- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The existence of woke Fury hackers suggests the existence of anti-woke furry hackers.
well, it’s full of nazi furries
I also think DEI is awful: Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka, yuck! The worst of his spawn.
Woke furries for the win.
DEi: Democrats, Education and Immigrants, the three deadly dangers.
It’s probably a coincidence, but so-called “underhanded” techniques like this used to be referred to as “ratfucking.” Anyway, here’s to more left-wing ratfucking.
Furry hackers, they will be the Alan Turing of our struggle against fascism. May you yiff long and prosper.
heck yea
Don’t expect corporations to join the DEI movement because they care about minorities. They do it for the money. When the wind of change arrives, some people might be surprised by how quickly and completely corps change their minds
Where are we right now? What are we doing? I’m reading a news and content aggregation system known as Lemmy which pulls the current world to my fingertips. It separates everything into digestible categories so that you can separate based on topic of interest. This can then be used to grasp the context of what society has done with their day, and recap recent events, or just show you a funny comic if you need to be cheered up. I can even browse a community of nothing but cat pictures.
It sounds like an amazing service, so imagine my surprise when I find out that the world around me is just…ya know…batshit insane.
We’re discussing the current ruling government who’s PUNISHING people for having empathy, and basic common courtesy towards other people. DEI has been in the news the past few days as being some controversial concept. So I looked it up, and find out it means “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”.
What the hell is so controversial about that??? “Hey Tom, wanna go bowling with us later?” “What?” “We’re going bowling after work. Would you like to join us?” “Join you? HOW DARE YOU INCLUDE ME! WE ARE DIFFERENT RACES YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!!” “What…what just happened?” “I WILL NOT BE PART OF YOUR DEI PROPAGANDIST BULLSHIT!!! NEXT YOU’LL TELL ME YOU WANT ME TO TALK TO A TRANS PERSON!!!” “Tom…your daughter is trans…” “HEEEEEE IS A HEEEEEE!!!” “Tom…ok, ya know what? Fuck you.” “That’s more LIKE it!”
I do not understand the world we live in today, where being different and getting along is somehow a bad thing.
They don’t know or care what DEI is. They just know that white men like themselves now have to compete with non-white non-men for jobs.
So now they have to make themselves marketable, or shut that whole thing down so they can go back to living in the boys club. And since self-improvement is “woke”, they choose the latter.
They get it fed to them during their 2 Minutes Hate and that’s all that matters.
It used to be Antifa. They were staunchly against antifa. You know what you call someone who is anti-antifa? Fa. You call them fa.
DEI has been in the news the past few days as being some controversial concept. So I looked it up, and find out it means “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”.
You realize that’s just a name, right? They can name things whatever they want.
The argument against it is that people are disadvantaged based on the color of their skin or their race. In other words, racism. That’s why some people are upset. People will deny this over and over but they’re simply being irrational and disingenuous because they don’t want to be associated with the word.
Now I’m gonna tell you something about this that no one else will: This type of racism is good. It’s meant to combat other types of much more prevalent racism.
Society just needs to acknowledge that racism isn’t an inherently bad word and then we’re all just better off.
I’m white, straight, and male. I’m trying to get a book published. Every agent that I’ve tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I’m writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I’ve been turned away at every one. Such racism, right?
Except…most published work in bookstores is still by white male authors like myself. And if I take a step back to look at my whole life situation: I’m not reliant on this book. I’m a well-employed engineer, have my own house and mortgage, and had relatively well-off parents. Little of this is true for these other demographics that have received heavy discrimination even less than a generation ago. All things considered, it is very fair for these agents to champion diverse voices, and they’re slammed with requests all over the place.
The scarring effects of discrimination are still felt decades later when we feel them gone. It’s still a hard truth that employment is hard even today, but those with experience in staffing can usually only point to the occasional anecdote when someone was prioritized for their race - and usually have just as many stories of inverse discrimination or nepotism.
What the current situation is has absolutely zero effect on whether or not it is racism. Being turned away for being a white male is not only racist but sexist and exclusive, plain and simple. There is no other rational argument.
Again, I think this is a good thing. It’s also racist. And the fight to redefine the word when it’s convenient does not serve the cause.
This is still diving down a rabbit hole of bad definitions, and devalues both what racism is and how it’s affected people in their lives.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion like one hiring session. I guarantee you, if an organization’s entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well. The fact of the matter is, just about every organization currently hires plenty of white men, so that ends up being many levels removed from reality.
If you’re trying to pinpoint statistics around who gets turned away from one particular position, the problem is that companies get so many dozens or hundreds of applicants, you’d be flagging that statistic on enormous groups. Asians over blacks? Women over men? You really can’t make a concrete determination there, and when your source cases are singular anecdotes, it fails the critical definition of being “systemic”.
You’re also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race. If you’re attacked on the street anonymously, specifically for being white, and the attacker calls you a “fucking cracker!” then I would have no problems labeling that racism. As it stands, even in 2024, other races deal with that situation far more often from police or other hate groups. I would absolutely call much of the “DEI” labeling racism, given that the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target’s performance on their job.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion
Incorrect. What you’re referring to is called “systemic racism”, but “racism” alone has an entirely different, very simple definition: discrimination based on race, which is what this is. And it can absolutely be applied to individuals and to policies.
if an organization’s entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well.
Really? Do you really think that’s true? Do you think anyone would “highlight”, say, a professional basketball or football team that’s 90+% black as “problematic”?
You’re also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race.
Wrong again, I explicitly acknowledged this already. It has no bearing on this conversation.
the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target’s performance on their job.
You don’t need to assess performance. The only thing you need to assess is the policies themselves. How they’re applied or what the resulting performance is is irrelevant to a conversation about whether or not they’re discriminatory.
Being able to admit that certain groups are systemically disadvantaged and wanting to do something about it is literally the opposite of racism, what are you talking about?
If “doing something about it” means disadvantaging a group of people based on their race or ethnicity, that is the very definition of racism, what are you talking about?
You should really ask yourself why you see raising up one group as necessarily lowering another. One doesn’t follow from the other.
I can ask myself all day but the answer will be the same. Instead, why don’t you tell me how that works?
There is a finite amount of positions at any job (unless you’re hiring someone to do a made-up job to score points, which would be the textbook definition of “diversity hire”). You can choose to fill those positions with the most qualified applicant, or you can choose to hire one of a specific race. You can’t logically do both.
That’s an entirely different conversation, and a strawman to boot. You clearly aren’t interested in actually discussing this. I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists against equally skilled applicants with an “ethnic sounding” name, but why bother, you’re not serious and I’m done engaging with you.
That’s an entirely different conversation
It is a different conversation from the one you want to have. It is the conversation I was having before you showed up and tried to derail it with a strawman.
I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists
I agree and acknowledge that that bias exists. That bias has no bearing on whether or not discrimination based on race (regardless of what race) is racism.
