this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
1226 points (99.0% liked)

News

24108 readers
3570 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Costco shareholders voted overwhelmingly (98%) against a proposal by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to assess risks linked to the company's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Costco’s board supported DEI initiatives, dismissing the proposal as partisan and unnecessary.

This rejection contrasts with trends in other companies scaling back DEI efforts.

The vote comes amid new federal rules from Trump targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies, potentially impacting private vendors working with the government.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago (13 children)

I don’t understand the hate on DEI initiates. DEI is just make sure you hire a diverse work group. So if these dei employees are bad, that’s 100% on the company for hiring them. Nobody made them hire that specific person and 99/100 times employees are bad because no one trains them.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

You have to understand something about fascism's base: its the mediocre. It really speaks to the sort of people who feel like they're owed more (including personal achievements) but think that as a them specifically trait. It's the sort of person who see a black woman being an engineer and think that they deserve that position not her, despite her having gone to engineering school and them having been a D student in high school who didn't go to college or someone who failed out of an engineering program. They look at any success from historically marginalized groups as unearned because clearly they deserve that success more. And so DEI which seeks to encourage more diversity in successful positions out of an acknowledgement that diverse groups are more successful infuriates these people

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think the main issue is if you have two candidates for one job, one is white and one is black, even if the best candidate for the job is the white candidate the company might be forced to hire the black candidate to meet the DEI policies.

I have no idea if that actually happens or not, but I think that's what the entitled white people think and get upset about. They feel is discrimination against white people now.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 11 hours ago

the company might be forced to hire the black candidate to meet the DEI policies.

This is not what actually happens though, at least not at larger companies. It's more about treating them equally regardless of race, because the white person won't always be the best candidate for the job.

[–] Merlwyb673@lemm.ee 4 points 16 hours ago

It's mostly elites that think they're losing elite status--which to them feels like persecution. Additionally, I do think a lot of DEI initiatives at companies are poorly designed.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It depends on the implementation and the PR …. I’ve had several conversations with my conservative brother.

I describe how it’s a strength of my company to have a “melting pot” of different perspectives, getting the best skills from all people, we work better together when everyone is safe and comfortable being who they are …. I’m specifically happy that they plucked my coworker, as a woman in a male dominated field, out of the trenches because she’s an excellent manager

My brother sees unskilled workers forced on him by management fiat. He sees having to do more to make up for their lack of ability, motivation or work ethic. He sees a double standard where they can get away with stuff that would get him fired.

I dont know how much of this is the implementation and how much is the person reacting but we have very opposite perspectives

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm going to use TERFs as an analogy to explain what I think it is (and I do mean TERFs, not your garden variety transphones). There used to be a subreddit called /r/GenderCritical, before it got (rightfully) banned for hate speech. I had a look around there a few times, trying to understand their incomprehensible ideology.

At first, I only became more baffled. I saw so many stories that had the rough shape of "I am a women who was abused, victimised or otherwise oppressed by a cis man and/or men and that's why I now hate trans women". I just didn't understand how those two things connected. I get that radical feminists tend to take a biologically essentialist view that undermines trans identities. However, I couldn't understand why they put such effort into distilled down their bitterness and resentment into the vitriol to throw at trans women, as opposed to the men who hurt them (and the patriarchal systems that hurt them).

Over the years, I've come to understand that many TERFs have experienced trauma such that they feel powerless and small when looking at the actual cause of their systemic oppression (i.e. the patriarchy), so through a trick of transference, they direct their rage and grief onto transness instead. Fighting an already marginalised foe means that they get both the feeling of fighting something ideological that's larger than them, but also they don't have to confront how small they actually are when fighting against oppression (because each of us is small and helpless against systemic oppression; we can't do shit without solidarity with other people). To be clear, I don't consider this absolutely isn't a legitimate excuse for someone to be an awful person; however, it does help me to understand why someone who calls themself a feminist would take such a stance (as much as I'd like to consider them "no true feminist", I feel like I need to acknowledge the complex baggage of the term "feminist" if I'm to identify as one).

I think people who crusade against DEI initiatives are doing a similar sort of transference, where their real enemy is in fact Capitalism, but that feels like so impossible of a foe that they feel hopeless; it reminds me of that widely shared Mark Fisher quote about how it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And so they tell themselves that there must be some big, bad, insidious force at work, making organisations opt into DEI initiatives, and it must be the same force that's responsible for the deep unease they feel when they look at the world, or contemplate the future their grandchildren have to look forward to.

In a sense, they're right in that there are nefarious forces at play and the game is indeed rigged. The problem is that they've picked the wrong target and would be better served going after the oil barons and billionairess. In terms of my background, I probably have far more in common with the average Trump voter than I do the average Democrat, so I relate to the hopelessness that their misplaced rage protects them from feeling. The tragedy is that their ignorance hurts everyone, including themselves; None of us are free until all of us are free.

