1504
Declassified CIA Guide to Sabotaging Fascism Is Suddenly Viral
(www.404media.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
1504 points (99.2% liked)
politics
31107 readers
2114 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The flaw in your argument is the false equivalency between minorities (people the DEI programs are there to support) and "inefficient workers".
Are straight white dudes exempt from ever being considered inefficient? That's silly.
DEI goes beyond hiring. If you have a sizeable office but no comfortable and private area for new mothers to pump breast milk that's being inequitable to them. Same for maternity and paternity leave policies. These are not about giving advantage to minorities.
That's fair, but those don't decrease efficiency consistently enough to be a viable method for simple sabotage. There are better ways to decrease efficiency in ways people won't notice. Everyone notices DEI because it's so divisive.
Additionally, pointing out a semantic issue with my statement doesn't change the fact that the people the DEI practices help are not "inefficient workers" anymore than any other group of workers.
No, I didn’t say minorities, you’re assuming that. I was pointing out the part in the text which says, “fight fascists by creating bureaucracy”. There are lots of articles already which point out that DEI is for all identities, not just POC.
I didn't say POC anywhere in my comment.
These identities are minority identities. Women, POC, LGBT+ communities are all considered minorities. There are legitimate reasons for DEI, including increasing efficiency in workplaces, which doesn't line up here, because in this doc the increase in bureaucracy is for the purpose of decreasing efficiency.
Some studies I'd like to cite regarding my claim on Diversity practices increasing efficiency:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/
Results: Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change.
https://dinastipub.org/DIJDBM/article/download/2986/1924/12080 (This one is a PDF) CONCLUSION This study shows that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have a significant positive impact on employee performance.
I also found this article from Harvard that explored practices that don't increase efficiency, however, when they don't work, the reason is usually unconscious bias and racism:
https://hbr.org/2024/06/research-the-most-common-dei-practices-actually-undermine-diversity "These methods often exacerbate existing biases and fail to address systemic barriers, perpetuating organizational inequities. For example, diversity and harassment training programs frequently focus on blame, legal consequences, and unconscious bias. Employees are often told they are biased, and managers are informed that they will be held accountable if employees are accused of discrimination. This is counterproductive because employees tend to react with resistance and anger to these messages, inadvertently increasing discriminatory behavior."
The reason I am including this is that even if the end goal was to decrease efficiency, it would have to be the goal of management, not the regulatory bodies, because management are the ones choosing these methods, and if it were management's goal to decrease efficiency, they would be able to do this without DEI requirements.
My overarching point here is, while I understand your skepticism on DEI practices, there are much simpler and cheaper ways to perform the methods in the original post, making DEI an extremely unlikely culprit.
The plain and simple truth is that DEI often increases, not decreases, efficiency and productivity. It does this by creating accommodations for efficient workers who would, without them, not be able to work, such as in the new mothers example. It also increases efficiency by combating existing institutional racism and allowing for good, efficient workers who would otherwise be hedged out of the system, to have a chance to participate. A good friend of mine has pointed out that their company is not, under any circumstances, going to let go of their DEI policies because it's lead the best and most efficient departments they've ever had.