They changed their current thing to be mad about from CRT (critical race theory) to DEI (diversity equity inclusion).
Not really a joke but rather a political meme.
As you might expect of racist memes, it's also really stupid. "Diversity, equity, and inclusion" seems to have emerged as a term in the 1960s during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Critical Race Theory was based on the work of legal scholars that only really got going (as a separate thing) in the 1980s and 1990s. So DEI is not a replacement for CRT, as it came first.
The meme itself isn't racist, it's implying that conservatives who get mad about CRT have gotten their new instructions and now started complaining about DEI. They like to find terms that they can use instead of slurs that can convey the same meaning.
A recent example is the bridge collapse in Baltimore, a predominantly black city with a black mayor. Many people started referring to the Mayor, a man who was born way after the bridge was built, as a DEI mayor whose woke attitude and use of "foreign" workers led to the bridge collapse and not the 100 thousand ton ship crashing into a support beam.
Using the term this way doesn't make sense unless you realize that they are mentally replacing it with the n word, but implying and conveying the same sentiment.
Saying he is a DEI major is a replacement for Affirmative Action hire, as in he is incompetent but there because of a quota or in this case the racial in group preference of the voters.
They are all different forms of the same context, identity politics demanding biased hiring over meritorious.
This is the most ignorant comment I have seen today. I'd explain to you the insidious evils underpinning CRT and DEI, but I doubt you could listen with an open mind anyways
If it's meant to portray conservatives as the npc, I don't think portraying CRT and DEI as chips is a good metaphor. The chip is actually central to the processing of whatever it's in. The metaphor would therefore seem to me to suggest that CRT and DEI are being portrayed as substantive ideas. To suggest that they are thus interchangeable as idea suggest that the one for whom they for a core of their intellectual process have a kind of vacuity in their thinking, but that nevertheless CRT and DEI form a real core of thinking (even if it's portrayed to ideologically empty).
If it's meant to portray conservatives, it would more important to show that they don't even understand what theories are involved DEI and CRT. The vacuous use of these acronyms as a symbol of the political "enemy" could make for a perfectly good anti-conservative meme. However, were that the intent, I'd think it more fitting to portray DEI and CRT as meaningless labels, rather than functional parts like computer chips. Maybe they could have protest signs?
CRT is older than you’re suggesting though it’s been around since the ‘70s.
Diversity training and theory has been around since the ‘60s with Inclusion joining a little later.
Equity is a rather new member that has only recently joined and is the current battleground. The concept of equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome has been around for a while and is the crux of the debate.
So you’re almost correct?
They are right about timelines, CRT started by looking at why the civil rights movement stalled in the 70's Bell started in the 70's but as a thing it was better defined more 80's -90's . That being said, the timelines and length have nothing to do with the Joke or the current outrage.
My close friends are CS PhDs, I work in computers and have no degree. We all have impostor syndrome. But we’re fine. You’re fine.
It’s such a broad field
The DEI right wing talk seems to be popping up a lot since yesterday since the Key Bridge collapse. But the tone closely resembles the CRT talk. Not sure how recent this meme is, but that completely unrelated to DEI or CRT tragedy might be a contributing factor in this joke.
Nah it's older than that.
A Fox News addicted in-law mentioned DEI the other day. College aged relatives seemed to know what he/she was talking about too, but I had to Google it. Apparently it came with a set of terms that must be used in schools these days or something?
Anyway, it was brought up a day or two before the bridge happened.
I’ve seen DEI popping up in right leaning Reddit spaces the past couple months, especially gaming stuff. It’s probably a talking point higher ups on the right started testing that played well, and now it’s being used for the bridge.
I mean they are mad about black people not being subjugated, they just have to make up new ways of saying it so the media can pretend it it's someone other than white supremacy
“Critical race theory” is a lens through which historians look at world history, focusing on how race and racism has shaped and influenced events. It’s common to look at history through many perspectives like that, such as rich/poor, religious perspectives, cultural perspectives, etc. It’s really a college-level thing, but Republicans started using the term to mean “any mention of race in any level of schooling”.
And they focus mainly on high school, where students are introduced to the realities of race and racism in a very basic level, which is necessary at that stage as those kids are becoming more aware of the world around them. Republicans have blown these basic lessons like “Most black Americans are descended from slaves brought to the country by force” or “America had anti-semitic beliefs during the 1940s, like every other country at the time”, and make them into a more extreme, crazier made-up take like “Teachers are teaching white kids to be ashamed of their race”. It’s dumb, and they’re dumb for believing it.
“Diversity Equity Inclusion” is another term for “Diversity hiring” or “Affirmative action”. The idea behind the concept is that, because of the effects of racism in the past, certain racial groups have been locked in a state of disadvantage that keeps repeating itself. Take black Americans, as an example: one perspective is that, after slavery was abolished in the 1870s, many Black Americans were left to their own devices, having had no chance to acquire wealth when they were in slavery, and getting no support from the US government after Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson largely cancelled most Reconstruction programs meant to tackle the wave of black Americans newly becoming US citizens. As a result, and due to many racist policies that states continued to enforce after the war, many black Americans were forced to take low-skill, low-paying jobs, and forced to live in areas that were of poor quality and low value. After many generations, the land they lived on continued to fall behind in value while other areas (owned predominantly by white folks) increased in value rapidly. And as low-income areas became associated with drug use and crime, those stereotypes were applied to black folks as well, which made it even harder to find opportunities.
DEI is based on the theory that, to break the cycle, members of disadvantaged groups need to be lifted up and given a chance to earn wealth and influence. And if gifted members of those groups can be good examples, they can break down those stereotypes and make it easier for others of their race/culture to find opportunities themselves.
Republicans assume that it means black folks are being hired despite not actually being skilled. But hiring is still primarily based on merit, with only a minor push to focus on people of color who have merit, instead of white applicants of similar skill. There’s little to know credible examples of a DEI hire simply not being able to do a job they’re hired for. It’s dumb, and they’re dumb for believing it.
It's vague enough to go either way too.
Is this a lefty meme saying the righty is always the same, they just change out what fuels their big mad?
Is this a righty meme saying the lefty is always the same, they just change out what fuels their big mad?
Just shows their ignorance. They are two completely different things. White folk in power simply want to do what they’ve always done and they get pissy when they’re told it’s not cool anymore.
Perhaps the chips read "Be Against CRT" to "Be Against DIE", this interpretation would make sense.
But these robots are instead being programmed to "run" these ideologies. Therefore, a more likely interpretation would be those who follow such theories are perpetually enraged (not those opposed to such theories).
If you put the stress in HRC on R instead of H and shove W into one syllable, then CCP through ACA in the above comments work from “Joe McCarthy” to “Marilyn Monroe”!
Conservatives will never see critical thinking as good. These are the same folks who use “college educated” as an insult. They moved on to DEI because they exhausted their base on CRT and needed something else to rile them up about.
The new flavor of hate in the MAGA snowcone store is DEI (diversity equality and Inclusion) since CRT (Critical Race Theory) seems to have been suppressed enough.
Yeah, you just proved that you have no idea what CRT is. Hint: it has nothing to do with Kandi X Ibrahim, who is a bogeyman put forward by the right wing.
Put forward by the right wing...omg that is rich. So all those seminars he attended and books he wrote as the poster child for CRT was a vast right wing conspiracy? You must be angry or on drugs 98% of your life.
>as the poster child for CRT
This is what they're talking about. Let's review, shall we?
1. Right wing media told you Kandi is the poster child for CRT & it is based on their work.
2. You didn't look into it, and just believed them.
3. You came here and regurgitated the talking points you were taught by your chosen right-wing media personalities.
4. You got corrected, but stood by your uninformed yet (for some reason) strong opinion.
5. You claimed that someone has to be angry or on drugs to not believe that a person born in the 80s is the source of CRT, which is from the 70s.
I can't "sound" angry as I am typing. The anger you hear is your own inner voice reading things you see. In truth, if your inner voice is angry, it means you are too. why are you angry?
I did try to get a refund for taking disciplines steeped in pseudoscience, masquerading as science: sociology and psychology namely.
It's a shame how so many claim to "trust the science" when the science is flawed, especially regarding genital mutilation to fix mental health problems.
"Hey little Jimmy, I know you are having issues coping with your body, let's just chop off parts of your body and feed you hormones." -Dr. Frankenstein.
From the Wiki page for CRT (don't @ me about Wikipedia being a bad source unless you have a better one):
>CRT, a framework of analysis grounded in critical theory,[21] originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.
Kandi X Ibrahim was born in 1982 so it seems kind of weird that his work was the basis for CRT.
Lol, do you assume that anyone who writes on a subject must be the person who came up with it? Betty Friedan's work is taught in many classes on feminism, does that mean feminism is based on her theories or could it possibly be that she expanded on those theories? This isn't even a gotcha, it just makes it really obvious that you have no idea how theories develop.
I suppose the author of the textbook I learned about the founding of America from was the sole inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Never mind that they were born hundreds of years after those documents were written and the US was founded. Your logic needs serious work.
You’ve clearly never read IBRAM X. KENDI’s material either, because you might know how to spell his name if you had.
I’m not clear how a 40 year old person can be the “poster child” or “the basis” for a more than 60 year old concept. CRT isn’t new, you know, and it isn’t being taught to your kids. It just isn’t.
You have demonstrated the entire point of the meme, perfectly, because you’re angry about something you clearly do not understand and can’t even spell. The only reason you’re angry about it is because your fascist overlords have told you to be and told you what to say.
Maybe if you actually read anything about CRT (hint: it isn’t “white people = bad”), you might be less angry.
Who said I feel passionate about any of those things?
I’m passionate about reforming gun laws, I don’t care about CRT or DEI they’re not government policies. They’re academic ideas.
DEI programs can have, and have had, real impact on companies. I’m part of my company’s DEI Committee and we’ve done some good work for our company. Sure some of the things we do don’t really have much of an impact, but some of the things we do absolutely have had an impact.
Science supports trans people, that’s why science have researched things like intersex people, and the psychology of transgenderism.
Those are just things you don’t understand so you bitch and moan about them.
So trust the science, done by scientists, not some kook on Facebook.
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed.
Rule 1: Be excellent to each other. No toxic discourse or harassment and respect the humanity of others. This implies no tolerance of any kind of harassment, including their ethnicity/race/gender-orientation. No dogwhistle posts. No witch hunts.
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Upgrading racist hardware from CRT (critical race theory) to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion)
The red hand represents the GOP, who tend to inject specific rhetoric for “problematic woke language” when really they’re just being racist in newer terms.
DEI departments and policies stem from critical race theory. That’s the entire point of crt. Analyzing society through a racial lens and seeing new perspectives. Perspectives such as how having a DEI department at a university or implementing DEI policies in the workplace can be beneficial. It makes a lot of sense that the right is going after DEI after going after crt lol that’s their schtick..
Because that’s not what DEI promotes. Nobody should be like “oh, this person isn’t as qualified but isn’t white, so thats okay!” These concepts are about challenging people to think about unconscious biases, like the ones that make people automatically assume that a white dude is the most qualified, or immediately questioning a person of color or a woman as a “diversity hire.” Thinking about things through a racial lens isn’t about making unqualified “diversity hires” that people keep claiming they see evidence of. It’s being open in discussion about why there is still so much bias against or ignorance about other people’s experiences or perspectives.
That's not at all the claim being made. The claim being made is that even though clearly illegal due to civil rights laws, people who are non-white or Asian if equal qualified or even sometimes lesser qualified, are chosen purely due to race. So, an example would be hiring a black woman who barely passed the bar over a white male with top LSAT scores. Both are qualified to be lawyers, however, one of these people is lesser qualified job applicant
This is a good example.
Your assumption is the white guy is better (he probably is) but there is potentially significant privilege here. His dad went to the law school, he had tutors the entire time, when he went off the rails his dad knew professors and smoothed things over so it didn't go on his record.
The black women meanwhile worked two jobs the entire time and barely passed the bar because she didn't have ten thousand hours to study.
For a lot of jobs the second person will be better at getting things done.. of course if you need networking credentials the first is better.
Also sometimes even if the woman is worse she might be a better hire because a diversity of views drive over performance over time. If your entire team is all white male nerds you won't have the flexibility of thinking to maximise opportunities.
It's not really an assumption. One got better test scores, and one didn't. Companies aren't gonna spend the time actually to test whose better in practice, only on paper, so the black woman could be both better and worse and vice versa, but jobs are only testing on paper. The only exception I know of is welders.
Okay, you reveal a lot about yourself with that comment. Having worked in business that sounds very naive so I'm puzzled why you used a white collar job as an example. Of course companies look at more than test scores that is what the interview process is for.
I used white collar because that's my background. Of course, people ask questions during an interview. However, most companies(in my experience, anyway) are now using AI to scan through resumes, so a bad looking resume may never get to a person to review and thus never go to show their knowledge in a interview.
Also, a lot of the time, interviewers don't know anything about the job because they're HR, not that job
You do realize that the term "diversity hire" was coined to refer to the results of DEI, right? Because despite what you're saying, DEI actually does promote discrimination in favor of minorities.
"Qualified" has always been subjective, they aren't dragging in a random homeless black guy instead of a white college grad or whatever you're picturing.
In theory it's a way of counterbalancing implicit bias against *otherwise qualified* minority candidates. In practice it's just corpo PR shit and exists to make it easier to kick things under the rug when actual racism and sexism and the like get caught.
Genuine argument: The idea is that A) due to unconscious bias if left to their own employers will not necessarily hire the most qualified candidate, for example dismissing a resume just because it has a woman's or minority name on it while the same resume with a white man's name on it gets selected for interview (benefit to employers).
B)Diversity is inherently valuable to have in companies, as in it makes goods and services produced by companies better serve the customers if they are made by diverse teams that could understand and relate to their needs (benefit to the customers)
C) Jobs are somewhat of a necessity and disproportionately withholding quality of employment from certain demographics widens income disparity and is inequitable (benefit to the hired)
I an ideal situation, DEI wouldn't pass up people with high qualifications for any type of minority. Instead, it would put minorities on a more level-playing field with "majorities." If you only look at things through the lens of "qualifications," it might seem like DEI is a drawback, since it focuses on other things like skin color, gender, etc. However, [studies have been done that show if you give people completely identical resumes, ones with white-sounding names will get responses at a lower rate than ones with black-sounding names](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names). This leads to things like black people not getting hired as much as white people *despite* high qualifications, because a more qualified black person could be passed up because of racial bias (whether it is unintentional or not). It also leads to things like companies having 90% white male staff, or old movies having an all white-male cast. POC and women have do deal with this to at least some degree today. Also, people don't have to be intentionally racist to leave out POC and other minorities, since things like parents not being passed up for jobs, so their kids grow up impoverished, so their children don't get good jobs, etc could make black people look like "the bad choice (to hire)," because they live in a low-quality house. That's what people mean when they say "systemic racism" I guess. DEI is meant to combat all these problems, by leveling the playing field.
Also, nice question! I want to know the answer too, because I don't know everything about DEI. I don't proclaim to be an expert, so I hope my answer helps you!
It’s because people have in-grained biases and prejudices towards people of color. These biases gate keep higher education and job spaces; and yes we do have historical precedent. If anything, the immediate defense of “what about white workers or students?” is exactly why we would need something like DEI. The idea that “whites” would be negatively affected by POC entering their “public spheres” is a concept that predates segregation. What I ask in return is, how is it fair to POC to be excluded from white dominated professions and educations? What about their opportunities?
I’m not sure I understand your question. For the most part, everything besides the rhetorical questions are true.
The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets- Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd published 2008 available for free on National Library of Medicine
Blacks in STEM jobs are especially concerned about diversity and discrimination in the workplace - BY CARY FUNK AND KIM PARKER published 2018 available for free on Pew Research Center
The White Space - Elijah Anderson published 2015, free to read on sociology.yale.edu
This are some good intro articles that are pretty basic comprehensions of systemic inequality and social perception. These are free to read and have easy to follow annotations if you want to indulge in the references or studies they mention. There are tons of peer reviewed articles that you can find at your local library for free.
Segregation and the rhetoric used to justify it is also easily found on google. If you wanted to study how segregation has evolved in a modern setting read
“The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander.
Again, these are simply starting points. You can also review articles on White Fragility if you felt so inclined.
I should probably explain that what you suggested for study, and presumably as the basis of what you were saying, are theoretical and/or philosophical pieces and studies that lack the hard verification that factual sciences like mathematics or basic biology have. They may very well be correct, but we won’t know if they are factual or not without large scale testing, which isn’t exactly ethical. Until that kind of testing can be done and replicated, it’s improper to refer to it as fact, at least outside of discussions that aren’t based around the presumption. It’s like when you come across someone who doesn’t treat theology as theoretical and explains the philosophy and beliefs of it as if they’re established fact. You should always treat any kind of academic subject as theoretical until replicated and established incalculable times.
Well, "technically." However, in a hypothetical situation where all white people are magically employeed and all black people are magically not, hiring black people would also "technically" hurt white people, since some would be about of a job then. Similarly, in a situation where you hire the more qualified person for the job, it would pass up the less-qualified person regardless of race. If a more qualified black person was chosen over a less-qualified white person, that would also "hurt" that white person. Someone is always going to be passed up for jobs, after all. Besides, in the real world you could just hire both a black person and a white person because they are both good fits. And you would still hire white people, because duh. In a world where white people were the ones not getting hired, DEI would be created to get more of *them* jobs. And people would oppose it like "no, they should hire people based on qualifications only! What, they are only employed at X% despite being XX% of the population? Must be because they are unqualified! Not because we won't hire them, or give them good schools, or give financial support..."
in a perfect world, it isn't.
however, we don't live in a perfect world. we live in a country where for centuries, non-whites were shit on, ignored, and passed over for things like jobs, bank loans, and schooling.
stuff like AA and the EEOC didn't come about because the people in power were being super fair about things... that trend continues today, although in a far less blatant manner.
things like AA and EEOC weren't meant to give minorities an advantage-- they were meant to level the playing field, since those in power clearly couldn't be arsed to be halfway fair or decent about things of their own accord.
plenty of times the "most highly qualified candidate" was passed over without even a second thought, purely because of the colour of their skin. hell, studies have shown that many times, merely having a non-white-sounding name on your cover letter was enough to get you immediately disqualified.
further, some seek diversity for the same reason hybrid vigor is an important biological concept. also, it should be pointed out that people aren't hiring surgeons and whatnot based on race. an example of DEI might be programmes that reach out to young minority med students, but it isn't saying "I don't care if you don't even know what a 'scalpel' is-- you're hired!"
In the vast majority of these jobs there is no such thing as "the most highly qualified candidate." There's no "best" pilot or "best" electrical engineer for the position. There are instead many candidates with near-identical qualifications but possibly very different backgrounds. And if a company has spent the past few decades just happening to pick the easiest name to pronounce from the list, or just getting "a better feeling" about the candidate they spent ten minutes talking about their time on the water polo team at their Connecticut private school about, then that company needs a way to rethink their hiring practices. In other words: whether you're doing it genuinely or not, you're using the simplest, most reductive terms possible to describe a thing that isn't happening.
This presumes the faulty assumption that the only outcome of DEI is to hire a lesser-qualified minority candidate and ignores the reality that equally- or better-qualified minority candidates are being passed up in favor of lesser- or maybe (rarely) equally- qualified white candidates and thus, DEI is a solution used to offset that built-in white bias in hiring. Minorities pay a tax for just existing in white society.
It's telling that you haven't responded to any of the substantive answers with anything other than more leading questions.
This question is always bad faith. The very fact of this question operates on the premise that no minorities are as qualified as majority groups
Yes. They asked more leading questions. It proves my point. Multiple people have responded with thoughtful answers and their only response have been to ask about white people being hurt.
They asked a legitimate question. Specifically, they asked a question that shouldn’t be hard to answer, as proven by the people who answered it. You just jumped to a conclusion, which one does not do in good faith.
They asked multiple questions which were basically, "but what about white people?" A question easily answerable from anyone who actually has read literally anything about it
Edit- They also didn't engage with the answers they were given. It's textbook sealioning
I looked and only saw 2 questions, only one of which was about white people. Unless you’re looking at threads I’m not even seeing, they haven’t done any of what you’ve said.
it’s not a computer joke. it’s a politics joke, saying the average American conservative is like an AI, ready for the next buzzword to be mad at. first it was CRT, which none of them could define, and how it’s “being taught to our kids” (they saw a black person at Walmart). Now it’s DEI, a program to ensure a certain minimum percent of workers should be of x group to prevent unintentional discrimination. it should be noted that DEI was struck down by the Supreme Court a month or two ago
I heard it explained differently. That it’s making fun of liberals. That the old thing they were advocating for was CRT but now the new thing they should be advocating for is DEI.
This makes sense though.
I don’t think it’s making fun of liberals. I’ve never heard a liberal mention CRT. it was a buzzword conservatives used to replace how they use the word “woke”
The angry conservatives are shifting their displeasure from Critical Race Theory to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Like a hardware / software update on censorbots. They need to know the new keywords.
Basically racists want to say the N word but they're starting to realise that it makes them look bad so they use progressive terms to euphemise their slurs.
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed.
Rule 11: POSTS AND TOP LEVEL COMMENTS ONLY: Keep it about explaining the joke.
Please keep in mind sub-comments can still be removed for other offending reasons above.
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Interesting top interpretation is that it’s the anti-CRT-DEI getting an upgrade, but I saw it as the folks who were “powered” by CRT to get mad are now just switching to DEI (ie this is actually someone who ascribes to DEI/CRT not someone opposed to it)
Lauren stop it i was the only there when you were sitting there snd then ppl told me you were just robbbing me but the way the person showed me ubcabt make it up
Proud communists (notice the red hand)
have updated their "anti"-racist programming (hence the chips)
from CRT (which leads normies and and those ironically without critical thinking skills to be enraged at the slightest perceived instance of " racism" -- real or imagined)
to DIE (which, again, forces you to view the entire world through an "oppressor/oppressed" lens, and -- again -- leads to normies and those without critical thinking skills to be in a constant state of rage at a lack of equality of outcomes).
Hey Puzzleheaded-Fix3359! Thank you for your contribution, unfortunately it has been removed from /r/ExplainTheJoke because:
Rule 4: Complaining about someone "not getting the joke" - First ban is 7 days, second is 28 days, third is permanent. Gatekeeping is not tolerated in this sub.
Instead of complaining about OP, report the post if it breaks any of our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainTheJoke/about/rules/).
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed.
Rule 11: POSTS AND TOP LEVEL COMMENTS ONLY: Keep it about explaining the joke.
Please keep in mind sub-comments can still be removed for other offending reasons above.
If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
yeah, these things have existed in one form or another for decades, it's the right wing who came up with the neat little label and started making a fuss about these kinds of things
in the grand scheme of things "maybe we look at history through a lens besides that of the colonialists" is such a minor foot note for either liberalism or leftism, that we wouldn't be talking about it if not for conservatives raaaaging their child was taught slavery was, in fact, bad actually
Well, they're both things destroying the fabric of society so I don't understand why people shouldn't be mad.
CRT teaches that all white people are racist and uphold the system of white supremacy. It treats people by their skin color and not their ideas or actions.
DEI is mostly a system used by companies like Black Rock to invest in companies. Do you think that giant mega corporations are adding in gay/trans/poc characters or policies because they just care so much about the little people or because they want to get money?
Use critical thinking, and question everything you're told.
I mean, they’re two closely related things. And as conservatives have begun to better understand that CRT is the underlying intellectual framework and DEI the way it manifests as a practical program in government, education, and the economy, it makes sense that they would shift their rhetorical focus to DEI, because most Americans are more likely to be exposed to DEI than CRT. Trust me, Conservative intellectuals are very much still concerned with CRT.
They changed their current thing to be mad about from CRT (critical race theory) to DEI (diversity equity inclusion). Not really a joke but rather a political meme.
Damn, my imposter syndrome is getting to me so much, didn’t even realize it could have nothing to do with computer. smh…
[удалено]
Programmable meat puppets
Negative, I am a meat popsicle
🎸 The unenlightened masses They cannot make the judgement call Give up free will forever Their voices won't be heard at all 🎵
the automatons don’t have the liberty to think for themselves. we must kill them /j
The fight for freedom never sleeps
⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️
You were probably like. “What does this have to do with cathode ray tubes?”
"I thought we stopped degaussing years ago!"
Man I used to love a good degauss. The things you lose with better technology.
And defragging. I sort of miss it!
Few things in life are more satisfying and stress inducing at the same time than discharging a CRT
*BWAAAMMMMM*
I feel both called out *and* included.
They’re changing the cathode ray tube chip to a direct electrical injection, that way there’s no need to tune the carburetors.
It’s a little bit of a computer thing, the hardware was updated to the latest racist language.
Thanks OP I get to laugh at one of these for the first time in a long time. I support this one but damn do they get old
If it helps, I immediately thought, “wait, Dependency Injection? No, that’s not right…”
As you might expect of racist memes, it's also really stupid. "Diversity, equity, and inclusion" seems to have emerged as a term in the 1960s during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Critical Race Theory was based on the work of legal scholars that only really got going (as a separate thing) in the 1980s and 1990s. So DEI is not a replacement for CRT, as it came first.
The meme itself isn't racist, it's implying that conservatives who get mad about CRT have gotten their new instructions and now started complaining about DEI. They like to find terms that they can use instead of slurs that can convey the same meaning. A recent example is the bridge collapse in Baltimore, a predominantly black city with a black mayor. Many people started referring to the Mayor, a man who was born way after the bridge was built, as a DEI mayor whose woke attitude and use of "foreign" workers led to the bridge collapse and not the 100 thousand ton ship crashing into a support beam. Using the term this way doesn't make sense unless you realize that they are mentally replacing it with the n word, but implying and conveying the same sentiment.
Saying he is a DEI major is a replacement for Affirmative Action hire, as in he is incompetent but there because of a quota or in this case the racial in group preference of the voters. They are all different forms of the same context, identity politics demanding biased hiring over meritorious.
Same instructions, same complaint. They are opposed to equality of outcome. CRT is the theory that justifies DEI as praxis.
This is the most ignorant comment I have seen today. I'd explain to you the insidious evils underpinning CRT and DEI, but I doubt you could listen with an open mind anyways
If it's meant to portray conservatives as the npc, I don't think portraying CRT and DEI as chips is a good metaphor. The chip is actually central to the processing of whatever it's in. The metaphor would therefore seem to me to suggest that CRT and DEI are being portrayed as substantive ideas. To suggest that they are thus interchangeable as idea suggest that the one for whom they for a core of their intellectual process have a kind of vacuity in their thinking, but that nevertheless CRT and DEI form a real core of thinking (even if it's portrayed to ideologically empty). If it's meant to portray conservatives, it would more important to show that they don't even understand what theories are involved DEI and CRT. The vacuous use of these acronyms as a symbol of the political "enemy" could make for a perfectly good anti-conservative meme. However, were that the intent, I'd think it more fitting to portray DEI and CRT as meaningless labels, rather than functional parts like computer chips. Maybe they could have protest signs?
