• Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 days ago

    Musk is a racist white South African who grew up in the ownership class and inherited an emerald mine. Behind the Bastards explains just how bad it gets.

    He’s going to have to proclivities towards elitism and towards preserving his privilege. And when that is challenged by the rise of class consciousness, it means he’s going to fall on the side of fascist autocracy, oligarchy and monarchism.

    No salute is necessary to determine where Mr. Musk falls in this paradigm, and he would rather kill, die and end the world than give up his wealth and power. I hope we don’t have to oblige him, but peaceful efforts to separate the super-wealthy from their ill-gotten gains have not historically succeeded, where guillotines (and hunting down any potential legal heirs, without remorse) have been more consistently effective.

    The trick is getting from that moment to one that distributes that wealth and power diffusely or into actually-for-real public-serving institutions. Historically, we fail to do that part and have to kill a sequence of dictators scrambling to own the One Ring for themselves.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    4 days ago

    For anyone who, like me, didn’t know:

    Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, prohibits discrimination in employment by federal contractors based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity in hiring. It aims to promote non-discriminatory practices in the workplace for those doing business with the federal government.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      The moment he takes away protections for race is the moment I stop hiring white people.

      In my industry, black people typically have lower salary expectations and have worked harder to get where they are.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        4 days ago

        I get what you’re saying but you’re also saying that it’s cool to be racist against white people just because some white people are insufferable antisocial mentally deficient assholes.

        I would never say this about any race because I’m not racist, all people are the same. What does that make you?

        • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          I had a similar argument the other day somewhere else. People seem to think you can’t be racist against white people, and argue that it’s not racism when they discriminate specifically upon the color of white people’s skin. Lemmy/Reddit/Social Media goes bonkers when you tell them that you can be racist against anybody regardless of skin color, as is the literal definition of racism. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously on the opposing side of the political spectrum, when people in their own clique think they’re dumb as hell.

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I’m not who you responded to, but I’m butting in here. I do not believe the person you responded to has shown any evidence of racism.

          What does their comment plus yours make them? I’d say a small force opposing the inevitable consequence to this revocation of employment rights. The inevitable consequence being for agencies to engage fewer visibly non-white contractors.

        • kofe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Not all people have the same opportunity. To say all people are the same is to deny systemic reality. Lemme know when everyone has similar wealth or power to Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      This deals with equal opportunity for federal contractors. It’s not directly tied to labor in the private sector.

      But also, yes. I feel like maybe it’s better in the long run if the federal government isn’t looking out for people, and they get accustomed to organizing themselves enough to demand better treatment from their employers without anyone needing to hand it to them.

      Maybe.

      IDK, maybe I am just trying to rationalize what is guaranteed to happen regardless.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    4 days ago

    A fair and equitable workplace should have been ratified in the constitution forever ago. Now we just lost our labor rights enforcement.

  • Aermis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    On the surface hiring based off merit sounds better than hiring for diversity, but is it that merit is harder to achieve in diverse communities because of socio economic class? Racism basically?

    • fruitycoder
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      “Merit” is defined by what is measured in most hiring it’s just a preference of the hiring body. As with a bunch of places around where I live, young single women, older women, old white guys, young white guys, and everyone else was the preference order…

      • Aermis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        What about qualified? Is there an argument to be had about hiring someone that is more qualified rather than on diversity?

        I’m not trying to be facetious here. I work as a union electrician and we have a diverse group, but majority of our workforce are men. On one project we needed 2 crew to run trench conduit (an apprentice and journey level to stay in ratio) but because it was a government project the hiring required us to also stay in diversity ratio. So the project manager anticipated the difficulty and hire 3. A woman and 2 men. All 3 were working on the trench, but due to the nature of the work (harder physical labor) the woman ended up holding a sign for the remainder of 6 months she had to be there to “fill” the diversity hire, as the original planned 2 man crew ran the trench to stay on schedule.

        In this scenario should there be a bigger budget for diversity hire to compensate the additional labor required due to qualifications not being met? Of course it easily could have been a rock of a woman and 2 men who couldn’t lift a shovel too. But if that was the case the unqualified labor would have been rotated out instead of staying to fill a required diversity slot. It could have been 2 people like originally planned and both could have been women who were qualified to do the work. But that means it’s qualification over them filling their diversity roles.

        • fruitycoder
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I agree there too. I think anyone thinking that it’s an easy task is lying. Forced top down initiatives suck period. They almost never account for the reality of the work because they aren’t looking at it, but instead abstractions and opinions of people looking at the people looking at the people doing the work.

          Personally, what makes more sense is an active monitoring indicators of discrimination and have that trigger a real analysis on why that is the case. What presumption of being a man actually makes them a better fit for the role and maybe just include that (i.e. are they able to put enough force in consistently enough to dig this thing)? The other is, is there an investment to be made to make said task easier so more people could do it?

          There is a sect of people that miss what the point of “diversity is our strength” which is that people can be better or worse at things or provide new perspectives. If we don’t allow people to do different things or listen to their perspectives there we aren’t getting more out of it

    • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Reminds me of that one popular Harvard philosophy lecture where the students were arguing whether it’s fair to grant admissions based on race over merit