If you've been following news about BRIDGE, this is likely more of a "going undercover" than true abandonment. Lawsuits have spooked a lot of companies. A Vtuber of all people has been digging like a dog after skeletons on BRIDGE, Kirsche Verstahl's her name. Normally vtubers are just entertainment or political of the toothless abnormal kind, but she's been doing mental documenting of the switchover from DEI initiatives to BRIDGE. Basic rundown is you don't need a DEI department if you intend to force the company workers to do the wokework themselves.
That said, there's a lot of factions at play among the evil overlords. Some people have claimed that a pullback from 'woke' is going to be part of a larger effort of getting people willing to die in war against China, or some manner of desperate pullback in order to maintain power. Assuming that there's competent evil overlords these days is a big ask though. Competency crisis has reached the wicked too, and bribable businessmen and politicians don't call the shots.
All this from video games, the ride hasn't ended yet...
I am hoping for more shareholder lawsuits against these companies. A double-hit to the bottom line. Yes, shareholders will suffer in the short term, but naughty children if not punished for behavior just become bolder and naughtier.
The problem with DEI was always as a cultural construct, not as a noble aim- there is some truth to structural racism, after all, though it has more to do with failed Leftist policies and the historical legacy of deindustrialisation than racism or implicit bias.
Here's the problem, broken down into subtypes. First of all, there are an awful lot of highly educated white people who are awkward and walk on eggshells. Second, an awful lot of 'White privilege' was class-based and dependent upon elite socioeconomic privilege like elite sports and access to exclusive informal private school networks- even the woman who defined the term was both born into American corporate royalty and confirmed the privilege by marrying well. Third, choosing sides in politics and picking sides is almost completely guaranteed to act as barrier to social progress, rather than promote it, for the simple reason that thorny or wicked problems (those which seem insoluble) can only be 'solved' through dispassionate analysis and a heterodox approach social policy- Scottish Public Health policing worked because it employed both proactive COMPSTAT-style policing AND a youth reform approach- if you pick a side, you only get half of the solution which halved violent crime within ten years WITHOUT increasing incarceration levels, turning disorderly young men and teenagers into economically productive trade professionals on good money.
But here's the real kicker. A lot of structural racism was a mixture of a combination of cynical or pragmatic racism and White people being too awkward around Black people. Believe it or not, there is actually an HBR article out there which focuses on a large part of the problem- racial discrimination in hiring and promotions is massively skewed towards customer facing roles. The article bemoaned the fact that Black people's White Ally friends were 'forced'' to be racist because their customers were. There is actually some truth to this- most people, regardless of background, will feel a degree of discomfort if they are the distinct minority in a commercial space- it's why there are even common language affinity groups for Anglosphere travellers jetting around the world, encapsulated by the sense of relief a White Brit will feel sitting in the bar at the sound of a Black American fellow traveller.
But here's the other problem. You don't build rapport across groups by making people feel more awkward. A recent UK employer survey conducted by a recognised industry leader showed that 31% of White people had left a former employer because of the workplace awkwardness induced by DEI. For Black People and LGBTQ the figure was even higher at 43%. A while back, I came across a convenient list of various studies on ingroup preference/bias- it turns out one of the best ways to counteract ingroup biases ingrained in early childhood is by creating a new ingroup, accomplished by good old-fashioned corporate teambuilding.
But these days talking about a company as a FAMILY is likely to induce a string of fits on the Left- even though it's the silver bullet for reducing the more subtle form of racial discrimination, which is generally more due to class than race.
If you've been following news about BRIDGE, this is likely more of a "going undercover" than true abandonment. Lawsuits have spooked a lot of companies. A Vtuber of all people has been digging like a dog after skeletons on BRIDGE, Kirsche Verstahl's her name. Normally vtubers are just entertainment or political of the toothless abnormal kind, but she's been doing mental documenting of the switchover from DEI initiatives to BRIDGE. Basic rundown is you don't need a DEI department if you intend to force the company workers to do the wokework themselves.
That said, there's a lot of factions at play among the evil overlords. Some people have claimed that a pullback from 'woke' is going to be part of a larger effort of getting people willing to die in war against China, or some manner of desperate pullback in order to maintain power. Assuming that there's competent evil overlords these days is a big ask though. Competency crisis has reached the wicked too, and bribable businessmen and politicians don't call the shots.
All this from video games, the ride hasn't ended yet...
I am hoping for more shareholder lawsuits against these companies. A double-hit to the bottom line. Yes, shareholders will suffer in the short term, but naughty children if not punished for behavior just become bolder and naughtier.
Go woke go broke lol..It’s obvious just reverse racism and the consumer is not buying it
The problem with DEI was always as a cultural construct, not as a noble aim- there is some truth to structural racism, after all, though it has more to do with failed Leftist policies and the historical legacy of deindustrialisation than racism or implicit bias.
Here's the problem, broken down into subtypes. First of all, there are an awful lot of highly educated white people who are awkward and walk on eggshells. Second, an awful lot of 'White privilege' was class-based and dependent upon elite socioeconomic privilege like elite sports and access to exclusive informal private school networks- even the woman who defined the term was both born into American corporate royalty and confirmed the privilege by marrying well. Third, choosing sides in politics and picking sides is almost completely guaranteed to act as barrier to social progress, rather than promote it, for the simple reason that thorny or wicked problems (those which seem insoluble) can only be 'solved' through dispassionate analysis and a heterodox approach social policy- Scottish Public Health policing worked because it employed both proactive COMPSTAT-style policing AND a youth reform approach- if you pick a side, you only get half of the solution which halved violent crime within ten years WITHOUT increasing incarceration levels, turning disorderly young men and teenagers into economically productive trade professionals on good money.
But here's the real kicker. A lot of structural racism was a mixture of a combination of cynical or pragmatic racism and White people being too awkward around Black people. Believe it or not, there is actually an HBR article out there which focuses on a large part of the problem- racial discrimination in hiring and promotions is massively skewed towards customer facing roles. The article bemoaned the fact that Black people's White Ally friends were 'forced'' to be racist because their customers were. There is actually some truth to this- most people, regardless of background, will feel a degree of discomfort if they are the distinct minority in a commercial space- it's why there are even common language affinity groups for Anglosphere travellers jetting around the world, encapsulated by the sense of relief a White Brit will feel sitting in the bar at the sound of a Black American fellow traveller.
But here's the other problem. You don't build rapport across groups by making people feel more awkward. A recent UK employer survey conducted by a recognised industry leader showed that 31% of White people had left a former employer because of the workplace awkwardness induced by DEI. For Black People and LGBTQ the figure was even higher at 43%. A while back, I came across a convenient list of various studies on ingroup preference/bias- it turns out one of the best ways to counteract ingroup biases ingrained in early childhood is by creating a new ingroup, accomplished by good old-fashioned corporate teambuilding.
But these days talking about a company as a FAMILY is likely to induce a string of fits on the Left- even though it's the silver bullet for reducing the more subtle form of racial discrimination, which is generally more due to class than race.