I like political discussions and I would be excited to see TWIT not shy away from them over the next 4 years. I think it’s exciting (good & bad) ((chaos is exciting, kind of)) (((maybe i’m biased as i’m canadian, so it’s not necessarily happening to me. although trump is bullying us)))
3 Likes
Not all things are or have to be political, our argued with activists… I always ask why did someone choose to present this information to me? What do they gain? What do they want me to feel? To your atom analogy. The anti-nuclear activists / regulators were successful in killing carbon/air pollution free electric generation construction 50 years ago. Not the weapons. Nuclear fission regulation is a prime example of how activist/regulators who were short sighted and self serving killed clean renewable energy in the 70s, including hydro. How much better would the climate problem be if they had been unsuccessful? As a result of their short-sighted regulations we were stuck using coal and fossil fuel far longer (82% of all electricity at last check). Its not like we didn’t know about climate risk in the 70s. Additionally. the air pollution from which has resulted in of hundreds thousands of people dying prematurely from breathing polluted air from fossil fuels that could have been prevented. If you believe the activists statics on fossil fuels. Thats the problem with activist regulators, they are short sighted and self-serving, and exactly what we need less of. The people who promote similar ideas in this show are thinking of their own interests not what is best for society.
In DEI, the E standards for Equity, which is not the same thing as Equal Opportunity. This key to the discussion is about how Equity vs Equal Opporuntity effects outcomes, where the rubber meets the road so to speak. Anti-discrimination laws going back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect citizens’ rights by ensuring that employers cannot make hiring decisions based on race, religion, or sex. Aka Equal Opportunity. Equity the driving force in (DEI) initiatives is often extended to establish or enforce quotas in hiring based on race, religion, sex or gender expression. Equity is not just about one’s abilities it also seeks to account and accommodate for one’s special circumstances. In other words it does not seek to treat all individuals equally, fairly, or impartially. I can think of no one in my current or previous professional positions who argued against the ideals of Diversity and Inclusion in the workforce. But those are characteristics of a workplace that hires the best people it can for the positions it has, in accordance with the talents, education, and skills of the employees, without regard for their immutable traits (sex, race, etc.). The debate centers around what is the best way forward to a star trek future where people of all kinds are selected for their talents regardless of their immutable traits? While Equity and Equality are similar seeming in definition, in practice the outcomes/implementations are different. Aka back to do we want Equal Opportunities, or do we want Equity of outcomes?