DEI Initiatives are a Fool's Game

Why do we need DEI initiatives anyway? Frankly, the entire idea of it is simply stupid. What the focus should be on for businesses is to simply hire qualified people. Period. End of story. No further discussion needed. If not enough gay or transgendered people get hired, or Mexicans, or blacks or any other group that might be in the DEI pool, it should not be a question of businesses creating opportunities. It should be a question for the people who would be considered to be in the DEI pool to qualify themselves better.

If the question comes up, "Why do you not have any transgendered (name your job title)?" the answer should be simple. "We hire the most qualified individuals to perform jobs based on criteria that is the same for everyone. If we do not have any transgendered people in that job now it is because from the pool of candidates, none were more qualified than who we ultimately hired."

Granted, there will still likely be backlash. "That's just an easy way to get out from under your bigotry," some might accuse them of. But isn't it bigotry to even have DEI in the first place? Think about it. What does it say to someone who gets hired just because they happen to be gay, black, Mexican or transgendered? 

Were it not for our DEI program, you'd never have been able to succeed in getting this job on your own.

So, now it is admirable and respectable to be chosen for a job to serve as a token for the company to wave around rather than because the job was actually earned? How degrading. At least it would be to me. I would think it would be to most people.

Of course, the reality is that DEI initiatives are unpopular, and companies are finally starting to understand this, which is why many have pulled back their initiatives. Companies like Ford and Target and Anheuser-Busch for example. 

For one thing, it serves no purpose for the business to hire unqualified people, and it alienates customers. So, it's really a lose-lose situation. Of course, any company now has to quietly walk back from their initiatives since they are afraid of back lash from the other side, even though the largest customer base will be from conservatives who will applaud pulling away from DEI.

It's another reason why businesses should always avoid treading into political waters. Their purpose is to sell stuff, and in order to be successful at doing that, they need to simply do things that sell products. All the other stuff is not conducive to good business and should be avoided.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Creating the Illusion of Bigotry is About Words

I want to talk about words, and how certain words are strategically used to create division, and the illusion of bigotry. I use the word bigotry because it has morphed into that from before being mainly just about racism. I say that even though the word "racism" these days carries a very different meaning now than it did not so long ago depending on who you ask to define what it is.

Take the phrase, "Your kind of people." It's a rather benign statement that does not by itself mean anything specific. It requires context in order for the phrase to have meaning or a definition.

The phrase can be used in its entirety, or it can be abbreviated. "Your kind." It means exactly the same thing depending on the context. It also means different things depending on the nature of the conversation in which it is being used.

Many people often say, "I know your kind." Adding the words, "of people," may be a bit redundant because we are all people, of course. But it doesn't in any way change the meaning of the entirety of the phrase.

Unless the one hearing the words wants it to.

Ultimately a "kind of people" can be anything. There are good people, bad people, devious people, unscrupulous people, charitable people, mischievous people. In other words, it can be said that in this world there are "all kinds of people." Another common phrase that is used in the English language.

Depending on who you direct the words to, and often times regardless of the context, "Your kind of people" suddenly becomes a racist statement even if, in the context of how it is stated, it has no racial component to it whatsoever.

In other words, to the ear of someone who wants to create division, the ears will process the word or phrase in a way that creates the illusion of bigotry.

It's not just a white or black issue, though. Thus, choosing the word bigotry over racism. Because the same thing is happening with the LGBTQ community and the "fight for their rights" argument permeating the political landscape today. Words are being turned into something else in order to create the bigotry to further the cause and perpetuate the idea that bigotry exists on a level that perhaps it really doesn't. 

It's designed to widen the divide and justify a reason for the argument. It's a strong-armed attempt to change the conversation.

That's really what the pronoun thing is about when you get down to it. It's a challenge. It's a call to create an argument. It is a cause to force someone into a challenge for which now they must defend themselves and for which the person who believes they are being bigoted against can now point fingers at and assign blame.

"Could I speak to her," now becomes a bigoted statement if it is directed at someone who wants to be called they. By itself nothing at all is implied by the term "her" unless the word means something else to the person it is directed at.

The word, "her," now becomes a challenge. The person who wants to be called "they" now gets to put the other person on the spot to see if they will now assume using the new desired pronoun or will pose an argument against it. And if the person does not comply with the challenge, they are now confirmed to be a bigot.

Communication is the greatest form of bringing people together. But when you redefine words and make the language used confusing, that's what creates the divide. Because when people no longer know how to communicate, some people avoid the communication altogether.

"What do you mean by your kind of people?" asks boldly the black man if it is said to him by a white person. The challenge has begun, and a benign statement now has been redefined and the entire context and nature of the conversation changes from one that had no racial connotation, to one that now does.

You've been put on the spot to now defend yourself but have also been immediately accused. Beyond that, your defense will be harder since the person accusing has, presumably, already made up their mind.

In other words, one side is saying, "You can't use those words." Or they are saying, "You have to carefully choose your words around me." A person who is not racist now has to communicate in a way that proves he is not racist at every word.

When a group of people assumes they are bigoted against, it is on the other side to constantly prove they are not a bigot. They are guilty until deemed innocent. And if you slip? Now the challenge is on—but the accusation remains, often times despite the defense.

Take the word cis as another example. Beyond being so far just a made-up word transgender people use to describe non transgendered people, if you say you are not "cis," but just a man, suddenly the affirmation of the word "man" and the denial of the word "cis" implies you are a bigot. 

And that's the challenge. That's what the so-called bigoted person is now forced to do. Either to accept the definition they have chosen for you and change your verbiage or be accused of being a bigot if you don't.

The English language, or any language for that matter, is supposed to be simple enough that words mean something, but all words must mean the same thing to everyone or else the ability to communicate breaks down.