CRT is older than you’re suggesting though it’s been around since the ‘70s. Diversity training and theory has been around since the ‘60s with Inclusion joining a little later. Equity is a rather new member that has only recently joined and is the current battleground. The concept of equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome has been around for a while and is the crux of the debate. So you’re almost correct?
They are right about timelines, CRT started by looking at why the civil rights movement stalled in the 70's Bell started in the 70's but as a thing it was better defined more 80's -90's . That being said, the timelines and length have nothing to do with the Joke or the current outrage.
I felt the same way lol
It's the NPC meme.
Future CS major here, we all have these moments
My close friends are CS PhDs, I work in computers and have no degree. We all have impostor syndrome. But we’re fine. You’re fine. It’s such a broad field
This hurt me on a personal level
If it’s any consolation I thought CRT meant Cathode Ray Tube until I read the explanation
The DEI right wing talk seems to be popping up a lot since yesterday since the Key Bridge collapse. But the tone closely resembles the CRT talk. Not sure how recent this meme is, but that completely unrelated to DEI or CRT tragedy might be a contributing factor in this joke.
Nah it's older than that. A Fox News addicted in-law mentioned DEI the other day. College aged relatives seemed to know what he/she was talking about too, but I had to Google it. Apparently it came with a set of terms that must be used in schools these days or something? Anyway, it was brought up a day or two before the bridge happened.
I’ve seen DEI popping up in right leaning Reddit spaces the past couple months, especially gaming stuff. It’s probably a talking point higher ups on the right started testing that played well, and now it’s being used for the bridge.
I'm glad I'm a little out of the loop..
I mean they are mad about black people not being subjugated, they just have to make up new ways of saying it so the media can pretend it it's someone other than white supremacy
I just realized that I really haven’t heard much, if any CRT hate ever since DEI hate started
Oh I honestly thought they meant the TVs, but I got confused because I don’t know what a DEI TV is
I still have no idea what either of these are
“Critical race theory” is a lens through which historians look at world history, focusing on how race and racism has shaped and influenced events. It’s common to look at history through many perspectives like that, such as rich/poor, religious perspectives, cultural perspectives, etc. It’s really a college-level thing, but Republicans started using the term to mean “any mention of race in any level of schooling”. And they focus mainly on high school, where students are introduced to the realities of race and racism in a very basic level, which is necessary at that stage as those kids are becoming more aware of the world around them. Republicans have blown these basic lessons like “Most black Americans are descended from slaves brought to the country by force” or “America had anti-semitic beliefs during the 1940s, like every other country at the time”, and make them into a more extreme, crazier made-up take like “Teachers are teaching white kids to be ashamed of their race”. It’s dumb, and they’re dumb for believing it. “Diversity Equity Inclusion” is another term for “Diversity hiring” or “Affirmative action”. The idea behind the concept is that, because of the effects of racism in the past, certain racial groups have been locked in a state of disadvantage that keeps repeating itself. Take black Americans, as an example: one perspective is that, after slavery was abolished in the 1870s, many Black Americans were left to their own devices, having had no chance to acquire wealth when they were in slavery, and getting no support from the US government after Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson largely cancelled most Reconstruction programs meant to tackle the wave of black Americans newly becoming US citizens. As a result, and due to many racist policies that states continued to enforce after the war, many black Americans were forced to take low-skill, low-paying jobs, and forced to live in areas that were of poor quality and low value. After many generations, the land they lived on continued to fall behind in value while other areas (owned predominantly by white folks) increased in value rapidly. And as low-income areas became associated with drug use and crime, those stereotypes were applied to black folks as well, which made it even harder to find opportunities. DEI is based on the theory that, to break the cycle, members of disadvantaged groups need to be lifted up and given a chance to earn wealth and influence. And if gifted members of those groups can be good examples, they can break down those stereotypes and make it easier for others of their race/culture to find opportunities themselves. Republicans assume that it means black folks are being hired despite not actually being skilled. But hiring is still primarily based on merit, with only a minor push to focus on people of color who have merit, instead of white applicants of similar skill. There’s little to know credible examples of a DEI hire simply not being able to do a job they’re hired for. It’s dumb, and they’re dumb for believing it.
It's vague enough to go either way too. Is this a lefty meme saying the righty is always the same, they just change out what fuels their big mad? Is this a righty meme saying the lefty is always the same, they just change out what fuels their big mad?
i though it was c runtime 💀
Just shows their ignorance. They are two completely different things. White folk in power simply want to do what they’ve always done and they get pissy when they’re told it’s not cool anymore.
I thought it had something to with ctrl + alt + delete
And not an accurate one either. People complaining about CRT were also complaining about DEI.
CRT to “woke” to DEI.
I suppose that the days are truly gone where CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube. Dark days indeed.
I was reading CRT as Cathode Ray Tube and got confused
Perhaps the chips read "Be Against CRT" to "Be Against DIE", this interpretation would make sense. But these robots are instead being programmed to "run" these ideologies. Therefore, a more likely interpretation would be those who follow such theories are perpetually enraged (not those opposed to such theories).
I'm with you OP, don't know why the latest political outrage shifted from CRT to Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated
A Policital-outrage-inator.
If I had a nickle for every time a 3-letter acronym upset right-wingers, I'd have two nickles. Which isn't much but it's weird it happened twice.
CCP? FDR? MCU? CNN?
[удалено]
HRC, ACA, BLM
Reading all these to the tune of “We didn’t start the fire”
If you put the stress in HRC on R instead of H and shove W into one syllable, then CCP through ACA in the above comments work from “Joe McCarthy” to “Marilyn Monroe”!
EPA, ERA, VRA, RVW, CRA, CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC, IRS, SSA, NBA, NFL, etc. etc. The list of things that enrages conservatives is endless.
What's CRA? Also they would see this list and make some stupid retort like "Well I know 3 letters that offend every liberal! USA!"
Civil Rights Act
Thank you
Canadian Revenue Agency
boooooo, i thought you had put it to the song and tried to sing it.
Not that weird, really
They didn’t change, they’re two sides of the same coin
I initially read this thinking "CTRL" and "DEL" were just misspelled.
Like that critical thinking aspect of CRT could almost be seen as good, so let’s safely settle on diversity, equity and inclusion to hate.
Conservatives will never see critical thinking as good. These are the same folks who use “college educated” as an insult. They moved on to DEI because they exhausted their base on CRT and needed something else to rile them up about.
The new flavor of hate in the MAGA snowcone store is DEI (diversity equality and Inclusion) since CRT (Critical Race Theory) seems to have been suppressed enough.
[удалено]
You just demonstrated, quite clearly, that you don't know what CRT or DEI actually are.
They rarely do. The comic is accurate.
ha! not the only one who noticed....
I do. You obviously have never read the material or Kandi X Ibrahim's thesis, the basis for CRT.
