alpha centauri
Active Member
- Messages
- 896
I stumbled upon a new left concept that is not really elaborate. It is called DEI or Diversity Equity and Inclusion. It is usually interpreted that if not every group earns the same there will be discrimination and if not every group is equally represented in a group there is an unconscious bias.
First the inclusion they mean is more a separation into different group instead of real inclusion where the separation does not exist anymore. If you are inclusive you dont accentuate the difference all of the time to get privileges if you are a so-called victimized group and you see the unity in all people what they do not do, they treat people differently like in a class system with different values. That is not a positive system that is a negative system. Separation is part of the negative path spiritually and unity is part of the postive path.
There are the different words explained.
Second Equity does not solve racism which is probably their goal. Otherwise there would not have been racism in East GErmany where they earned all the same. You can earn less on average and be racist and discriminate against a group like the Nazis against the Jews. Or you can earn more than a group and discriminate against this group or you earn the same and you can have still racism. They dont seem to know what racism even is. And that money has nothing to do with it.
Third Diversity: You dont need diversity if you want to solve discrimination. Discrimination is not representation. If the representative have biases they discriminate according to their biases. This is done no matter if the group is diverse or not. You should rather abolish your biases instead of striving for group that are diverse because the two things are not correlated. Communism regimes also have diverse governments and the governments are usually more authoritarian and oppressing than Western governments.
If every group has biases against other groups, You will have just different groups in power that discriminate against all the other groups instead of a leadership without discrimination. If you have people without biases in leadership positions, they will not discriminate against anybody. And a biasless approach can be taught through spiritual training. So to become without biases is the goal and not put diverse people with biases in leadership position.
www.researchgate.net
Furthermore if you accentuate the differences and advertise the pride to be a specific group (which is basically superiority) and you make whole life center around the difference instead of the commonalities. Thereefore you will increase the separation.
In addition to this they only want diversity if this benefits their group they dont want diversity when it comes to political parties. Otherwise they would strive to have a proportional representation of every political party in addition to every other group.
Furthermore the Covid restriction are targeted disproportionally Black people and poor people and they did not complain about diversity, equity and inclusion in this topic. So they only want diversity and equity and inclusion if this benefits them.
Another point is iif you look to the USA if you want equal representation of Black people. You have to represent nearly all Black people in the Democratic party. So they have to have double the percentage of Black people in congress than the percentage of the population. Because 90 % of the voters (nearly all Black people ) vote their party. But they only care about the exact representation, which is basically still discrimination if you view it their way.
Usually the parties have a specific membership. Different groups are over -or underrepresented. Women are less in political party than men. If you want fair representation in government and dont discriminate against a group. You have to look at the members. because the representatives are chosen among the party members and not the population. If you want 50% -50% representation a women has a better chance to be elected than a man. So you discriminate against men if you assume that everybody is equally qualified.
What are your opinions?
First the inclusion they mean is more a separation into different group instead of real inclusion where the separation does not exist anymore. If you are inclusive you dont accentuate the difference all of the time to get privileges if you are a so-called victimized group and you see the unity in all people what they do not do, they treat people differently like in a class system with different values. That is not a positive system that is a negative system. Separation is part of the negative path spiritually and unity is part of the postive path.
There are the different words explained.
CRT is the other one where they introduce a racist/sexist caste system where one group can bully the other group and is not punished and celebrate for their bullying.
paranormalis.com
Critical race theory - Psyop against spirituality or to increase racism?
I was bored and had nothing else to do, so I stumbled upon the Critical race theory (CRT) and I wondered if the theory was invented to increase racism or if it was invented to make spirituality ridiculous, I am not sure between the two. Some of the claims: ( source: Critical race theory -...
paranormalis.com
Second Equity does not solve racism which is probably their goal. Otherwise there would not have been racism in East GErmany where they earned all the same. You can earn less on average and be racist and discriminate against a group like the Nazis against the Jews. Or you can earn more than a group and discriminate against this group or you earn the same and you can have still racism. They dont seem to know what racism even is. And that money has nothing to do with it.
Third Diversity: You dont need diversity if you want to solve discrimination. Discrimination is not representation. If the representative have biases they discriminate according to their biases. This is done no matter if the group is diverse or not. You should rather abolish your biases instead of striving for group that are diverse because the two things are not correlated. Communism regimes also have diverse governments and the governments are usually more authoritarian and oppressing than Western governments.
If every group has biases against other groups, You will have just different groups in power that discriminate against all the other groups instead of a leadership without discrimination. If you have people without biases in leadership positions, they will not discriminate against anybody. And a biasless approach can be taught through spiritual training. So to become without biases is the goal and not put diverse people with biases in leadership position.
(PDF) Brief loving-kindness meditation reduces racial bias, mediated by positive other-regarding emotions
PDF | The relationship between positive emotions and implicit racial prejudice is unclear. Interventions using positive emotions to reduce racial bias... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
Furthermore if you accentuate the differences and advertise the pride to be a specific group (which is basically superiority) and you make whole life center around the difference instead of the commonalities. Thereefore you will increase the separation.
In addition to this they only want diversity if this benefits their group they dont want diversity when it comes to political parties. Otherwise they would strive to have a proportional representation of every political party in addition to every other group.
Furthermore the Covid restriction are targeted disproportionally Black people and poor people and they did not complain about diversity, equity and inclusion in this topic. So they only want diversity and equity and inclusion if this benefits them.
Another point is iif you look to the USA if you want equal representation of Black people. You have to represent nearly all Black people in the Democratic party. So they have to have double the percentage of Black people in congress than the percentage of the population. Because 90 % of the voters (nearly all Black people ) vote their party. But they only care about the exact representation, which is basically still discrimination if you view it their way.
Usually the parties have a specific membership. Different groups are over -or underrepresented. Women are less in political party than men. If you want fair representation in government and dont discriminate against a group. You have to look at the members. because the representatives are chosen among the party members and not the population. If you want 50% -50% representation a women has a better chance to be elected than a man. So you discriminate against men if you assume that everybody is equally qualified.
What are your opinions?
