US tells French companies to comply with Donald Trump’s anti-diversity order
-
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
I understand this to mean that job adverts shouldn't explicitly target DEI hires. That is not, however, the same as not implementing DEI targets in a company.
The intelligent way to implement DEI has always been to interview and identity the top candidates for a role, and then if you have 2 capable and competent candidates and one is a women / minority, they get the job. This law wouldn't prevent that.
The subtext of "anti-DEI", though, is that it is not possible to have two competent candidates where one is a woman/minority because conservative Christian English-speaking white men from wealthy families are inherently superior.
-
Lmao inagine fucking yourself this hard. That means all global suppliers to the US will have to stop dealing with them. They will run out of brains and resources so fucking fast.
Which will hurt working class folks the most, causing us to resist and justifying martial law.
Isolating and enslaving the working class is the goal. Cheap Chinese labor is a thing of the past. So they're recolonizing the US workforce.
-
The subtext of "anti-DEI", though, is that it is not possible to have two competent candidates where one is a woman/minority because conservative Christian English-speaking white men from wealthy families are inherently superior.
No argument from me, I understand why anti-DEI proponents oppose it. Their racism, classism and misogyny is clear.
The point to my comment was simply that the original commenter is incorrect in thinking that not having DEI explicit adverts excludes a business from having DEI targets.
-
Which will hurt working class folks the most, causing us to resist and justifying martial law.
Isolating and enslaving the working class is the goal. Cheap Chinese labor is a thing of the past. So they're recolonizing the US workforce.
I dont think that will work out very well for them in the long run.
-
I think they spelled anti-diversity disorder wrong.
-
I dont think that will work out very well for them in the long run.
No probably not.
But a lot of folks are going to be hurt in the meantime
-
My parents fled a socialist country many decades ago. I grew up listening to my father drone on and on about how bad Socialism is. He still doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and totalitarianism, but following political developments of the last decade or so I am often reminded of his sermons.
One detail was: what happens when you hire people not based on qualifications but based on loyalty. You get stupid people in positions of power, happy to wield it for its own sake. Often with a penchant for cruelty and a vague feeling of revenge (against “the bourgeousie” then, against “woke globalists” now). And it always ends the same: you have to dilute milk with water and lie about it. This is where the US are now, folks. Stalinism, the burgeoning 3rd Reich, take your pick.
My dad grew up in a communist country, and I know exactly what you mean.
I'm incredibly lucky that we have a kind of mutual intellectual respect, where we fact-check each other a lot and are both willing to change our minds about stuff. Consequently, I've managed to explain the differences between totalitarianism, communism, and fascism (had to explain why horseshoe theory isn't a thing).
He thought I was being hyperbolic about the US' slow descent into fascism in 2017, as I ran through the fascist identification checklist. As a victim of communism, he naturally tried to make excuses for Trump. That ended the first week of his second term, and we're having some close calls with a similar candidate here.
-
Didn't he study jeans?
Nono, he was an anthropologist, he studied genes
-
If you think it's because there's no help programs for minorities, there are, but it is usually based on the revenue of the household or the district.
Has it worked well for France? I've been arguing that such an approach would work much better for the US.
Using self-identified racial identities for aid programs is too easy to argue is itself racially biased. Even if you can make good contextual arguments that race-based aid is a compensation for race-based oppression, either current or historical, that's not a winning political position.
Using metrics like generational wealth, income, education is a much easier argument to make, even if in effect it would disproportionately benefit these identity groups.
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
-
France replies to trump with "we wave our genitalia in your general direction."
-
It could be argued, I guess?
But to impose arbitrary (and contrary to democracy itself) rules overnight and expect everyone to follow suit instead of negotiating a solution? No fucking way.
Maybe I should have put it differently:
“If you don’t run your business by our fascist rules right now you can’t do business with us!”
Trump legitimately believes his purpose is to put forth the rules that make his voters happy... so in that way, negotiation is more of a sign of weakness and would tank his numbers.
-
Nono, he was an anthropologist, he studied genes
Like Wilder and Hackman?
-
Has it worked well for France? I've been arguing that such an approach would work much better for the US.
