theory is fine. All equal and deserving of a fair shake👍🏻. DEI in policy is racist and enforces quotas. It also breeds resentment of minorities in the workforce because the policy exists. Before DEI, the assumption was a minority offered value, hence the reason they were hired. After DEI, there is a suspicion that the minority was forced to be hired.

[Asker]

DEI in policy does not force quota and is not racist. It seems you have been mislead. This talk about DEI being racist only came into conversation due to bad actors spreading misinformation on social media sites like X. In truth, without DEI, minorities would be picked less for a job. The reason is not because they are less capable than their white counterpart but rather due to innate bias of employers to hire people that look like them; even having a non-white passing name could lead to instant rejection prior to DEI. This is due to the mere fact that before DEI, people would often hire others who were within their social circles, family, friends and often have an innate bias to hire people that look like them.

DEI does not mean that the person being hired is unqualified. They still need to be qualified for a job to be picked. What DEI does it allows groups (minorities and women) who would otherwise not be considered due to their race and sex to be added into the collective pool of possible candidates for a job that they qualify for. In addition, the final decision of who is picked for a job is not dependent on DEI but rather the decision of the employer. In truth, DEI has hardly benefited minorities at all. The biggest benefactors to DEI are white women.

Lastly, DEI can also apply within white groups. It encourages employers to consider and accept candidates from social background that they otherwise wouldn't bother looking into. For example, if you have 2 white candidates, both equally qualified for a given job, but one comes from a poor background, while the other is upper middle class, then DEI states that both should be given a fair chance and assessed in the job application process.

The whole claim that DEI= Didn't earn it was due to racist hijacking the term and spreading misinformation across social media to undermine any minority that landed a good job.

[Ariesman81]

Dude... you're arguing for something that doesn't exist for people who are against DEI.
In 15 years of hiring, I've hired 4 out of 5 minorities that have applied. The one didn't get hired because he didn't speak English.

I am against DEI policy and have hired 80% that have applied.

[Asker]

So you are gullible enough to believe that racism is gone? Just going on any social media site or reading the papers shows it is very much present. Racism often bleeds into discrimination when it comes to job opportunities.

[Ariesman81]

Gone? No. I'm saying it never existed.

[Asker]

So you are saying racism never existed. It seems Jim Crow and racial segregation was just a fever dream then.

[Ariesman81]

I'm saying Rosa Parks fucked it up for Black people. Everyone knows the cool kids sit in the back of the bus.

[Snakeyes7]

Because there is nothing fair about hiring people with immutable and irrelevant characteristics simply to check a box.

To do that you would have to hire people who normally wouldn't pass meritocratically since there is no equal numbers in population size.

[Asker]

Good and DEI doesn't do that. Educate yourself on what DEI is and then get back to me.

[Asker]

https://youtu.be/2KW-sj35Vjc?si=rn_JCQ67sFc5Wc9g

[Snakeyes7]

If that's not what DEI does then why have it? We already have laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on race and sex so there's no point.

[Asker]

Because human by in large are known to have biases which include racial bias/favoritism. DEI is put in place to ensure that people aren't being discriminated for jobs based on their sex, gender or sexual orientation. It does not mean that unqualified people are being hired for jobs because of those qualities. This is BS that's being spread by right wingers.

[Snakeyes7]

That's what the civil rights act does, it is supposed to take all of the traits that do not factor into merit out of the equation. DEI is redundant if it does the same thing.

[Asker]

Civil right act says this on paper but you can't directly look into a employer's mind to know why they picked a given candidate and people are capable of lying about their choice. Also, humans have an innate bias/prejudice that they are often unaware of. DEI is a second measure to help support the civil rights act and ensure that no form of discrimination is being taken place.

[Snakeyes7]

If you can prove they are discriminating against you, you can sue them. Plus, if they really are racists in secret, what makes you think they are telling the truth about them not discriminating with DEI?

[Asker]

Unless you can read people's minds, you won't have much of a case from an individual level to know if you were discriminated by them. They can easily hide by the motto "people who earn by merit were chosen" or "only the best were chosen". A lot of racist will just use this to hide their own prejudice and discrimination.

