Diversity and Inclusion = Kill Capitalism

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Thanks for the clarification. In general, anything forced on markets by government can be non-productive.

Corporate media does indeed push for certain groups to be accepted, and other parts of the corporate media push back.

Again, market-forces at work. I’m not aware that any mainstream media claims that any group is CONSTANTLY oppressed at the current time. I do know that for myself, at times I am unconscious of participating in discriminatory behaviors either unintentionally or unconsciously, BUT, I would also say that media plays it up and the other “side” correspondingly plays it down. I do believe there is something of an equalization of pressures going on at the moment, as I would say that the extremists on both sides have been working overtime.

To me, free-market simply follows from an “equity-based” outlook (it’s too easy to misuse the term libertarian and god forbid classic liberal). There is no reason and no justification to discriminate against anyone due to their characteristics that aren’t causing harm to me and mine, and in the US, that is confirmed and sustained by our Constitution.

I agree with most all of that and particularly your last paragraph. Lots of people want to be the arbiter of right and wrong. I don’t view myself as the person to determine right or wrong for others. Live and let live.

I do see your point about unwittingly being part of a discriminatory practice. That said, to some degree, consumers discriminate constantly. Being part of a free market system means consumers have preferences, substitutes and the ability to choose (discriminate) between one option or another.

I realize this strays from my OP but it’s somewhat of an interesting dichotomy to me - business need to be less discriminatory/more inclusive to maximize their consumer base because consumers discriminate constantly and you need to appeal to as many of them as possible to be successful - ironic!

a reply to: Puppylove

Indeed. Most modern economies have a variation on a mixed economy. Most but not all of our conflicts regarding the matter are merely rhetorical. I would guess that 99.9% of us participating here have grown up in a mixed economy where market forces are balanced by government activity. Of course, that “balance” is dynamic and not static.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

I agree with you that discrimination is a market-force. Discrimination has so often been used in a pejorative sense it has lost the simple meaning of choice between one or more options.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

As gently as possible I'm going to point out that your statement about "Trans Activists" is a bit exaggerated. First of all there's no unified "Trans Activists" that accomplish those things...

Well... Maybe... maybe not. Your point is well taken (and your gentleness much appreciated). And true to the extent there is no official "Trans Activists R Us" organization calling the shots. But there is most definitely a coordinated and concerted effort to push one message -- and one message ONLY -- on the masses, and to shut down any and all dissent by whatever means necessary.

...second all discussion and discourse is obviously not being shut down.

Yes -- but not for lacking of trying on their part!!! People are being civilly and even criminally charged for refusing to say that trans women are women... or for defining "woman" as an adult human female... or for refusing to female services to male bodies. The absolutely despicable debacle in Canada with Jonathan Yaniv is one example. Shelters and refuges being shut down and harassed for refusing to include men -- such as in Canada and California and Alaska. The very well known transsexual, Miranda Yardley, was actually charged with a "hate crime" against transgenders (which was very quickly dismissed by the judge).

Equally disturbing -- perhaps more disturbing -- is that laws and regulations and policies are being determined with NO regard for their adverse impact on others, particularly women and children. Appropriate and necessary impact assessments are not being conducted. Women's voices are being excluded and only trans-affirming voices are being considered.

So, yes, there is still some discussion possible... but not nearly enough. And this is by design.

I don't agree with the disruption of meetings nor should we tolerate any violence at all for political purposes against anyone.

Agreed.

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that gender dysmorphia is a recognized disorder that can be (and should be) treated, but we can't refer to that fact in any other context regarding trans folk.

Yeah, that's been mind boggling to me as well... and it is a cruel disservice to those truly suffering with a mental (and probably emotional) disorder. The very high rates of previous trauma to the gender dysphoric is being neglected/ignored in pushing a one-size-fits-all solution that does NOT fit all.

My best guess is that this is done to accommodate the gender euphoric under the transgender umbrella. The autogynephiles. The ones with a sexual fetish, NOT true gender dysphoria/dysmorphia. There are too many people (like me!) that will never willingly agree to role play in their sexual fantasy. We aren't doing the AGPs any favors either. Sure, they probably really REALLY think this is what they want and need, but the disproportionate rate of suicidal ideation (and attempts at suicide) tell us it's not fixing anything.

