> Especially the “E” in DEI (equity), which means equality of outcomes, and is a rebrand of discrimination.
Do we still do 'citation needed' around here? Find me one serious person who has ever argued for equality of outcomes. Even fucking Lenin said "He who does not work shall not eat".
> Find me one serious person who has ever argued for equality of outcomes.
Without commenting on or evaluating the merits or demerits of the argument, here is a representative example:
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
This was a widely held stance in certain circles. Additional examples in different domains/disciplines are not difficult to find.
Alright, this is genuinely helpful.
The main argument in favour of DEI is a cartoon about apples. We're all doomed, I guess.
When an employer demands the composition of the engineering team must match the composition of the nation in sex and race, with an exception allowed to favor anyone who is not a white or Asian male, that’s equality of outcome.
When white and Asian males are eliminated if they didn’t attend a top-20 computer science program, but the existence of a degree doesn’t matter for anyone else, that’s equality of outcome.
When the stated goal of HR during an all-hands is literally to facilitate equality of outcomes.
I agree that all of those things would be bad! But I repeat - 'citation needed'. And when I say that, I do not mean "it happened once somewhere", I mean - I need you to prove that this is a systemic thing that requires changes in legislation, because that is what a bunch of tiny scaredbois are asking for.
> because that is what a bunch of tiny scaredbois are asking for.
Why do you use slurs here? Using slurs is a sign you aren't arguing in good faith here, meaning even if people provided that evidence you probably wouldn't change your mind, you are just trying to win this argument.
"if"
I disagree. It doesn’t need some systemic proof or some other artificial - and frankly arbitrary - barrier to make changes in legislation. It’s obvious that the DEI programs of many companies are discriminatory. And also, this type of discrimination is already illegal under existing law. It nevertheless did not stop activists or the companies they infiltrated from making discrimination an official policy.
> activists or the companies they infiltrated
Name them. Please. Why do you all refuse to tell me who's doing all the bad things you're so worried about?