SpeedilyDamage

> It's the civil rights movement in reverse.

Is it?

Here's what MLK has written:

> “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.”

> “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”

> “A section of the white population, perceiving Negro pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges rather than as a desperate quest for existence. The ensuing white backlash intimidates government officials who are already too timorous.”

DEI initiatives, when executed correctly, show substantially and consistently superior outcomes for the people and organizations who implement them. You will see more, and more successful, DEI initiatives for the rest of your life, because they work. Companies who are successful will tend to be companies who execute DEI initiatives well (I can post many high quality sources if folks are interested).

It's completely fair to criticize bad implementations of DEI, and we all know there are a lot of those, but to throw the baby out with the bath water here would be a mistake, and not one corporations will make willingly. You'd have to be pretty militant and aggressive with the law in order to stop companies from pursuing a win/win like DEI.

Are you claiming that it's the same level of better outcomes regardless of race?

Because you'd be wrong.

Criticizing DEI is fine. Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories, as they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data.

And you're right, claiming something does not make it so. What makes it so is all of the data supporting it, which is readily available to anyone who actually cares about this topic (up to you if that's you).

What's "uncalled for" about what I said? Is this an outrage copypasta you got from somewhere? You could paste what you wrote in reply to nearly any comment on this platform and it'd be about as valid.

And I didn't say I knew anything about you? I said things that are true for any thinking, breathing human.

Honestly, what a weird reaction. You clearly feel attacked, which I guess makes sense if you genuinely are the worst possible parts of what I wrote about (choosing to be a racist asshole rather than a person of reason), but you're opting into those designations for some reason.

The things people will do to justify hatred are wild, thank you for reminding me of that.

Considering all of science is having a replication crisis, you are going full flat earther, then.

I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being. Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and rigged somehow on a widely studied topic, is an insane claim only made when you've given up on the entire concept of rationality.

You really would rather throw all of science under the bus before you let black people get an even footing in society, wouldn't you? Incredible.

No what? Harder work does not equate to better outcomes, who taught you that?

Just… stop. DEI works when well executed. Accept that.

If you want to police DEI initiatives to ensure they’re properly implemented, go for it, but the constant aversion to a so thoroughly researched concept is bordering on flat earther level conspiracy.

You immediately started calling me a bigot in your very first reply. I wonder why you had to resort to name calling so quickly, if your position is so strong...

Any positive traits I would encounter from knowing a religious person would be in spite of their religion, not because of it. There are great, wonderful people who are religious, but not because of religion.

Except study after study shows that good outcomes result from hiring diverse candidates...

A problem a lot of tech/math minded people make is that there is some set of metrics, some set of tests or achievements or qualifications that make a candidate "objectively" the best. There isn't, not even a tiny little bit.

The argument goes like: There's some objective rubric, and hiring a black person despite that rubric's indication that they're 2.345312% repeating below the best candidate, is DEI gone wrong!

Anyone here who's ever hired for a technical role knows how wildly wrong that idea of recruitment is, but for engineers, we want to put a model to a system, and then we want to worship that model, so it's hard for some folks to grasp.

Black kids didn't have an easier time getting in, it's a lot harder for a black person to get to the place where they're even being considered for a prestigious college than it is for you to get to that place.

If you see a black person with an education from an institute like Harvard, you should think about the additional work they had to do to get there.

And by the way, those kids get the grades necessary to attend these schools. Why would you presume they don't?

No, I'm not wrong. The only "solid" conclusions I can draw over the last hundreds of years are the systemic abuses, the bigotry and the hate that emanates from the practice of every major religion.

Religion has irreparably harmed society, and only recently have we finally begun to eschew the completely unnecessary worship of sky beings in favor of experiencing reality for what it is. That doesn't mean we have to abandon spirituality, but it does mean we can be more sophisticated than to suggest people pick back up an ancient tool that has no use for us anymore.

No one should be forced to put themselves through the awfulness that is religion just to experience being a human with spirituality.