[epistasis]

No, that's not at all the case, the crusaders were acting under the blessing of the church. It still may not be "real" Christianity, but it's not like there were DEI advocates out there giving guides on how to break the law. I was at two companies promoting DEI that were explicit about non-discrimination and had extensive training on it to prevent the illegal actions linked in that lawsuit.

There's no "this is DEI this is not DEI" but any halfway sane and truthful assessment would focus on what the proponents claimed, said, and propagated as their intentions. Just as the Christians of the time were intending to do with the crusades.

Calling this a "no true Scotsman fallacy" is just attempting to misapply a logical fallacy to avoid looking at the issue truthfully and honestly.

[rayiner]

Your point is well taken. Not everyone was violating the law. But meanwhile Microsoft was setting explicit numeric targets on hiring employees from particular racial groups: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wells-fargo-microsoft-diversity....

Companies were also demanding race-conscious staffing practices at the law firms they used: https://www.wsj.com/business/law-firm-clients-demand-more-bl.... Microsoft offered financial bonuses to law firms for promoting lawyers from specific racial groups: https://today.westlaw.com/Document/If3eb4570033e11eb8e48d387....

[FloorEgg]

> it's not like there were DEI advocates out there giving guides on how to break the law

I think you're very mistaken. Not only were their guides, but there were federal regulations mandating that the laws be broken. It is/was a mess.

[judahmeek]

What are your sources?

[xdennis]

Here's an example: the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 allocated grants to help restaurant owners. It did so on a racist basis: if the restaurant is owned primarily by women, veterans, or the "socially and economically disadvantaged".

There was a trial. The government lost. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21...

[epistasis]

That is not an example of DEI advocates giving guidelines on how to break the law.

That is Congress passing a law distributing grants in a way that was determined to be illegal, quite different! And in fact there are long standing government contracting preferences of that sort, from long before DEI was a term or something that corporate America sought.

[tremon]

I fail to see any difference between "congress passing a law that is in violation of another law" and "federal regulations mandating that laws be broken". Can you explain how these situations differ quitely, other than that "regulation" and "law" are different words?

[epistasis]

The difference was an incentive grant program that was found to be discriminatory, versus regulations which dictate how private entities act. This a pretty big distinction.

It's an especially big distinction when the question was for sources of DEI advocates handing out instructions to corporate decision makers no how to break the law. It's not even remotely connected.

[judahmeek]

Regulations are made by federal agencies.

Laws are made by Congress.

[FloorEgg]

The federal regulations... It's not hard to find if you go looking...

[judahmeek]

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to say something other than 'do your own research'

[FloorEgg]

Actually it took me almost an hour to re-do a portion of the research and lay it out, which I did further down the thread, if you care to look.

Also you didn't ask me to link you to my sources, you asked me what my sources were. I answered your question directly in the best way I could at the time.

Expecting an internet stranger to spend an hour digging up sources for you, when you don't ask respectfully or with any inclination of curiosity comes off as combative - I am not here to debate, I am here to discuss. If you are genuinely curious, take 30 seconds to scroll down and find the other comment I made that took me an hour to put together.

[judahmeek]

I appreciate that you took the time to follow through with sources to support your claim.

You & I definitely have different definitions of "not hard to find", however.

[FloorEgg]

I became aware of the legal contradictions last summer and spent a few hours doing searches and reading through the relevant regulatory language for a few industries. I don't have all the references handy.

I don't work for you. It's not my job to do research for you. If you're genuinely curious and interested in the truth it won't be hard for you to find. Literally go search and read the regulatory language in a few major industries. Start with the department of education. It doesn't seem like you're curious though, it seems like you're combative.

[epistasis]

That's fine, of course you don't work for anyone else! But you are also not going to convince anyone else by being vague and refusing to give any specifics.

Usually when somebody makes broad vague assertions of evidence but refuses to back it up, I find that they are either mistaken about their experiences and that their take aways do not really follow from their primary evidence. Though usually it's those on the more DEI side that say "I'm not responsible for educating you" that make these mistakes! In the past year I'm seeing it from people that think DEI is about discrimination, so it's an interesting evolution. The argument is still unconvincing, no matter who says it. And again, I'm not saying you must produce anything for anybody else, I'm just saying that you end up looking like you don't have anything to actually produce.