One of the failures failures of the BLM movement was their insistence on taking a premise that virtually everyone agrees with, that black people have intrinsic value and that their lives are worth something, and insisting that one must agree with the bizarre agenda of the organization. Yet the organization, up to this point, has merely been a money making scheme for the leaders, with no value given back to any one or any communities. The DEI industrial complex is similar. It's taken three terms that in and of themselves are not objectionable and turned them into an agenda that pushes a narrative that must be agreed with by everyone. The the default argument for DEI is something like, "What, don't you think that diversity is a good thing?". To which most would respond with something like "Sure as long as it's a strategy to increase the size of the pool of qualified potential employees.". So far, not big deal. Yet the DEI industrial complex would respond by insisting that diversity means excluding some qualified candidates because they're not diverse enough, and including some candidates that are not qualified but diverse. Of course, diversity is limited to "race" and nothing else. In short, it's one more example to turning something that most could agree with into an agenda intended to bludgeon everyone into submission.
Monday, December 9, 2024
DEI and BLM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think I have to disagree. It's not about "race", unless by that you mean it promotes only the black race, which seems to be the case where race is a factor at all. But to other marxist "progressives" (sorry for the redundancy), it also means the sexually disordered, and the more disordered, the better. Sure, our very own Dan Trabue will insist it also refers to the disabled, but that's a screen for the racist and pervert narrative to which he clings. In the meantime, honest people continue to prefer merit to precede any consideration of race, sex, physical disorder or sexual perversion. If merit results in no black people, women, crippled or deviants being hired, so be it. All those rejected will have to step up their efforts regarding self-improvement, or settle for lesser positions. That's how it works for us white conservative Christian men, so why not for everyone else, too? Sounds like equality to me!
I mean that it's about surface level, unimportant, cosmetic, differences. It's about checking the right boxes, while not even having boxes for some groups. It's elevating the superficial over the substantial. If I'm looking for an employee who needs to have a certain amount of specific expertise, I don't care about any of that crap as long as they have the expertise or qualifications to do the job.
The point is that both movements take concepts that are relatively uncontroversial and turn them into a rigid, system of control driven by a narrative that has little to do with anything of value.
But you're right, I was using race as a proxy for all the rest of the superficial identifiers that DEI worships.
Post a Comment