Tedesche @ Tedesche @lemmy.world

Posts

13

Comments

1,093

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, I agree, and I wasn't trying to suggest what I wrote above was all that's needed. I'm a big proponent of racially blind admissions/hiring processes. Exclude any data that could be construed as being race-identifying. The more we can force admissions/hiring to base their choices solely on performance-relative metrics alone, the better.

However, I have to admit that such a goal is a bit unrealistic. Race-identifying information will likely always find a way into admissions/hiring processes, simply because of interviews. I don't claim to know how to create the perfect system, obviously. This is a complex problem that people a lot smarter and more educated than I have been striving to solve for decades.

But I think that raising people up from the very bottom of society is still the best approach, the most efficient way to do that is by focusing on disadvantages experienced early in life. If you can level the playing field during kindergarten, you provide a more equal launch pad for every stage of life thereafter; keep working up from there and we'll eventually wind up with a more equal result in adulthood.

Eh. Yes, if you're looking at the data from efficacy studies alone. However, I would argue that DEI programs create political turmoil that creates harm to society that these studies don't take into account. Addressing systemic racism is important, but DEI approaches have created understandable division about majority groups being discriminated against in the service of fixing the problem. I think focusing on wealth inequality has the overlapping effect of helping minority racial groups while sidestepping the race politics inherent to DEI programs that give fuel to racist groups in society.

Uhm...I'ma have to disagree on that.

Republicans' motivations for getting rid of DEI certainly aren't mine. Believe it or not, there are people out there who disagree with the DEI approach but still agree that systemic racism/sexism in society is a problem that needs addressing. Don't lump me in with the GOP.

I never said addressing systemic racism was limited to addressing said issues in educational attainment alone. Clearly, it's a multifaceted problem that requires a broad range of fixes.

Doesn't your point simply mean DEI encourages more sexism than racism, but doesn't actually deny it encourages racism too?

I would wager the vast majority of consumers don't give a damn about things like this. And in cases that they do, it's much more likely that they'll care about the absence of such programs than the reverse.

Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I'm not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don't think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they're going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.

Research clearly shows most corporate entities (and their figureheads) donate to both sides of the political game. They want to have friends in power no matter who wins the election.

I would argue that if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem early on by focusing on improving education systems in poor/racial minority communities. Their difficulties in competing later on in life stem directly (and I would argue most strenuously) from disadvantages they experience early on. If companies see improvements in the resumes of racial minorities, they will naturally be more likely to hire them; I would argue that their greed for having the best employees will override the racial biases of White CEOs and HR managers.

A lot of people here are telling you that the answer is 'no' because the vampires must respect your true intent or rely on trickery to get you to willfully invite them in.

But the real reason is 'no' because vampires aren't real.

While not exactly the same thing as DEI programs, affirmative action programs have a history of efficacy studies that demonstrate positive (if only moderately so) results. However, there’s also solid research that points to backlash effects and criticisms of “positive discrimination.” In other words, while affirmative action programs do somewhat accomplish their goals of helping minority groups achieve, they come at the cost of intentionally discriminating against majority groups (mainly Whites), which understandably creates antipathy towards them from the majority groups. Also, despite some people’s claims that these programs don’t give slots to minority candidates with weaker test scores, resumes, etc, actual examinations of them have shown that this is not actually the case in practice, and that companies and schools have given preference for weaker scoring minority candidates in order to create the public image of being more diverse.

Basically, affirmative action is a mixed bag and I suspect DEI programs are similarly so. The overall net effect may still be positive though, if only slightly.

Personally, I think a better strategy would be to improve education systems for poor communities. Instead of focusing on race directly, focus on improving outcomes for the poor. Due to overlaps in racial and economic variables, you’ll wind up helping racial minorities while avoiding the criticism of engaging in “positive discrimination.” Plus, fixing the pipeline problem early on is a more efficient approach, since it focuses on preventing people from failing early on rather than trying to fix their failures later on.

Attractive male, insanely rich, intellect.

Y’all have fun being superheroes. I’m gonna enjoy the fuck out of life.

In a court filing, Mitchell argued that requiring his clients to offer compulsory preventative care coverage “violates their religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

Another example of the most religious Christians being the least Christ-like.

Seriously? This old-ass fight is still alive? Grow he fuck up, dudes.

The actual headline: “AI Set to Replace Workers Across 41% of Companies in the Next Five Years”

That’s very different from the OP’s headline (41% of jobs).

Oh, no…such a terrible loss to society.

Trump will let Cali burn.

Tipping culture and systems need to die off. Sadly, because they often get paid more via tips than they would by increased hourly wages, tipped employees are often against such reforms.

And, to be fair, for most restaurants, it would be really hard for them to pay their wait staff appropriate wages in many cities where rent is extremely high and the cost of the food products they use to create their meals is rising as well. It’s not a simple matter of “the employer should pay their employees’ wages, not the customer.” The industry is built around tipping, and that’s not something that can be changed overnight.

Still, I firmly believe it needs to happen. And if that means increasing the price of restaurant meals, so be it. I suspect people eat out too much these days anyway and should learn to cook themselves. I used to eat out a lot until I did some calculations and realized I was spending way too much on it. Since learning to cook, I’ve saved a lot of money and now prefer my own cooking to a lot of restaurant fare out there (although not the really good stuff—I’m no professional chef).