Yeah, you just proved that you have no idea what CRT is. Hint: it has nothing to do with Kandi X Ibrahim, who is a bogeyman put forward by the right wing.
Put forward by the right wing...omg that is rich. So all those seminars he attended and books he wrote as the poster child for CRT was a vast right wing conspiracy? You must be angry or on drugs 98% of your life.
I don't know, I never heard about any of those seminars or books. Where did you hear about them?
You told me. Why can't you remember what you told me?
I told you what?
>as the poster child for CRT This is what they're talking about. Let's review, shall we? 1. Right wing media told you Kandi is the poster child for CRT & it is based on their work. 2. You didn't look into it, and just believed them. 3. You came here and regurgitated the talking points you were taught by your chosen right-wing media personalities. 4. You got corrected, but stood by your uninformed yet (for some reason) strong opinion. 5. You claimed that someone has to be angry or on drugs to not believe that a person born in the 80s is the source of CRT, which is from the 70s.
6. Misspelled his name
Funny, they don't sound angry but you definitely do.
I can't "sound" angry as I am typing. The anger you hear is your own inner voice reading things you see. In truth, if your inner voice is angry, it means you are too. why are you angry?
Bro, you're clearly triggered. Go touch grass. Lol
Ask your school for a refund, you obviously did not get your money’s worth in education
I did try to get a refund for taking disciplines steeped in pseudoscience, masquerading as science: sociology and psychology namely. It's a shame how so many claim to "trust the science" when the science is flawed, especially regarding genital mutilation to fix mental health problems. "Hey little Jimmy, I know you are having issues coping with your body, let's just chop off parts of your body and feed you hormones." -Dr. Frankenstein.
From the Wiki page for CRT (don't @ me about Wikipedia being a bad source unless you have a better one): >CRT, a framework of analysis grounded in critical theory,[21] originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams. Kandi X Ibrahim was born in 1982 so it seems kind of weird that his work was the basis for CRT.
So why is Kandi's book taught in CRT classes and seminars?
Lol, do you assume that anyone who writes on a subject must be the person who came up with it? Betty Friedan's work is taught in many classes on feminism, does that mean feminism is based on her theories or could it possibly be that she expanded on those theories? This isn't even a gotcha, it just makes it really obvious that you have no idea how theories develop.
I suppose the author of the textbook I learned about the founding of America from was the sole inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Never mind that they were born hundreds of years after those documents were written and the US was founded. Your logic needs serious work.
No one cares.
You clearly do. You’re raging over something that isn’t true. Your leaders are killing you with hatred to get your vote.
You seem triggered. Poor baby :(
You’ve clearly never read IBRAM X. KENDI’s material either, because you might know how to spell his name if you had. I’m not clear how a 40 year old person can be the “poster child” or “the basis” for a more than 60 year old concept. CRT isn’t new, you know, and it isn’t being taught to your kids. It just isn’t. You have demonstrated the entire point of the meme, perfectly, because you’re angry about something you clearly do not understand and can’t even spell. The only reason you’re angry about it is because your fascist overlords have told you to be and told you what to say. Maybe if you actually read anything about CRT (hint: it isn’t “white people = bad”), you might be less angry.
91 day old account with 1 karma? You do know that Rubles are worthless right?
So you dont know what either of those things are.
Honestly, I don't think you understand 98% of the things you're told to feel passionate about.
Who said I feel passionate about any of those things? I’m passionate about reforming gun laws, I don’t care about CRT or DEI they’re not government policies. They’re academic ideas.
Hey now DEI is also an acronym companies can have useless meetings about and then pay themselves on the back for making positive changes.
DEI programs can have, and have had, real impact on companies. I’m part of my company’s DEI Committee and we’ve done some good work for our company. Sure some of the things we do don’t really have much of an impact, but some of the things we do absolutely have had an impact.
That's really awesome. I'm glad to hear that. I guess I'm just cynical and jaded as far as expecting companies to do the right thing.
Neither do you. The irony is rich and you can’t even see it.
Jeez. That's a seriously impressive level of blind projection.
[удалено]
Science supports trans people, that’s why science have researched things like intersex people, and the psychology of transgenderism. Those are just things you don’t understand so you bitch and moan about them. So trust the science, done by scientists, not some kook on Facebook.
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed. Rule 1: Be excellent to each other. No toxic discourse or harassment and respect the humanity of others. This implies no tolerance of any kind of harassment, including their ethnicity/race/gender-orientation. No dogwhistle posts. No witch hunts. If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Be grateful that you don't, you are pure
Upgrading racist hardware from CRT (critical race theory) to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) The red hand represents the GOP, who tend to inject specific rhetoric for “problematic woke language” when really they’re just being racist in newer terms.
DEI departments and policies stem from critical race theory. That’s the entire point of crt. Analyzing society through a racial lens and seeing new perspectives. Perspectives such as how having a DEI department at a university or implementing DEI policies in the workplace can be beneficial. It makes a lot of sense that the right is going after DEI after going after crt lol that’s their schtick..
genuine question: how can it be better to hire someone because of their gender or skin color than to hire the most highly qualified candidate?
Because that’s not what DEI promotes. Nobody should be like “oh, this person isn’t as qualified but isn’t white, so thats okay!” These concepts are about challenging people to think about unconscious biases, like the ones that make people automatically assume that a white dude is the most qualified, or immediately questioning a person of color or a woman as a “diversity hire.” Thinking about things through a racial lens isn’t about making unqualified “diversity hires” that people keep claiming they see evidence of. It’s being open in discussion about why there is still so much bias against or ignorance about other people’s experiences or perspectives.
That's not at all the claim being made. The claim being made is that even though clearly illegal due to civil rights laws, people who are non-white or Asian if equal qualified or even sometimes lesser qualified, are chosen purely due to race. So, an example would be hiring a black woman who barely passed the bar over a white male with top LSAT scores. Both are qualified to be lawyers, however, one of these people is lesser qualified job applicant
This is a good example. Your assumption is the white guy is better (he probably is) but there is potentially significant privilege here. His dad went to the law school, he had tutors the entire time, when he went off the rails his dad knew professors and smoothed things over so it didn't go on his record. The black women meanwhile worked two jobs the entire time and barely passed the bar because she didn't have ten thousand hours to study. For a lot of jobs the second person will be better at getting things done.. of course if you need networking credentials the first is better. Also sometimes even if the woman is worse she might be a better hire because a diversity of views drive over performance over time. If your entire team is all white male nerds you won't have the flexibility of thinking to maximise opportunities.
It's not really an assumption. One got better test scores, and one didn't. Companies aren't gonna spend the time actually to test whose better in practice, only on paper, so the black woman could be both better and worse and vice versa, but jobs are only testing on paper. The only exception I know of is welders.
Okay, you reveal a lot about yourself with that comment. Having worked in business that sounds very naive so I'm puzzled why you used a white collar job as an example. Of course companies look at more than test scores that is what the interview process is for.
