If you use Hey or Basecamp, you’re funding a white supremacist: https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-waning-days-of-dei-s-dominance-9a5b656c
The waning days of DEI's dominance

The acronym for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion entered the common corporate lexicon with overwhelming force in 2020. Executives everywhere quickly learned they needed a passable position on DEI to stay employed, and a cottage industry of consultants sprung up to provide it. There were endless proclamations of "doing the work", some e...

@erikvorhes This must be the worst blog post I recently read from a, supposedly, tech person. A gallery of ignorant nonsense opinions self-proclaimed as “meritocracy” (God help me if it isn't the most infuriating platitude thrown around by the privileged).

Good find! I didn't know that guy is toxic.

@Weyzu @erikvorhes
Asking sincerely: Where does the author of the article invoke white supremacy?
Is meritocracy now white supremacy? Because meritocracy means the people who perform a task and get the best results are then rewarded/accepted/promoted or whatever. Race is left out of the equation. If the task is sales, would you not hire the best salesperson? Is it because he mentions the affirmative action SCOTUS case? The people who filed the suit are not even white people.
@drown @Weyzu I don’t think you’re asking sincerely, based on how you’re extolling meritocracy or characterizing the SCOTUS case. If I’m wrong in my interpretation of your intent, apologies; there are other replies already detailing how DHH is advancing the cause of white supremacy in his post that may cure you of your naïveté.
@erikvorhes @Weyzu
No I am asking sincerely because I really don't see how that SCOTUS case is racist or how meritocracy is racism.
Asians are suing over Affirmative Action based on meritocracy. There have been cases where despite having the top scores applying for universities, some Asians are not accepted because the school is trying to meet quotas based on race or other attributes. The argument is that the school is discriminating based on race/demographics.
The Supreme Court Has No Reason to End Affirmative Action. They’re Doing It Anyway.

(Siri, set the timer for racial harmony.)

Slate
@erikvorhes @Weyzu
1.
I'm aware of the arguments, I just disagree. The same is true of that journalist, and because of his opinions you think he's racist.
It's one thing for you to say he's wrong. He very well could be wrong, and I very well could be wrong. But you aren't simply saying we're wrong, you're saying we are racist.
You are assigning motive and morality to a differing opinion, or you're just being hyperbolic.
Clarence Thomas is a black man, and I've seen people say horrible things

@Weyzu @drown Wait, what journalist am I calling racist?

“You are assigning motive and morality to a differing opinion” — what does that even mean? Opinions aren’t amoral things just floating out there somewhere and articulated without motivation. If that we’re true, why are you assigning motive and morality to my calling DHH a white supremacist for his articulation of white supremacist views.

Maybe “reply guy” isn’t the hobby for you.

@erikvorhes @Weyzu
It was some tech journo named DHH whose article you shared about affirmative action/meritocracy etc.
If I was trying to be a reply guy there would be a far more confrontational approach, and as I said before I'm approaching this in good faith. I don't think reply guys exist on Mastodon yet, but here's hoping.
@Weyzu @drown DHH is not a tech journalist, dipshit. Go troll someone else.
@erikvorhes @Weyzu
2.
about him by white people because he's a conservative.
Because of his conservative views he is often called a racist, or uncle-Tom, and even the most despicable words I'm sure you're familiar with.
It appears akin to religious orthodoxy where the church would decide the evil motives of people who disagreed with them. I don't think you're evil for believing in equality or reparations. I do think calling that journalist a racist based on his point of view is unjustified.
@drown @erikvorhes I just love it when people are trying to shift the framing of the problem by saying that someone is called racist not because of their actions but “because they are conservative”. “Let’s just ignore that part over there and conveniently pretend it didn’t happen (or it just doesn’t matter) and focus on the conservative part.” Don’t tackle the problem, just change the framing so it’s closer to a siege mentality.
@Weyzu @erikvorhes
A siege mentality? I've not heard that one yet. Siege would mean surrounding your enemy, cutting off their supplies, and then forcing them into surrender. I don't know how that applies here.
The repeating theme is that everyone who disagrees with you is a secret racist. That journalist believes affirmative action is racism because the policy takes race & historical oppression into consideration.
Blind testing with no race on the application would be the least racist.
@Weyzu @drown LOL. Thank you for making it clear that my initial instinct not to engage with you was right.
@Weyzu @erikvorhes
Affirmative action has the approach of preferring someone based on race in an attempt to make up for historical disadvantages. That is racist in nature because it's making calls based on ethnicity. It's racist, that doesn't mean it's hatefully racist. But the people who had the scores, and weren't accepted because of affirmative action obviously feel they've been wronged since they had no hand in historical discrimination. It was Asian students who filed the suit.
@erikvorhes @Weyzu In the USA it has been ruled that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their race, religion, or other attributes such as sexuality, gender, politics etc. If you are turned away because they already have too many of the same race/gender, is that not discrimination? This is a real question. DHH seems to have opinions similar to this, and I don't see why that makes him a racist in any way. From his perspective the racism is in the affirmative action.
@drown @Weyzu That’s because he doesn’t understand the point of affirmative action, and clearly neither do you. Nice use of the passive voice to make it seem like your understanding of anti-discrimination policy is the authoritative, singular truth. In the USA it is more complicated than that.