> trying to empower
> tends to improve
> hard to argue
Lots of weasel words there.
> On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist.
Lots of absolutism there
It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful.
That’s why the guy below me
> So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea
Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good.
The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is.
> the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
> What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
I don’t have a dog in this hunt (I didn’t vote for either of them), but I think its fair to say that Trump seems to be pretty much trying to do most everything he promised in his campaign (which obviously attracted enough votes for him to win). Perhaps people just believe that politicians say a bunch of shit to get elected—then do something else and never expected this level of follow through.
Either way, this is what America voted for…and are apparently what we are going to get.
Lots of weasel words there.
> On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist.
Lots of absolutism there
It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful.
That’s why the guy below me
> So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea
Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good.
The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is.
> the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues