this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
1066 points (97.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

6407 readers
2439 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I oppose affirmative action. Change my mind (if you disagree and want to)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I've heard the E as both Equity and Equality. Anyone know which it's supposed to be?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

'Diversity hire' is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.

They don't know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.

They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.

The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won't make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that's because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

"WELL I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON'T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED"

They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for "team discussion" was:

"Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?"

Evidently one person in the department said "no, they do not". So I'm sitting there wondering "oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender". But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there's no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that's like 90% white men...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

It's the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and "discriminated" against.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why "blind" hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Except that's not what's happening. Or rather, that's not what DEI was doing.

DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one's being hired because they look different.

And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 hours ago

nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago

Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it's only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they're superior in every way. But they're not racist or sexist - they just believe in a "meritocracy!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago (7 children)

TBH, as a poor white kid from coal country, DEI based scholarships were quite unfair to me. Busting my ass to survive while these kids who were already better off than me from the start got a free ride. Nonsense.

I don't have a great answer, but the extreme implementations of these programs and now the extreme removal of them are both wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago

It was interesting that there was this program my kid qualified for that was DEI oriented. Which I found strange because we are relatively well off and could easily pay for what this program covered.

To their credit, you might have been qualified too, since this program also accepted people under a household income threshold, and as a result had quite a few white boys in it too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Care to describe the extreme implementation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

I think this is an area that is perilous.

So certain DEI initiatives are flawed in unfair ways. So there's room for valid criticism.

However, more critically it's a gigantic dog whistle. The magnitude of the flaws does not call for massive emails demanding everyone snitch at any whiff of DEI and sweeping offices to remove anything deemed DEI aligned and cancelling any hint of celebrating cultural diversity.

So on the one hand I can relate to a discussion of flaws, but in the broader context it seems more to serve the agenda of those blowing the dog whistle.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

I think for the"normal" people who aren't frothing at the mouth racists, it's specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is also why "woke" becoming a common word was bad for both sides. Not only is it nonspecific, but it starts to mean different things to different people and diverges over time. It's easier to demonize something with a nonspecific meaning for exactly that reason.

There's a meme that says "everything I don't like is woke", and while it's funny, that's literally the process that happens when such terms become catchalls -- what they catch depends on what any individual speaker wants out of using it.

With DEI, the process has been the same. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who believe it's bad (because they were told that and lack critical thinking skills) and may not even know what the acronym stands for.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago

Reminds me of that time (as if it was only once) a depressing amount of people, mostly conservatives, didn't know that the ACA and "Obamacare" mean the same thing.

Conservative politics depend heavily on placing labels on everything because it's a built-in way of telling the rubes what they should think and feel.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

I like how this horrible acronym spells out U. S. A.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Just like the US PATRIOT act was definitely about being a patriot, right?

And if you don't support it, then you're not a patriot, right?

See how that works?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (8 children)

Has someone actually been on an interview panel, where you decide to hire someone because they're black?

(I definitely haven't.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

I was put in a team as a "care lead" because I was Polish and the team was Polish too. Weren't allowed to be the actual teamleader, that was given to a dude from the US. He was absent like 99% of the time, made like two one hour meetings to "transfer knowledge" over 6 months. Then he came back, started getting pissy that people treated me as the teamlead instead of him, went to his manager and got me "transferred" out. Also, all of the scrummasters (like 8 different teams) were black, went through the company "academy" (basically a 3 month bootcamp) without any prior IT / programming experience, with completely incomprehensible accents. Some of them were later fired for security issues (one took a company laptop with medical software and client data, hardcore HIPAA shit, to Africa, without disclosing it, getting it cleared / secured), incompetence or bad fit. I think three were left after a year I was there.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago

So three scenarios come up when I think of my experiences on selecting candidates.

One time, we had a woman apply. Which was almost unheard of, it was the first time I could ever remember a woman applicant. The thing was, she was also by far the best candidate. In a round of applicants that otherwise I'm sure we wouldn't have bothered hiring, she nailed it. Retroactively, they declared the white guy that was interviewed the previous day the one to hire, who was kind of the best of the worst. Something vague about him having more years in the industry, but I overheard a concern that they didn't trust one of our employees to behave himself in front of a very attractive hire, and that it was best for everyone to head off the sexual harassment by keeping him away from her. In which case a DEI policy would have actually been nice to counter the really bad behavior going on.

Another time, different company, we were about to do the interviews and then suddenly they were all canceled. Why? Management picked the person to fill the spot, and decided to skip all technical assessment. Because this time another woman actually applied and that was it, they needed a woman to make numbers. The person was about as well as you can expect for accepting the first person to come along. This was a position intended for an experienced industry veteran, but instead we got someone with zero experience and their education wasn't even consistent with the work needed.

A third time, it was a hiring position where only black people were even allowed to apply. I don't have complaints about the results here, because we got one of the best employees we've ever had out of it. But I can't pretend that the specific hiring practice was fair. However the place is still, after all this, like 90% white men, so it's not like white guys aren't getting their chances.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I have been apart of interviews (at a computer repair shop, mostly men) where my boss said we had to hire the only woman interviewee because it looked bad to not to, and we needed diversity, even though she wasn't very qualified. So we hired her instead of the person who had excelled in the interview.

At my next job we had some diversity hires. It was pre-DEI, but we had a diversity intern program. We hired a guy because he was black, he was qualified and was amazing. Later we hired a person who was also black and wasn't very qualified, they struggled for months and eventually quit - we had hired them based on skin color too.

Not saying I'm for or against, but I've seen situations where diversity became more important than qualifications. I've also seen where both were equally important, and that was preferred.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Tbh, being labeled as hired in a "diversity program" sounds humiliating. You'll have to work twice as hard to prove you're actually capable of doing the job.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago

My company (major conglomerate) keeps track of demographics like this, at every level. Even as specific KPIs like "women in semior executive roles." While ive never actually seen any written plans or anyone admitting they hired someone for a role to meet a metric, there are a handful of things that do stick out as fishy.

There have been roles that have been upgraded in title but not scope when a non white male has taken over, and there are certainly a few people who you look at and think, "how the hell did you get this job." That said, there is one person who is in charge of almost all my questionable experiences, and hes the kind of person who would do that to meet a metric because HR told him he had to, not because he sees value in it.

Most of our other managers approach it much differently. We try to widen our recruiting pool by going different places and by consciously making sure our recruiter team is diverse

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

I'm not sure how that would stop anyone tbh

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›