Oh I sure do look forward to the well-reasoned and deeply nuanced explanation you’re sure to get in response to that question!
Oh I sure do look forward to the well-reasoned and deeply nuanced explanation you’re sure to get in response to that question!
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 4 weeks ago
Lol i was expecting something, too, but the answer is actually quite reasonable
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It’s civil which was nice, but it’s also an argument that is extremely poorly thought through. It’s just an appeal towards free-market regulation, which in an ideal world does work great but we have hundreds of years history that establishes this is not an ideal world.
It’s a good, optimistic, hope-for-the-future thought yes - but they’re using that to justify badmouthing DEI policies which is both incredibly counterproductive and pretty suspect.
MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
They are not really though, they are still agreeing that it is necessary, just that they wish it wasn’t. Which the people DEI is supposed to support would probably agree to
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Honestly, I’m unconvinced they even know what they’re decrying. What they’ve said is the same rhetoric people used to dismantle the unions, “it’s necessary but it shouldn’t have to be, and it’s actually bad too just not quite as bad, and really in a perfect world we wouldn’t need such heavy handed means of making sure people will do the right thing, good people will do good things […]” and so on.