Where are we right now?
-
No doubt many people have been affected, young men included. I think part of the reason the pushback on DEI & feminism exists is because we have new marginalized groups that are difficult to understand just yet.
Zoomers have an incredibly hard time breaking into professional careers. When one group sees themselves as a group; and another “group” is getting favoritism in the system (women, minorities); the natural response is “Why not me?”
This isn’t to discredit systemic racism or misogyny. I think those are real problems. I’m trying to think of how these folks might see the world, see how it lacks love and prospect for them. Putting others down isn’t how people feel loved.
I put more blame on older folks because of the imbalance of wealth, which unfortunately amounts to influence. Zoomer men may be disenfranchised, but they are likely poorer in terms of equity. They help drive engagement and the algos.
It all gets more complicated with geography and so on. I appreciate you adding more context to the situation.
-
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?
-
Not whining or caring either for that matter; and for "engaging" to make sense all the parties involved would have to be ready for some constructive discussion.
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
I suspect the rise of mental illness has much to do with economy. The more uncertain you are about the future, the easier it becomes to be steeped in resentment.
It is the other end of the wealth horseshoe: The wealthy are free of consequence, and consequence no longer holds meaning among the poor. After all, you don't have friends, a job, or a future. The only way anyone will remember you is if you leave a mark upon them. You may die, but the living are left with the suffering you have left behind.
...that is my guess about the mindset.
-
Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement? I checked over each of your comments in this thread and don't see it.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making; DEI does not mandate a perfectly smooth ratio. And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves, but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires - based on, you guessed it, race. White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
-
Matthew 24:12
It might be the end times, but many believed this in prior ages as well. Over the last 2000 years, a bunch of humans probably thought, “This is it.”
I do feel like the Christian message, especially the one by Christ for how his followers should act, has been lost to some degree. This is likely the least religious time in history, which isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.
But post-COVID, people are still rebounding when it comes to socially hanging out offline. We all leaned into echo chambers more during that time. A lot of Americans don’t know their neighbors: I didn’t until 2-3 years ago.
-
Can you link me to the specific comment where you've acknowledged negative reinforcement?
I'll go ahead and do it again, just for you: Racial and sexual bias is present in our systems. In politics, in employment, and in every other industry. They've been dealt a shit hand via generational poverty, which extends from all the way back in the days of slavery. Marginalized people deserve an upper hand.
DEI attempts to bring balance to that inequality, using racism and discrimination. DEI is a net positive. Discrimination is not inherently negative.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I'm still not sure what point you're making
The point I'm making is the frequency. Unless you want to claim that companies just never hire black men, at which point I expect to see statistics indicating that all black men are unemployed.
Black basketball players comprise ~70% of the NBA, despite making up ~13% of the US population. That's a >500% over-representation. Are you planning to file a complaint?
And as far as I've seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves
What are you talking about? It's called DEI. The policy is in the name.
but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires
I don't even know what this means?
White people, so far as I've seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
You just did, in your first reply to me:
I'm white, straight, and male...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.
-
It goes back even further than that. Pretty much immediately after the New Deal "they" set about to undo it. It’s a long listen but worth checking out How Conservatism Won by Robert Evans. He lays out in a clear concise way “how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all).”
it's worth remembering that one of the primary ghouls/traitors responsible for the attempted overthrow of our government on J6 was Roger Stone, the same traitorous ratfucker who began his career working for Nixon and has a fucking Nixon tattoo on his back. It's really impossible to overstate just how fuckin' bad these people are and they're winning.
tl;dr the shadowy cabals the rightwing says are behind everything is classic projection again, they're controlled by shadowy cabals of rich people
