What is DEI, and why is it dividing America?

[MSC]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, he lies, but I think you’re projecting when you say he doesn’t think they are the problem. That’s you, knowing better. I think people continually underestimate people like him because of the projection. There’s a lot of evidence that he thinks non-whites and non-males are inferior. And that his bigotry swamps any realization you think he has (assuming that he’s intelligent enough to know the truth, and I think there’s more projection there), too)

Agreed, I think he's smart enough to know what reasonable people think, in the same way you can be smart enough to know what your enemy is thinking. But he doesn't recognize equality as some truth he internally recognizes as such and just lies about to manipulate people, he manipulates people because he disagrees with that being true, because he does believe he is superior. He obviously also believes white rich people are superior to because he is one himself. 

Edited March 12 by Phi for All
removed glitchy extra posts

[swansont]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

 

I think the issue lies in assuming a modern parlance in the use of the term "all men". Etymologically speaking, the word Man has spent more time, in English, as meaning "people, man woman or child" as it comes from the old English"Mann" whereas the old English term for male specifically was "Wer". As such at the time of 1776 the usage of "all men" was more commonly taken to mean "mankind". You can still find the old term for "Male" in some words. Werewolf means man-wolf as an example. It's naturally open to debate though as "man" had spent at least 200 years also meaning specifically male.

Getting off topic though, ultimately I do understand the sentiment behind the criticism of the intentions of the framers of both the declaration and the Constitution as they were... Men of their times I guess. 

Women lacking rights suggests a meaning. Only white landowners were able to vote in many states.

[TheVat]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

And the DoI does not.

It took almost a century and a civil war to get rid of slavery, almost 150 years for women to get the right to vote, another 40 for the civil rights act (because abolishing slavery didn’t abolish the attitudes behind it, which still persist)

The attitudes weren’t in the DoI

My post must have been missing something, due to its hasty typing.  I hope I've clarified that I meant the DoI offered a framework with "LLatPOH" that could be expanded to all citizens.  No one is disputing the narrow view that men of the 18th century had of what is a citizen.  I think MSC caught my meaning with "...the framework for equality was always there, and now that initial framework has been amended to be much more than that, it has made diversity, equity and inclusion, constitutional."  For their time the Framers were pretty egalitarian - again, I would never argue that their century provided anything but a myopic view of equality.

[swansont]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

with "...the framework for equality was always there, and now that initial framework has been amended to be much more than that, it has made diversity, equity and inclusion, constitutional."  For their time the Framers were pretty egalitarian - again, I would never argue that their century provided anything but a myopic view of equality.

The framework was there, since we can amend the principles the country is supposed to run on. But the current principles of DEI have been a long time coming, and as far as widespread adoption (by people in power) clearly we’re not there yet. 

Yes, the framers were egalitarian, but also limited by the attitudes of their time. Change in attitudes are more often incremental, even if implementation takes larger steps.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, he lies, but I think you’re projecting when you say he doesn’t think they are the problem.

Good point.
It would have been better to say he doesn't care if it's true or not, rathe than that he doesn't know or he does know, but lies.

It's certainly clear that he's content to lie about anything.

[iNow]

[MSC]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

The framework was there, since we can amend the principles the country is supposed to run on. But the current principles of DEI have been a long time coming, and as far as widespread adoption (by people in power) clearly we’re not there yet. 

The framers were egalitarian, but also limited by the attitudes of their time. Change in attitudes are more often incremental, even if implementation takes larger steps.

The framers themselves weren't even really fighting against English common law specifically, they were fighting to have rights within English common law. Would they have done away with monarchy and nobility if they had fair and equal representation in parliament? Would independence have been declared at all? 

One little tidbit about the "all men created equal" line; the word Man and men, has in fact spent more time definitionally meaning "human" than it has meaning "male specifically. The old English word for male, is "wer". While it is important to note that "man" did also mean "Male" by 1776, "man" was still also used as a catchall term for "human" or "mankind"

I'd also note that the "Man" as "human" definition has been used as recently as the 20th century. Especially in literature. Tolkien uses the term "world of men" in LOTR to define humans as a race. 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, MSC said:

Agreed, I think he's smart enough to know what reasonable people think, in the same way you can be smart enough to know what your enemy is thinking. But he doesn't recognize equality as some truth he internally recognizes as such and just lies about to manipulate people, he manipulates people because he disagrees with that being true, because he does believe he is superior. He obviously also believes white rich people are superior to because he is one himself. 

