I’ve been participating in the NAACP Boycott since it was announced.
It’s particularly challenging to boycott Walmart, Target, and Tractor Supply in a small town. Particularly when you’re already boycotting Amazon, but I’ve made it work…
I’ve been participating in the NAACP Boycott since it was announced.
It’s particularly challenging to boycott Walmart, Target, and Tractor Supply in a small town. Particularly when you’re already boycotting Amazon, but I’ve made it work…
Maybe Americans should wake up to the fact that there’s a child raping pedophile who shits himself that they’ve overwhelmingly voted into office twice in their henhouse and who has yet to legally release all the Epstein files to the public to show what an absolute piece of shit he is.
I don’t think the problem is DEI or equal rights. The problem is the rot they’ve enabled, and the lack of doing anything to stop it.
I will never ever set foot in a Target again when they completely abandoned their commitment to DEI.
No corporation is pro-working class.
That being said, some are certainly worse than others.
I will forever remain a loyal Costco member if they keep up their pro-consumer practices, including keeping their DEI programs.
And AFAIK you can't just get a job at Costco anymore (unless it's something very specific that requires certain education /skill?), you have to work 1-2 years as contractor and hope to get an offer.
If you know what's worth getting and what isn't at Costco, membership is still a good deal and if you know your spend, even just 3k a year, it's worth being executive member over regular, as you get it back (60+) in cashback, but they are enshittifying at breakneck speed.
I work at a Costco and we pretty regularly hire people with little to no experience so I'm not sure where you heard that first part. But they're still a corporation and corporations suck so not defending them
If we ignore the (good) morality of DEI, there is plenty of pragmatic value in having it: You get to hire the best people for the job, and work with a wider variety of customers.
Woke is good and practical.
The correct saying is, "Go Fash, Lose Cash."
Apple absolutely shouldn't be in this list. They are basically working for ICE at this point.
Also they're a shit company for so many other reasons
I’ve just been saying “go woke or go broke” for a little while now.
The correct saying is, “Go Fash, Lose Cash.”
Tongue-twisters don't generally make great slogans
Folks here's the deal. Corporations have an obligation to the shareholder over everyone else. Costco doesn't give a shit about consumers. Costco cares about nurturing and communicating their brand, which is all about being pro-consumer.
Target doesn't give a shit about you. Apple doesn't give a shit about you. Nike. Whatever brand you love, it doesn't love you back. Unless you're a shareholder and you want a very specific thing.
Corporations that kept DEI had their internal prognosticators tell them "it'll blow over and be better for us if we stay the course." That's it. Never in any meeting did someone utter the words "It's the right thing to do, that's why."
Corporations that tossed DEI made a different calculation.
That's it.
So celebrate that our side currently has a very good market segment in all these corporations, but don't celebrate anything else.
None of the people who hated DEI/affirmative action could ever tell me what it actually is. None of the people who say “let the market decide” understand or recognize that there are serious financial benefits to diversity based practices.
Costco doesn't give a shit about consumers. Costco cares about nurturing and communicating their brand, which is all about being pro-consumer.
You're not strictly wrong, and I understand that corporations are not anyone's friends, but the line between these two distinctions is vanishingly thin.
DEI since the start also was completely just "lets look like we care about it", I wouldn't be suprised if it is completely utterly innefective at achieving the stated goal of promoting inclusion
Yep. It's the same reason why corporations generally support women in the workplace, too. It's an amoral calculation about more consumption.
But I'm pretty sure I saw that corps also came down on racial equality in the Civil Rights era because it was better for business, they figured. Again, not necessarily a moral choice.
Call their bluff, every time. They're always bluffing, they're liars, it's a MAGA core characteristic.
Its is weird because I know people who work are target and a few who have been there for going on 30 years and their stories tend to be positive and describe a very inclusive environment. I mean compared to other companies in that market...
Target is one of the most DELIBERATELY evil retail corporations on earth. They have an entire surveilance and forensic side business developed specifically to coordinate with law enforcement throughout the community, not just inside their stores.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/10/21/target-forensics-lab
For decades, Target was a fairly progressive and forward thinking company (by big company standards). That was why it was such a kick in the dick when Target dropped DEI.
The whole situation was kind of weird since the CEO, Brian Cornell, who had been a vocal supporter of DEI and Target was wildly successful with him at the helm, seemed to lament the decision to end DEI... so who made that choice? The leader who pushed DEI and made us profitable was somehow overruled and it cost the company a shitload of money so now the CEO has to be replaced. What? What the fuck is going on a Target HQ?
Target created a surveilance system to track the minority population around their stores in Minneoplis so they could coordinate with law enforcement to suppress the "criminal element" in the city. They have an entire side-business that provides surveilance and forensic support to law enforcement all over the country.