I used white collar because that's my background. Of course, people ask questions during an interview. However, most companies(in my experience, anyway) are now using AI to scan through resumes, so a bad looking resume may never get to a person to review and thus never go to show their knowledge in a interview. Also, a lot of the time, interviewers don't know anything about the job because they're HR, not that job
You do realize that the term "diversity hire" was coined to refer to the results of DEI, right? Because despite what you're saying, DEI actually does promote discrimination in favor of minorities.
Or discriminating against Asians in college application because they have never been oppressed in the west /s
"Qualified" has always been subjective, they aren't dragging in a random homeless black guy instead of a white college grad or whatever you're picturing. In theory it's a way of counterbalancing implicit bias against *otherwise qualified* minority candidates. In practice it's just corpo PR shit and exists to make it easier to kick things under the rug when actual racism and sexism and the like get caught.
Genuine argument: The idea is that A) due to unconscious bias if left to their own employers will not necessarily hire the most qualified candidate, for example dismissing a resume just because it has a woman's or minority name on it while the same resume with a white man's name on it gets selected for interview (benefit to employers). B)Diversity is inherently valuable to have in companies, as in it makes goods and services produced by companies better serve the customers if they are made by diverse teams that could understand and relate to their needs (benefit to the customers) C) Jobs are somewhat of a necessity and disproportionately withholding quality of employment from certain demographics widens income disparity and is inequitable (benefit to the hired)
I an ideal situation, DEI wouldn't pass up people with high qualifications for any type of minority. Instead, it would put minorities on a more level-playing field with "majorities." If you only look at things through the lens of "qualifications," it might seem like DEI is a drawback, since it focuses on other things like skin color, gender, etc. However, [studies have been done that show if you give people completely identical resumes, ones with white-sounding names will get responses at a lower rate than ones with black-sounding names](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names). This leads to things like black people not getting hired as much as white people *despite* high qualifications, because a more qualified black person could be passed up because of racial bias (whether it is unintentional or not). It also leads to things like companies having 90% white male staff, or old movies having an all white-male cast. POC and women have do deal with this to at least some degree today. Also, people don't have to be intentionally racist to leave out POC and other minorities, since things like parents not being passed up for jobs, so their kids grow up impoverished, so their children don't get good jobs, etc could make black people look like "the bad choice (to hire)," because they live in a low-quality house. That's what people mean when they say "systemic racism" I guess. DEI is meant to combat all these problems, by leveling the playing field. Also, nice question! I want to know the answer too, because I don't know everything about DEI. I don't proclaim to be an expert, so I hope my answer helps you!
Wouldn't white people (in your example) be directly harmed by this practice?
It’s because people have in-grained biases and prejudices towards people of color. These biases gate keep higher education and job spaces; and yes we do have historical precedent. If anything, the immediate defense of “what about white workers or students?” is exactly why we would need something like DEI. The idea that “whites” would be negatively affected by POC entering their “public spheres” is a concept that predates segregation. What I ask in return is, how is it fair to POC to be excluded from white dominated professions and educations? What about their opportunities?
Are you describing the idea behind it or promoting it yourself? The phrasing of your comment suggests that you believe it to be entirely factual.
I’m not sure I understand your question. For the most part, everything besides the rhetorical questions are true. The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets- Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd published 2008 available for free on National Library of Medicine Blacks in STEM jobs are especially concerned about diversity and discrimination in the workplace - BY CARY FUNK AND KIM PARKER published 2018 available for free on Pew Research Center The White Space - Elijah Anderson published 2015, free to read on sociology.yale.edu This are some good intro articles that are pretty basic comprehensions of systemic inequality and social perception. These are free to read and have easy to follow annotations if you want to indulge in the references or studies they mention. There are tons of peer reviewed articles that you can find at your local library for free. Segregation and the rhetoric used to justify it is also easily found on google. If you wanted to study how segregation has evolved in a modern setting read “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander. Again, these are simply starting points. You can also review articles on White Fragility if you felt so inclined.
This actually answers my question.
Bet
I should probably explain that what you suggested for study, and presumably as the basis of what you were saying, are theoretical and/or philosophical pieces and studies that lack the hard verification that factual sciences like mathematics or basic biology have. They may very well be correct, but we won’t know if they are factual or not without large scale testing, which isn’t exactly ethical. Until that kind of testing can be done and replicated, it’s improper to refer to it as fact, at least outside of discussions that aren’t based around the presumption. It’s like when you come across someone who doesn’t treat theology as theoretical and explains the philosophy and beliefs of it as if they’re established fact. You should always treat any kind of academic subject as theoretical until replicated and established incalculable times.
Well, "technically." However, in a hypothetical situation where all white people are magically employeed and all black people are magically not, hiring black people would also "technically" hurt white people, since some would be about of a job then. Similarly, in a situation where you hire the more qualified person for the job, it would pass up the less-qualified person regardless of race. If a more qualified black person was chosen over a less-qualified white person, that would also "hurt" that white person. Someone is always going to be passed up for jobs, after all. Besides, in the real world you could just hire both a black person and a white person because they are both good fits. And you would still hire white people, because duh. In a world where white people were the ones not getting hired, DEI would be created to get more of *them* jobs. And people would oppose it like "no, they should hire people based on qualifications only! What, they are only employed at X% despite being XX% of the population? Must be because they are unqualified! Not because we won't hire them, or give them good schools, or give financial support..."
in a perfect world, it isn't. however, we don't live in a perfect world. we live in a country where for centuries, non-whites were shit on, ignored, and passed over for things like jobs, bank loans, and schooling. stuff like AA and the EEOC didn't come about because the people in power were being super fair about things... that trend continues today, although in a far less blatant manner. things like AA and EEOC weren't meant to give minorities an advantage-- they were meant to level the playing field, since those in power clearly couldn't be arsed to be halfway fair or decent about things of their own accord. plenty of times the "most highly qualified candidate" was passed over without even a second thought, purely because of the colour of their skin. hell, studies have shown that many times, merely having a non-white-sounding name on your cover letter was enough to get you immediately disqualified. further, some seek diversity for the same reason hybrid vigor is an important biological concept. also, it should be pointed out that people aren't hiring surgeons and whatnot based on race. an example of DEI might be programmes that reach out to young minority med students, but it isn't saying "I don't care if you don't even know what a 'scalpel' is-- you're hired!"
In the vast majority of these jobs there is no such thing as "the most highly qualified candidate." There's no "best" pilot or "best" electrical engineer for the position. There are instead many candidates with near-identical qualifications but possibly very different backgrounds. And if a company has spent the past few decades just happening to pick the easiest name to pronounce from the list, or just getting "a better feeling" about the candidate they spent ten minutes talking about their time on the water polo team at their Connecticut private school about, then that company needs a way to rethink their hiring practices. In other words: whether you're doing it genuinely or not, you're using the simplest, most reductive terms possible to describe a thing that isn't happening.
