[winternett]

What kind of statement is this? D&I is supposed to be comparatively balanced to the society is serves. Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success.

D&I is not a terrible paradigm that needs to be dismantled just because some companies take it to far, it's no different than accounting or other functional considerations within big business where it's too easy to lose sight of how balanced a company is internally. If you don't keep reports on finances a company can easily fail. If you don't take steps to make sure minority groups are represented within your company, it will also create situations where bias takes hold, and suddenly discrimination becomes the norm.

What's next? Should we get rid of sexual harassment training and policies?

Only someone from a background that elimination of equal opportunity would serve foremost would think that "complete blindness to race" is possible in our world. It's a childish and a destructive ignorance considering what is currently happening in our world even to this day, as white nationalist groups are growing in numbers, and other groups, a prior US president, and public celebrities are also regularly publicly expressing race based hate.

[seti0Cha]

> Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success.

Is there any reason to believe this is true and not just conjecture? This always struck me as kind of far fetched.

[skrbjc]

It's just one of those things that gets repeated so much that people just start to believe it.

[gnull]

> Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success

There's a ton of different sources of bias. Look at lesswrong.com. What (other than politics) makes minority bias more significant than the other? And why it can't be fought with ordinary means and working on yourself?

You don't need to be the same thing as the object of your study to study it. Just like you can study Geology without being a rock, you can study what a minority group wants/needs/buys without belonging to it. Nothing in principle prohibits that.

[winternett]

>> Just like you can study Geology without being a rock, you can study what a minority group wants/needs/buys without belonging to it.

Your logic by nature is total flaw. You can't see it because of your own condition, and supremacist beliefs.

It could probably citing that not be explained to you how a lion cannot be taught to understand an ox's life, or how a Hasidic Jew can be fairly considerate of a Muslim perspective and vice versa.

This is the root of arrogance in ignorance that perpetuates racial bias. People have a right to be different, and a natural tendency to be biassed towards their own individual and cultural perspectives, and globalist companies like Microsoft are by nature required to properly represent all of the people they serve PROPERLY or they will simply fail over time... It's not the call of a few biassed individuals to determine that they are qualified. The market dictates the need for D&I.

[gnull]

> You can't see it because of your own condition, and supremacist beliefs

Being disrespectful to people who disagree with you, and at the same time unable to produce any sensible argument only harms the cause you're fighting for.

> how a lion cannot be taught to understand an ox's life

Limited intelligence is the defining factor here, not background. Think about it. Humans can understand lions quite well, and we understand what's good for them, what makes them happy. And we do it without having to run around savanna biting zebras!

And yes, Jews and Muslims can have a very good idea about each others life, struggles and priorities—it's just a matter of education.

> globalist companies like Microsoft are by nature required to properly represent all of the people

I could argue with this and would probably enjoy it another time. Now let's remember the context we are in. We were talking about whether D&I are good for company's performance, not about any moral obligations you may think the company has.

> People have a right to be different, and a natural tendency to be biassed towards their own individual and cultural perspectives

We also have a natural tendency to fall for logical fallacies. But somehow we managed to identify those and find ways to fight them, not worship them. Nothing stops you from fighting the cultural bias you have (maybe not completely, but just enough to get it off the way of your work duties) in the same way—later go home, take off your employee hat and be different, biased, whatever.

[hbrn]

> white nationalist groups are growing in numbers

I don't know if it's valid, but let's assume it is. Have you considered that some of this growth can be attributed to DEI and the rest of far-left policies?

If you're openly being racist towards certain groups, they can also become racist. When a poor white male gets rejected/fired/demoted because company needed a diversity hire, it's not going to make him more tolerant.

[systemvoltage]

There is only one solution: To be completely objective and treat everyone equally.

This is rational, straightforward, healthy and just righteous in a deep way. It creates an environment bereft of envy and injustice.

Turns out, most high brain mass mammals have a innate sense of fairness. When humans are treated unfairly because of some ostensible moral goal whether through racism or D&I; the end result is not pretty. Humans of all culture are enamored and magnetized by fairness and justice. But those words have been twisted to mean exactly the opposite by contemporaneous social-justice movements.

This was the mainstream view of the Civil Rights movement. It was utterly beautiful. But, post-moderity came and neo-Marxists have reigned for last 40 years in USA at least, gutting out Universities and now, Corporations.

[gnull]

> Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success.

This is far-fetched and based mostly on ideology rather than evidence, not much different from a Soviet socialist explaining why planned economies are essential to the country's success (100 years ago it didn't sounds as absurd as now). It's your right to believe this sort of things, I don't deny you this, but don't insist that this is an objective truth that every reasonable person should believe in. As it goes with this kind of questionable ideas, it should be ok to choose not to believe in them, as I think the parent comment does.

And I agree with the parent comment's view here. Whatever advantage the woke-culture companies may have is easily explained by their increased visibility among woke audience, not by some deep insights. It's just a marketing trick, just like putting AI/Blockchain on your ad increases your visibility among some of tech enthusiasts.

> What's next?

Slippery slope is a fallacy.

> white nationalist groups are growing in numbers […] prior US president, and public celebrities are also regularly publicly expressing race based hate

How does any of this back up the impossibility of blindness to race? (Remember that most of the world is outside of US.)

[knewter]

> What's next? Should we get rid of sexual harassment training and policies?

Yes.