In addition, people may not necessarily be racist and could subconsciously be unaware of their own racial/personal biasness influencing their decision making when it comes to hiring people. For example, a previous study showed that people with non-white names were less likely to be hired compared to those who had white passing names.

DEI essentially does an internal review of the hiring process and ask the question whether discrimination is happening and if so how to rectify it. It ensures that qualified candidates aren't being excluded from the potential pool of possible employees because of their race, sex or sexual orientation. It's meant to help support and reinforce the 1964 civil rights act.

[Snakeyes7]

>A lot of racist will just use this to hide their own prejudice and discrimination.

Sorry to say but even when it comes to blind hiring, diversity of skin color drops too. Doesn't always mean that blacks are less qualified, it could just be a reflection of the population compared to whites, since whites are still the majority. The aim to have more of a certain skin color is the admission to having racial discrimination simply to check boxes.

>DEI essentially does an internal review of the hiring process and ask the question whether discrimination is happening and if so how to rectify it.

Well it's clearly not doing its job. As I said, to achieve the "diversity" it wants, discrimination based on non-meritocratic traits is required to a certain extent.

>It's meant to help support and reinforce the 1964 civil rights act.

Yeah I just don't believe you. Look at our movies lately, especially the remakes. No one asked for the characters to be race swapped but they were anyway.

[Asker]

Yes, it is certainly true that there are many cases where you will find an overwhelming amount of a given race because of geographic location. DEI does not push for companies to force a certain racial quota. This gain is misinformation and lies, often spread by racist and right conservatives, to undermine the accomplishment of non-white people, who achieve highly skilled jobs. Essentially reducing these people's accomplishment down to them filling some racial quota over it being done due to their hard work.

Except it is doing it's job when it comes to hiring at middle management and under. White men aren't being discriminated for jobs. Look at the top position in Western societies. It's nearly all occupied by white males. DEI is measure to help mitigate discrimination of someone based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. It is meant to help bolster and support the 1964 civil rights act. This does not mean that discrimination practices are gone just that it is lessen compared to how it was 70 years ago.

If you remake a film then you can decide what the race of a character will be, as they are fictional characters open to the interpretation of the writer. Hollywood for a very long time has just been remaking past films over and over. A lot of these films were made in a time period where only white people were represented in films and tv shows. In order to attract a modern audience and get more people interested in a movie/show, you are going to have to introduce more diverse racial groups. Minorities are going to have to have more of a role in the story and not just be NPCs in the background or racial stereotypes that get killed off 30 minutes into the film.

[Snakeyes7]

>DEI does not push for companies to force a certain racial quota. This gain is misinformation and lies, often spread by racist and right conservatives, to undermine the accomplishment of non-white people, who achieve highly skilled jobs.

Yeah yeah you keep saying that but if you look at the employees at pretty much any major corporation, no one's buying it. There's like one or two white men in a sea of women and its even more obvious that somethings fishy going on when its a video game company like Ubisoft, Activison or Blizzard. And we wonder why western games have gone to shit. Race isn't the only discriminating factor here when it comes to DEI.

There are even videos of female employees that they take to describe their daily life in these coropos like Meta or Twitter before it became X. They spend at maximum an hour or two of actual work and spend the rest of the time fucking around. It's adult daycare for them.

>Essentially reducing these people's accomplishment down to them filling some racial quota over it being done due to their hard work.

You have to do that if you require "diversity" within your workplace. Those who are too retarded to realize that they are in a majority white country are now demanding representation, as if it really does anything for them. I dare you to try that shit in a place like China, at best they'd laugh at you for asking for representation of your race as they should.

>It's nearly all occupied by white males

That is very quickly changing at least for the women part. Most newer CEOs are women and when that happens from what I have seen they try to dismantle the very thing that made people like their products in the first place and to no ones surprise the company loses a shit ton of money because their original customer base is pissed about their plans.

[Snakeyes7]

>DEI is measure to help mitigate discrimination of someone based on race, sex, and sexual orientation

Yeah no one who is actually paying attention is buying that.

>If you remake a film then you can decide what the race of a character will be, as they are fictional characters open to the interpretation of the writer

No you fucking don't. The point of a remake is nostalgia or to introduce people to the series. If you make any changes to identifying traits of beloved characters, then you lose the original fanbase. It doesn't matter what race or sex the original character is, people would be just as pissed if you made Blade white and Samus a man. It's a tamer version of rewriting history. Oh speaking of that.

