Can someone change my mind about CRT and DEI?
Can someone change my mind about CRT and DEI?
My pov is that CRT (critical race theory) and related policies, like DEI, put an undue emphasis on race instead of on poverty, and the resulting effect is that policies which are aimed at helping minorities seem like “favoritism” (and called as such by political opponents), which makes a growing population of poor whites (due to the adverse effects of wealth inequality) polarized against minorities.
Separately, the polarization is used by others who want to weaken a democratic nation. For democracies, a growing immigrant population of more poor people will cause further polarization because the growing poor white population believes that “they’re taking our jobs”. This happened during Brexit, this happened with Trump, and this is happening now in Germany and other western democracies.
I know that there are racist groups who have an agenda of their own, and what I am saying is that instead of focusing on what are painted as culture war issues, leftists are better off focusing on alleviating systemic poverty. Like, bringing the Nordic model to the U.S. should be their agenda.
So, maybe I am wrong about CRT and DEI and how it’s well-meaning intentions are being abused by people who have other goals, but I want to hear from others about why they think CRT and DEI help. I want to listen, so I am not going to respond at all.
— Added definitions —
CRT: an academic field used to understand how systems and processes favor white people despite anti-discrimination policies. Analysis coming out of CRT is often used to make public policy.
DEI: a framework for increasing diversity, equity and inclusion; DEI isn’t focused on race or gender only, but also includes disability and other factors (pregnancy for example) which affect a person.
— —
Okay , so end note: I appreciate the people who commented. I questioned the relevancy of CRT/DEI previously out of an alarmed perspective of how aspects that highlight group differences can be used by others to create divisions and increase polarization. But I get the point everyone is making about the historical significance of these tools.
Listen to Mark Milley: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/gen-milley-defends-studying-critical-race-theory-in-the-military-at-house-hearing-115349061782
Read the book. The book itself is what is making the argument for CRT, not a tweet or lemmy summary. Read. Read primary sources. Read books. Think for yourself and don't expect to be fed answers on how to think or feel all the time.
It's actually a bit ironic, because CRT is viewed by many White Americans as a theory which demonizes them; but CRT also defines how racism has harmed poor white people in the past and continues to do so today.
CRT defines the biggest winners of Racism in America as being wealthy white folks. According to CRT, Racism as we know it today, was created as a means to take advantage of poor whites. Rich plantation owners recognized slavery caused great economic harm to poorer whites who did not own slaves. So a solution to stop revolt was to create this system of Race so that poor whites would remain divided from black slaves, and not work together to retaliate.
CRT also claims that this is still occuring today. Racism continues to divide poor white people from poor people of color so that they don't work together to fight against Injustice.
Imagine a hundred runners entering an insanely long footrace. Before the race starts, the official says that due to his complexion, one runner will start running at the second gunshot, and the other runners will begin at the first gunshot. The darker skinned runner contests, but those are the rules and if he wants to race, he must follow them.
BLAM
The palest runners are off and running while the other one anticipates the second gunshot. He patiently waits, but it doesn't come. After ten minutes, the runner complains to the official, but he repeats that these are the rules, and if you just wait patiently, it'll be your turn. After an hour the crowd is outraged by the injustice and begin to protest.
BLAM
The official fires the second shot in order to deescalate the situation and prevent the stadium from being torn apart. The runner is off and he is determined to gain as much ground as possible as the other runners.
At the end of the day, the runners meet up at a checkpoint to rest before the next section of the race. When they announce the official times, the darker skinned man is 50 minutes behind the other runners. He mentions to the officials that he had to wait an hour to start, and that he would have had a better time than many of them if they had started at the same time.
Fine, they say, not wanting another scene like they had at the starting line, "from now on, all runners start at the same time." That's great! So, can I deduct an hour from my time?
WHAT!? WE ALREADY CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT EQUAL. EVERYBODY STARTS AT THE SAME TIME! AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? THE OTHER RUNNERS DIDN'T NEED ANY TIME DEDUCTIONS!
I now see I went too heavy on the caps, but I'm not typing it again.
Anyway, DEI is the one hour time deduction. It's making up for holding them back for so long while everyone else was sprinting ahead. But, those other runners, they were so busy running that they don't know how long it took for that second gunshot to go off. All they see is a runner with a mediocre time getting a 1 hour deduction which moves him to the top 3. The guy getting bumped to fourth is REALLY going to feel cheated, and resent the system that gave that guy an hour just because of his skin color.