It was all bullshit the entire time, the public lamentation over the decision is kayfabe. Target never actually supported anything except making more money, as soon as they thought they could make money being against DEI they jumped ship. It was just a very effective marketing campaign where they faked support because it benefited them financially.
investors probably? he dint resist hard enough. or hes secretly greedy.
I feel like that’s the case for a lot of them. The top level are publicly saying they are scrapping policies, but it’s still actually being observed in the lower levels. Like there’s a gap between what the executives are saying and what the actual people managing the company are doing.
A culture and attitude of inclusion seems to be more important than any policy could be?
I still laugh that Odyssey made so much fucking money. And still is making money. So far it has grossed over a billion. This, after so many conservatives told us that it was going to fail bigly because "woke".
Somehow, I feel this is another thing (like Gamergate or Obama winning 2 terms, or them losing the stupid culture war over gay marriage, etc.) that will break the brains of conservatives and they will mete out their backlash later on normal Americans for it...
Anyway, imagine people not choosing their entertainment based on a movie being "woke" or not....just because something like Star Wars The Acolyte sucked ballz and was "woke" doesn't mean people were rejecting it because it's "woke", and that's where the conservative culture warriors go so wrong on culture-war bullshit.
Same goes for companies that bent the knee - or not - when it came to the wishes of the most hateful people in the country. I'm not surprised at all to learn that a company not being "woke" didn't really matter to consumers and they were not really rewarded for getting rid of DEI or whatever, and that those that didn't get rid of it were not punished.
I'm sure quite a few Qnut types think that everyone in America is going to just start showering non-DEI companies with cash, but that's not how it works, LOL.
wait wat why was odyssey supposed to be woke?
Didn't you see that Elliot and Lupita had roles in the movie and appeared on screen for a few minutes? That's woke - to some people.
What the other poster said, I think. The right were and are having meltdowns over it.
Elon has claimed he's making his own AI-generated version that is appropriately "historic". You know, for a myth.
These people are stupid and crazy.
actually conservative gave it so much free press thats why people went to watch it, not for its accuracy, but for the novelty to piss cons off.
Haven't shopped Target since. Shop Costco regularly.
performed just as well as their competitors who pulled back.
Takeaway: no one cares.
Go nazi declare bankruptcy
Redpilled, Get killed
Go fash lose cash
Lick boot, lose loot
Go right eat shite
All incel, no braincells
Nazi salute, go destitute
ADL, common L
Ku Klux, lose bucks
Apartheid, all downside
The issue here isn’t necessarily DEI itself. The fact that some companies performed better after implementing DEI programs and policies doesn’t necessarily mean they performed better simply because they became more inclusive. I think what may have actually happened is that these companies changed their hiring methods and policies in ways that reduced nepotism, cronyism, and other forms of favoritism, creating a more merit-based hiring system. And of course, that can translate into better profits because you’re hiring the best-qualified employees rather than your cousin, brother, sister, or some guy who happens to look like you.
because you’re hiring the best-qualified employees rather than your cousin, brother, sister, or some guy who happens to look like you
That was the whole point of DEI. Data showed that diverse companies were more profitable. Addressing bias (like nepotism), especially unconscious bias (“I trust this guy more because he looks like me”) was a primary initiative in DEI. The other was to encourage people who don’t normally speak up (either because they never get hired or because the environment is less psychologically safe for people like them) to do so and challenge group think. It was never meant to be”lower the bar”, but it was meant to force critical thinking around what the bar is.
I know the other guy thinks I'm not nuanced enough to understand this, but the issue is that you guys aren't actually understanding the distinction I'm making.
The side effect of DEI was, in many cases, a push toward combating nepotism, cronyism, and arbitrary hiring practices in favor of hiring based on merit. And frankly, that should have been the goal from the beginning. The DEI framework wasn't necessarily required to accomplish that.
If you simply eliminate or curtail nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, and other arbitrary barriers to employment, you are already creating many of the outcomes people associate with DEI: a broader pool of candidates, more equal opportunity, and greater emphasis on qualifications rather than who someone knows or what social group they belong to.
That's where I think the problem ultimately becomes one of semantics and framing. It's similar to what George Carlin was getting at with examples like "shell shock" becoming "post-traumatic stress disorder": sometimes we change the terminology and then end up arguing about the terminology rather than the underlying phenomenon.
By calling the entire project "DEI", diversity, equity, and inclusion, the debate became about the meaning and implications of those words instead of focusing on the actual institutional problems we should be addressing.
And we keep doing this for some reason. We give a perfectly straightforward objective a politically loaded name, and then everyone spends their time fighting over the nomenclature instead of fixing the underlying problem.
Combating nepotism is a great idea. Calling it DEI was, in my opinion, a terrible idea.