Even more important, too many men who identify as women have very violent tendencies, including -- perhaps especially -- sexual violence against women. Not all, of course, but too many. And, of course, self-ID would guarantee that any and all sexually violent men -- no matter how they "identify" -- would have access to women and children in private and vulnerable spaces.

CORPORATIONS lobby at every level of government. That is indeed an overarching problem.

Agreed. (Thanks a lot, Citizens United!)

I'm not sure how any activity is forcing me to be more inclusive or diverse however, and certainly I can't think of instances in which a "government gun" is forcing me to accept trans folks. I disagree with any regulation, law or anything else that forces me or you or anyone to use or not use certain speech (like pronouns). Can you expand your thought on that?

Generally speaking, any and all laws are enforced at the point of a government gun. If you refuse to obey the law, if you refuse to cooperate in your persecution, if you refuse to comply with the penalty imposed, you are subject to force at the barrel of a government gun.

For specific examples, here in the US parents are losing parental rights and even custody of their children if they refuse "gender affirming" treatment for their children. Never mind that this "gender affirming" treatment causes a multitude of lifelong adverse effects, including cognitive impairment and literal mental retardation, weakening of bones, depression and suicidal ideation, and infertility/sterilization. Never mind that these puberty blockers being handed out like candy have never been clinically tested and evaluated for this use, much less approved by the FDA.

An especially egregious example of government abuse is the case of a young girl and her mother in Georgia. When this mother registered a complaint with the school where her (kindergarten age) daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy identifying as female in the gender neutral bathroom, the school reported the mother to Child Protective Services!!!

In Canada, we have the 18 (?) women who were subject to hearings and fines for declining to wax the balls of a man who identifies as a woman. And while these women were wrung through the ringer, the man who filed the complaint continued to prey on and harass underage girls! But his name and identity were protected...

In England, new sentencing guidelines for "hate" crimes include six months in jail for words -- for misgendering, for dead-naming, for refusing to say that a trans woman is a woman. At the same time, arrests and prosecutions for violent rapes are at their lowest point.

Right, it's not free-market if it's not free, but your claim that I referenced said that BUSINESSES are trying to force these ideas on the customers, when if anything it seems, they are working to expand their customer base. How is that anti-market?

Okay, I'm missing something here. Fair enough about the differences between a business and a corporation. While all corporations are businesses, not all businesses are corporations. However, no business -- incorporated or not -- needs a law to be inclusive and thus expand their customer base. They can do that all by their lonesome. I suppose an argument could be made that some customers might refuse to patronize a business that is inclusive of transgender persons (or any other group), thus shrinking their customer base. But it doesn't matter.

There is no good reason for any business to demand a law for what they have the power to do by themselves and for themselves. Any such law is "force" at the barrel of a government gun.

I don't personally care for any level of government encouraging me to do anything, LOL, I just want the mail to be delivered on time. I'm saying that I don't need government to interfere in my life, I expect government to do its Constitutionally mandated job and not a whit more.

Exactly!!! The Constitution exists to limit and restrain government... NOT you and me.

(Out of space! Will continue in new response...)

a reply to: Gryphon66

What are some specific examples of say a tax law that is forcing inclusion and diversity?

My apologies. I wasn't clear there. I didn't mean that current tax laws force inclusion and diversity; I just meant that the tax code could be restructured to encourage and promote inclusion and diversity.

For example, if a corporation wants to be inclusive and diverse, they can be granted a lower tax rate, or specific credits or deductions. If a company wants to exclude and discriminate, they can pay a higher rate, or forego applicable tax credits/deductions. If a business decides to invest in gender-neutral bathrooms (in addition to single-sex bathrooms), they could be given generous write-offs for the expenses incurred.

Honey vs vinegar!

a reply to: Grimpachi

For many years, the politicians showered us with propaganda that the wars we have fought in, especially post WW2, were about fighting for our "Freedoms and Democracy".

You do not see them use that much anymore because they know the majority of people no longer buy that hogwash. It is about the money, always has been.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Elementalist
Capitalism feeds off of consumerism and hence profit and build.

Consumerism feeds of materialism.

Materialism feeds from the very elements and substances or resources from our very Earth.

Those resources or elements are limited on Earth and wont last forever, either will capitalism.

Without people consuming materialistic products or services, capitalism falls like a house of cards.

But I do agree, this diversity/inclusion crap our species is being molded into, can hurt capitalism.

Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.

A lot of damage to earth and humanity has happened since though.

It's all perspective.

To your point on the industrial revolution above, we’ll probably see that again.

Capitalism will forward efficiency. AI/Robotics will end up making most of our basic consumer needs dirt cheap to produce. That money will then go into other forms of innovation. Someone will slash prices on said consumer goods which will force the market to comply - margins thin for everyone as the race to being a cost leader continues.

In regards to damage to earth - capitalism can solve that as well via efficiency gains and technology (innovation).

Capitalism by design puts more importance on profits and says nothing about the damages it does. It is a side effect if it helps or hurts the earth.

Many items are made very cheap and break easy, which keeps the consumer coming back for more. Nothing efficient about that. Why not build products to last.

I bought a new printer that was the next model up from my old one.
I wanted to use the older toner cartridge I had and it would not fit because they molded a plastic tab onto the case. I broke the tab off and was able to use it.

There are many other examples like this where they create a lot of waste in order to keep them coming back.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

If you’re an intelligent business owner, you don’t give a # about someone’s gender/orientation/race/etc. you care about hiring people who can do the job you need them to and do it well. Period. Doesn’t matter the job, industry, etc. Nor does it matter what gender/orientation/race/etc. an employee is.

True. Although I'm sure that there are some out there who *do* care, as soon as the decision to not hire someone not based on merit but because of their identity/sex/race/etc, it becomes discrimination.

It seems your argument is predicated on the assumption that those above are not best able to perform the job, because if it was about merit, there would be no issue (as you stated).

The fact that there *is* a need for diversity and inclusion shows that people are not necessarily hired on merit, but are discriminated against.

Refreshing thread, exchange of ideas, consensus building, like old timey ATS!
All sides of the topic have thus far been well and fairly covered.

Two "issues" on my mind, related but not narrowly on topic of business economics:

* Personal pronoun legislation ($250K fines in NYC!? WTF!): I can make no appropriate remarks in this forum - to be safe let's agree I'll just use one pronoun for everybody, self included: "a**hole"

* Discrimination, Diversity & Inclusion:
My town has no store & sits 10 miles between two Wallyworld Supercenters, each serving different ethnic communities, one largely Hispanic sub-sub urban, the other African American & much more urban.
As a consumer, I discriminate depending on what i need & what I know about each store's grocery & stock assortment. Point being if these stores were homogenized and all inclusive, I wouldn't have the stock assortment diversity as a consumer because there's only so much shelf space in retail plan-o-grams, so my business may go elsewhere - leading me to question: can inclusion really exist without exclusion?

ganjoa

First, to the guy that says capitalism is dead, hahahahaha... uh, the other way around fella, socialism is dead... there is not a communist country on the planet lol.. they are dictatorships lol.. rich alagaurds, capitalism at work but only for the elite in their countries lol... you will not ever get rid of capitalism... why, well you don't grow food, so your hungry... but you can make alcohol, or make clothes, whatever.. so you trade your clothes for food, capitalism at it's basic level.. you see, you can try as you might but there will always be capitalism whether you like it or not... and in fact, it is healthy... it keeps people engaged, wanting more for themselves, moving forward... not setting around getting sick and fat just waiting for government welfare handout... they are actively participating and making their own future... that is why you will never get rid of it... because most people will never be satisfied with sitting around waiting for the government scraps and will go out and make it on their own. lol... capitalism dead hahahaha spoken like a true green in ten libertard lol.. want to kill some cows do you lol...
As for what is happening with diversity you have that wrong... what you are actually seeing is the forced feeding of immorality to America... look, every tv show there is lgbt agenda, even polygamy, illegal in every state, on a cop show lol. You are actively seeing the Chrisitan right being censored on youtube, facebook, twitter etc etc etc... you can't even watch a singing competition without the oh poor me i am gay BS. This is what is really happening.