Netflix tried to make a film about Cleopatra but they made her black. This rightfully pissed off the Egyptian government because she was Greek, a white woman.

>In order to attract a modern audience and get more people interested in a movie/show, you are going to have to introduce more diverse racial groups.

This "modern audience" you speak of doesn't exist and the more one tries to cater to this non-existent group, the more of their original audience they will lose. Also you just admitted to the fact that this "diversity" is forced and must check racial boxes to appease an audience that doesn't exist. Good job.

>Minorities are going to have to have more of a role in the story and not just be NPCs in the background or racial stereotypes that get killed off 30 minutes into the film.

You never needed DEI to do that. I mentioned Blade earlier and somehow he made it into a movie without DEI and became a very beloved character. If you want to make more minority focused cast you can be the change you want to see and make your own movie. But thanks to DEI making its plan to force diversity, no one will ever think your or any other studio's casting choices are purely organic ever again.

[Cyfris]

They are just the kind of people who prioritize peoples strengths over their differences.

[Asker]

And how come strength only seem to be appreciated with white men? Any other group is criticized as being unworthy and just a token hire.

[Cyfris]

It isn't. The best person at the job will always be toted as the best. Have you ever walked in to a black barber shop for a fade. They are mostly black men and they usually do a better fade then my white barber. I think where the name calling and finger pointing comes from is a resistance to having dei forced on people who did not agree with it in the first place. You poke my eye I poke yours.

[Asker]

So you believe that DEI is forced and the best person isn't being chosen for the job. And from your response towards this question, you also believe that the best person , for most high skilled jobs, just happens to be white men 99% of the time. In addition, you believe that black people should only be allowed to work certain jobs like a barber and are unworthy of highly skilled jobs like doctor, lawyer, engineer etc.

Alright, I think I understand your stance.

[Cyfris]

Nope you sure do not understand me at all and do not get to put words in my mouth just because you say them and don't understand my perspective. But good luck on your journey. The road to hell is paved in good intention.

[Asker]

I am merely reflecting your words back on to you. The term DEI only comes up when it comes to highly skilled jobs that pay well and are respected. Given your example, it can be inferred that you are of the belief that black people are only good for lowly skilled jobs. If you feel I've misspoken then please clarify your points.

[Cyfris]

No you are projecting your beliefs of who I am into your statements of what you think I mean. The term DEI comes up everywhere or did when it was the popular narrative in all levels of employment from the CEO to the guy flipping burgers. And never once did I say black people are only good for lowly skilled jobs. I just gave a real world example where the implication you made "Are DEI critics just being racist and misogynistic toward non‑white men?" was not in fact true. One example of a non white person dominating their chosen field not because of DEI but because of their strengths. But since you seem to think barbers are low skilled how about we talk about professional athletes, the CEO of Lowe's. Do you think Pharrell is the creative director at Louis Vuitton because he is a black DEI hire? I don't I think he is there because he deserves it. Because he offers something others don't and that skin color has nothing to do with it. The same as the white people leading where they do.

[Asker]

Except I don't here people complaining about DEI when it comes to low paying jobs like janitors, garbage collectors and sewage cleaners. The term almost exclusively comes up when talking about high, paying careers that have a high barrier of entry. For example, doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, STEM researchers.

You stated "The best person at the job will always be toted as the best. Have you ever walked in to a black barber shop for a fade. They are mostly black men and they usually do a better fade then my white barber."

Implications of this is that certain races are suited for certain job roles better than others. This in itself opens up the discussion of stereotyping people and classifying people for jobs based on race. You also picked a career that is deemed a low, skilled job and not highly respected for a role that is suited for a black person.

"Do you think Pharrell is the creative director at Louis Vuitton because he is a black DEI hire?"

Yes, I agree with you that he is deserving of it because he got that position. The issue is that DEI becomes a witch hunt and the end of the day on who people think are deserving of a given position. And often, this assessment will be influenced based on racial prejudice and stereotyping. For example, if a black pilot is hired for a job, passed all his exams, why should he be deemed a "DEI" and unworthy next to a white pilot?

[Mike_Hum]

No, they aren't. Hope this helps.

