Re: Corporate Conspiracy Open-Source Theory

On 2025-07-11, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-08, Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote:

On 2025-07-08, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-07, Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote:

On 2025-07-04, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in
<slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:
>

Why do you think companies push DEI?  It is a way to signal yourself as
a thought leader.

>
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
>
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
>

>
DEI is nothing to do with "equal-opportunity".  It has to do with virtue
signalling, and meeting arbitrary quotas and requirements put in place
by people who are flummoxed that white countries have white people.
>
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
>
Weaponised "Codes of Conduct" can be used to eject people who point this
out.

>
Exactly. When I was a kid in school we were taught to be "color blind." And
I buy into that. The best qualified person for the job, no matter what race
or sex. But that's not what DEI is about. It's about granting special
privileges to anyone is who is not white and/or male. The "E" in DEI doesn't
stand for "equality" it stands for "equity." So-called "equity" means
anti-white (and/or male) exclusion. The "I" is supposed to stand for
"inclusion," but that's also a lie. It also means (again) anyone who isn't
white (or a white male) is "included." Just look at the colleges where
whites are told to stay away from certain events because they're not
"included."
>
DEI is toxic. It's definitely NOT equal opportunity. That's a BS lie. 
>

>
I don't think "Colourblindness" could have ever worked long term.  It is
basically "Political Correctnes", pretending not to notice the obvious.
>
>
Multicultural societies cannot stay free, something was to happen.
>
I don't object to identity politics per-se, but I do have issue with the
fact that there is no identity political force which protects my
identity.
>
People can only afford to be ambivalent about identity, when society is
homogeneous.

>
I look at it a little differently. There is a lot more that is the same
about humans than what is different. I've always gotten along fine with
people I worked with, no matter what race.
>
I think Morgan Freeman made a good point about race when Mike Wallace was
trying to get him to endorse black history month. Mike Wallace asked
something like, "how are we going to solve the race issue if we don't deal
with it?" Morgan Freeman said, "Just quit talking about it."
>
Frank Robinson was once asked how it felt to be a black manager. He told the
interviewer, I would rather be known as just be a manager.
>
So I'm not really "color blind," I just don't think race should be all that
big of a deal. As my grandmother said, "there's good and bad in all of us."
By "all of us" she meant all races.
>

But people are talking about it, and more now than before.  In the 90's
you could push for a 'colourblind' society, but now there is more focus
on race, with DEI.

Also, we have more genes in common than not, with chimps, pigs, chickens
and bananas.  Differences matter.  Differences are what makes me, me,
and makes you, you.

These 'arguments' were just vain attempts to build a new world, a new
ethos which stood in opposition to centuries of common sense.  Its time
for that foolish dream to die, so we can move on and actually *solve*
these problems.