There's a video I watched that explains the concept very similarly here: https://youtu.be/4K5fbQ1-zps?si=JO_5eqDxB5NfwAUY
What's interesting is that in the video, none of the questions even mention race, but you can see how the racial minorities are affected more than the rest.
Thank you
The analogy would be more accurate if everyone started at a random time, but darker-skinned runners started later on average. Then, the event organizers decide to deduct an hour from every dark-skinned runner's time regardless of when they actually started.
The analogy would be more accurate if everyone started at a random time, but darker-skinned runners started later on average.
Yes, they started an average hour later meaning when an hour is deducted from the darker skinned People's times, the results are more fair overall.
And even though for some indivules it is unfair, the starting situation is allready unfair and this alteration is a net positive for fairness.
It is not just skin colour that has effects on the starting time of course.
In this theoretical, we already know the dark skinned runners were forced into a later start. That's easily documented and confirmed.
So we enact policies that correct for late start times. That's equitable.
But we measure the diversity of skin tone of when people cross the finish line. If we don't see diversity there matching the race entrants, we can take that as evidence that the race officials are still corrupt.
Corrupt race officials hate this approach.
I don't think this is wrong, but it doesn't force the perspective of "That guy got screwed." The point of it all is to get people who are unconsciously doing/supporting racist things, say, "I never thought about it like that"
Those same people reading your version will immediately turn it into, "Some of those minorities are getting an unfair advantage!" Or "I was one of the white men who didn't get an advantage", (those don't exist)
Tell me if I'm wrong but I would like to clarify something based on what Rhynoplaz said above that I feel they meant,
to clarify: I believe the CRT and DEI can exist while having nothing to do with historical events.
(P.S. I don't know how the DEI and CRT work currently, this is my own opinion on a hypothetical best solution. (Open to ideas if I'm wrong))
The DEI and CRTs purpose is not not about putting everything in reverse, giving the darker skinned man a time cut for every future race because of all the 100s of past races he had to wait.
it is simply about the situation now, the current race, the current job application.
the DEI and CRT should ideally only be about removing the bias of the judge for that specific event, so that the final scores represent each person's actual time, there is not retribution, there is no repayment for past wrongs, it is only about making the current event, the current job market, fair for everyone.
So that when the scores for that specific day are finalized everyones time is what they actually ran.
The CRT finds what makes the specific event unfair, and the DEI fixes it so everyones time is what they actually ran.
It is only removing the current bias in the Official.
Poverty is a completely different (though somewhat related) issue.
Dealing with poverty isnt about removing the bias, it is about rebuilding the very constructs of our society into a place that does not rely on some working 24h to put food on there plate while others sit around ruling those below.
Capitalism does not exist without poverty, if everyone's rich, nobody is.
The only solution to this while keeping capitalism is to ensure every person has access to their human rights free of charge, but then our rulers would complain that these people living free of charge are lazy and sapping up your precious tax payer dollars that you worked your but off for.
no government organization can fix poverty, the entire current system for every current country is flawed, in order to get rid of poverty we must rebuild these systems from the ground up.
We've done it before and made the lives of millions better. and we can do it again.
Edit: changed words in the second and third paragraph referring to the CRT and DEI Ideally have nothing to do with past events. Instead I believe it is fine for the CRT and DEI to learn from historical events and use that learning, but the actual actions will be determined by the current situation not the past. -sorry for the edit I just felt it is more clear what I think like this
A better analogy would be that they do an entirely new race, forgetting about the results of the previous one. Would it now be fair to give the guy a 50-minute headstart?
But it isn't. That's just changing the scenario to fit your own expectations.
The race began before any of us were born. WE DIDN'T SEE THE STARTING LINE. There has been no global reset. Nobody zeroed out the scores between then and now.
Tell me when black people were given enough money to make up for 200 years of making white men richer, or when racism was erased from the world, and I'll consider that you might be even a little bit right.
I am confused how your analogy is different to the original one? the original one was also not affected by prior races.
A headstart would never be fair if gone untreated.
that's why the final results are calculated to eliminate the affect of anyone's headstart.
I think I must have misunderstood something with your comment. If you dont mind could you explain what I missed?
This is such a big non-answer lol
It's alright that you weren't looking back, just take his word when he says he's not as far ahead as he should be.