How do you know... well, truth is in the pudding... Christian business's do extremely well but are constantly dragged into court and put out of business because of their beliefs. They don't need lgbt employee's, they have plenty of christian employee's, they don't need lgbt customer's, they have plenty of christian customer's... you see, that is their problem... they do not want them to be successful lol... your logic show's you really don't know some things... like a christian business does very well, and actually more business if they stand on their beliefs which is their right under our constitution lol... you see it is about everyone losing their rights, this is America, you can refuse to do business with absolutely anyone you want and always have but they have taken that away from you just like your right to free speech and privacy and many many more.

Lastly for perspective look at this from another perspective... as an infantry veteran i can tell you for a fact that all of us would have a problem with say a tran in the foxhole next to you, or a woman. There are so many reason's for this it would take a page to explain it.. but boil it down to the fact that you are putting not just your life, but the life of the squad and the platoon and the company on the person next to you and you must be able to trust that they can and will do the job and protect your back and be able to carry you for miles and days if necessary etc etc etc.. The second you have to take some of the load from a woman or other is the very second you put all of your unit at risk and that is just the simple basic reason, of course it goes much much farther than this... but you get the idea... mine and my brothers lives should not be put in risk because of political morality BS, period.... you see, this issue goes much deeper than you think.

Think about what I have said, one last example... did you read comics when you were a kid... did you watch batwoman show, in less than five minutes they outed her as a lesbian... lol.. absolutely nothing to do with batwoman, ever lol... see what i mean lol...

a reply to: Boadicea

Bo, I can see you feel strongly about this subject.

I don't see the "coordinated effort to push one message." I'm not a big fan of generalizing to "all Trans" or "all Republicans" or "all Christians" do this or that. I don't think it's fair, for one, and I don't think it's correct for two.

Yes, there are factions within factions ... there are even factions within the LGBTQ+ community, within the Christian community, within the Democrats, within the feminists etc. etc. etc. Speaking generically doesn't clarify anything.

For example, should I group you in with all "Trump supporters"? I don't think so.

I am unaware of any criminal or civil penalties for using the wrong pronoun or whatever. Do you have some examples?

I'll do some work on the cases you cited. I just don't think it's a fair statement to claim that only trans-positive voices are heard or considered uniformly.

Opinions vary on the various treatment options. I'm not aware of any study that says that gender reassignment treatments are "failing."

Laws are enforced at gunpoint? Nope. Just can't agree with that as a general statement. Claims about MTF violent tendencies are just that ... claims.

In fact, I don't think I can contribute a lot more to our conversation. You obviously have strong beliefs on the matter and have made a lot of assumptions.

I agree that there are probably some legal limits on how far an individual's identity can force the rest of us to do something. If we don't deny them jobs, services, accomodations, healthcare, etc., I'm not sure we have to or can be forced to have respect for others by law.

As long as all are treated equitably before the law, and no one is truly harmed, I have no issue with anybody being anything they want to be.

Thanks for the convo, Bo.

a reply to: Boadicea

Well, son-of-a-gun ... NYC has passed laws which hold out for fines for not using correct pronouns. Explicitly.

Not down with that. I'm fine with local government passing whatever laws the citizens want as long as no one is discriminated against unfairly, but freedom of speech as an American means that you can't tell me how to speak either.

If I call a trans person by their preferred name that's going to have to be sufficient or I'll find another place to work.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Bo, I can see you feel strongly about this subject.

Yes, I feel VERY strongly wherein people are being harmed -- specifically women and children. And you may or may not know that I have been labeled/declared the resident TERF before.... and I won't fight it. It is what it is. But I will say that I have drawn very fine red lines, which focus only on that which harms others, and I try very hard to be consistent in my principles and how I apply them.

