ByteOnBikesJan 28, 2025

Yep

https://slrpnk.net/post/17751135

Yep - SLRPNK

As a colored dude, it’s hard to explain. I’ve even had white folks say, “Nah man it’s not like that.”

Show threadERROR: Earth.exe has crashedJan 28, 2025

I feel like “DEI” is a bandaid to a bigger issue, that is: unequal opportunities due to schools that aren’t properly funded (amongst many other things in a person’s childhood).

If those issue are fixed, these “DEI” stuff wouldn’t even need to exist.

Also:

I hate how people complain that Harris is somehow “DEI”

Like, isn’t politicians supposed to represent the people? If they keep picking White Men, how are minorities supposed to feel like a part of the country? There were 45 presidents of which 44 were White Men, and this ticket of a Black Woman (Harris) + a White Man (Walz) somehow triggers people. 🙄 (Like who cares, vote for policy, not people)

Even if Harris was elected, Black Presidents wouldn’t even represent 5% of all people who have been presidents. (2/46 = 4.34% vs the black population at 13%) Why they (conservatives) be complaining so much lol.

Show threadalvvayson

I fully agree and in typical American fashion, affirmative action and DEI were just bandaids to quickly solve some of the effects of institutional discrimination, instead of solving it at the root.

Even I, as a very progressive person, don’t like some DEI hires. But the actual problematic DEI hires are not talented people like Kamala Harris. They are connected incompetent people.

I think Clarence Thomas would be a good example. By most accounts he is the most corrupt and incompetent justice, who just happened to run in the right conservative circles.

In the business world, I also see quite a lot of well-connected incompetent people. It used to be white gulf buddies, now it tends to be the white sister-of, or the latina wife-of, the gulf buddy.

Maybe the Trump kids are the best example of DEI hires. Ivanka Trump, anyone?

Jan 28, 2025 at 11:20amWeb
Show threadERROR: Earth.exe has crashedJan 28, 2025

But the actual problematic DEI hires are not talented people like Kamala Harris. They are connected incompetent people.

I argue that Harris isn’t really that much of a “DEI Hire”.

I mean, sure, you might argue she only got picked because of race and gender. But the purpose of politicians in a democratic system is to make people feel represented, not necessarily the “smartest” or “most experienced”. Race and Gender absolutely matters. Like, if we keep having white men in the white house, that is a big “f you” to women and minorities. So picking Harris is absolutely essential to acknowledge the existence of Black people and Women. (And Harris isn’t even some random person, she was qualified enough to be Attorney General of CA, and a Senator, merit definitely contributed to her getting picked)

Besides, the President (and Vice President) will have a lot of advisors to help them with the job, you don’t need someone that’s an Einstein to be President, just someone with overall good policy and some compassion, and can pick good cabinet members to run the country.

Show threadMnemnosyneJan 28, 2025

The job of politicians shouldn’t be considered to be to make people feel represented. It should be to actually represent them.

If it was to make people feel represented, then I’m sorry to inform you that Donald Trump is the most successful President in my memory, perhaps the most successful ever, because that is his appeal - he makes the MAGAts feel represented, and he does so very very strongly.

Show threadFauxRealJan 28, 2025

Thomas got in because of cronyism. He was the best conspirator available. He was also appointed by a Republican President who claimed he was the best qualified. Quite the opposite of token hiring. The party accused of using DEI to subvert a meritocracy opposed his appointment (Democrats).

So in summary, the GOP is projecting its failures onto Democrats again.