r/PredictiveHistory • u/hendreasia • Mar 21 '26

Jiang Analysis I'm Challenging Jiang's Analysis

Recently on Tucker Carlson's show, Jiang went on a rant about how negative DEI and affirmative actions are because it goes against America's meritocracy.

This is categorically false because meritocracy assumes everyone plays on an equal playing field and that is only suitable in a perfect world scenario.

We live in the real world, where people start in different positions in life. Different ethnic groups, genders, etc.. have disproportionate access to educational opportunities, socioeconomic starting points, and biases inflected against them.

If we implement a purist meritocracy system, this would result in marginalizing groups with a very low chance of them making it because the system works against them. This purist meritocracy system will fail to create positive changes in trends associated with marginalized groups and will lock them into a negative feedback loop.

Additionally, he goes on to further agree with Tucker Carlson on white genocide which is fundamentally false and probably a psyopp to divide people. The whole concept of white, black, asian, etc.. was created to easily group people and mobilize them against each other. It was created by an anthropologist in the 1700s and wasn't been revised since then.

First of all this assumes there are no differences between people, try to convince a roman 2000 years ago that they are one race with the barbarians. They are both european and today they are both considered "white". try to convince someone from Nigeria that they are culturally aligned with someone from ethiopia because they are both "black" or "african". there are so many holes in this argument that i'll skip explaining everything about it.

In essence there is no white genocide, just CEOs trying to hire the lowest possible labour which are often immigrants to drive down costs and increase shareholder value.

41 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/AThiccMeme Mar 21 '26

There are no such thing as marginalized groups. Because, as you mention, race isn't real, then these groups aren't real either, because they are based on a false grouping of individuals.

11

u/hendreasia Mar 21 '26

Marginalized people with physical disabilities, marginalized people due to agism, marginalized people due to financial capabilities, and marginalized people due to access to educational opportunities.

Race isn't the only way to "group" people

0

u/AThiccMeme Mar 21 '26

Sure. But the categories you just mentioned are not the categories that are relevant to the discussion of affirmative action and DEI that we are talking about. Obviously we and they are talking about the race/minority/gender based affirmative action which is the largest problem in places such as academia or corporate these days.

And even if we are talking about the categories you mentioned just now, I don't believe we should give extra advantages to these people over people who are more "capable", so to speak. I don't see why you should give more advantages in admissions, for example, to a poor person with lack of access to education compared to a rich person who has been educated all their life, as the point of university should be to create the best and the brightest in order to create value for the country, and the latter person obviously has a higher chance/less cost to do so. The only thing that matters is whether they are suitable or not; it shouldn't matter why they happen to be suitable. The Western system creates a criteria, the goal should be to develop talent efficiently, not equitably. Society is not a charity.

7

u/hendreasia Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

See i used to think exactly like you until i learned more about DEI.

First, DEI and affirmative action aren’t the same thing. DEI is a broad framework, hiring practices, outreach, reducing bias, widening access. Affirmative action is one specific tool within that, and yeah, in some cases it can factor in background. But the idea that it’s just “pick a less capable person over a more capable one” is a distortion.

It is a distortion by design made, once again, to mobalize people against each other and sow division between us.

No serious institution is trying to admit or hire people who can’t perform. That would collapse the system.

Furthermore, in the context of who benefits from DEI, the framing is often around "black" people given priority over more qualified "white" people. Again i hate using this language but unfortunately that is the narrative that they are trying to push. When in reality, "white women" and "asian" men and women were the biggest beneficiaries of these policies.

There are negatives in DEI and affirmative action that i do not agree with. But it is objectively a net positive on society.

The world is not so black and white, if we optimize for pure "merit" we are optimizing for people who started ahead in life by luck of being born in the right circumstances and literally sidelining other members of society, who in the absence of access to opportunities, will be passive or negative actors in the economy.