Using self-identified racial identities for aid programs is too easy to argue is itself racially biased. Even if you can make good contextual arguments that race-based aid is a compensation for race-based oppression, either current or historical, that's not a winning political position.
Using metrics like generational wealth, income, education is a much easier argument to make, even if in effect it would disproportionately benefit these identity groups.
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
Is that so? I'd think the income tax form should tell you those things.
Fwiw, Europeans would look at you funny if you were to ask them to tick Caucasian/Black/Asian/... on random government forms. This data literally doesn't exist in any consistent way, except for criminal suspects.
-
European governments and courts have a long history of laughing at US companies attempting to apply US labour laws on European soil. I'm sure they'll cope.
This matter is different: Companies stand to lose business with the US government. These types of demands from a big customer will likely actually effect change.
-
Didn't he study jeans?
That was his brother, Jimmy “Beans” Levi-Strauss
-
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
Is that so? I'd think the income tax form should tell you those things.
Fwiw, Europeans would look at you funny if you were to ask them to tick Caucasian/Black/Asian/... on random government forms. This data literally doesn't exist in any consistent way, except for criminal suspects.
Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program? How do you get your parents' and grandparents' IRS data correlated with your own? What about people who don't file taxes? The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that's where the overhead costs come in.
This is something which happens with existing public assistance programs, where so many requirements have been put on the aid application that people give up trying to to prove they made less than X dollars in the last 12 months, or lived in the state for at least 5 years, or have passed a drug screening, and so on. Too often that's done intentionally to stymie a program, but the phenomenon exists regardless of motivation. The more complicated the program requirement are, the more people will fail to get aid they should, and the more it costs to administer.
-
My dad grew up in a communist country, and I know exactly what you mean.
I'm incredibly lucky that we have a kind of mutual intellectual respect, where we fact-check each other a lot and are both willing to change our minds about stuff. Consequently, I've managed to explain the differences between totalitarianism, communism, and fascism (had to explain why horseshoe theory isn't a thing).
He thought I was being hyperbolic about the US' slow descent into fascism in 2017, as I ran through the fascist identification checklist. As a victim of communism, he naturally tried to make excuses for Trump. That ended the first week of his second term, and we're having some close calls with a similar candidate here.
We have too much emotional baggage to have regular discussions but it was kinda cool to be on the same side during Covid, fiercely pro Ukraine and against Putin and Trump. Although he too thought me hyperbolic when I compared Trump's first weeks in office to Hitler's first weeks in office. Maybe he has changed his mind by now.
-
Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program? How do you get your parents' and grandparents' IRS data correlated with your own? What about people who don't file taxes? The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that's where the overhead costs come in.
This is something which happens with existing public assistance programs, where so many requirements have been put on the aid application that people give up trying to to prove they made less than X dollars in the last 12 months, or lived in the state for at least 5 years, or have passed a drug screening, and so on. Too often that's done intentionally to stymie a program, but the phenomenon exists regardless of motivation. The more complicated the program requirement are, the more people will fail to get aid they should, and the more it costs to administer.
Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program?
Quite honestly, there should be various options. I guess IRS could run such a program itself. Alternatively, the US has SSNs as a universal ID and IRS could send over required data organized by SSN.
What about people who don't file taxes?
I don't know but that's probably solvable.
The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that's where the overhead costs come in.
I am not convinced by that. An administrator-run program with a simple methodology and a good data basis might be a lot more efficient than an application-based program inviting human error and long back-and-forths.
-
I see no problems with the request. Their country, their rules. We here in EU should do the same instead of trying to fuck everyone of these companies equally. I say let Macaron deal with Trump if he wants to make amendments to the request. Now morally I would say this is absolutely retarded. But this is how this new gov operates there by default.
We here in EU should do the same instead of trying to fuck everyone of these companies equally.
What do you mean?
-
Trump legitimately believes his purpose is to put forth the rules that make his voters happy... so in that way, negotiation is more of a sign of weakness and would tank his numbers.
Nah, he doesn't care about the voters this time.
This is all him and the Project 2025 guys.
