I agree that DEI is bad bc it promotes a bad set of incentives for companies, and it ultimately fails at its stated purpose. That being said, the way Trump is pushing against DEI is insane. The NIH is being shutdown and normal operations stopped, you are a software engineer, so you are aware that is basically unthinkable for any project you are on right? Things get developed on the side, then tested and finally the update is done. dev - test-staging- prod
Adding to this, they are planning to launch investigations against universities and colleges for DEI initiatives. Again, what is the purpose? Like what are we doing? Is this even about meritocracy or whatever? More importantly is this what we are going to waste government resources on? Fighting a culture war instead of focusing on you know reducing egg prices.
You take many tests when you apply for this job. My last position I had to pass 4 interviews and tests to get the position. It was both personal evaluation by multiple people and frontal technical tests.
In the end the best one wins.
First of all, I have specifically stated "unless the position actually demands that for objective operational reasons" - if you have a very objective reason as to why that position needs to be filled by X/Y/Z specifically to make the product better - then there is a merit in that.like the time that team of software engineers were making an app where you could transfer contact details by tapping phones together through your pocket and how it went pretty far into development before they hired their first woman to join the team. who immediately pointed out that women often keep their phones in their purses (this was a bit ago, too) and that the app would not function as designed nor offer the benefits to those women.
that's why, sometimes, it helps to hire someone who doesn't look exactly like everyone else who might be "the most overqualified", but is qualified and can bring a different perspective.
Again, I am against "pity" hiring.that's what was already driving it, nobody was hired who was not able to do the jobs they were hired to do, and if they were that's simply bad hiring practices. yeah, a lot of the initiatives in private companies especially are hugely performative and wasteful and pointless, but a ton of these programs also saw benefits both for the folks from marginalized backgrounds hired into positions and the overall teams who had more/different feedback and opinions to help improve the quality of a product
I am also a "folk" from a marginalized background, believe you me. And if I could make it to where I am with my not very prestigious college education, mostly sponsored by the state because I literally had no fucking money as a (legal) immigrant in my teens, so can said "marginalized background folks".
There are no free dinners, I was working 6 days a week, 9 hours a day while doing CS my degree. I made it through, my merit and nobody hired me out of pity.
What you should be pushing is for better education opportunities and support for said "marginalized folks", but in the end - it will be down to them to show off their skill and get the job, instead of cutting in the queue because they are of correct skin color and sex.
I dont like DEI but using the government to fight a culture war is insane to me. If you have any issues with specific instances that you feel are illegal bring them to court (thats what they did with Harvard), if you dont like businesses engaging in DEI stop shopping at them and express your disagreement publicly. Using the government to fight off DEI is insane, its state sponsored ideology imposed on universities. And its a waste of resources
Are we going to do multiple committees and investigations to aimlessly hunt whatever we thing is DEI? What are we even doing?
And that itself is being revoked by the Donald. The ability to sue is something that is built into anti-discrimination rules and Trump just removed that by executive order.
Meanwhile, he's hiring a bunch of sycophants that have no place in governance. For example, Pete Hegesith claimed that he's bringing back "meritocracy" to the US military and getting rid of DEI. Yet he's a person that doesn't have enough merit to run a simple charity nevermind the US military. And that should concern you in particular because the US military is very friendly to Israeli interests.
Last edited by Ivanstone; 2025-01-23 at 11:24 PM.
Companies should hire based on merit and operational need, that does not make a person stating it a "racist". But sure, whatever floats your boat, buddy.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, feel free to bring the executive order where this has happened?
Sounds like feels over matter.Meanwhile, he's hiring a bunch of sycophants that have no place in governance. For example, Pete Hegesith claimed that he's bringing back "meritocracy" to the US military. Yet he's a person that doesn't have enough merit to run a simple charity nevermind the US military. And that should concern you in particular because the US military is very friendly to Israeli interests.
You could say, for example, that he does not have sufficient experience to take the job and there is merit in that. But the way you present it shows your clear bias, so eh?
I mean, I've been working professionally for a long time now. I've done a lot of interviews. I also am senior enough that I help make some of those decisions. I'm familiar with doing multiple rounds of interviews, assigning and reviewing sample projects and tasks as part of the process, and figuring out if the individual would be a good personal fit for the teams since that's quite important.
I can tell you that the clear-cut thing you describe has never existed in all my years of interviewing people, including when we had a ton of candidates with a wide range of experience for a job. It was always far more nuanced.
You can never predict if you might benefit from hiring someone who looks different than the rest of the team. That's what you learn when you expose yourself to those different people and views.
Literally nobody says to do this so you have nothing to worry about.
"I got mine, fuck everyone else." continues to the be the mantra of conservatives, we know.
"It was hard for me and my companies exploited me to hell and so it should be hard for everyone else and they should be exploited to hell." continues to be a conservative mantra, too. No improvements, everyone must suffer as you suffered, because if you can do it everyone can do it.
I dealt with a lot of shit early in my career, too. I work hard to make sure that the entry level folks who don't get paid enough to deal with that bullshit actually don't have to deal with that bullshit because it's unfair to them and doesn't actually teach them anything other than how to bottle up resentment and frustration.
i mean this is peak comedy considering Republicans are actively working to continue to gut education and are trying to teach kids about "the benefits of slavery" while also literally rewriting history
this is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously, because you can write something like that while ignoring that the party you continue to support (Republicans) does the opposite of what you say would be good
The fallacy is that doing both is stupidly easy. There are, quite literally, so many human beings on the planet that the pool of people you can choose from when hiring - especially in this desperate economy - that at some point you are going to end up with competent people in pretty much every field.