Money distorts people's perception of intelligence... 😉

28 minutes ago, MSC said:

The framers themselves weren't even really fighting against English common law specifically, they were fighting to have rights within English common law. Would they have done away with monarchy and nobility if they had fair and equal representation in parliament? Would independence have been declared at all? 

One little tidbit about the "all men created equal" line; the word Man and men, has in fact spent more time definitionally meaning "human" than it has meaning "male specifically. The old English word for male, is "wer". While it is important to note that "man" did also mean "Male" by 1776, "man" was still also used as a catchall term for "human" or "mankind"

I'd also note that the "Man" as "human" definition has been used as recently as the 20th century. Especially in literature. Tolkien uses the term "world of men" in LOTR to define humans as a race. 

Ye, but most men think it's about them...

[MSC]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Money distorts people's perception of intelligence.

While I agree, when we look at the sort of results Trump has in terms of being a self serving gross weasel, to say he is unintelligent would be underestimating him and while he is definitely not a genius, he is criminally sophisticated and surrounds himself with people who are more intelligent in the ways that he needs them to be, because they are all flocking to manipulate him too. 

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ye, but most men think it's about them

Oh I dunno, Valar Morghulles? 😂 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

Oh I dunno, Valar Morghulles? 😂 

Do I have to google that?

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

While I agree, when we look at the sort of results Trump has in terms of being a self serving gross weasel, to say he is unintelligent would be underestimating him and while he is definitely not a genius, he is criminally sophisticated and surrounds himself with people who are more intelligent in the ways that he needs them to be, because they are all flocking to manipulate him too. 

You're proving my point...🙄

There must be some reason he's gotten all that money and power...

[MSC]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Do I have to google that?

You're proving my point...🙄

There must be some reason he's gotten all that money and power...

It means "all men must die" 

I mean we can disagree on the details but we both agree people like Trump are a problem. I get what you're laying down, Trump is morally stupid. I'd not like to hazard a guess at how smart or dumb he may be, because all I see is a huge ego behind a camera who has the power to make all of our lives miserable. 

Shamelessness is probably the real reason. Enablement of people who ought to know better but... Don't. I don't know, call him what you want. He's a problem. 

[TheVat]

He seems to have missed out on Valar Dohaeris.  The usual countersign.  

[MSC]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

He seems to have missed out on Valar Dohaeris.  The usual countersign.  

Quite Jon Snow like, knows nothing 😂 

[CharonY]

Oh, is it Games of Thrones thing? I was totally confused about the couple last posts.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Oh, is it Games of Thrones thing? I was totally confused about the couple last posts.

Yeah. I mean I didn't really have a point to make by it, other than to say I don't care what most men think because the truly egoic ones have a laughable tendency to forget their own mortality and that for all their attempts to avoid it, we all go back to the dirt. 

I'm under no illusion that the framers were no saints, and if it would piss them off to have black folk, women, the disabled etc walking around with the same rights as white men, then I guess I'm the sort who would just want to piss them off and I'll gladly use the "all men" line as definitionally "human" if it pisses off those sorts of people. 

[KJW]

On 3/9/2025 at 11:52 AM, toucana said:

According to this AP report, one of the very first of over 26,000 images flagged for immediate deletion by  the Defence Department is this photo of Captain Paul Tibbets standing in front of his B-29 Superfortress bomber Enola Gay which dropped the first atomic bomb in history on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.

When I first saw this a few days ago, I thought it might be a joke. It reminds me of the Scunthorpe problem.

 

[dimreepr]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:10 PM, MSC said:

I'm under no illusion that the framers were no saints, and if it would piss them off to have black folk, women, the disabled etc walking around with the same rights as white men, then I guess I'm the sort who would just want to piss them off and I'll gladly use the "all men" line as definitionally "human" if it pisses off those sorts of people. 

Then your assuming your morality is greater than their's, bc you live in a more enlightened time; according to the culture of your informative year's...

The framer's, as throughout history, tried to frame their wisdom in a way that's future proof; despite understanding the futility of trying to apply the lesson's from history. 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:55 PM by dimreepr

[Trurl]

Well back to the original point of diversity. Those in charge knew that women were smart and that includes black women. I listened to the prologue of “Hidden Figures.” (No spoilers please.) But the accomplishment wasn’t being a computer figuring space trajectories, instead I am interested how NASA found out they were gifted. It would be like the backup quarterback sitting on the bench while the starter quarterback throw 4 interceptions.

I don’t know if NASA discriminates because I don’t work there. But they seem to take talent wherever they find it. I have read that they too go through firing cycles.

But again I think it is not the current generation of white Christian men who discriminate. Just because 2 white Christian billionaires are in charge doesn’t mean we are all discriminating minorities.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Well back to the original point of diversity. Those in charge knew that women were smart and that includes black women. I listened to the prologue of “Hidden Figures.” (No spoilers please.) But the accomplishment wasn’t being a computer figuring space trajectories, instead I am interested how NASA found out they were gifted. It would be like the backup quarterback sitting on the bench while the starter quarterback throw 4 interceptions.

Because people observed the work that they did when they had the opportunity to do so.

 

18 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I don’t know if NASA discriminates because I don’t work there. But they seem to take talent wherever they find it. I have read that they too go through firing cycles.

It’s not who works for them that shows bias, it’s who doesn’t. You could use a search engine to find data, instead of just musing out loud.

18 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But again I think it is not the current generation of white Christian men who discriminate. Just because 2 white Christian billionaires are in charge doesn’t mean we are all discriminating minorities.

Who are these two billionaires? Certainly not Musk and Trump. 

[Trurl]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Because people observed the work that they did when they had the opportunity to do so.

 

Well I didn’t listen far in the book yet. But in the book “Code Girls,” the U.S. military recruited women. They placed puzzles in the news paper and recruited on women’s colleges.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not who works for them that shows bias, it’s who doesn’t. You could use a search engine to find data, instead of just musing out loud.

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

Ai could do that. And it would find 2 polar opposite views. I would want to hear from someone who works there. I only saw what a tourist at the space center sees.

I am interested in the Hidden Figures book just to see how these women got their opportunity.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I am interested in the Hidden Figures book just to see how these women got their opportunity.

In 1943 there were not enough white women to fill all the jobs so they opened up the positions to black women.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

Ai could do that. And it would find 2 polar opposite views

Which is a reason not to use AI, because the AI that’s readily available for such things isn’t very good. Can you do a search and evaluate the quality of the results?

Quote

I would want to hear from someone who works there.

But that would not necessarily be objective.

[Trurl]

I stand corrected. Maybe the problem is white Christian men.

I don’t know how it started and if it is just certain leaders; could be better could be worse but white men determine the course of the Country.

Billy Graham regretted not participating in the civil rights movement.

I guess America First makes us stronger financially, but what do we lose? As a Christian money shouldn’t be your master, so why would we create a country, that is a machine, that is based on money? Not that anyone knows an alternative to this system. Money is not the problem. The problem greed in an attempt to make America great is going to lose us money and disrupt the world.

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Maybe the problem is white Christian men.

I think a lot of the issue is white men who say they are Christians, but whose behavior does not reflect the actual teachings of the religion. (There are a number of clergy who fall into that category) It’s all for show, to claim membership in the tribe, in order to exert power. At best they are “a-la-carte Christians” who pick and choose which tenets they support, while ignoring or actively opposing others, to suit their needs, and never acknowledging these transgressions. (e.g. gleefully deporting immigrants, or supporting those efforts)

——

Anyway, if there’s any question about the GOP stance, they’ve erased the Navajo code-talker info from DoD websites. Huge contribution to the war effort, doing a job white men couldn’t have done, so there is no question these people were not hired at the expense of a white dude.

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Anyway, if there’s any question about the GOP stance, they’ve erased the Navajo code-talker info from DoD websites. Huge contribution to the war effort, doing a job white men couldn’t have done, so there is no question these people were not hired at the expense of a white dude.

It basically shows their hand. It is not about diversity or any related policy. It is about establishing white nationalist values and erasure of anything that counters it. This includes history, academic inquiry or common sense (not to mention, common decency).

 

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

guess America First makes us stronger financially, but what do we lose?

This is also highly questionable. The issue is not so much putting one's own country first, but the way it is done. As folks like Trump and quite a few of his cronies are apparently not very knowledgeable on economic matters, the things they are doing, including dismantling government structures and starting trade wars, are actually weakening the American economy. This is especially noticeable as the USA following the Biden administration had one of if not the best post-COVID recoveries and was the envy of much of the world. Turns out,  slogans are not necessarily true.

Edit: I should also add the specifically "America First" is a slogan used by America Fascists prior to the US entry to WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee). And in a way that is a more accurate reflection of what the Trump government means. Not a strengthening of the US based on objective metrics. Rather, a strengthening of white America. It was discussed at length during Trump's first presidency whether his affinity to white nationalism was a means to galvanize his base, or whether he would actually enact related policies. And now we have an answer to that.