• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Corporations never accepted women, blacks, latinos, LGBTQ+, and other minorities because they thought they were human beings with an inalienable right to representation and are a part of the human communtiy.

    No, no, no, the only thing corporations ever cared about was that they were leaving money on the table. Selling stuff to those groups was profitable, as was hiring people from those groups. A bigger pool of potential customers and laborers.

    Now that profits have been mildly impacted, they’re going to make it very clear that if they think you’re unprofitable that you don’t deserve representation or rights.

    Just to be clear, it’s always been this way, the mask is just off and they’re being very honest about it being about profits, not people. The queer kids were always right to call it “Pinkwashing” and “Rainbow Capitalism.” This is how the game has always been played, they never cared about us as humans.

    • OutlierBlue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      23 hours ago

      To be fair, corporations have never cared about anybody as humans. They view us as objects to be sucked of any wealth they can extract.

    • Rolder@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It seems counterintuitive because accepting more people means accepting money from more people. Pushing away potential customers for no reason is just plain stupid

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        You’re not thinking of the other side - the assholes that see those people being represented and catered to and deciding to take their money elsewhere because they disagree that those people deserve representation.

  • floofloof
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    “The term ‘DEI’ has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others.”

    Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be? It has only become “charged” by being unpopular with the new fascist regime.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 day ago

      It has only become “charged” by being unpopular with the new fascist regime.

      It also became charged when used as a topic of brain-dead culture war… which was mostly pushed on platforms like those by Meta.

        • floofloof
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          That was the aim of DEI. Otherwise the usual groups get de facto preferential treatment. It’s not so simple as just “do nothing and everyone gets a fair shot.”

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          In addition to what floofloof said which is correct: consider if I came to your house and took some of your favorite things then declared “ok no more stealing!” Is that suddenly fair?