I see it as a "I don't see color" kind of thing. You may be able to see it as "just" a class war, but people who may be a different race, or disabled, etc., can't do that because those factors can change how you're treated. Saying we should ignore it or rebrand it as a class war is disregarding the reprocussions that race plays in the class war. What communities get funding? What communities have good schools? What communities have food deserts? Who gets promoted to leadership?
Before these things came to be, America was very much class-war only in my opinion, which is why boomer white Americans did so well. They were all seen as the same community, so raising them up was raising them all up. So they had Veterans benefits and programs after the war to help them get housing and education. Unions protected their members. But those programs didn't always extend to POC, if at all. That's why we have to keep an eye on it. It's not just class that affects people, and not talking about it allows the majority to pretend it isn't happening, or is a minor issue. I think it also facilities the silencing of minorities as their issues seem "fringe" or like complaints.
The system was not built for a lot of people, and we have to keep reminding people of that. Because what's going on in the US is showing that. They're worried about anti-Christians and immigrants, transgenders, etc. Even if those people are also poor, that won't save them if we just see class. A middle class, transgender woman who may have been a "good guy" is now an enemy be cause of their gender identity alone. A black man being followed in a store is not being followed for class reasons. People with disabilities having trouble just existing are not having that trouble (solely) because of class.
Getting rid of DEI/CRT makes the loudest voice everyone's voice. And that person is usually not looking out for us.
I think it's the equity vs equality thing that is most problematic. Giving people a bigger slice of the pie for being themselves undermines typical economic incentives and breeds resentment. In my opinion everyone should be given the same opportunities but they need to demonstrate themselves as the most capable candidate to get a job/promotion or whatever for the system to work.
proven multiple times and confirmed by multiple studies: communities that welcome immigrants have higher education rates, better incomes, higher productivity, and lower crime than communities based on exclusion/exclusivity/isolation/separation
conservatives use “CRT” and “DEI” to sow polarization because they know even they’d get blowback if they admitted they were just anti-empathy/pro-hatred/anti-equality
Is it "Welcoming to Immigrants" -> higher education, income, productivity or the other way round?
Positive feedback loop.
Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:
So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.
The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.
I'm guessing you're willing to try and learn, so I'm gonna try to put my thoughts together. This will be a long one, and I hope you're patient enough to go over it all and process it. I tend to ramble.
Using a "what if" to try and counter actual goings on is not an ideal way to make a point. You could also ask within that "what if" if those immigrants start to change their views based on the pro-choice laws and society.
Thing is, most people want fewer abortions, across the board. Many people also want access to abortions because there are circumstances where the only actual medical procedure to avoid the loss of both parent and child is an abortion.
In addition, most pro choice people are pro:
- contraception
- neonatal care
- month's-long paid parental leave for both parents
- subsidized daycare
- subsidized nutrition programs, including WIC, SNAP, and school lunches
- housing assistance
- minimum wage increases
- community after school programs
And many more. All of these empower and better the life of the recipient - as well as society at large - but all are regularly voted down or demonized by "pro life" groups, despite them all actually pro being alive. They are "pro human".
Additionally, using "what if" scenarios to try to debate isn't good debate rhetoric. It starts to move the focus onto something else to then start "attacking", which is known as a strawman. It's like when people complain about boys in girls' sports for all trans laws. It happens so little that it's effectively not happening, nor worth focusing on. It's a strawman, and it changes the focus of the dialogue.
Most anti-immigrant policies in the USA are and have been xenophobic in nature. At least in the 40+ years I've been alive, and the 20+ years I've been politically involved.
CRT is an academic discipline. It's not "pro black people" or "let's put black people on a pedestal" or "let's only vote for back people to positions of power". It's focusing more on the [very truncated] reality that a) 400+ years of slavery happened, and b) the black community is at a massive social disadvantage because of it. This video from Trevor Noah breaks down reparations and privilege quite adroitly. It doesn't only focus on the black community, but it's a big part, because of our nation's history.
CRT can cover anything from slave patrols, to the 13th amendment's sneaky little loophole that then permitted really dumb laws across the nation, to redlining, to origins and proliferation of music, to medical misinformation, to the Tuskegee experiments, and on and on. Because again, CRT is first and foremost an academic discipline. It's not being taught in high school or elementary school because it's a critically theoretical [scientific] practice. It is a way of thinking about thinking, and societal impacts, with focus on race and ethnicity, and how those things impact and have impacted society.
DEI is simply an initialism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These three principles should be embraced by everyone. If you wanted homogeneity, you'd have a pretty terrible world. Especially genetic homogeneity. Just ask the Habsburg family tree.
When discussing this, the one thing I've noticed is that there seems to be this Zero-Sum Game theory of thinking. In that if one side wins, another side must lose. It's a common mentality in the US, especially when sports and wars, etc. are involved. We are so very individually centrist, we fail to look at the whole and see that even when someone else wins, WE ALL win.
A diverse group of people is a more challenging group of people, since it's no longer an echo chamber. There may be thoughts, ideas, words, actions, etc. that previously might have been acceptable, that now parts of the group don't consider acceptable. A reasonable response is to then follow up and try to understand the causes of those issues. To try and find a way to work together amicably. This then shows that people are Equitable in their input. That they have a similar value, and that their racial / ethnic / social issues can be heard and understood, to ideally improve the world around them, including in the workplace.
Often, people misunderstand that a "merit-based" society exists. It doesn't. Not only does money buy your way in to most opportunities, your familial and ethnic background also have a massive impact on your opportunities, and consequences. All else being equal, a black man and a white man are going to have different experiences at the same moment in the same space. Including getting any job, even the highest of the land. Hell, look at SCOTUS Justice Jackson. Despite all of the "anti DEI" rhetoric, she's literally the most qualified person to have ever been confirmed to the position. Bar none, hands down, no lies. And say what you will about her policies, but Kamala was ALSO the most qualified person to ever run for US President. Despite these issues, people used "DEI" as a veil to really say "she's a black woman, and I don't want a black woman running my country" for both.
Inclusion is just the opposite of rejection. And at the end of the day, the biggest fear on virtually every human mind is the fear of being rejected. We all fight with ourselves daily to feel like we belong, that people like us, that we are valuable, that we are worthy. But there's a large sector of our society that takes that internal fear and pushes it out into the world, to find a way to feel better about their own inner struggles. They reject a group, and find acceptance in another. Because we still haven't beaten the stupid lizard brain in the base of our skull that says "us good, them bad".
Finally, I recommend everyone who is trying to understand why conservatives think the way they do (including oneself, if you're trying to be an introspective conservative), to watch this video from Innuendo Studios.
That might make sense, except that numbers of migrants is miniscule compared to the existing population in almost every case.
For example, Australia has ~200k permanent migrants per year. With a population of 26m. In order for the migrants to become a majority, it would take 130 years to import 26m people. (This is obviously grossly simplified).
There is basically no real risk that we will drown in migrants.
Cathode Ray Tubes were just the best solution for the time. We got more efficient later.
You’re writing as if CRT were a set of policies instead of an academic discipline—that’s why everyone is asking you to clarify what you think it is before they reply. It’s like trying to respond to someone criticizing “quantum theory” whose argument is based on the economic effects of nuclear power plants.
There's Fox News CRT which scare mongered our grandparents into thinking that liberals were trying to brainwash children into hating grandma and grandpa. Then there's actual CRT, which teaches kids that Grandma and Grandpa didn't want black people drinking out of the same water fountain.
Two very very different concepts. One is just telling history as it happened. The other one is fear that kids might learn history as it actually happened.
Good on OP for seeking challenges to their existing view points and being open to changing them upon compelling enough thoughts. In a genuine way no less.
Yeah I was prepared for another change my mind post where the OP obviously is never gonna change their mind. Glad I was wrong.
I'm not sure what Cathode Ray Tubes have to do with any of this.
I suppose they're both highly charged and make specific points with the goal of providing illuminated information
Damn, nice.
I understand and sympathize with where your coming from. I don't have all the counter arguments, but one that stuck with me while I was devils advocating it with two of my friends stuck with me. (Mind you, I'm drunk on a Friday night at 3 AM, so just posting this before I forget to do it tomorrow).
One of your arguments (not all!) is built on an opposing side abusing the cultural impact of CRT/DEI. However, that can be applied as a premise to a slew of other political efforts with the same mechanics where the singling out of a group can be twisted into discrimination of an adjacent group:
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) for Alaskans
- Shelters and Services Program for Immigrants
- Any policies surrounding Native Americans
In all the above programs, one could make the case that there are adjacent groups that do not, but maybe should, receive those benefits. CRT/DEI just is an easier target to gather people around. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's just the most prominent and easily targetable policy.
All that doesn't invalidate CRT/DEI or any of the other policies, and even with political opposition one could still argue for their benefit. So, my point is this: Bad actors abusing and misrepresenting a program that focuses on specific groups is not an argument against that policy. If it didn't exist, they'd latch on to something else. So you're letting a policy be ruined, not based on its merits, but on how others can twist a narrative around it.
Again, you have made other points that I'm not addressing at all in this argument. I'll let others argue against those.
The facts are that black Americans are worse off than other groups in almost every way we can measure. There are two competing theories to explain this.
1-the systems of our society are biased against black people. That's Systemic-Racism. 2-black people are inferior to everyone else. That's racism, original recipe.
How are these systems biased against black people? That's what the field of CRT seeks to answer.
- A culture was developed during a period of racism that discouraged activities beneficial a thriving community, because they were denied in a racist era. That culture hasn't adapted to a less racist era.
What makes me really curious is, is it really the skin-tone that is the significant variable, or is it a very closely related confounding variable?
It seems so very weird to me that the tone of your skin can have such a significant impact.
Like the comment you're replying to said, it kind of has to go back to either one race is generically inferior, or one race is disadvantaged for other reasons. Any other confounding variables, like income level, go directly back to the same point: If black people have less money, is that because there's something inherent in them that makes them less capable of making money, or have they been disadvantaged by a system that prevents them from making money?
CRT and DEI are misrepresented by both the left and right. They make more sense when you look at them without the point of view of 14 year old Redditors or 400 year old dinosaurs.
First off, CRT is a red herring. It's an extremely niche framework for historical analysis and egalitarianism which is irrelevant outside academic contexts and only gained ground due to a racist asshole.
When it comes to DEI I think that your heart is in the right place - this is all about economic justice and if there were better ways to account for that it'd be an excellent thing to correct for (though, imo, the better correction would be to ensure all children had a genuinely equal chance at success). Unfortunately, because America has a long history of racism, race and poverty are strongly correlated.
The other half of DEI is that people tend to hire like. It's a deep social flaw but we need to acknowledge it - white men will tend to hire white men, a company composed entirely of black women will tend to hire black women... we have studies. Most entrenched wealth is held by white men and so white men have an inherent advantage in employment.
The last thing I'd highlight is that a rising tide raises all ships - your assumption that immigration causes an expansion of poverty usually hasn't been born out. In capitalism more people means more labor means more innovation means more wealth - there are some limits around resources but we're not near any hard limits in that regard.
I'm not USAian enough to understand all this, but let me just say, the problem is the rich. Them stealing all the money leaves little for the rest, and due to the lack of education, the rest fights each other over what's left instead of uniting against rich fucks. Painting CRT, DEI, feminism, trans-rights, anti-immigration, etc. as the issue are just ways to divide the have-nots.
Divide and conquer.
Actually, you understand it TOO WELL to be USAian.
Class solidarity my friend. Fuck the rich.
This is a great question to ask in a .ml community as I think they will be able to contextualize this a bit better for you, and I would be interested in what they say too. Cause I agree, I think identity politics (which I think is what you're getting at here) is used especially by the ruling class as a way to look nominally progressive (or anti-progressive) and make people feel like they have a real choice in politics, but is ultimately damaging both to its own goals and to the overall political consciousness, in the ways you noted, by divorcing them from the material realities that create and perpetuate these divisions for all people in society. I think that in either direction, they are pushed as a means to distract from the root causes of those issues (which is all the better for a ruling class that benefits from this social order), which if addressed would be a much more equitable way of dealing with them and far more difficult for criticism to take hold.
I think people would see that we have far more in common than not if we weren't constantly pitted against each other to compete for resources that are only made scarce for the sake of profit and austerity.
CRT though, in actuality, is precisely what you are talking about. It is a school of thought that analyzes racial inequalities in the context of history and critiqueing the ways that they are perpetuated in our society. It became a buzzword because conservative media made it into one totally divorced from its original context.
I've no idea what CRT is but I'd like to simply answer why DEI kinda things are needed separate from poverty alleviation.
Axiomatically, I want best person for a given job and a level playing field for all. This is the kind of society I want to build.
Say there is universal basic income or universal basic services. Yay, now anyone can get free education or wait until they get job they aspire too, etc.
Do we progress towards the kind of society mentioned previously? Likely not because there are other factors like network, culture and habits that shape how we/others view us and our capabilities. Hence, mentors, counseling, special training, etc are needed.
If you want us to talk you out of your position we need you to describe what exactly you think CRT and DEI actually are in your own words.
If you can invest your time in explaining those things as you understand them then I am willing to discuss it with you.
If you copy paste from the net I will call you out and take that as a hostile response.
It’s in the OP.
No, that is not what you think those things are. That's your position on them. In order to tell if you actually understand what they are, I need you to explain them. If you can't explain something then you don't actually understand it.
That's the only way I can get a real baseline for where you are coming from and where you potentially went wrong.
So like that environmental justice database musk just shut down, that analyzes things like pollution, asthma and other health impacts, death rates, etc? So environmental cleanup efforts can focus on those who are most affected? Apparent it’s crt or DEI or woke or something since those most affected tend to be disproportionately non-white. It can’t be the “merit” of being most impacted by pollution
Democracy is not just about voting. Democracy is not just about freedom to debate political topics. Democracy is also about being actualized in a way which allows you to advocate for yourself and your interests. This works both from a idealistic and functional perspective - egalitarian democracy is the "right" thing to do, but it also serves to help identify and remedy issues in specific communities before they become bigger problems.
The core thesis for progressive liberalism is that for a democracy to function properly, we should identify injustice and work to reduce it, so that marginalized communities have better access to these democratic primitives than they would otherwise. The idea is that this creates a proactive framework for dealing with problems, rather than a reactive one. Otherwise the Democratic process seems cursed to leap from big crisis to big crisis without any real strategy for working at smaller scales.
Politically, focusing on class might be more expedient at getting results. Doesn't mean that correcting past wrongs isn't the morally correct thing to do.
What is your current view?
It’s shared in the OP.
Oh, the body was blocked by my word filter.
You are wrong because it is far easier for people to discriminate based on what they can see as opposed to a bank account.
The only people you mention "abusing" what you call the "well-meaning intentions" of "DEI" are:
a growing population of poor whites
As they are, as implied by your formulation, misinterpreting the policies as favoritism. It this what you meant with abuse?
I meant politicians will abuse the intention of these policies to gain favor from poor white voters, and that nation state actors will cause polarization by highlighting the growing discontent in various ways.
Ok, so politicians that sow polarization by complaining about DEI is bad?
Prof Wolff just released a great video about this yesterday, although it's more about debunking the myth of a meritocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILljYRz_G-I
Poverty and other lack of opportunity are how we target programs that elevate people toward equity.
Diversity is how we can objectively measure outcomes - whether people in positions of power are actually applying the above principles.
I won't try to change your mind because I agree with you. Well I agree that's how many policies are implemented, not that DEI necessarily has to be implemented in such a way (putting the emphasis on poverty is also a type of DEI).
I attribute it to these ideas coming from the US. Americans have internalized racism so much that they are unable to think about people without categorizing them into a race. In a way it's a final manifestation of the "equal but separate" ideology. Races must remain separate no matter what, but we can talk about mechanisms balance the discrimination by applying discrimination in the other direction.
DEI is racist AF! Everyone should get the same opportunities and we should not reward people for the color of their skin etc.
To the 9 people who disliked my comment (and many more who will in the future) - just think about how fucking weird it is to not want to higher certain races in favor of other races just cause you want to create artificial equity. There are literally instances where white person who is more qualified for a position will get denied in favor of let's say black person who might be less qualified just because companies wanna fill some DEI quotas. That's super racist. Companies should hire he best candidates (be it black, asian, white or whatever) and not some (often) mediocre candidates just cause they a certain race.
DEI is RACIST!
No.
Go find surface area to attack on DEI and CRT with your own brainwave.
Look, if I am wrong I want to know. I said I won’t respond to those posts because it’s not meant to be an argument.
Personally I find the meta-question more interesting than the question here. Your take is pretty much the majority one in any Western society today (albeit particularly thoughtfully expressed here). Personally I share your analysis right down the line. But you're asking to be talked out of it. Is it because you feel that it's not presentable here? Or maybe among your friends? Who perhaps might belong to the small minority (7%) of the US population that pollsters categorize as "progressive activists"? Just a thought.
In any case, steelmanning is a great technique to practice. Well done for having a go.
Your take is pretty much the majority one in any Western society today
False.