It’s civil which was nice, but it’s also an argument that is (charitably) 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 (and the fact that I do not have a pet dragon) that establishes this is not an ideal world and it would not in fact work great.
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.
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
I’m a little unconvinced they know what they’re decrying and haven’t just got the terms mixed up. And 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 if we have enough good people then surely your boss will be a good person […]” and so on.
To make an example:
It is a thumb on the scales, and so is an injust act
This is not an unjust act simply because it’s corrective. To borrow the metaphor, scales have to be balanced before they’re fair, and if they aren’t the only decent thing to do is to correct for that error. That it corrects for something very negative does not mean it must consequently be one of the ‘wrongs’ in the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”. I too wish it wasn’t necessary, but it isn’t a bad or unjust thing simply because we currently need it. I could wish my car didn’t need seatbelts or that I didn’t have to take so many damn pills in the morning - are they too bad just because they’re necessary? If society has truly grown to where DEI policies aren’t needed, then these laws simply… won’t be doing anything, that’s all.
It’s civil which was nice, but it’s also an argument that is (charitably) 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 (and the fact that I do not have a pet dragon) that establishes this is not an ideal world and it would not in fact work great.
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.
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
I’m a little unconvinced they know what they’re decrying and haven’t just got the terms mixed up. And 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 if we have enough good people then surely your boss will be a good person […]” and so on.
To make an example:
This is not an unjust act simply because it’s corrective. To borrow the metaphor, scales have to be balanced before they’re fair, and if they aren’t the only decent thing to do is to correct for that error. That it corrects for something very negative does not mean it must consequently be one of the ‘wrongs’ in the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”. I too wish it wasn’t necessary, but it isn’t a bad or unjust thing simply because we currently need it. I could wish my car didn’t need seatbelts or that I didn’t have to take so many damn pills in the morning - are they too bad just because they’re necessary? If society has truly grown to where DEI policies aren’t needed, then these laws simply… won’t be doing anything, that’s all.