politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The insinuation that if you see any woman or person of color in a position of power, prestige, or even competence, they got there because of identity politics and not their own merit, is directly bigoted, not even concealed by the first or second degree. The corollary, of course, is that you can only trust white men to do these important jobs correctly.
This idea is so gross that I don't even want to entertain it mentally.
Thank you for your lucid and crystalline explanation though, internet stranger.
That’s sexist! They also think SOME jobs can be done by women but only if they are cis-women
But if you get too good at that job, the insinuation changes and you must've had sex with your manager in order to get a raise/promotion.
Someone (I think at Do) literally said the “we need white men in charge” line out loud in those words.
So, white men got there only based on their skin and gender? So therefore they are incompetent?
Isn't this why DEI needs to be pulled back though?
People of color and women do get their status on their own but the policy of DEI implies that they got additional assistance even if they didn't. This policy robs them of their achievements and it generates as much resentment towards protected groups as it provides protection. You can't just tell the people not to feel resentment, or you'll get republicans in office forever. We should start advocating for class based workplace assistance rather than dividing ourselves up by race and sex. You'll help out basically the same people, but you'll get class solidarity.
DEI isn't a hiring quota or mandate to prefer a minority candidate over a non-minority candidate. It is the mindset that different experiences, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints provide more variety and richer ideas than a single homogenous set, and as such, those differences should be considered as a positive along with other qualifiers as part of the hiring process. A company that values DEI still hires straight white men (speaking as one who works for such a company), as ours is still a viewpoint that should be represented and adds value. But they may also choose a minority candidate over a white male candidate with comparable qualifications if they fill a gap in experiences or culture that the company/team is missing. However, in fact, the reverse is true. If a team is oversaturated with, say, Indians, women, LGBT, etc., a straight American male candidate may be the preferred hire in that case. Should that white guy feel like he needs to justify his position?
Um no. No one should have to justify the spot in an organization based on their culture, race, sexual orientation or gender. I think your scenario illustrates how ridiculous caring intensely about cultural background is for hiring situations. Wouldn't diversity of hobbies, or college education backgrounds be just as valid? Business should be about business, not crafting the perfect society. If you're a good person and a good fit for the role then you're a good fit.
I believe diversity is a admiral goal for an organization. I just don't think DEI policies give enough benefits to the groups they want to protect to be worth the negative second order effects.
They are. I've been asked about hobbies and such before in interviews (my boss even brings somw of them up when we are doing introductions to new hires/interns) and my boss remarked in my interview that he had never interviewed someone that went to my college. Those things are factors.
The practice you describe is explicitly illegal in almost all employment circumstances in the United States.
DEI is popular in finance. If a bank is engaging in polices to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion it is because it makes them more money than not following these programs.
I won't say if I agree or disagree with you, but the argument you make is absolutely a legitimate one that we as a society should be considering in an ongoing process. Some level of forced integration was absolutely necessary after the end of slavery, but we all should want to live in a future where it's not necessary at all. How far along that scale we are, and how we push further in that direction are questions that current policy discussions largely ignore.
However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn't want a reasonable national conversation on the topic. The noise coming from the right makes it next to impossible for these conversations to occur. Sadly, that's why the politicians who rely on bigotry embrace that rhetoric, whether they are personally racist or not.
Aye, there's the rub
Getting rid of a DEI initiative doesnt fix any of that though. We'd simply go back to the times of, "oh who'd she sleep with to get this job?"
Inefficient and poorly managed companies might. I think it's obvious that women are often more competent then their peers, and their workplace value is obvious to anyone in leadership positions.