The reason people who just say ‘Merit’ and then fuck off into the sunset come across as racist is that even if YOU aren’t saying it, or even mean it, there’s a rather large number of smug assholes who say ‘Merit’ with the mistaken belief that historical company hiring - mostly white people until recently cus of diversity pushes - was AT THAT TIME based on merit in the first place, which it never was.
Its the assumption that Meritocratic hiring would put things back to the way they were, because presumably thats how it was before ‘DEI’ even though thats not the case.
In reality, the number of people from any given ethnicity qualified to perform any given job is such that any company hiring purely on competency could end up with just about the same distribution of talent as now.
And at the point where everyone involved is good at what they do, it’s not like companies have an Analysis spell that will tell them who has the fraction of a percent more skill to hire them.
Companies aren’t stupid dude. They were never going to hire someone who COULDNT do the job they wanted in the first place.
Good luck ever proving that. Especially with things like NDAs in the mix (things Trump is a known lover of, so don't expect that to change!) that hinder an employee's ability to expose corporate corruption and malfeasance without facing potential persecution themselves.
Clearly this is not an issue that regulates itself. And we are not in some "post-racial, post-gender" society. See: Elon Musk, Trump's right hand toadie, throwing up a nazi salute. Then doubling down on it.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
Who you are as a person also matters, it is part of the qualification, it is also merit. And the subjective approach will always exist, sometimes people just do not "click" and that's fine too.
That supports merit-based hiring even more, because you are dealing with the individuals, and you can't know or assume what views or experiences the person in front of you holds. The fact that the person has a "correct" sex organ between their legs, does not guarantee they will provide the thinking outside the box you're looking for in a job that otherwise has a very generic requirement.You can never predict if you might benefit from hiring someone who looks different than the rest of the team. That's what you learn when you expose yourself to those different people and views.
People are very different, even when they have same sex and/or skin color. For example, (I'll make some assumptions here) you and me.
More like I worked hard for mine, you can work hard for yours too. I'm all for opportunities, but not for free meals for the day."I got mine, fuck everyone else." continues to the be the mantra of conservatives, we know.
I said it multiple times to you in the past, don't shadowbox me. You're putting words in my mouth I did not say and then try to ridicule me - it's both dishonest and obnoxious."It was hard for me and my companies exploited me to hell and so it should be hard for everyone else and they should be exploited to hell." continues to be a conservative mantra, too. No improvements, everyone must suffer as you suffered, because if you can do it everyone can do it.
Frankly, with your zero-sum approach it's hard to not be a "conservative", because never mind that I am pro-choice, education for all, universal healthcare, vaccination, tolerate people choices regarding their bodies and love partners and plenty other things on the liberal wishlist - the moment I disagree with you on a few matters, that instantly puts the Mark of Cain on me.i mean this is peak comedy considering Republicans are actively working to continue to gut education and are trying to teach kids about "the benefits of slavery" while also literally rewriting history
this is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously, because you can write something like that while ignoring that the party you continue to support (Republicans) does the opposite of what you say would be good
I find modern time conservatives being far more open minded and welcoming, compared to the all or nothing cultists on the Dem side.
I don't know why you keep talking as if "merit" isn't a factor and that the individual doesn't need to, at a minimum, meet the basic qualifications regardless? I know I've been clear about that and others have as well, but the way you write about it consistently indicates that you think it doesn't matter much, or at all for those of us that think diversity is a factor in hiring decisions.
Literally doesn't, since some of the best folks we've hired were not the "most qualified/overqualified" and some of the "most qualified/overqualified" folks were bad. The point is that once you get beyond covering the basic qualifications, it's a lot more subjective and a lot less objective of a decision than "just base it on merit".
Nobody is offering free meals. Again, this is you seemingly writing as if you don't think that basic qualifications aren't a factor in these decisions, which again, is purely in your own head. Nobody here is arguing for this, find another windmill.
I'm literally responding to what you choose to write. I'm not making you write that you had a hard time and succeeded so you seem to think everyone else should struggle like you and things shouldn't be improved for them. Feel free to let me know if you believe otherwise, because all I have to go off of is what you choose to write.
Yet you consistently support a man and a party that pushes for the opposite of all those things.
Again, we can read your words. We have memories.
People do understand DEI literally was just a corporate push to look better by ensuring they don't "screen" out minorities from the outset? Like these organisations, less thorough incompetency, were never going to en masse hire unqualified individuals just because of "those radical lefties", it was to prevent them tossing someone because their name is latisha or mohammed.
It's basically a boogie man conservatives are terrified of because of inflated egos, or "I had to be abused so everyone should cop it" kind of shit. There is no problems removing inherit biases from hiring practices.
“World of Warcraft players are some of the smartest players in the world” - Someone who never played with wow players.
Transgirl (she/her)
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
https://natlawreview.com/article/pre...al-contractors
Sounds like you’re tone policing.
And he does not have the experience to run the US military. He’s a national guardsman that had a decent career but if he has any merit he should’ve achieved a higher rank. Previous Secretary’s belonged to one of the four major branches, had long careers and achieved higher ranks. And I was not kidding about failing to run a charity. Dude’s a clown but this one particular leopard might eat your face which is why I brought him up.
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers