Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Dec 15, 2025 - 4:20pm
Red_Dragon wrote:
And the sad thing is that this is absolutely not something new.
There were always people selling snake oil to the gullible.
The proliferation of "life coaches" who have no responsibility for whether their words are helpful.
Podcast bros tell you to buy gold or supplements or testosterone or laetrile - these scammers have always known that there's a top half of the population that will believe almost anything if they think it will make them faster, smarter, richer, more virile, or even one step ahead of someone else. They are playing an ego game, not a rational one. It's a short game, not a long one.
They were never told of the tortoise and the hare.
And now, a completely incompetent, obviously senile, huckster is their leader.
Are groceries cheaper? Was the ACA repealed and replaced? Are our allies more tightly bound to us, creating strength through unity?
Is America considered a trustworthy nation that people (with the choice) want to move to? Do the people living here think that we're all in it together and through our collective greatness we'll make great strides in infrastructure, science, humanities, and standard of living?
We're now - in one short year - a fucking joke. Under the leadership of someone who, when asked, says he doesn't know what's going on. This we already knew.
What line has to be crossed before the spineless Republican cowards in Congress decide to act on behalf of the nation and not wet their undies thinking of disagreeing with the loser mobster and his cronies?
The problem with DEI is that it does away with merit based upon experience, accomplishment and relevance.
What you are takes precedence over who you are. That is simply backwards.
But that's the way you wish for it to go. And you get upset with resistance to your POV. Why ? Do you really expect this to be blindly accepted ?
DEI is just formalizing the process of judging of a book by its cover. DEI makes the cover more important than the contents.
You've missed the point entirely. This is not about whether DEI is good or bad or gone too far. It is rather the observation that the rabid behaviour patterns behind the shrill opposition of anti-DEI administration figures reveals a lot of home truths about where they are coming from psychologically, truths that most grown-ups would acknowledge and address as part of becoming a more mature human being. Their failure to do so leaves them stunted and immature as individuals. The entire Trump administration is a classic example. Try reading the whole text.
I had the same thoughts when replying to Jiggz one day, which seemed to get lost in the noise. The gist of it is that any party that tries to silence the opposition is, by definition, acting from a position of moral weakness. Anyone who is intellectually and morally healthy would rather welcome opposition as a test of their own ideas. They would welcome the debate and change their own position as they learn. They would also expect the same of the people they debate with in a shared search for the truth. The corollary is that anyone who isn't capable of such reflection and self-criticism is intellectually stunted, dogmatic and no longer able to grow as an individual.* Think of it as an extension of the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" imperative. It is a call to intellectual honesty. And that is precisely what is missing in the current administration. On the contrary, they have made a point of trashing the whole concept of truth and honesty, replacing it with blind fealty.
*Admittedly, these are the two ends of a spectrum, but can we at least agree that one is good and the other bad?
The organic nature of the programs you mention had been around for years before George Floyd... his incident super-charged it for both sides. I participated in an unconscious bias training program in 2011 or 2012, and we had a diversity initiative and leader (don't remember what the role was called).
Diversity is now a fluid topic. I remember kids grabbing on to questionable diversity boxes when my oldest applied to college as a form of advantage. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way for some, and ethnicity creates too much direct competition, especially in graduate and medical programs.
As I said earlier... I agree with the premise of Kurt's position, but the wielding of it on the Right is, as usually, an angry attempt to blame others. God forbid someone else gets a break now... after the MAGAverse spent the vast majority of their lives with privileges they never really appreciated.
if you believe you are entitled to it, then it's not a privilege.
Classic Kurt: refuse to see the problem, therefore any solution is a step backward. "DEI" at its core is an attempt to remove barriers that we erected to keep others out. By "we" I of course mean white men. If you understood the fact that there are barriers, you would be "woke," though, so you can't even acknowledge that women and non-Europeans face obstacles that prevent the best and the brightest from being allowed to serve you and me.