[Asker]

So why is it that only white men are considered non-DEI hires? Why is every other group looked as suspect of being unworthy for a job?

[Mike_Hum]

you tell me why they're so unworthy of a job they need racial quotas to succeed.

[Asker]

Racial quota doesn't increase the chance of succeeding. DEI merely removes discrimination that would be put in place in the initial stages of the hiring process. It doesn't determine who gets picked for the job in the end.

[Mike_Hum]

Literally not true. Should the NBA be 63% white?

[Asker]

If they can play well at that level, I see no issue. DEI again doesn't force companies to hire a non-white person but merely prevent discrimination of minorities when it comes to hiring process.

For example, if a community is 55% white, 10% black, 25% Hispanic and 10% Asian. It would be a bit weird if the employment is 90% white. DEI puts in place policies to ensure standard practices, remove human biasness and ensure that people aren't being discriminated for a role. It does not determine who an employer hires at the end of the day but it does assess whether there is some form of discrimination being put in place during the initial stages of the job process.

[Mike_Hum]

Then why is the NBA > 90% black? By your logic DEI initiatives it should have 10% black, 55% white, 25% hispanic and 10% Asian.

[Asker]

My logic states that DEI doesn't determine who is hired by the employer at the end of the day. It is put in place to limit discrimination during the initial phase of the job hiring process. As for your question as to why this racial makeup is not reflected in the NBA, it can come down to many factors. One such factor is that certain ethnic groups have a propensity towards certain sports and tend to not pursue other sports at a professional level for whatever reason.

For example, let's look at hocket, swimming or skiing. It's entirely dominated by white men and women in the West at a professional level.

Another factor is physical discrepancy between races can be a barrier that limits their entry into certain sports. For example, Hispanic and Asians often tend to be shorter than blacks and whites, which in turn will make it difficult for them to be considered as a candidate for a sport that desires height and arm reach.

But in non-physically demanding careers, that just requires one to use their brain, there is no racial quota. The candidate chosen is usually the best one for the job.

[Mike_Hum]

Well yes your logic does. You don’t even understand what you are advocating for. You either want people hired on merit or you want to force the population of employees to mirror the racial makeup of society through dei.

[Asker]

Can you pinpoint where you think my logic is at fault? No one mentioned on merit. Those are your words.

DEI does not force employers to hire people in order to match the population. It merely put in place to limit discrimination during initial phase of job employment. It seems that you keep overlooking this basic understanding.

[Mike_Hum]

That's because it's a retarded point. US federal law already prohibits discrimination. So you're lying when you claim that's the innocent goal of DEI.

[Asker]

Again read a book. DEI does not encourage discrimination base on race. The federal law you spoke of took place in 1960s which was due to white discriminating against non-whites when it came to federal laws. Even with this put in place, there have been many loop holes by white employers to discriminate against non-whites for job opportunities. DEI is used to measure the playing field by mitigating discriminatory practices.

[Asker]

This is you. You think DEI is hiring unqualified people for jobs. It's not. What DEI does is add people to the possible pool of candidates that would never be considered for jobs. It also mitigates discrimination that would otherwise be put in place if it were removed. For example, before DEI, white employers would often hire candidates based on people within their social circles, family friends and associates. Given people tend to stick largely within their race when it comes to these things, it leads to mostly white people being hired. This is where DEI came in. It basically stopped this practice from happening by stating that employers need to go behind this and consider non-white candidates.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uyAuFyYSI6E

DEI doesn't mean that a black person that's less qualified will get the job over a white person. DEI means that if you have 2 candidates that are of near or same qualification that you must consider both and can't simply discard one because of their race.

[Asker]

Again read a book. DEI does not encourage discrimination base on race. The federal law you spoke of was made in the 1960s which was due to white discriminating against non-whites when it came to job opportunities. Even with this law put in place, there were many loop holes by white employers to discriminate against non-whites for job opportunities still. DEI is used to measure the playing field by mitigating discriminatory practices. It does not mean that an unqualified candidate gets a position just base on race or sex. This is what you do not understand.

[Mike_Hum]

Literally Harvard was discriminating against Asians with their dei policies. I’ll remind you again that discrimination was already illegal before the dei bullshit started.

[exitseven]

whoopie id a DEI hire for sure.