I have observed that when confronted with the real ramifications of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI), a common response is to flat-out deny these consequences.
Great framing. Cuban is a textbook NPC going through these 3 steps. If you think DEI is bad, it's only one small part of ESG which is communism/fascism with better branding. That should be the next domino to fall: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-raise-your-esg-score
It's important to distinguish the leaders from the sheeple. Mark Cuban can't possibly be stupid enough to believe the stuff he says. Democrat Party leaders spout similar nonsense daily, yet we know that multi-millionaire congressmen who get rich off of graft and insider trading are not fools. What Cuban and the rest of the Democrats understand is that most of the American sheeple ARE fools. These leaders know that they can say literally anything, no matter how unfathomably idiotic, and most of the population will nod their heads in agreement so long as the lies are stated forcefully. The leaders also know that sheeple have short memories and are incapable of recalling all the lies they were told as recently as last week, so there is no penalty for lying continuously. That's why all the mainstream media still have viewers and readers. The leaders are always pushing the boundaries, gradually discovering that there is no limit to the stupidity of the statements they can make or the obviousness of the lies they tell. Good heavens, we've reached the point where over half the country now believes that men can become women and compete fairly in women's sports. The great talent of Cuban and the Democrats is that they can look you (or the camera) straight in the eye and spew their self-serving lunacy convincingly, knowing that their followers will never stop loving them. It's called charisma, and charisma is one of the core traits of psychopaths: https://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510
Is there a possible version of DEI where you have three equally qualified candidates and allow some other identity characteristic to influence which one you choose? Would this satisfy Cuban’s assertion that you are employing DEI while still hiring on merit?
That (creating the conditions for everyone to thrive as part of an interdependent whole of an organization, including hiring based on clear requirements not simply personal preferences, tradition, and convenience) is all I know and I have been practicing for 20+ years.
If we are honest, most people are mediocre. So most jobs won’t be filled by the “best” candidate because that means generally picking from a variety of qualified people.
Naturally, who we know and who is more like us, often creates who’s “best”. There are exceptions, but many people who get jobs got them based on their network + qualifications—not qualifications alone.
Group identity-focused diversity practices haven’t worked to help those with greatest need for a long time, and even then not much.
When on a thread like this, I’m certain that an antithetical ideology will win over any nuanced dialogue, so it’s not worth it trying to have anything that resembles robust.
Unmerited practitioners + a very deliberate political agenda upended what folks have come to know as DEI (post-Floyd).
Those who are convinced they know all that DEI is ideologically are benefitting from bashing it as much as much as many who have done poor, unhelpful, and divisive DEI work did while the window was open to do so.
It’s not the majority of practitioners who’ve done unhelpful work, but it was those loudest on social media and in the media who get credited with being “leading voices” even if those voices have been harmful to the industry.
I’m not a denier. I’ve been talking about bad practice in my space for years. Via my last book and here on Substack.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues considered me a heretic and distanced from me.
Now, the field is being framed by people who have, for the most part, never talked to or engaged with people doing inclusion and culture work in meaningful ways.
To me, that signals a disinterest in being differently influenced about what it is. And that’s not significantly different than the well-intentioned, but poorly informed DEI advocates that provided the wood for the current bonfire.
One must keep their audience entertained. Nuance and complexity aren’t as interesting.
Equity likes to hide in between Diversity and Inclusion. It’s one thing to be allowing and welcoming of diverse approaches and points of view … it’s another thing altogether to impose them.
Great framing. Cuban is a textbook NPC going through these 3 steps. If you think DEI is bad, it's only one small part of ESG which is communism/fascism with better branding. That should be the next domino to fall: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-raise-your-esg-score
From one Rabbit Hole to another, thank you for such a clear and on-point post about this.
It's important to distinguish the leaders from the sheeple. Mark Cuban can't possibly be stupid enough to believe the stuff he says. Democrat Party leaders spout similar nonsense daily, yet we know that multi-millionaire congressmen who get rich off of graft and insider trading are not fools. What Cuban and the rest of the Democrats understand is that most of the American sheeple ARE fools. These leaders know that they can say literally anything, no matter how unfathomably idiotic, and most of the population will nod their heads in agreement so long as the lies are stated forcefully. The leaders also know that sheeple have short memories and are incapable of recalling all the lies they were told as recently as last week, so there is no penalty for lying continuously. That's why all the mainstream media still have viewers and readers. The leaders are always pushing the boundaries, gradually discovering that there is no limit to the stupidity of the statements they can make or the obviousness of the lies they tell. Good heavens, we've reached the point where over half the country now believes that men can become women and compete fairly in women's sports. The great talent of Cuban and the Democrats is that they can look you (or the camera) straight in the eye and spew their self-serving lunacy convincingly, knowing that their followers will never stop loving them. It's called charisma, and charisma is one of the core traits of psychopaths: https://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510
Is there a possible version of DEI where you have three equally qualified candidates and allow some other identity characteristic to influence which one you choose? Would this satisfy Cuban’s assertion that you are employing DEI while still hiring on merit?
That (creating the conditions for everyone to thrive as part of an interdependent whole of an organization, including hiring based on clear requirements not simply personal preferences, tradition, and convenience) is all I know and I have been practicing for 20+ years.
If we are honest, most people are mediocre. So most jobs won’t be filled by the “best” candidate because that means generally picking from a variety of qualified people.
Naturally, who we know and who is more like us, often creates who’s “best”. There are exceptions, but many people who get jobs got them based on their network + qualifications—not qualifications alone.
Group identity-focused diversity practices haven’t worked to help those with greatest need for a long time, and even then not much.
When on a thread like this, I’m certain that an antithetical ideology will win over any nuanced dialogue, so it’s not worth it trying to have anything that resembles robust.
Unmerited practitioners + a very deliberate political agenda upended what folks have come to know as DEI (post-Floyd).
Those who are convinced they know all that DEI is ideologically are benefitting from bashing it as much as much as many who have done poor, unhelpful, and divisive DEI work did while the window was open to do so.
It’s not the majority of practitioners who’ve done unhelpful work, but it was those loudest on social media and in the media who get credited with being “leading voices” even if those voices have been harmful to the industry.
I’m not a denier. I’ve been talking about bad practice in my space for years. Via my last book and here on Substack.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues considered me a heretic and distanced from me.
Now, the field is being framed by people who have, for the most part, never talked to or engaged with people doing inclusion and culture work in meaningful ways.
To me, that signals a disinterest in being differently influenced about what it is. And that’s not significantly different than the well-intentioned, but poorly informed DEI advocates that provided the wood for the current bonfire.
One must keep their audience entertained. Nuance and complexity aren’t as interesting.
www.heyjackass.com. ILLUSTRATES CHICAGO VALUES!!!
Discrimination is wrong and needs to be rooted out.
But anything past vigilance against discrimination, for example, "inclusion," is compulsive.
Equity likes to hide in between Diversity and Inclusion. It’s one thing to be allowing and welcoming of diverse approaches and points of view … it’s another thing altogether to impose them.
6ft tall white guys are doing well for themselves. They get easy promotions.
It is the short white man who is struggling.
The pilot who crashed the Delta jet in Toronto had been given a “special exception” by the FAA to the normal requirement for flight time. DEI?
https://abc7chicago.com/post/toronto-plane-crash-main-landing-gear-collapsed-impact-fiery-preliminary-report-says/16056902/?ex_cid=TA_WLS_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+New+Content+%28Feed%
That escalated quickly.
Nice piece. But it’s someone’s bigotry, it didn’t happen by itself
Mark Cuban is an overrated jerk