Also, that might mean that you didn't bootstrap/chickenscratch your way to everything you have by pure divine right.
DEI sprung out of the George Floyd murder and the subsequent reaction to it. A significant amount of Americans said "enough is enough, we can't keep on this way". So companies and even government started DEI type programs to try and move us into a more equitable and non-racially divided society. It wasn't done by law or some Executive Order it developed organically. Of course it went too far in some instances, but for the most part it was an egalitarian effort. And the inherent racism that has been a part of our history rose up and said "not on our watch" and have done all that they can to squash it before it grew into anything tangible. So here we are, back to square one.
The organic nature of the programs you mention had been around for years before George Floyd... his incident super-charged it for both sides. I participated in an unconscious bias training program in 2011 or 2012, and we had a diversity initiative and leader (don't remember what the role was called).
Diversity is now a fluid topic. I remember kids grabbing on to questionable diversity boxes when my oldest applied to college as a form of advantage. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way for some, and ethnicity creates too much direct competition, especially in graduate and medical programs.
As I said earlier... I agree with the premise of Kurt's position, but the wielding of it on the Right is, as usually, an angry attempt to blame others. God forbid someone else gets a break now... after the MAGAverse spent the vast majority of their lives with privileges they never really appreciated.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Dec 14, 2025 - 9:30am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Classic Kurt: refuse to see the problem, therefore any solution is a step backward. "DEI" at its core is an attempt to remove barriers that we erected to keep others out. By "we" I of course mean white men. If you understood the fact that there are barriers, you would be "woke," though, so you can't even acknowledge that women and non-Europeans face obstacles that prevent the best and the brightest from being allowed to serve you and me.
The problem with DEI is that it does away with merit based upon experience, accomplishment and relevance.
What you are takes precedence over who you are. That is simply backwards.
Classic Kurt: refuse to see the problem, therefore any solution is a step backward. "DEI" at its core is an attempt to remove barriers that we erected to keep others out. By "we" I of course mean white men. If you understood the fact that there are barriers, you would be "woke," though, so you can't even acknowledge that women and non-Europeans face obstacles that prevent the best and the brightest from being allowed to serve you and me.
DEI sprung out of the George Floyd murder and the subsequent reaction to it. A significant amount of Americans said "enough is enough, we can't keep on this way". So companies and even government started DEI type programs to try and move us into a more equitable and non-racially divided society. It wasn't done by law or some Executive Order it developed organically. Of course it went too far in some instances, but for the most part it was an egalitarian effort. And the inherent racism that has been a part of our history rose up and said "not on our watch" and have done all that they can to squash it before it grew into anything tangible. So here we are, back to square one.
funny, because a lot of people who believe tax breaks for billionaires will 'trickle down' also believe zero sum theory when it comes to helping anyone marginally worse off than themselves, or someone who just looks different.
As the product of a system that was built judging books by their covers for millennia, it's very reasonable that you favor a system of complete fairness... now. Starting a marathon at mile 20 and saying everything should be based on completion time seems reasonable.
For the record, DEI efforts went too far. There were rewards for "performance" and "insights" related to DEI under Biden that have since been replaced by stupidity and allegiance.
Equity was a foolish discussion. But so is the crusade against Critical Race Theory. Biden committing to picking by race and gender was stupid. But the notion that "let's just judge on experience, accomplishment, and relevance" is a goal that can only be accomplished if you provide assistance to those who have been diminished over the years.
It's not boardroom seats and DEI executive jobs, but educational investment and opportunity that will eventually deliver the fairness you express support for. Keeping score isn't a bad thing. Fixing the outcomes on every level overnight doesn't solve the problems that have taken 500 years to embed in America.
DEI sprung out of the George Floyd murder and the subsequent reaction to it. A significant amount of Americans said "enough is enough, we can't keep on this way". So companies and even government started DEI type programs to try and move us into a more equitable and non-racially divided society. It wasn't done by law or some Executive Order it developed organically. Of course it went too far in some instances, but for the most part it was an egalitarian effort. And the inherent racism that has been a part of our history rose up and said "not on our watch" and have done all that they can to squash it before it grew into anything tangible. So here we are, back to square one.
Oliver Kornetzke (hat tip to whoever it was who drew my attention to him , was it Rgio? ):
What is up with the constant anti-DEI crusade? Itâs fucking weird. These predominantly white men havenât merely opposed diversity, equity, or inclusion. Theyâve turned government communication channels into a sad, pathetic, middle-aged grievance diary, stuffed with petty memes, juvenile taunts, and the kind of humor you only find funny if you are deeply, profoundly haunted by something you refuse to acknowledge or name. Confident, secure people do not behave like this. This is insecurity so concentrated it has begun to sweat through the screen, and frankly, itâs getting old.
The pattern is embarrassingly consistent. It reveals just how brittle their sense of self is, how paper-thin an identity theyâve built entirely on hierarchy is. There is an existential terror of being ordinary, or worse, deficient. Somewhere along the line, reality failed to hand them the praise and worship they believe they were promised, particularly from women. Instead of processing that like grown adults, they externalized it. Loudly and on an endless loop. On official channels, no less. Nothing screams âserious governanceâ like shitposting while clinging to power and desperately inflating oneâs sense of self-worth and, apparently, oneâs imagined appendage length and girth.
Perhaps the underlying explanation extends deeper than ideology or partisan alignment. Perhaps it originates in earlier experiences of disappointment and social marginalization. The gradual realization that charisma is not innate, that respect is not automatic, and that neither can be extracted through force or entitlement. In some cases, this coincides with relational rupture. A womanâs withdrawal. A perceived, or very real, replacement by someone demonstrably more secure, more embodied, and less preoccupied with dominance displays. Someone maybe tall, composed, and psychologically self-contained. Someone whose presence does not depend on volume, antagonism, or reducing others into racial or other superficial categories. For individuals whose identity is contingent on assumed superiority rather than internal coherence, this kind of comparison can be deeply destabilizing. The response, rather than adaptation, becomes obsessive fixation and projection outward.
The most fragile bunch of people in the world running around calling everyone snowflakes and crying because people say mean things about them. I really hope we do manage to somewhat peaceably give them half the country to manage on their own. I'd like to see the result.
The problem with DEI is that it does away with merit based upon experience, accomplishment and relevance.
What you are takes precedence over who you are. That is simply backwards.
But that's the way you wish for it to go. And you get upset with resistance to your POV. Why ? Do you really expect this to be blindly accepted ?
DEI is just formalizing the process of judging of a book by its cover. DEI makes the cover more important than the contents.
Kurt, you are 100% correct.
As the product of a system that was built judging books by their covers for millennia, it's very reasonable that you favor a system of complete fairness... now. Starting a marathon at mile 20 and saying everything should be based on completion time seems reasonable.
For the record, DEI efforts went too far. There were rewards for "performance" and "insights" related to DEI under Biden that have since been replaced by stupidity and allegiance.
Equity was a foolish discussion. But so is the crusade against Critical Race Theory. Biden committing to picking by race and gender was stupid. But the notion that "let's just judge on experience, accomplishment, and relevance" is a goal that can only be accomplished if you provide assistance to those who have been diminished over the years.
It's not boardroom seats and DEI executive jobs, but educational investment and opportunity that will eventually deliver the fairness you express support for. Keeping score isn't a bad thing. Fixing the outcomes on every level overnight doesn't solve the problems that have taken 500 years to embed in America.
Oliver Kornetzke (hat tip to whoever it was who drew my attention to him , was it Rgio? ):
What is up with the constant anti-DEI crusade? It’s fucking weird. These predominantly white men haven’t merely opposed diversity, equity, or inclusion. They’ve turned government communication channels into a sad, pathetic, middle-aged grievance diary, stuffed with petty memes, juvenile taunts, and the kind of humor you only find funny if you are deeply, profoundly haunted by something you refuse to acknowledge or name. Confident, secure people do not behave like this. This is insecurity so concentrated it has begun to sweat through the screen, and frankly, it’s getting old.
The pattern is embarrassingly consistent. It reveals just how brittle their sense of self is, how paper-thin an identity they’ve built entirely on hierarchy is. There is an existential terror of being ordinary, or worse, deficient. Somewhere along the line, reality failed to hand them the praise and worship they believe they were promised, particularly from women. Instead of processing that like grown adults, they externalized it. Loudly and on an endless loop. On official channels, no less. Nothing screams “serious governance” like shitposting while clinging to power and desperately inflating one’s sense of self-worth and, apparently, one’s imagined appendage length and girth.
Perhaps the underlying explanation extends deeper than ideology or partisan alignment. Perhaps it originates in earlier experiences of disappointment and social marginalization. The gradual realization that charisma is not innate, that respect is not automatic, and that neither can be extracted through force or entitlement. In some cases, this coincides with relational rupture. A woman’s withdrawal. A perceived, or very real, replacement by someone demonstrably more secure, more embodied, and less preoccupied with dominance displays. Someone maybe tall, composed, and psychologically self-contained. Someone whose presence does not depend on volume, antagonism, or reducing others into racial or other superficial categories. For individuals whose identity is contingent on assumed superiority rather than internal coherence, this kind of comparison can be deeply destabilizing. The response, rather than adaptation, becomes obsessive fixation and projection outward.
The problem with DEI is that it does away with merit based upon experience, accomplishment and relevance.
What you are takes precedence over who you are. That is simply backwards.
But that's the way you wish for it to go. And you get upset with resistance to your POV. Why ? Do you really expect this to be blindly accepted ?
DEI is just formalizing the process of judging of a book by its cover. DEI makes the cover more important than the contents.
Oliver Kornetzke (hat tip to whoever it was who drew my attention to him , was it Rgio? ):
What is up with the constant anti-DEI crusade? Itâs fucking weird. These predominantly white men havenât merely opposed diversity, equity, or inclusion. Theyâve turned government communication channels into a sad, pathetic, middle-aged grievance diary, stuffed with petty memes, juvenile taunts, and the kind of humor you only find funny if you are deeply, profoundly haunted by something you refuse to acknowledge or name. Confident, secure people do not behave like this. This is insecurity so concentrated it has begun to sweat through the screen, and frankly, itâs getting old.
The pattern is embarrassingly consistent. It reveals just how brittle their sense of self is, how paper-thin an identity theyâve built entirely on hierarchy is. There is an existential terror of being ordinary, or worse, deficient. Somewhere along the line, reality failed to hand them the praise and worship they believe they were promised, particularly from women. Instead of processing that like grown adults, they externalized it. Loudly and on an endless loop. On official channels, no less. Nothing screams âserious governanceâ like shitposting while clinging to power and desperately inflating oneâs sense of self-worth and, apparently, oneâs imagined appendage length and girth.
Perhaps the underlying explanation extends deeper than ideology or partisan alignment. Perhaps it originates in earlier experiences of disappointment and social marginalization. The gradual realization that charisma is not innate, that respect is not automatic, and that neither can be extracted through force or entitlement. In some cases, this coincides with relational rupture. A womanâs withdrawal. A perceived, or very real, replacement by someone demonstrably more secure, more embodied, and less preoccupied with dominance displays. Someone maybe tall, composed, and psychologically self-contained. Someone whose presence does not depend on volume, antagonism, or reducing others into racial or other superficial categories. For individuals whose identity is contingent on assumed superiority rather than internal coherence, this kind of comparison can be deeply destabilizing. The response, rather than adaptation, becomes obsessive fixation and projection outward.
