Original link: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-was-this-groundbreaking-study
Archive link: https://archive.is/SlQol
Posted this for future bookmarking, but yea, head slapping no kidding, right?
Of course the NYT covered it up.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
The punitive action gives away the game. It's clear these people want to be in control, and are sadist that are looking for targets
Fatherless, unhappy harpies and soy simps exerting power through the bureaucracy. Like how the corrupt eunuchs used to run China. Remove honor and integrity (masculine traits) and replace with the nanny state. Almost complete power through the guise of compassion.
Hey, a man of history. Now time for the new dynasty before the bureau Eunuchs take over again.
Hell it was obvious a decade ago when the students were throwing tantrums and the faculty was enabling them. They have simply graduated since then.
But I was assured by all the "reasonable" libs and centrists that those students would grow out of it once they entered the real world.
These "seminars" and "training programs" are literal struggle sessions. They are near clockwork orange level brainwashing techniques headed by an unaccountable individual with the power to get you fired. "coercion and control" is clearly the goal.
It sounds like it's basically conditioning people to become shock troops, to become hostile towards anyone who doesn't the ideology. This is straight up brainwashing and psychological abuse.
They see prejudice in blades of grass and little rocks along the creek.
Common sense told me that without a study.
yeah, but look at it this way, you have something to shove in the faces of jackasses who demand a source now, lol.
Those jackasses are so far up their own asses that they would never accept it anyways.
Stages of denial we saw when people said vaccines aren’t safe and effective :
Where is the peer reviewed study?
Why is it not in more top journals?
Why is it not in XYZ journal?
true, but it fun to watch tem squirm all the same...and it makes them show their ass to anyone observing.
Yes, but I bet this can be used in court to justify a hostile workplace environment in the copious situations of anti-white racism. I'm looking forward to using this to make some easy fucking money.
So it's fit for purpose.
DEI is the real life equivalent of Magic the Gathering's mechanic cannot be the target of spells or abilities
Damnation, Engineered Plague, and Lobotomy it is then.
Call me a Red Mage, but I still prefer Apocalypse for its totality.
I did Masters' research on this well more than a decade ago, how diversity injection is best used to break up unions and solidarily of a workforce leading to a cheaper and less demanding human resource to be used in greater excesses. Even back then, basically all the research was in basic agreement on this, "yup, you want to have employees at each-other's throats over their low pay, not at your throat, so you do lots of diversity initiatives!", it was standard knowledge. It also reduced productivity, but most workforces were overstaffed a bit anyways so a bit of lost theoretical maximum didn't really hurt.
Employees worried that there's a gender or race pay gap don't worry that you're paying them piss-all, and they don't trust their coworkers so they won't unionize as readily.
This was BEFORE Occupy Wall Street, mind you, so the sudden obsession during that for the Left to be race-and-gender-baiting isn't really mysterious, it's simple injection of a philosophy that they knew worked really well to sabotage and break down the movement. Alas, I don't think the Powers That Be realized just how effective their agent's sabotage was, given the damages it is causing now.
OWS was already Socialist in nature from the beginning with much of the same sloganeering as Antifa would be later.
It's true, it was. But it was a different brand of it, focused on fiscal inequality (regardless of your thoughts on the merits of the complaints), which was actually a small bit successful at their "job", right up until they fell, suddenly and mysteriously, into race-and-sex-socialism and collapsed in a purity spiral.
A tiger and a lion may both be giant predatory cats you wouldn't want near your home, but it's still useful to know the distinction between the two as they have very different natures, and a lion suddenly becoming a tiger for some reason is something worth noting. The transformation from fiscal to racial socialism changed the beast entirely.
Sorry for the downvote, but I am SO tired of this narrative. This movement was astroturfed from the start, had no leader (on purpose), and was used to pit the young vs Boomers.
It never gave rise to a woke movement, that was going on well before that.
Reading that study made my head hurt, and its no surprise that it was run almost by Ankita, Ohad, Gidi and Finklestein (everyone here would disregard it based on that if it didn't agree with you). Its complete garbage in formatting, meaning you cannot grasp anything about it without reading the entire thing (which you always should, but is bad form) and its written heavily to lead to its point.
And the first half I read before I tapped out is completely useless to its point. They make people aware of a problem, and then give them a totally neutral statement where that problem can be at play and conclude that because people see a problem its a specific DEI issue. And even then, its usually only numbers ranging from 10-25% more likely which is very low for such a leading setup.
It even pretends to have a control group when there is no control that its DEI specifically at play and not simple emotional priming.
What its getting at its likely completely true and that is why even in their shit study it shines through. But its just as homosexual to go "WELL STUDIES SAY" like a Leftist when its on the other foot, because, as is usually the case with theirs, its badly run and trying to make statements well above what it portrays.
Its also why you should always read the study itself instead of the article talking about it. Because the article hypes it up well beyond what it says, as always.
Because it goes against the narrative of their overlords.
Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation,(theverge link warning(
They claim unionization is awesome, yet DEI prevents unionization efforts.
I'm sure it does, it gets the employees hating each other, and are thus less willing to collectivize against management.
That's what it was designed to do.
'You needed a study for that?'
There will be actual people that want to be considered intellectuals, the sam harris/triggernometry types that will only now consider this as a problem.
Amazon management discussed this amongst themselves, specifically in regards to how DEI is such a great form of preemptive union-busting.