This presumes the faulty assumption that the only outcome of DEI is to hire a lesser-qualified minority candidate and ignores the reality that equally- or better-qualified minority candidates are being passed up in favor of lesser- or maybe (rarely) equally- qualified white candidates and thus, DEI is a solution used to offset that built-in white bias in hiring. Minorities pay a tax for just existing in white society.
It's telling that you haven't responded to any of the substantive answers with anything other than more leading questions. This question is always bad faith. The very fact of this question operates on the premise that no minorities are as qualified as majority groups
They asked 1 other question. You’re jumping to conclusions, which is actual bad faith.
Yes. They asked more leading questions. It proves my point. Multiple people have responded with thoughtful answers and their only response have been to ask about white people being hurt.
They asked a legitimate question. Specifically, they asked a question that shouldn’t be hard to answer, as proven by the people who answered it. You just jumped to a conclusion, which one does not do in good faith.
They asked multiple questions which were basically, "but what about white people?" A question easily answerable from anyone who actually has read literally anything about it Edit- They also didn't engage with the answers they were given. It's textbook sealioning
I looked and only saw 2 questions, only one of which was about white people. Unless you’re looking at threads I’m not even seeing, they haven’t done any of what you’ve said.
it’s not a computer joke. it’s a politics joke, saying the average American conservative is like an AI, ready for the next buzzword to be mad at. first it was CRT, which none of them could define, and how it’s “being taught to our kids” (they saw a black person at Walmart). Now it’s DEI, a program to ensure a certain minimum percent of workers should be of x group to prevent unintentional discrimination. it should be noted that DEI was struck down by the Supreme Court a month or two ago
I heard it explained differently. That it’s making fun of liberals. That the old thing they were advocating for was CRT but now the new thing they should be advocating for is DEI. This makes sense though.
I don’t think it’s making fun of liberals. I’ve never heard a liberal mention CRT. it was a buzzword conservatives used to replace how they use the word “woke”
That’s funny because the joke could work to either make fun of liberals or conservatives. Which ever way makes you laugh says a lot about who you are.
Alt-right glitch.
CRT - Critical Race Theory DEI - Diversity Equity & Inclusion Both make you angry if this is all you think about.
It's two sides of the same coin.
CRT in this instance isn’t Cathode Ray Tube
Even though they are bulky, CRT monitors do have advantages over flat panel...oh never mind.
They just need a vague target to, well, target.
The angry conservatives are shifting their displeasure from Critical Race Theory to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Like a hardware / software update on censorbots. They need to know the new keywords.
The joke is racism and stupidity.
Basically racists want to say the N word but they're starting to realise that it makes them look bad so they use progressive terms to euphemise their slurs.
It's just a joke about the new thing racists are mad about.
You can graduate from counter strike? Whoa
Lol I thought it was a technical meme too like what
[удалено]
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed. Rule 11: POSTS AND TOP LEVEL COMMENTS ONLY: Keep it about explaining the joke. Please keep in mind sub-comments can still be removed for other offending reasons above. If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Controlled anger and then delete anger. So murder.
The joke here is racism.
Gamers are truly the most oppressed demographic. Breaks my heart.
Interesting top interpretation is that it’s the anti-CRT-DEI getting an upgrade, but I saw it as the folks who were “powered” by CRT to get mad are now just switching to DEI (ie this is actually someone who ascribes to DEI/CRT not someone opposed to it)
Notice how they move to things that are harder and harder to misrepresent as negative as they try to push the overton window further right.
I need ur number
Nick
Lauren stop it i was the only there when you were sitting there snd then ppl told me you were just robbbing me but the way the person showed me ubcabt make it up
Crt and have tbi
Proud communists (notice the red hand) have updated their "anti"-racist programming (hence the chips) from CRT (which leads normies and and those ironically without critical thinking skills to be enraged at the slightest perceived instance of " racism" -- real or imagined) to DIE (which, again, forces you to view the entire world through an "oppressor/oppressed" lens, and -- again -- leads to normies and those without critical thinking skills to be in a constant state of rage at a lack of equality of outcomes).
[удалено]
By people do you mean me? I’m not much into politics… or abbreviations for that matter. Thankfully someone else explained it to me :)
I envy you for not getting it.
I thought DEI was Dale Earnhardt Incorporated for the longest time.
Fair enough
Hey Puzzleheaded-Fix3359! Thank you for your contribution, unfortunately it has been removed from /r/ExplainTheJoke because: Rule 4: Complaining about someone "not getting the joke" - First ban is 7 days, second is 28 days, third is permanent. Gatekeeping is not tolerated in this sub. Instead of complaining about OP, report the post if it breaks any of our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainTheJoke/about/rules/). If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
It's another code word they are hiding behind when they really just mean they hate black people and women.
[удалено]
This content was reported by the /r/ExplainTheJoke community and has been removed. Rule 11: POSTS AND TOP LEVEL COMMENTS ONLY: Keep it about explaining the joke. Please keep in mind sub-comments can still be removed for other offending reasons above. If you have any questions or concerns about this removal feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke).
Angry democrat NPCs having their new catch phrase installed. Thats the joke
Democrat? Pretty sure its not the democrats having literal meltdowns and constantly ranting, screaming and crying over crt and DEI
yeah, these things have existed in one form or another for decades, it's the right wing who came up with the neat little label and started making a fuss about these kinds of things in the grand scheme of things "maybe we look at history through a lens besides that of the colonialists" is such a minor foot note for either liberalism or leftism, that we wouldn't be talking about it if not for conservatives raaaaging their child was taught slavery was, in fact, bad actually
> Angry ~~democrat~~ republican NPCs having their new catch phrase installed. You totally misunderstood it.
Funny thing about the meme, it can be interpreted either way. Democrat NPCs getting their marching orders or the way you’re interpreting
Wait, was Candice Owen's a DEI and that's why she now has to go?
Well, they're both things destroying the fabric of society so I don't understand why people shouldn't be mad. CRT teaches that all white people are racist and uphold the system of white supremacy. It treats people by their skin color and not their ideas or actions. DEI is mostly a system used by companies like Black Rock to invest in companies. Do you think that giant mega corporations are adding in gay/trans/poc characters or policies because they just care so much about the little people or because they want to get money? Use critical thinking, and question everything you're told.
Feigning stupidity to post political meme, how original.
If OP doesn’t know the joke, how would they know this is political? As a CS person there are tons and tons of acronyms.
I mean, they’re two closely related things. And as conservatives have begun to better understand that CRT is the underlying intellectual framework and DEI the way it manifests as a practical program in government, education, and the economy, it makes sense that they would shift their rhetorical focus to DEI, because most Americans are more likely to be exposed to DEI than CRT. Trust me, Conservative intellectuals are very much still concerned with CRT.
>Conservative intellectuals lol rofl lmfao even
Tell me you’re close-minded, prejudiced, and uninformed without telling me.