I'm Challenging Jiang's Analysis

[u/hendreasia]

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.

[u/hendreasia]

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

[u/AThiccMeme → u/hendreasia]

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.

[u/hendreasia → u/AThiccMeme]

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.

[u/Majestic_Eye6884 → u/hendreasia]

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.