Where are we right now?

[email protected]

I’m glad it can provide some solace. Wishing the best for you, internet stranger.

[email protected]

They're rjecting DEI in favor of WEI: White, Entitled, and Inept.

[email protected]

Beautiful.

But…

Republicans have been generally older folks, and what they’ve seen in the last 60 years is a rapid turnover of the world they knew.

This is an iffy assumption: https://www.axios.com/2024/09/28/gen-z-men-conservative-poll

The very youngest voters — 18-to-24-year-olds — say they're more conservative than the cohort that's just older, according to the latest Harvard Youth Poll.

The younger generation of men is more likely to identify as conservative than as liberal.

Between the lines: They were hardest hit by COVID-19 and felt ignored by the establishment, John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, told Axios this month.

The youngest members of that group were just 10 years old when Trump was elected president and see this chaotic political era as normal.

"They think of Trump as an anti-hero and not a villain. ... I think it's less about policy and much more about personality," Della Volpe said.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

Much like the word "woke," MAGA conservatives have stripped DEI of its original meaning. As conservatives use it now it's basically just a socially acceptable stand-in for the N-word (or the F-word, depending on context). Like just a couple of days ago I was at a burrito place and the guy a couple spots ahead of me in line said, "This DEI cashier better not fuck up my order again." It was very clear what he meant was, "This N-word better not piss me off."

Any time you hear conservatives say "woke" or "DEI," you can almost always mentally swap it with the N-word or the F-word and what they're saying will make a lot more sense.

[email protected]

Wow, the echo-chamber vibes are strong on this one.

Then it is on you to engage with the replies to your comment instead of whinging into the void.

[email protected]

You can’t expect to understand these people by reading the Bible because these people aren’t themselves religious, they just know the common layman is and use that to their advantage.

My mom is religious and she will side with whoever says is religious too, not for their arguments merit. So if you say you’re not religious and come with a good argument, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a tribalism thing.

Even though she says she’s Evangelical and cites Jesus and Bible texts often, she nitpicks what is convenient at any time like most people do. It’s really annoying when my father who’s Catholic comes and they start disagreeing on stuff citing different parts of the Bible at the same time and considering X important, but ignoring Y totally as it doesn’t go with their narrative of the fact.

[email protected]

Matthew 6:5 is interesting for this reason. He tells people not to be boastful about prayer. You’re supposed to pray in quiet, away from others. James 2:2 also tells people to care for the poor before the rich. There’s lots of quotes about not showing off, either in religiosity or wealth.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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?

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

The prophecies about the end times, about now. One of them says "and the love of the greater number will grow cold". This, right here. The last few years.

[email protected]

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?

[email protected]

You should really ask yourself why you see raising up one group as necessarily lowering another. One doesn’t follow from the other.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

I just recently saw a video shared of an extremist in Maine who attacked his wife, and then recorded himself during a prolonged shootout with the police.

Given that he finds it possible he may die in the next few hours, there's a sort of honesty to his voice; and it's scary to regard the sort of world he believes in, where vaccines are obviously "lethal", etc. The one bit that stood out to me, and maybe not to himself, was his mentioning that he had been out of work for over a year. It's quite possible any employers saw his violent habits and turned him away, but even if that's a suitable explanation, it's a heavy feeling of abandonment.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

Okay. Can you point to any studies performed around performance of diverse hires causing problems in the workplace?

Because a lot of workplaces I know that have had "problem hires" who argue with people or flaunt their position have generally exhibited entitlement that links to being white or male (like myself). Do HR firms ever pick people to check a box, in a rush to avoid an all-white panel? Yes, and they could do better in their practices. Whenever I hear that happen, it tends to be isolated incidents - not a habit that leads to a nonfunctional workplace. I admit, that comes from shared anecdotes, but it often feels common-sense. If you'd like to find proof on that subject, I'd be eager to discuss it.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

agnos.is Forums

Where are we right now?