DEI Discussion Thread

[Methais]

You are correct that Trump said hiring based on diversity is harmful. But you refuse to understand that, in addition, Trump said diversity itself is harmful. That's an un-American belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQl6XBo64M

What would be your opinion if the NBA and/or the NFL were forced to have midgets on their team for diversity reasons?

[Suppressed Poet]

You are correct that Trump said hiring based on diversity is harmful. But you refuse to understand that, in addition, Trump said diversity itself is harmful. That's an un-American belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQl6XBo64M

Oh, did he really say that? Yep 0 chance that you are misunderstanding or just making shit up because the “teevee” told you that Trump = Hitler.

Well I guess that Trump will soon be firing all the women and dark colored skin people that he appointed for cabinet positions and replace them with old white men, right?

Your unhinged TDS is making you more retarded by the hour. It’s oddly satisfying to watch your mental illness outbursts just like your alt Latrin during Covid. Since you refuse to get help or treatment, please continue to provide us on the PC a great source of entertainment.

[ClydeR]

Oh, did he really say that?

He said it and I posted it here, along with a link the full transcript, so you could read it for yourselves in context.

[Back]

What is everyone so angry about? Jesus. Your boy won. He's dismantling everything he told you he would. He's tearing down those terrible American institutions he told you were harming you. Why are you all still so nasty and angry? Fucking chill.

Thanks, everyone, for contributing to the discussion. Honestly I feel like both sides of this are talking past each other. Pro-DEI are not understanding anti-DEI and anti-DEI are not understanding pro-DEI. In fact I believe both sides are making up what they think the other side thinks about it.

Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants homogeny, inequity, and exclusivity. Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything.

Anti-DEI thinks the best candidates are being passed up for less than optimal candidates in order to meet some quota. Anti-DEI thinks pro-DEI has filled so many positions with less than optimal candidates that everything is at risk of falling apart. Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control.

Neither side is correct in their fears of what the other side is thinking. DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone. There are no quotas in the language of DEI. No good candidates are being passed up for someone less qualified. Failures of any system are not caused by DEI. But because anti-DEI perceives or believes these inaccurate portrayals they are understandably upset about it. Then when anti-DEI voice their concerns pro-DEI assumes it means they think only one group should be hired for everything. Its two sides misunderstanding then talking past each other.

Honestly I think that super elite wealthy people who have literally bought politicians are pushing this kind of racial division and fear so the general population will continue to vote their puppets into power so that they continue to get even richer than they already are.

We need to stop arguing with each other and hold our government accountable for its capitulation to the ultra wealthy.

[Methais]

What is everyone so angry about? Jesus. Your boy won. He's dismantling everything he told you he would. He's tearing down those terrible American institutions he told you were harming you. Why are you all still so nasty and angry? Fucking chill.

Thanks, everyone, for contributing to the discussion. Honestly I feel like both sides of this are talking past each other. Pro-DEI are not understanding anti-DEI and anti-DEI are not understanding pro-DEI. In fact I believe both sides are making up what they think the other side thinks about it.

Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants homogeny, inequity, and exclusivity. Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything.

Anti-DEI thinks the best candidates are being passed up for less than optimal candidates in order to meet some quota. Anti-DEI thinks pro-DEI has filled so many positions with less than optimal candidates that everything is at risk of falling apart. Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control.

Neither side is correct in their fears of what the other side is thinking. DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone. There are no quotas in the language of DEI. No good candidates are being passed up for someone less qualified. Failures of any system are not caused by DEI. But because anti-DEI perceives or believes these inaccurate portrayals they are understandably upset about it. Then when anti-DEI voice their concerns pro-DEI assumes it means they think only one group should be hired for everything. Its two sides misunderstanding then talking past each other.

Honestly I think that super elite wealthy people who have literally bought politicians are pushing this kind of racial division and fear so the general population will continue to vote their puppets into power so that they continue to get even richer than they already are.

We need to stop arguing with each other and hold our government accountable for its capitulation to the ultra wealthy.

lol @ now suddenly "iT's BoTh SiDeS!!!!!!"