But of course, context and body language and inflection also play large roles in how we communicate with each other, and even changes the nature of words used. Calling someone stupid can be playful, joking, or serious.

It's all in how you say it and in what context you call someone stupid which determines if the word is being used to accuse or to simply suggest or is nothing more than a joke.

"You're an idiot!" with a furled brow, raised voice and wave away means a very different thing than, "You're an idiot," with a smile and giggle and wave away. The context should immediately assign to the person the word is being directed at what is meant by the word "idiot." And often times it is clearly understood.

Unless they happen to be certain words deemed to have specific other meanings that have been reassigned to the words—again, such as to create the illusion of bigotry or racism. To create the divide and further the gap. To put otherwise normal, benign people on constant alert, and to stand at the ready any group of people who want to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry to challenge it and have an opportunity to affirm it.

When one is predisposed to assume something exists, in any encounter, regardless of the nature of it, that person will deeply look for any reason to find the thing they are predisposed to believe exists. And anything can be turned into an opportunity to say, "See, right there. There it is."

The problem is that the more one or another group tries to redefine language, the more divided as a people we become. The more unable to communicate effectively we become. The less inclined we become to have an open and honest conversation about anything. Especially in situations where any number of words may be up for challenge as to what they really mean depending on who says them and who hears them.

The answer is that any of these "redefined" words or phrases can be bigoted. But they need to be understood on a different level, and the context should be sought just as strongly as the bigotry is being sought to be found. 

Because here's the deal. If you are looking for bigotry, and are predisposed to believing it is present everywhere, you will find it. No matter where it comes from. No matter the context. No matter the meaning. You will find it.

Everyone says we want to eliminate racism and we want to eliminate bigotry. And I think on all sides, deep down, that's what most people really want to do. At the same time, in order to do that, if we really want to accomplish it, we need to stop finding ways to breathe new life into it. We need to stop finding new ways to rekindle flames when the fire is dying down.

Rather than look for ways to divide each other, we need to find ways to come together. And if we can be creative about how we change the meaning of words to perpetuate the illusion of bigotry, I think we can be equally creative about finding ways to remove the illusion and just go back to words meaning what they actually mean.

I think the world would be a much better place if we did that.

From Shitholes to DACA

THE DEMOCRATS WILL OBVIOUSLY STOP AT NOTHING TO TRY TO DENIGRATE AND DENOUNCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And the latest accusation made against President Donald Trump that, in talks over DACA, referred to some foreign nations as shitholes is just another glaring example of this.

Whether or not the statement was actually made, to my mind, is not necessarily the issue. Granted, it is a bit of a poor statement to make. But, if you are thinking of it in more realistic terms, is it really that far from the truth?

The people of these countries, if the statement was made, is not what the president probably was referring to in any event. If the statement was made, it was more of a direct statement against the governments of these countries which defile their populace, and place their lives into chaos such that they potentially become less than desirable in their attitudes, and potentially even their impact in other communities in which they may become a part...

SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IF THEY COME HERE.

Is it really racist to make such a statement? I don't think so. It merely points out the obvious in more ways than one. And what about the situation in, for example, Muslim countries. Are these people products of their environments? Their upbringing? Their religious and government leaders?

YES.

And so their attitudes toward life, liberty, economic status, societal contribution and any number of other things is influenced by the attitudes of their leaders, and the conditions in which they live in their own countries. If we make a statement about this it is not a racist statement. It is a simple observation of what are largely verifiable facts.

Democrat senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made remarks that he couldn't believe such racist and vile remarks had ever come from the Oval Office at any time in America's past history. But the reality is that there have been well documented reports of rather racist remarks made by even Lyndon B. Johnson. And certainly there had to have been rather colorful language even in the early days of the Office of the President, such as before the Civil War—granted, those were different times and this is now 2018.

But one can imagine what may have been more than a few comments during the Civil Rights Movement.

NONETHELESS, UNIMPORTANT.

The real reason the dems are launching, yet again, attacks against the president is because—and people should FINALLY be getting around to understanding this—trying to paint a narrative that the president is racist, vulgar, unfit, and even mentally unstable. None of which are particularly true. They so badly want this to be the reality that they will go to every length to make it seem apparent.

DO I APPRECIATE IT IF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SAID THIS? Like I said before I think if he did, it was a very poor choice of words, even if I believe the underlying point of that statement would have some truth to it. Do I think it ultimately matters if he said it?

Look, if we weren't concerned over the content of the emails between Clinton and her cohorts which were actually downright mean, and if we weren't concerned with the events of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, or four dead Americans in Benghazi, and all of the events leading up to those events which actually harmed people, I think the entire narrative trying to be forced down our throats about this are made moot.

The president is working with highly combative and uncooperative democrats who have no other desire but to discredit and disparage the president at every opportunity. In the DACA talks I would be absolutely shocked to learn that dems were not engaged, in some form or fashion, in making every effort to lead the president into a snare just so that they could come back afterwards and make a public stink about the effect without reporting the cause.

What's more, perhaps even if the statement was not made in the manner in which it has been implied, the question is still a good one. Yes. Exactly. If they, the democrats, are so determined and adamant that these people deserve to be here and stay here, tell us why. Drop the rhetoric and touchy-feely garbage and actually come up with a compelling reason in favor of their argument that we should have a different thought about the program, the people, and the benefits or lack thereof of the whole thing.

Really, at some point the democrats need to just move on, get back to the work of the American people as the president is trying to do—and quite frankly just grow the fuck up. Their temper tantrum has gone on long enough and it is getting more than a little old—and quite frankly is terribly distracting.

Something, however, tells me that the democratic party, still not able to fully comprehend their dramatic loss in 2016, is incapable of being the adult in the room.