I don’t need it to be my friend. I just need it to contain human violence by having a monopoly on it. You might see that as a negative, but I see it as a positive and history is obviously on my side as well, because we would have not achieved the things we have without states. You might think I lack imagination, that there are other possible systems but the truth is that all I have to do is look at the beings that are 99.99% like us to understand how we would exist without a state. We already lived like them and decided that giving the monopoly over violence to the few was better and led to more stability.

I agree with the sentiment though, humans will never be truly equal while some hold the authority to exert violence and others don’t. Once we invent God we can hand over the monopoly to it, and then we can be equal.

Yes I agree.

But the notion that no police at all is a good idea is absolutely ridiculous. I can empathize if you live in a place where the police force is fully corrupt but this is systemic, it’s the same thing that causes poor communities to have more crime. Now I could start saying that poor people are criminals and I would be flayed alive (rightfully so), but it is the exact same thing as saying that all cops are criminals or abusers. Some of them are, many of them maybe, and in some places most of them but that in itself is not a problem inherent of the concept of having someone to protect the peace and make sure that rules are followed.

It betrays a real lack of critical thought imo.

Damn generalizing a large group of people always works out great right?

I really hope you never need an officer for anything, but if you do I hope you’ll remember this conversation and maybe walk away with the right lesson.

I read lots of books. Maybe you should read more books, they help with empathy and critical thinking skills.

Not what I said at all. I said that because you both participate in society and have no option other than to participate in it you should be empathetic towards them. That’s all.

Just because you haven’t needed them yet doesn’t mean that you might need them sometime in the future. Best keep that in mind.

I don’t see any point in spreading vitriol about people anyways. They’re just like anyone else, a cog in the machine, trying to make a living. And just because some are bad, doesn’t mean that all of them are bad, and maybe we could stop more of the bad ones from popping up if we tried to understand what makes them bad. I’m willing to bet that the answer is the same as it is for any other worker that does a bad job: they’re being exploited with terrible working conditions, low pay (for the risk), high stress and peer pressure from others that strayed from their values because of the above. But I guarantee you that most cops don’t enter the force with bad intentions.

Yes surely having no police is a good idea. Leopards will definitely not eat your face.

Be nice to people, that’s all.

But I don’t see what’s productive about demonizing the police when we both know that the first thing you’ll do when someone breaks into your house or whoops your butt is call the police. Or do you think you can bring justice to perpetrators in your own terms with your own hands?

Until someone assaults you and you’re running like a bitch towards your nearest police station. We need to push for police reform, demeaning and treating them like enemies pre emptively will not help any of your causes, it only entrenches them further as tools of the state instead of protectors of the people (would you protect someone that hates you for no reason other than you are a part of the system, like everyone else?)

Yep, I especially appreciate the lack of apologies. An easy cop out would be to say he’s sorry but what would he be sorry for when he didn’t say anything wrong? This is a great response, and the only possible one. And still people will call it damage control.

You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.

I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.

Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.

That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory. I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.

But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?

Could you explain how DEI works in practice. Not in theory or what it is supposed to do, but rather how companies implemented it and carried it out.

I would argue that Apple has actually done more to increase the quality of working conditions in China than any other company. Is it still a horrible environment, yes, but without Apple I’m not sure that it would have been better.

I don’t find a problem with exploiting tax loopholes because 9/10 times the loopholes are there by design, this is something to take up with the IRS and the government, because corporations HAVE to take advantage of said loopholes to stay competitive.

But to address directly your comment, I didn’t say that them retaining DEI was a moral choice. I believe it was a business decision, which is why I framed it as them historically beating the market while these firms don’t. Apple has clearly seen the value of DEI in their revenue and operations, otherwise they would be cutting the program real quick.

Tim is a very pragmatic man, and like any CEO he’s not an ideologue so he paid the bribe. It’s the cost of doing business under the corrupt Trump administration. Is he a coward for doing so? Maybe. But if he didn’t pay it and Trump acted against Apple the blame would fall on Tim and he would be replaced with someone friendlier towards Trump. Maybe Tim figured it was better he stayed in charge to minimize damage, as gay man who has no doubt faced his fair share of persecution and prejudice.

Then again Peter Thiel is also gay and he’s the puppet master behind Silicon Valley’s sudden heel turn. So is Sam Altman who is also donating.

Yet that’s how many orgs implemented it which is why so many people are against it. It’s not that DEI is bad, it’s that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI at all. But the pendulum ever swings and always with more momentum towards progress.

You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.

I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.

Through the discussion I’ve had here I can see that I should have been more specific and defined what kind of algorithm is the problem. But that was the point of making the post in the first place, to understand why the narrative is not moving in that direction and now I can see why, it’s nuanced discussion. But I think it’s well worth it to steer it in that direction.

Exactly my point. In lemmy I can still see all the posts, Meta’s algorithm will remove stuff from the feeds and push others and even hide comments. It is literally a reality warping engine.

I dunno, old forums were fun as fuck and they had no algorithm beyond sorting by most popular, new etc. Hey if it makes people spend less time looking at their phone it is still a win in my book— I type as I spend hours on my tablet. I’m a hypocrite, won’t lie.