Nobody claims that political appointments are "merit based." They're by definition political. But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.

In "Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern" I take concern to be the noun, Mirriam-Webster (1a) or (2) has something that relates or belongs to one : affair, from the context this would seem to be the definition that fits: DEI relates to such a conference, they're interested in it, rather than definition (1b) an uneasy state of blended interest, uncertainty, and apprehension which would lead to "concerning" but makes no sense in the context, as you note.

I thought the point was to improve the world and correct injustices, not just get revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[flagged]

Don't confuse rational discourse for "victimhood". Finding reasoned discourse difficult to understand and centering it around "victimhood" is ironically an effeminate trait.

Your 85% white figure doesn’t tell you anything. Educated and liberal white people have an out-group preference, which is why universities and medical schools discriminate against white people despite being run by white people.

What does "wearing off" mean and what evidence would you point to for that position?

Probably, but corporations and assimilated organizations will not take the risk.

I don't understand why you're replying to me like that

> You understand that ...?

Yes I do

> such as campaigns to encourage more men to go into nursing, midwifery or teaching be targeted too?

These aren't illegal and have never been the problem.

Discriminational hiring practices and quotas are, unfortunately DEI activists decided to do these.

Few companies said that they only employ women. That would be too overt.

But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.

Yeah there's a decent chance that DEI practices to do this violate neutrally-written US civil rights law, and also make women doing nursing or midwifery angry enough to use lawsuits in order to end these programs.

Or just help everyone and not worry about means testing. It won't be hard to spot the ones taking more than their fair share.

It's almost like capitalism is inherently unequal.

This is just my subjective experience, but the only people I've ever seen complain about "DEI" in real life were the most incompetent men I've ever met. These people were clearly aware, on some level, that "DEI" is a threat to them specifically.

DEI imploded because it's racist and sexist and always was.

Your post would be way less hilarious if you refrained from using words like "bitches" in a post arguing for DEI! Derogatory sexist terms don't really help your cuase.

Clearly a Fox host is the best military super genius.

That is idiotic and stems from the false notion that there is some natural equilibrium that will occur.

It might be a good idea to mention what the straw man is, rather than just throw the phrase and see if it sticks.

Seems like there is obviously a spectrum of positions here and various people have found themselves calling certain positions "DEI" or "anti-DEI" or "affirmative action" or "racist" depending on which positions they hold and where a particular institution lies on it. For example:

1. A company that hires mainly based on on-paper qualifications (which, due to existing disparities in experience and education, means in practice that they hire fewer historically disadvantaged minorities)

2. A company that, believing that talent or merit is more equitably distributed among groups than on-paper qualifications may suggest, goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions (to discover those as-of-yet-unrecognized talents), and tries to hire based on actual merit and ability rather than on-paper qualifications.

3. A company that has the goal of creating a more equitable and diverse workforce with groups that more closely matches their proportions of the population. They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage

4. A company which, accounting for the disparities in distribution of measurable abilities of groups, tries to hire based on within-group ability rather than between-group ability; for example trying to hire the top 10th percentile of black, or top 10th percentile asian, or top 10th percentile male, rather than top 10th percentile of all applicants in aggregate (which would likely be overrepresented by over-performing groups). This in practice means using a different standard for different groups, but using the within group distribution of talent; they may say they are "considering race/sex/disability as one of many factors they take into account"

5. A company that in practice has an explicit hiring quota based on the race/sex/etc. of applicants, in order to create a more equitable or diverse workforce that matches the relative sizes of those groups in the local population.

6. A company that, in order to reverse historical and current disparities in achievement within society, actively discriminates in the opposite direction as historical trend, with the goal of evening the playing field more quickly.

7. A company that, in order to address historical grievances and grant some amount of justice to victims of discrimination and oppression, actively and purposefully discriminates against privileged majority and overachieving groups, favoring underprivileged and underachieving groups, up to and including reparations for past injustices to remedy current disparities.

