Asklemmy

47143 readers

1172 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

105

How do the likes of JD Vance and Drumpf rationalise no more DEI when they have wives who are DEI? It makes no sense. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 4 days ago by aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago

The theory behind DEI policies is to formally challenge personal bias (both explicit and subconscious) in hiring and participation. There's nothing inherently tied to unfairly favoring minority groups other than the fact that they are usually the target of negative bias.

It's a pretty basic and logical idea that acknowledges human fallibility. I hate that it was rapidly co-opted on all sides as a shorthand for racism and opposition to cis-white-male dominance.