In the grand scheme of things, I think we all will benefit from this focus on "gender" and how we treat others and what we expect/demand of others in regards to "gender," and the stereotypes we have assigned according to "gender"...

I see that you already found the NY laws. I should have provided more context -- other links -- for you as well. This is from last week in England:

Now trans and gay hate crime will mean SIX months in jail after judges are ordered to crack down with harsher sentences than those that are given for domestic burglaries

This is the mom who was reported to Children's Services after she reported that her daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy who identifies as a girl in the girl's bathroom:

A Mom Fights for Justice After Her Daughter Claims a Gender Fluid Child Assaulted Her in Bathroom

This is the transsexual who was charged in England:

When a Transsexual is Prosecuted for ‘Transgender Hate Crime’

Finally, this is a good accounting of how Trans Activism is squashing not just discussion of dissenting opinions, but necessary clinical research and other studies related to transgender issues:

Trans Activists’ Campaign Against ‘TERFs’ has Become an Attack on Science

One more thing for what it's worth: I fully understand that it's impossible for any one advocacy group to speak for all in their demographic. I understand there is no one voice that speaks for all transgenders/transsexuals. This is why I capitalize "Trans" whatever to indicate I am specifically addressing the activists and lobbyists.

a reply to: Puppylove

That's Marxist speak! Be gone.

a reply to: strongfp

Are you effing serious?

People can both not hold capitalism up on a pedestal and not be a Marxist. It's not Capitalism or Marxism.

I think the problem with diversity and inclusion in the workplace is that it can be a fight against nature. Those who are SJW or NPC's fail to see that some things are just the way nature is. Think of it this way. All of the K thru 8 grade teachers should be evenly distributed with approximately 50% female and 50% male. But that is probably not natural. Unfortunately, females have a greater tendency to desire to teach the young and interact with children.

There once was a show on PBS that could never be aired today. It talked about the differences between men and women. It had men and women in go carts racing around. They track the individual's testosterone levels. Females plateaued while the males testosterone would keep increasing and increasing. This made males take more chances and cut the corners harder. It would be doubtful for any individual women to win the Indy 500 or the Daytona 600. Likewise, the show had the people trying to use a backhoe to lift a pail of eggs. The females consistently cracked the eggs using the backhoe. The trouble was not all experience but that the female brain is wired differently and thus did not have the depth perception that an average male has. Similarly, females have more curved elbows than males making it more comfortable for babies to be cradled by females. Also, when it come to males and females changing diapers for infants there is a difference. Females naturally talk to babies after they have changed the diaper; it just natural to do. Males on the other hand have to learn this technique. It does not come naturally to most males.

Going back to the teacher example; there is going to be a shortage of males to fill the diversity quota if you want the teaching to be 50/50. Most males are not going to be interested in teaching young children. Also, a males emphasis when teaching will not be the same. For the most part, even though this does not sound inclusive; you want females to teach language skills and males to teach math and science. It is just the way most male and female brains are wired.

The SJWs of the world do not want to admit this view. There can be struggles for getting enough women into STEM careers and it would be difficult to make hospital nurses, teachers, social workers evenly distributed between the two genders (sorry there is only normally XX and XY and gender issues are based on feelings and not DNA). SJW believe you can change nature with nurture and unfortunately that is mostly the exception and not the rule. Boy's will turn dolls into soldiers normally; it is their nature.

Sorry

a reply to: Puppylove

Who is the most famous critic of capitalism and pointed out it's inherit flaws?

a reply to: strongfp

If all it takes to be a Marxist is not agree with unchecked capitalism, being labeled a Marxist has no meaning. Bugger off.

a reply to: Puppylove

Agreeing with Marx doesn't make you Marxist, but he sure did get the ball rolling. If you agree with Adam Smith does that make you a pure capitalist?

a reply to: strongfp

I'm very confused by your point. You came on here acused me of Marxist speach, and told me to leave because of it.

WTH are you on about?

I'm personally not happy with the way things are, and firmly believe we've yet to figure out and do not buy into capitalism being the holy grail everyone thinks it is. Neither is socialism. Something else or something inbetween.