I'm pretty sure 1-3 are legal and 4-7 are illegal, but I'm not a lawyer so that's just my guess. Some hardliners might attack 2 as going too far, but somewhere between 3 and 4 is probably the more common point at which anti-DEI people draw their line.

The history is more than a little complicated. I model it as a set of separate overton windows in different institutions that have shifted, widened, and contracted over the last 60 or so years. So in this picture, courts arguably expanded it to 4-6 in the 80s, but have retreated back to around 2-3 since then. Legislature has mostly stayed around 2-3 with a handful of radicals pushing higher or lower with low-to-moderate success. Academia has been around 5-7 since the 70s. Executive has mostly hovered around 3-5 until Trump. Media/popular culture, big shift up to 6-7 in 2014-2021, retreating back to 3-4 now. Also, motte-and-baileys are common here; pro-DEI activists sometimes frame it as something like 2, but often advocate up to 6 or 7 (e.g. "antiracism" in the 2020s peak). anti-DEI activists often say they simply oppose quotas and illegal discrimination (4-7), but in practice sometimes attack even 2-3 as being too much.

> they attacked DEI as a concept rather than just the corruption they claimed existed

People who crusade against DEI generally think that the concept is corruption, rather than being an unrelated side matter.

> There were already laws on the books against hiring discrimination.

Those are exactly the laws being used to attack DEI practices, though they were by consensus not previously wielded against clear violations that were intended virtuously.

>Has the anti-DEI movment (and current administration) created a truly fair and equitable society that focuses on merit in the absence of gender and race? No.

Has the DEI movment (and previous administration) created a truly fair and equitable society that focuses on merit in the absence of gender and race? No.

>It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically attacked, torn down and even erased from the public record.

It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically exalted, praised and even defended from the public record.

Jason Arday.

Got it. I agree. If there is no modern negative consequences then no redress is needed.

Look at the current admin's overt tipping of the scales for white heterosexual Christian (in name only) males to see evidence of DEI in action.

They just don't like it when it's other people

Sure. All instances of "centrist" in the #Modern portion of that wiki could be replaced by "institutionalist".. but it would call for a careful analysis of how institutionalism dominates reform (internally, with respect to general electoral processes)

Sweden has bloc politics, i.e. no single party has the majority to govern.

The red-green bloc (left, center and greens) won a majority but the center party is playing kingmaker and refusing to let the left party into government. The left party has said from well before the election that they, reasonably, will not vote to support a government which they are not part of.

This has been due to decades of bourgeois / social democrat rat-fucking on policies, most notably disability / sick insurance reforms, after they got the left party's support votes. [1]

There is speculation that the center party would instead support the prior right wing government instead (voting with the extreme-right) - as long as the extreme right stays out of government, despite the extreme right getting all of their policies pushed through anyway. Even going so far as to withhold key votes in parliament until their immigration reforms (removing permanent residency and restricting citizenship, in this case) got passed. [2]

The short of it is that "centrist" parties are just right wing parties in disguise, in that they NEVER support leftist reforms but will happily support the right when it suits upper class economic interests.

Democracy being what it is, can be messy and nobody goes home happy. But the left of the left bloc saw the largest electoral gains in this election, so a move to the left is arguably what a growing portion of the electorate wanted. It was still a very close election, so you could frame it in many ways, but that the green-reds did see the biggest gains is fact.

1. https://arbetet.se/2026/09/21/sjukforsakringen-forklarar-var...

2. https://www.thelocal.se/20261012/beer-strike-and-contract-br...

We could all stand to think about this a little Moore.

That's the term for the character. I think they were seeking a term to describe those who perceive antiheroes to be heroes.

It's not according to the singer, who came up with it.

There are two links, and they were the first two I found in a 2 minute search, which you could, and should, have done yourself before forming the opinion that women as a whole are not pushing for trades jobs. It's pretty clear at this point that you formed the opinion first.