Asklemmy

47099 readers

1815 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

102

How do the likes of JD Vance and Drumpf rationalise no more DEI when they have wives who are DEI? It makes no sense. (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 days ago by aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Strictly speaking, DEI absolutely does NOT cover all "minority" hires. DEI is when we say, "We need more people of group X regardless of all other factors." I really doubt they married their wives for the sake of diversity. So they're nit DEI.

[–] silentjohn@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago

regardless of all other factors

Yea that's not what DEI is. Look up affinity bias and why we need things like DEI.

load more comments (6 replies)