If they're doing it quietly, don't announce it
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
427 points (98.6% liked)
politics
23526 readers
2217 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The thumbnail/preview pic looks like they are enlarging something ...
goatse
A scholar I see.
Scholar/victim. The rickroll before there was such a thing.
Yo momma's so stretched, when she wants to Goatse the whole crew has to help out
No they're the cartoon strawmen bad guys from the Captain Planet cartoons. There's summoning whatever that evil Captain planet equivalent was called. Except they added a few extra rings, like War Profiteering and Genocide.
The non-fictional every-day regular existing humans with money?
Idk, I think they have assistants to do the actual summoning for them.
(Sadly, Captain Planet, the only one fighting them, is fictional.)
Are we going back to EEO?
No good until they loudly bring them back.
Yup. If they're not doing business with the federal government, they need to point out that it's a free country and they can do whatever the hell they think is good for business. And follow up by pointing out that Target's current condition shows that eliminating DEI is clearly bad for business if it's something that the customer base expects.
It never should have been loud in the first place. Just have them. Do them. It doesn’t even need to be called DEI. These are things that should exist as a norm.
Exactly. And if you want DEI removed, you're gonna have to define it for me. Cause all I hear is "woman and minorities."
I like to ask them which letter of DEI they think is the worst one and watch them realize they can't answer without being a bad person.
They don't mind being bad people, they love being loud assholes
Honestly, I feel like most companies didn’t do a big marketing thing about this stuff. If was commenting that pretty much just got promoted on the careers page so applicants knew about the company culture
Also, because HR usually owns the careers page, and DEI teams usually roll in HR
To me if they made a big deal about it, it’s because they weren’t actually making a big deal about it. Where are the metrics?
If I work for a company that has a DEI policy, and I think my manager fired me because they don’t like something about me that falls into that category, there’s not much recourse for that because there is a DEI policy in place so obviously it was my “job performance.”
"systemic human resources roadblock removal"
SHRRR
I don't quite agree. On the one hand, all of those companies that publicly caved to Trump are f****** terrible. On the other hand, a lot of DEI policies are actually basic common sense, because if you want to get skilled employees, it's pretty ridiculous to exclude everyone who's not white male. Which is to say, if companies have similar policies to what they had before even using a different name, it's probably good for them and their employees, even if their cowardice is bad for the nation.
Its kind of like when racial quotas were struck down by the courts for colleges. I dont think we need to have quotas for racial categories of people, but the school can still overall choose for diversity in any given instance without having legit racial quotas. They can see the diversity of any applicant as a benefit to their application over a student who does not offer that perspective.
The law cant say “universities arent allowed to value diversity” but its fair that it can say “schools arent allowed to admit based on ‘we want X amount of Y race of people’”
Overall, a system that just recognizes, values, and attempts to incorporate diverse perspectives is far better than something like racial quotas, even though they are both “DEI”
That was a long sentence, what do you disagree with though?
june 1st is coming
🔫 Keep walking, Target.
I’ll go back. When their trans kid friendly clothing lines return.
Uh...no? We know where the stand is all I'm saying.
My employer has DEI but to prevent cuts from funding, they just changed the name and kept the policies. Its unfortunate but its better than having these policies and programs cut.
Trump: We have to end dei. It’s ugly and bad and super scary.
Companies: Just rename it. That talking Cheeto can’t read the policy anyway.
ROFL. Seriously, PresiCheeto can only recognise two things:
- $$$
- Underage Girls
Pitito Cheetolini is my go-to.. Small cock cheeto-faced Benito Mussolini wannabe fuck.
(If that's unclear.. El pito pequeño means he has a small whistle (cock). Adding -ito at the end of words in Spanish means, like, the little form. Perro, dog. Perrito, puppy/little dog. So pito, whistle. Pitito, little whistle. And it all sounds like Benito Mussolini. That small hand, little dick, rapist, felon cheeto-faced dictator fuck.)
Another good one is Shitler Cheetolini.
Sorry. We were so fucking close to never having to think about this fucker ever again for the rest of our lives. Now it's the same as the last decade+ and I'm so pissed about it.
We have had EEO programs since like the 60s. DEI is just new slang.
Please tell me it's now called IED.
No, it's called myED. It's almost the same but not as firm as it used to be...
That sounds like a login portal to a service that lets you buy Viagra.
That sounds like an overall positive outcome, at least compared to many corporations or there...?
It's a shame 'DEI' has become so political. Generally speaking, these policies strengthen teams and improve outcomes. Even in terms of biology, non-diverse populations are (typically) less likely to survive long term.
People think it means ‘affirmative action’. Like straight up. Those people who complain most are almost always making it sound like it’s only there to give people jobs which shouldn’t have them.
What it was intended for was to increase diversity, hence ‘D’, which improves the amount of perspectives and views and capabilities. This diversity strengthens teams in businesses.
People seem to think it means: ‘hand jobs over to people who are minorities, just because’
It’s so incredibly stupid and frustrating.
My defense for them was that it seems investment banks, who are loathe to lose money, seemed to retain these policies which suggests they make them more money.
100%. Theres a lot of studies on DEI that shows it does save money while making people at work happier, more satisfied and better work outcomes overall. They're really a win win for all.
They only ever had them because it was good for neo-liberal capitalist business.
They're not real allies, which should be obvious by how quickly they jerked their policies away on the whims of a dictator.
That shows they don't actually have those values, just see opportunities they'll take if they think there's money and political benefits coming.
nobody wants to have a TARGET on their chest
What, line suddenly stopped going up?
DEI must but trendy again