[–] NoEsReal@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

I’d say this is true, but it isn’t some accidental mind trick that people pull on themselves. It is the core tenet of the right wing narrative to deflect from how capitalism is failing regular people and pin the blame on some progressive boogey man. They blame bad pay and bad jobs on immigrants “stealing” the good jobs, and now POC doing the same through DEI. They tell men it’s not their learned misogyny that is keeping them from a meaningful relationship, no, it’s the feminists with their radical ideas about equality, body autonomy, and safety. And this can go on for every I’ll brought about by the current system. The tough trick though, is that this doesn’t just fool those who believe it, it also keeps those who disagree busy fighting over bigoted bullshit, and makes it nigh impossible to build any sort of coalition

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago

Awesome comment. Thank you! This is where something starts to become visible: the weird indirect physical and psychological violence of liberal ideology.

It's base claim is: If everyone, as a single enlighted decent individual agent, would just play by the rules (fair markets), everything would be at it's best. All of them shall thrive.

Now all those good christians go through life working their ass of, actually trying to be "a good person", but after decades they have to painfully find out: It doesn't work out. Most of them get more stressed, poorer, there's ecological destruction, war and so on. Almost no one get's to thrive.

As you pointed out, finding out about capitalism and (neccessarilly collectively) paving a way to more rational production and fairer distribution, is difficult. You could almost say it's practically and ideologically out of reach. You know, because your freedoms depend on liberal individualism.

They end up with two options: 1. Look for an outside menace to the otherwise funtional market game (immigrants, jews, or heck why not trans people) 2. Get more of the same: more privatizarion, less social welfare etc.

They cling ever harder to a political decision, the more it harms them. This is brutal and sad af imo.

Real agency is possible, just not the individualist kind liberalism is successfully promising them in their despair of heteronomy.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

It feels like the phase of the fantasy arc wherein the "minor bad" admits that he was lied to by the big bad, and that they believed that sacrificing 100 babies on the altar of Better Future would actually lead to a Better Future, and not summon ArchVillaeous, demon god of suffering.

Learning about the truth doesn't mean I feel for that person being lied to. It means now I'm just angry at how willingly gullible they were. It really, really doesn't change the act of sacrificing 100 babies.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's all about manufacturing consent to do away with the Civil Rights Act

[–] Pixlbabble@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

More like getting rid of the renamed Affirmative Action. We already have an EEOC we don't need this.

[–] drapermache@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you read hard right tweets, you'll see they use DEI in place of slurs for any minority. Just like critical race theory, they've twisted the meaning to whip up a frenzy and have something for the masses to hate.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago

"Kamela would be the DEI hire for President" is easier for the center to swallow than "Cmon, do we really want a [N-Word] [Synonym for Female Dog] running a white man's show?"

Though the latter is what they mean

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same as what they did with BLM. They jump from one liberal cause to another, changing its meaning and context into something they can use to fuel their misinformation campaigns for the purpose of creating hate and fear amongst their more ignorant numbers.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also happened to the word "woke". Nobody says "stay woke" anymore cause they demonized the word.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I worked at a company that made electronic devices and the diversity of the teams made it so we caught so many glitches white people would have missed before shipping. Sensors that didn’t work right because skin color or makeup. Things that even TurboHitler would have been annoyed at.

It’s illogical and short-sightedly dumb to forfeit knowledge and skill from any shape, size, color, or orientation of a human.

Haters won’t learn, I fear, until they’re truly marginalized as well.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 14 hours ago

Haters won't learn, ever, because they will blame their shortcomings on "DEI" and "woke".

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t understand the hate on DEI initiates.

It's hate, that's all.

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Shapillon@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago

Willfull ignorance at that.

[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago

It's because some people only want to believe in straight white people.

[–] Hellsfire29@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago

This is how I feel, actually. Free education and paid training can rule out the need for any DEI initiatives, no matter what color/ethnicity, they're qualified because they received the education and training that they need.

But then again, I can understand why a white manager would rather hire a white person.

But whose to say a black manager wouldn't do the same and just hires black people. Or any race. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with like minded people rather filling up your store with "diverse employees" ?

It's a crutch that MOST people have. Like leftists only hiring leftists. Or conservatives only hiring conservatives.

Like you said, if the "diverse employee" is less qualified than his white counterpart, hire the more qualified individual.

If you've ever visited any VA hospital, you can see how many shitty people they hire, especially when half of the doctors are just interns. And no one gets fired.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 17 hours ago

As a straight, white male, I think DEI is fantastic.

[–] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For example, using gender discrimination, there is a great pressure to hire female workers to ensure diversity but, in some areas, there are simply no female candidates. Companies should absolutely make an effort to hire the best for their needs and keep an eye for diversity, but if they should not be forced to hire a less capable female if other capable candidates exist just because the management is being forced to hire a certain diversity target among their ranks

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

This is sexism in disguise.