DEI Discussion Thread

[Gelston]

Competency to perform a job should be the only thing looked at when hiring. Forcing diversity isn't helping anyone out.

[Parkbandit]

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

You need to straighten out your Eskimo brother.

[Back]

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

Ok, totally geeking out on AI. Not sure what you asked but I asked ChatGPT to analyze the post and got this...

>analyze the following for accuracy, intent, and effectiveness

Analysis of the Passage1. Accuracy

• The passage presents an attempt to mediate between two opposing viewpoints on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) but includes some inaccuracies and generalizations:
  
  • "DEI is not a law being enforced by anyone."
    
    • Partially true. While DEI itself is not a law, certain legal frameworks (like affirmative action policies and anti-discrimination laws) have been used to promote diversity and inclusion. Some states have also passed laws restricting or requiring DEI initiatives, making enforcement situational.
    
    
  • "There are no quotas in the language of DEI."
    
    • Largely true. DEI policies typically emphasize outreach and inclusion rather than strict quotas. However, some organizations may implement diversity targets, which can sometimes be interpreted as informal quotas.
    
    
  • "No good candidates are being passed up for someone less qualified."
    
    • Debatable. While DEI policies generally aim for merit-based hiring with inclusive practices, critics argue that some hiring processes prioritize diversity over certain qualifications. The reality depends on the organization and implementation.
    
    
  • "Anti-DEI believes the FAA is hiring mentally challenged people for air traffic control."
    
    • Misleading. This likely refers to a misconstrued claim about FAA hiring policies related to neurodiversity and disability inclusion, but it is an exaggerated characterization rather than a mainstream anti-DEI belief.

2. Intent

• The passage appears to start with a confrontational tone ("What is everyone so angry about? Jesus. Your boy won.") before shifting into an attempt at neutral mediation.
• The central intent seems to be promoting the idea that both pro-DEI and anti-DEI advocates misunderstand each other and that their conflict is manipulated by wealthy elites for political control.
• However, the initial aggressive framing might alienate readers before they reach the more conciliatory discussion.

3. Effectiveness

• Strengths:
  
  • The passage correctly identifies a communication breakdown where each side assumes the worst about the other.
  • It acknowledges frustrations on both sides rather than outright dismissing one perspective.
  • The call to redirect anger toward government and economic elites aligns with broader populist critiques of political division.
  
  
• Weaknesses:
  
  • The opening is emotionally charged and could cause resistance from those who feel mocked or dismissed.
  • The FAA reference and some claims about DEI may reinforce misinformation rather than clarify it.
  • The framing of “super elite wealthy people” pushing division is speculative and could be seen as conspiratorial without supporting evidence.

Conclusion

• The passage tries to bridge a divisive debate but is undermined by its tone and some inaccuracies.
• A more neutral and precise approach—focusing on facts, legal nuances, and case studies—would improve its persuasiveness and credibility.
• If the goal is to encourage understanding, removing the confrontational intro and refining key claims would make the message more effective.

Love it. Very cool. Learned a few things today. Thanks again for running that post!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Learn some more and look up these things with respect to AI. Pay particular attention to guardrails, training, fine-tuning, policies and human oversight. In fact, do you even know when the AI you used was last trained?

Training on High-Quality Data
Fact-Checking & Verification
Guardrails & Policies
User Feedback & Fine-Tuning
Context Awareness
Human Oversight

[Methais]

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.

I plugged it into DeepSeek and...

1. Retarded

- This dude is a fucking retard.

2. "Chill"

- This is somethng Chillmonster would say.

[Methais]

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.

Here's all there is to understand:

Jobs should go to the most qualified candidates, regardless of their race, sex, gayness, etc.

Do you agree?

[Back]

Here's all there is to understand:

Jobs should go to the most qualified candidates, regardless of their race, sex, gayness, etc.

Do you agree?

Absolutely. We could get into the finer details on types of jobs, goals of businesses and all that but for the most part that is true.

How I view DEI is in the application process. For-profits/non-that adopt a way to expand their pool of candidates who can fill a position is beneficial for everyone involved. Entities looking in places where they would not have looked before for whatever reason is a good thing. As I said before talent can come from anywhere. From rural to urban and everything in between. Creating opportunities for people to better themselves and their situations no matter what walk of life they are from.

[Methais]

Absolutely.

This where you should have ended your post.

We could get into the finer details on types of jobs, goals of businesses and all that but for the most part that is true.

How I view DEI is in the application process. For-profits/non-that adopt a way to expand their pool of candidates who can fill a position is beneficial for everyone involved. Entities looking in places where they would not have looked before for whatever reason is a good thing. As I said before talent can come from anywhere. From rural to urban and everything in between. Creating opportunities for people to better themselves and their situations no matter what walk of life they are from.

No, it's not "for the most part" true, it's 100% entirely true. Everything else is just a weak attempt to virtue signal.

the application process

Applications should contain zero info about someone's race, sex, gayness, etc. and only relevant information as to whether the person is qualified for the job or not, unless it's literally some niche thing that only people in XYZ group can perform, i.e. men shouldn't be hired to work QA for tampon testing, only women. The ones who weren't born with a dick and balls, that is.

Name 3 non-niche jobs where someone's race/sex/gayness/etc. is relevant as to whether they can perform the job well or not. I'll wait.

[Back]

No, it's not "for the most part" true, it's 100% entirely true. Everything else is just a weak attempt to virtue signal.

There are always exceptions but they should not be the rule. For life and death situations absolutely. For go go go capitalist money making companies absolutely. But sometimes qualified simply means awake and able to follow instructions. Sometimes there aren't enough qualified people for every position.

Applications should contain zero info about someone's race, sex, gayness, etc. and only relevant information as to whether the person is qualified for the job or not, unless it's literally some niche thing that only people in XYZ group can perform, i.e. men shouldn't be hired to work QA for tampon testing, only women. The ones who weren't born with a dick and balls, that is.

Right, exception should not be the rule.

My use of the word application may not have been the best. I'm talking about where employers recruit from. Giving everyone from every background a chance at proving their merit. Thats it. I'm not saying employers should hire anyone over anyone else based on race, sex, sexual orientation, origination, location, income level, etc.

[Back]

Learn some more and look up these things with respect to AI. Pay particular attention to guardrails, training, fine-tuning, policies and human oversight. In fact, do you even know when the AI you used was last trained?

Training on High-Quality Data
Fact-Checking & Verification
Guardrails & Policies
User Feedback & Fine-Tuning
Context Awareness
Human Oversight

Yeah, I'll check it out. Thanks.