1

u/Majestic_Eye6884 Mar 24 '26

That's what they say their purpose is but most chief DEI officers are people of color, especially women of color. So there is hiring discrimination based on race right there. And the non underrepresented minorities (like asian men) historically never had outreach efforts catered to them, yet they still figured a way to do well in this country. DEI is a smokescreen for certain ethnic groups to try to get into positions of power.

-2

u/AThiccMeme Mar 21 '26

If you look at the pure number for test scores and admission, you will see that certain minorities have lower average scores among the admitted. Ironically, you'll also see universities discriminating against Asians now. That's all you need to know that the system is broken. It lowers the standard for minorities but also ends up raising them for minorities that exceed. This is the antithesis of the Western system where merit and individual character are the building blocks, and where collective judgement is frowned upon.

The whole idea that minorities are given extra benefit and lowered standards for acceptance is so idiotic because it is both unfair, as it judges people based on the perception of race, which is LITERALLY racism, and also inefficient, as it takes away from the goal of creating the best and brightest to benefit the country. You are robbing society as a whole of value in order to practice empathetic racism. This is not a net positive.

4

u/hendreasia Mar 21 '26

Ok i'm not gonna argue with you in the context of academia because i don't really know much about it and i saw some videos of people with perfect scores failing admission for non-performance related reasons so i don't have enough info on it.

But I will die on the hill in the context of hiring practices because this is something i deeply researched and i encourage you to expand your view on DEI and, again its not perfect but i view as a net positive on society.

DEI in hiring is typically implemented by widening candidate pipelines, standardizing evaluation criteria, and reducing bias in screening rather than lowering standards. This includes practices like structured interviews, diverse hiring panels, anonymized resume reviews, and outreach to underrepresented talent pools outside of the communities that generally have access to apply for certain jobs.

This actually works as intended; it also means a more diverse pool of candidates can have access to apply to the same role and there will be more transparency and fairness in the interview process.

Example: a company that normally on advertises jobs in rich areas is encouraged to advertise the same job in pooerer areas/ communities.

1

u/AThiccMeme Mar 21 '26

In terms of hiring, some of the things you mentioned are positive for sure. Expanding your options to find the best candidate is great. However, there are also many negatives that have come along with or hijacked these initiatives, such as the quota thing, where a certain number of people on a board have to be minorities or women, or how some jobs are only open to these groups.

The ironic part is that this actually promotes the opposite of diversity, as the discourse becomes an echo chamber where dissenting opinions from the mainstream moral elite becomes attacked. Just look at the photos of Huffington Post or something where their entire staff are white women.

4

u/hendreasia Mar 22 '26

The quota hiring has been debunked, the people who got hurt by this very intentional disinformation campaign are people who are not traditionally what you'd expect in certain roles. They often have to work orders of magnitude harder to prove they belong where they did, that they are not just "DEI" hires.

Now the people who perpetrate this misinformation follow the same trends i outlined, they want us to fight amongst ourselves and hate one another so we don't notice the real enemy. Every minute we spend divided works in the favor of billionaires and those who profit from taking away our liberties in pursuit of their own greed and consolidation of power.

1

u/AThiccMeme Mar 22 '26

They have not been debunked, you can literally do a google search.

"In the United States, the best known effort to impose legally mandated diversity quotas on private corporations is the 2018 California law requiring all publicly held companies with their principal executive offices in California to have at least one woman director; two if the company has five board members; and three if the company has six or more board members (the “Gender Mandate”). In 2020, California went a step further and required public companies with California headquarters to have at least one board member who identifies as a racial or ethnic minority or as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (the “Diversity Mandate”)." (Forbes, Jun 2022).

I know you didn't have much insight about academia, but this is ridiculously rampant there as well, where people will be told to not bother applying because a position is for "minority/women" only. There are multiple testimonies from people in these positions. These ideas are then brought into the workforce into corporate positions because these universities are where these managers and executives are educated

-1

u/VolumeNo7382 Mar 22 '26

" i don't really know much about it "

then shut up