No one's angry. Perhaps amazed at how retarded you are, since some of us forgot just how bad it was during your absence, but definitely not angry. Trump is so far doing what people voted for. The left wing meltdowns are simply a bonus.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What is everyone so angry about? Jesus. Your boy won. He's dismantling everything he told you he would. He's tearing down those terrible American institutions he told you were harming you. Why are you all still so nasty and angry? Fucking chill.

Thanks, everyone, for contributing to the discussion. Honestly I feel like both sides of this are talking past each other. Pro-DEI are not understanding anti-DEI and anti-DEI are not understanding pro-DEI. In fact I believe both sides are making up what they think the other side thinks about it.

Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants homogeny, inequity, and exclusivity. Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything.

Anti-DEI thinks the best candidates are being passed up for less than optimal candidates in order to meet some quota. Anti-DEI thinks pro-DEI has filled so many positions with less than optimal candidates that everything is at risk of falling apart. Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control.

Neither side is correct in their fears of what the other side is thinking. DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone. There are no quotas in the language of DEI. No good candidates are being passed up for someone less qualified. Failures of any system are not caused by DEI. But because anti-DEI perceives or believes these inaccurate portrayals they are understandably upset about it. Then when anti-DEI voice their concerns pro-DEI assumes it means they think only one group should be hired for everything. Its two sides misunderstanding then talking past each other.

Honestly I think that super elite wealthy people who have literally bought politicians are pushing this kind of racial division and fear so the general population will continue to vote their puppets into power so that they continue to get even richer than they already are.

We need to stop arguing with each other and hold our government accountable for its capitulation to the ultra wealthy.

Since you like ChatGPT, I asked it to tell me what it thought about this post.

This argument is flawed in several ways, including logical inconsistencies, misrepresentation of perspectives, and a failure to engage with real-world policies and consequences. Here’s a breakdown of what’s wrong with it:
1. Tone and Emotional Manipulation

• The first paragraph is aggressive and dismissive, assuming that "anger" is unjustified and that people should "chill." This straw-mans opposition by implying they have no valid concerns.
• The phrase "your boy won" assumes political partisanship and reduces complex ideological disagreements to tribal loyalty.

2. False Equivalency & Oversimplification

• The argument treats "pro-DEI" and "anti-DEI" as equally misunderstanding each other, but it does not engage with the actual history and reasoning behind DEI policies.
• It assumes both sides are making up what the other thinks, ignoring well-documented arguments and evidence supporting each stance.

3. Misrepresentation of Anti-DEI Beliefs

• The statement “Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control” is an extreme and misleading characterization.
• Many anti-DEI arguments are not just about quotas but about concerns over meritocracy, effectiveness, and unintended consequences of DEI policies.

4. Misrepresentation of Pro-DEI Beliefs

• The claim that “Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything” is an exaggeration that misrepresents the concerns of DEI advocates.
• Many pro-DEI advocates are concerned with systemic barriers and increasing access, not enforcing racial hiring.

5. Inaccurate Claims About DEI

• The argument asserts that “DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone” and that “no good candidates are being passed up.” However, DEI policies often influence hiring practices, and some companies have adopted quota-like diversity initiatives.
• Courts have ruled against DEI-related hiring and admissions practices, showing that, at times, race-based policies have disadvantaged certain applicants.

6. Conspiracy Thinking

• The argument suggests that “super elite wealthy people” are orchestrating racial division for their own benefit. While economic interests can shape politics, this vague, unfalsifiable claim distracts from substantive discussion.

7. Contradiction Between Individual vs. Systemic Blame

• The argument shifts from saying "people misunderstand each other" to blaming "ultra-wealthy elites," which contradicts the earlier message about mutual misunderstanding.
• If systemic manipulation is the real problem, then people's anger might be justified rather than irrational.

8. Lack of Specific Policy Engagement

• Instead of addressing real DEI policies and their effects, the argument remains in the realm of perception and feelings.
• It dismisses legitimate concerns about DEI-related hiring, admissions, and training programs without evidence.

Conclusion

This argument is flawed because it relies on emotional appeals, straw-manning, false equivalency, misrepresentation of beliefs, and conspiracy rhetoric. It fails to engage meaningfully with the actual policies and their implications. Instead of fostering real discussion, it creates a vague sense of unity while dismissing legitimate concerns.

