[subjectsigma]

I’m someone who was, uh, skeptical of the DEI stuff. One of my biggest complaints was that it seemed to be much ado about nothing. Re-writing laws and policies to fill them with fluff.

This is EXACTLY the same thing, it is 100% virtue signaling and we are burning so much time, money, and goodwill on fucking bullshit nonsense

Meanwhile the economy is in shambles, the executive branch is systematically destroying the rest of the government, and China and Russia grow ever stronger and ever more disdainful of us

I would elect a black trans president in a heartbeat if I thought they could win the inevitable conflict over Taiwan. It IS an existential threat and the most immediate one meaning it is the HIGHEST PRIORITY

And before anyone starts pointing fingers I did not vote for Trump in any election

[elsonrodriguez]

It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.

Improving the opportunities available to people tends to improve economic productivity, so it's hard to argue it is a total waste of money.

On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Purges of this sort don't have any real economic motivations, it's pure ideology.

One was more of an investment, the other is more destruction.

Of course while the DEI scrubbing is dangerous to just some people, the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.

[tivert]

> It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.

Not really. It's all language games.

This is just the mirror image of the liberal conceit they can magically change reality by forcing people to use different words or over-elevating some story (old or new) for ideological reasons.

The lesson from this is that it's all stupid, not just my-side's version, and it should stop.

[subjectsigma]

> trying to empower > tends to improve > hard to argue

Lots of weasel words there.

> On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist.

Lots of absolutism there

It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful.

That’s why the guy below me

> So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea

Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good.

The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is.

> the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.

100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues

[kcplate]

> What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues

I don’t have a dog in this hunt (I didn’t vote for either of them), but I think its fair to say that Trump seems to be pretty much trying to do most everything he promised in his campaign (which obviously attracted enough votes for him to win). Perhaps people just believe that politicians say a bunch of shit to get elected—then do something else and never expected this level of follow through.

Either way, this is what America voted for…and are apparently what we are going to get.

[briandear]

So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea.