This question could apply to any of the topics we discuss here, but my department is getting on the DIE bandwagon, and I'm trying to explain how insidious the DIE agenda really is to a conservative normie in my department. Thinking back to how I ended up opposing this shit doesn't really help because I was largely drip fed experiences and information over a period of years that allows me to see this for what it is. The person I'm explaining this to sort of fell for the propaganda a bit. Who could be against inclusion, right? She's sort of getting it now that I'm exposing how it's not about including people that the left doesn't like, but I really feel I can't do a good job at giving an overview because I've never had to explain the situation to anyone who's uninitiated so to speak. Any arguments I could make or sites I could link to would help. Like I said she's conservative and willing to listen, so it's not so much about convincing and more about exposing DIE for what it is.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Appeal to their sense of fairness. And honestly wouldn’t a female or minority not want their to be the perception that they didn’t earn their position? My company is all in on it too. Only thing I can do is mention it on the survey they have us do
Some are just hateful and entitled. But appealing to fairness is easy enough to do since she's been targeted for being white in the past.
And these programs end up being anti white (well they claim they aren’t but that is the end game) because they value a diversity checklist over good employees
The people who get sucked into equity don't have that meritorious perception of themselves, so why would they care if other people also think so? If you argue fairness with them you'll just reinforce their position because they don't want fairness - merit never helped them and never will.
People like OP's coworker you can find something they're actually good at and make it personal, but for the real losers I think you need to fight fire with fire.
Anytime equity comes up enthusiastically support hiring more white people in that little department that actually has a lot of minorities. Publicly propose programs to hire from "historically marginalized communities like in Appalachia". Make them over and over again be crystal clear that their policy is racial/sexual discrimination. You should be so annoying that they hesitate to bring up inclusion because they know every time you're going to propose something legitimate to help white people that they can't reject without being racists. When they accuse you of being a nazi say you don't see anything wrong with trying to make the company reflect the public at large and accuse them of not being anti-racist enough. If it comes to it, make them fire you for wanting to help marginalized, discriminated-against white people.
Also remember that the most likely outcome of acting like this is that they'll immediately fire you and you absolutely won't make them learn anything, though you might be able to smugly pat yourself on the back later.
You want to work at a company like that anyway? You're either going to be carrying water for all those failures or phone it in and be miserable, feeling like a parasite yourself.
That’s actually a good tactic.
Women are solipsistic. Frame it around how it affects women. Use their favorite argument, the tranny.
It's anti-merit.
It's deliberately pushing things and people and fund forward into avenues that are known to be sub-optimal at best, or actively deleterious at worst. That's absolutely inherent to a non-meritocratic system - there's no way you are not damaging things when you ignore that.
On top of that lowering standards for groups of people teaches them they are not expected to be any better than they are.
Just as you don't instill good behaviour by letting someone flout the rules and get away with it, you don't instill high achievement or high participation by rewarding or low achievement and low involvement.
It's only because of decades of propaganda that this very obvious, logically straightforward concept needs explaining to anyone. It's so self-evident that it has to be indoctrinated out of people.
"Equity" literally means "equality of outcome". They are perfectly fine with the company crashing so long as everyone gets fired.
Does she believe women should vote? Should work outside of her husband or father's home or business? If yes then she isn't "conservative".
Reasoning with women is a lost cause. If you are chad she will agree with anything you say because she wants the cock, if you are below the top 5% she will seek to publicly put you down to reinforce her social status.
The best teacher is experience so you need to find what things this person cares about and then provide [subjective] context so they can understand first hand how it affects them.
Sort of like the "First they came for" speech which in its own way keeps being played out when IdPol shit creeps through various places.
Explain that jobs and government aid is a zero sum game and that DIE involves taking from one group to give to another on the basis of race, sex or religion like we're in Jim Crow
Diversity means "not you, normie"; others outside your family.
Inclusion means "instead of you, normie"; opportunities for others, taking your family's place.
Equity means "from you, normie"; you fund the others, from your family.
And the acronym itself means "for you, normie"... so just go ahead.
That's about as condensed a line of thought as you can get, regarding these ideas. Its creators even packaged it with its purpose imprimed right on its face.
Well an easy eye opener of the ramifications of die is the trannies, the wood shop teacher with massive fake g cups is a shining example.
As a connoisseur of massive tits with large amounts of hands-on experience, I can tell you that you are underestimating by orders of magnitude.
You can't point to transgender people and use that as your argument because the majority of white women are perfectly fine with everything they do, with the percentage sharply increasing the younger they are.
Tell them to think about everything they have, everything they achieved, everything they own because they bought it. Now tell them you're giving it to someone else because that someone else didn't have it themselves and should have it because they never had it. Tell them to shut up and accept they are wrong simply for being what they are. They will have to work harder with less from now on, everything they had before and have in the future will always be taken from them and given to others because they will just earn more and the others can't. Tell them that those others, no matter what they do, will always get this, that no matter what wrongs those others might do, they will always be rewarded and given more. And if they complain or do anything even perceived wrong, you can't tell them what that is because it changes constantly, they will be punished and have everything taken from them. It's better to demonstrate with something physical, as these people are obviously stupid and can't learn like a normal person.
Diversity was a thing for a long time. The idea initially was that if there is no discrimination then diversity will naturally occur. Great, good principle that everyone could get behind.
This however did not produce the expected diverse results so now they want to push for affirmative action as the rule. This means you favor some people over others, not by merit but by gender and skin color. DIE is discrimination, you can't hold the belief that racism, sexism and discrimination are wrong and think DIE is morally good.
If anything is more about the end justifies the means. However what are the costs?
What is it resolved by the DIE? Any metric that shows how DIE helps things? I assume it helps the diversity hires themselves but that is about it. What great societal problem are they fixing that it requires an evil act to do it?
This is how marxists launder their ideas. They camouflage their agenda in something "good people" agree with thus they don't have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, just demonize anyone who disagrees.
The original idea is flawed because it relies on the unproven assumption of tabula rasa where there are no inherent cognitive differences between groups of genetically different humans. This is obviously false but because of institutional capture nobody can publicly say it and keep his job.
After decades of subverted institutional indoctrination the average person can't challenge the premise without incurring the social cost of being perceived as "racist" or "sexist". We can't even TEST the original principle anymore, and every past experiment whose results didn't forward the narrative were buried.
Every "disparity" can be explained by inherent differences.
It you are white, they want to make you a second class citizen and have created a legal requirement for entire departments in every institution to this effect. That's it.
Mutual benefit. There is none.
I’ve been grappling with this exact question recently because I told someone I refuse to see the black Adam movie and they couldn’t follow why.
My plan is to focus on the fact that it’s no one’s trying to take responsibility for making things better, they’re just putting out half baked ideas that end up being more divisive then they should be because they want short term DEI cred more than they actually want to help people.
Diversity: Hiring practices that exclude straight white men
Inclusion: Same as "diversity," Hiring ethnic minorities, gays, trannies, and women before straight white men
Equity: Adjusting hiring criteria to accommodate those women and minority ethnics that might not have the full skill set required for the job or paying women/ethnic minorities the same as proven producers already on board or giving them preference for seniority decisions.