Meta kills diversity programs, claiming DEI has become “too charged”

Meta claims it will find other ways to hire employees from different backgrounds.

See full article...

 

[Tonkaman]

I was expecting the billionaire class to fall in line, but it's honestly kind of scary just how quickly they're doing it.

Nobody should be surprised.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power -
Benito Mussolini

 

[Tonkaman]

Easy fix for that. Run all the resumes through a computer program that strips out all personally identifying information and just assigns them an applicant number. Do a phone interview with software that disguises the voice so you can't tell what race or gender they are. Now make your hiring decision based on the interview. Applicant number 3 and applicant number 5 are the most qualified. You don't get to find out what race they are or what gender they are, or even their name until their first day of work. Problem solved.

If they say anything during the interview that gives away their background they're automatically disqualified.

Congratulations. You just reinvented DEI.

 

[Tonkaman]

actually asians more relatively represented, but that's where we bring out the whole "white adjacent" story right ?

but yeah big tech, indeed all corporate world so hates victim groups they sacrifice profit to discriminate.

That's where the "model minority" racist myth comes in.

 

[Tonkaman]

if you believe that, you'll believe anything. sure, they want to pay less taxes, but they don't want less regulation or less government--they just want those things to work in a way that benefits them.

See banning TikTok. Their only real competition. Meta lobbied hard for that.

 

[Tonkaman]

Please explain why you think it's axiomatically good that every company has demographics which exactly mirror the general population?

And at what level should this mirror society?, the company, each division, each role, every individual team? And on what dimensions, just race?

If there is self herding (e.g nurses) should it be the DEI consultants job to come in and fix it?

If this is a known good why don't we just force the distributions instead of these soft pressure tactics?

There is no more "self herding" in nursing than there is in engineering. Both are rooted in sexism and the idea that certain jobs are only for certain genders. i.e. exactly what DEI is meant to address.

Also, the nursing field is desperate to attract men. If for no other reason than they can lift heavier patients. I know someone who changed careers from union electrician to nurse, and the college was practically throwing money at him in scholarships to get male nurses.

 

[Tonkaman]

Cool, that sounds like your opinion unless you have some kind of cosmic large scale understanding of people's motivations for choosing a given field.

Alternative hypothesis: people see what other people like them tend to do and choose a similar path. Men don't choose something like nursing because it has a stigma attached to it around masculinity.

Proving my point. That stigma exists due to sexism. More women in a field, allows young women to picture themselves doing that job, and eventually getting training for it. The same thing is true for men in women dominated fields. DEI works to make that possible, by eliminating the bias of people already in those fields created by past hiring discrimination.

i.e. "I can't picture you in this role because there's nobody like you already doing the job, so I won't hire you and instead will pick someone who looks like the ones already working here"

 

[Tonkaman]

If you think DEI is the solution, you need to open your eyes. Go read some Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Glenn Lowry, or Michael McWhorter. Affirmative Action, DEI, minimum wage, blocking charter schools all harm the minority communities. But please, keep “feeling good” supporting those initiatives while holding others back.

Why would we read conservative hacks that are paid to regurgitate talking points whether or not they're true? After you cited Thomas Sowell (no real economist takes him seriously) I knew the rest could be ignored as well.

 

[Tonkaman]

"...left-wing extremists aren’t the one flirting with Nazism..."

Nazism was not the only monstrous historical evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes



"...I’m willing to bet they wouldn’t find you good company if they knew how you voted..."

You'd lose your bet.
Do I seem the sort of person who keeps his opinions to himself, to gain popularity?

Great, now do capitalism. Hint: It's more than communism.

 

[Tonkaman]

The public choose which media outlets, celebs, and "influencers" they will listen to.

Yes, money can buy you a megaphone. But if you bore or annoy people. they will walk away.

It's far from perfect. But I don't know of a better system.

"Choosing" is an illusion. Nearly all media in the United States is owned by less than 10 corporations, which are in turn owned by a handful of wealthy people. They all push whatever their owners tell them to. The last 2 months have just shown that the owners no longer care how blatant this looks.

 

[Tonkaman]

Of course the Overton window moves. The parties' job is always to drag it slowly in their preferred direction.
But if they pull too hard, before the public is ready, they will lose traction.

Women's suffrage, equal pay, gay rights, (and legalisation!), abortion, ending capital punishment, the NHS. Many other things we (in the UK) now take for granted; had to be brought in slowly to avoid startling the population. I'm sure there are better examples.

Progress. Not revolution.

Pretty much every "progress" you listed was brought in with violence, and then whitewashed later to be peaceful and gradual. At least in the US.

Women's suffrage - Years of arsons of government buildings
Equal pay - Still doesn't really exist in the US
Gay rights - stonewall riots
Etc. Etc.

And in the UK, the NHS was created very suddenly after a world war.