[Parkbandit]

Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants homogeny, inequity, and exclusivity. Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything.

Here is where your basic understanding went completely wrong.

It's because you want to put yourself up on a pedestal and pretend that your pro-DEI is a perfect system.

It's the opposite.

Maybe try again?

[Back]

Since you like ChatGPT, I asked it to tell me what it thought about this post.

This argument is flawed in several ways, including logical inconsistencies, misrepresentation of perspectives, and a failure to engage with real-world policies and consequences. Here’s a breakdown of what’s wrong with it:
1. Tone and Emotional Manipulation

• The first paragraph is aggressive and dismissive, assuming that "anger" is unjustified and that people should "chill." This straw-mans opposition by implying they have no valid concerns.
• The phrase "your boy won" assumes political partisanship and reduces complex ideological disagreements to tribal loyalty.

2. False Equivalency & Oversimplification

• The argument treats "pro-DEI" and "anti-DEI" as equally misunderstanding each other, but it does not engage with the actual history and reasoning behind DEI policies.
• It assumes both sides are making up what the other thinks, ignoring well-documented arguments and evidence supporting each stance.

3. Misrepresentation of Anti-DEI Beliefs

• The statement “Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control” is an extreme and misleading characterization.
• Many anti-DEI arguments are not just about quotas but about concerns over meritocracy, effectiveness, and unintended consequences of DEI policies.

4. Misrepresentation of Pro-DEI Beliefs

• The claim that “Pro-DEI thinks anti-DEI wants only white men hired for everything” is an exaggeration that misrepresents the concerns of DEI advocates.
• Many pro-DEI advocates are concerned with systemic barriers and increasing access, not enforcing racial hiring.

5. Inaccurate Claims About DEI

• The argument asserts that “DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone” and that “no good candidates are being passed up.” However, DEI policies often influence hiring practices, and some companies have adopted quota-like diversity initiatives.
• Courts have ruled against DEI-related hiring and admissions practices, showing that, at times, race-based policies have disadvantaged certain applicants.

6. Conspiracy Thinking

• The argument suggests that “super elite wealthy people” are orchestrating racial division for their own benefit. While economic interests can shape politics, this vague, unfalsifiable claim distracts from substantive discussion.

7. Contradiction Between Individual vs. Systemic Blame

• The argument shifts from saying "people misunderstand each other" to blaming "ultra-wealthy elites," which contradicts the earlier message about mutual misunderstanding.
• If systemic manipulation is the real problem, then people's anger might be justified rather than irrational.

8. Lack of Specific Policy Engagement

• Instead of addressing real DEI policies and their effects, the argument remains in the realm of perception and feelings.
• It dismisses legitimate concerns about DEI-related hiring, admissions, and training programs without evidence.

Conclusion

This argument is flawed because it relies on emotional appeals, straw-manning, false equivalency, misrepresentation of beliefs, and conspiracy rhetoric. It fails to engage meaningfully with the actual policies and their implications. Instead of fostering real discussion, it creates a vague sense of unity while dismissing legitimate concerns.

This is awesome! Thanks for posting it. I like how it agrees with the mischaracterization examples and is so detailed it its analysis. I don't agree with all of it of course. Obviously both sides are not finding common ground on the issue and solutions are not forthcoming from our leaders. Wealthy people controlling everything so that they can remain and get even more wealthy is not a conspiracy. I'm not going to take the time to pick it apart and instead try to expand my understanding of the subject and my approach to arguments.

[Parkbandit]

This is awesome! Thanks for posting it. I like how it agrees with the mischaracterization examples and is so detailed it its analysis. I don't agree with all of it of course. Obviously both sides are not finding common ground on the issue and solutions are not forthcoming from our leaders. Wealthy people controlling everything so that they can remain and get even more wealthy is not a conspiracy. I'm not going to take the time to pick it apart and instead try to expand my understanding of the subject and my approach to arguments.

Why does everything you post sound like you are taking a giant MSNBC suppository every morning and regurgitating it up?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why does everything you post sound like you are taking a giant MSNBC suppository every morning and regurgitating it up?

It gave him 8 reasons why he shouldn't try to debate anything of substance, and he loves it.