The better approach would have been to focus on transparent hiring, equal opportunity, eliminating nepotism and cronyism, and selecting people based on their qualifications and ability to do the job. Those principles naturally produce a more diverse workforce when the old barriers to entry are removed.
And that's the part I think gets lost in the argument: the goal shouldn't be "including people into the workforce." People don't need to be artificially included if the system isn't artificially excluding them in the first place.
Remove the arbitrary barriers, judge people on their qualifications, and let the resulting workforce be whatever it naturally becomes. That's a much easier principle to defend than turning the entire discussion into a fight over what DEI does or doesn't mean.
The side effect of DEI was, in many cases, a push toward combating nepotism, cronyism, and arbitrary hiring practices in favor of hiring based on merit.
That was not a side effect, that was the intent. I worked on DEI initiatives. Nepotism, managers higher their friends instead of the most qualified candidate was part of those conversations, they were raised by the employees we talked to. All those things are forms of bias.
The DEI framework wasn't necessarily required to accomplish that.
Intentionally addressing bias isn’t necessary to combat people who have a bias against those who are not their friends or family?
By calling the entire project "DEI", diversity, equity, and inclusion, the debate became about the meaning and implications of those words instead of focusing on the actual institutional problems we should be addressing.
That’s literally what you’re doing though. You are claiming the problem is how we named it, and arguing if we had only referred to it as something else, it would not have been a problem.
It’s easy to complain about the efforts trying to address a problem, it’s harder to actually put forth that effort.
Also, if a political group wants to demonize something, it doesn’t matter what you name it, they will demonize it. You had states legalizing Civil Unions instead of Marriages for same-sex couples: they STILL demonized the relationships. People like you were saying “the name Marriage is the problem, just call it something else”. We clearly see now that the name was never the problem.
I actually come across this argument fairly often when engaging with people on platforms like this: “No, actually, I was directly involved with forming/inventing the very thing you're against.” It's a remarkably convenient argument.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were, in fact, involved in forming some kind of DEI policy at the company level. You may very well have personally said, “We're doing this to combat nepotism by design.” I'll give you that.
But that's not what DEI, broadly speaking, was intended to accomplish. I literally cannot find anything indicating that combating nepotism was the defining purpose of DEI. As far as I can tell, the stated purpose of DEI was to address discrimination based on race, sex, disability, and other characteristics and to increase inclusion and representation in the workplace.
Now, here's where I think there is an important distinction. Some of the mechanisms used by DEI initiatives, such as standardized hiring processes, broader recruiting pools, structured interviews, and more objective qualification criteria, can absolutely have the unintended or secondary effect of reducing nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism.
I fully admit there is a connection there, and I would even argue that reducing those practices can be a significant benefit to society. But what something is intended to accomplish, how it accomplishes it, and what ultimately happens as a result are three different things.
A policy can have an outcome that wasn't its primary objective. If DEI hiring practices happened to reduce nepotism by forcing companies to rely less on personal connections and more on standardized qualifications, that's an observable outcome. It doesn't mean combating nepotism was the original purpose of DEI.
And that's where the “I helped create it, so I know what it was for” argument falls apart. Even if you personally designed a particular corporate DEI program with anti-nepotism objectives in mind, your individual intentions don't establish the universal purpose of DEI as a concept. You could have designed your program differently from other organizations.
What could have happened and what did happen are also completely different questions. I have no idea what would have happened if these companies had implemented the exact same anti-nepotism and merit-based hiring reforms under a different, less politically charged name. Maybe the outcomes would have been similar. Maybe they wouldn't have. That's a counterfactual, and we can't simply treat it as established fact.
You can sit here and yell at windmills until the cows come home, but changing the terminology doesn't change the underlying distinction: intent is not outcome, and correlation is not purpose.
And finally, the constant comparison to gay marriage doesn't really work. DEI and gay marriage are two completely different issues involving different historical circumstances, different policy mechanisms, and different desired outcomes. Whatever similarities exist in the political controversy surrounding them don't establish that the two issues will, or should, follow the same trajectory.
everyone spends their time fighting over the nomenclature instead of fixing the underlying problem
Well said. What you're describing reminds me of something I read long ago: essentially, auditioning for a position in an orchestra. But the person played from behind a curtain, so that the listeners/judges wouldn't have bias. Simple, effective, and you get the most talented players in your ensemble
How to implement best practices, without giving it a label that malicious ass hats can manipulate
DEI is what companies use to pacify wronged employees who belong to minority groups. "We're not discriminating against you because we have this corporate slop to point at" kind of deal. In my experience anyway. The backlash against DEI just makes it look more legitimate as an anti-discrimination effort.
The company is going to fuck people over whether said people are pro or anti DEI. They just want your labor and your money.
Where I work is pretty woke still, I don’t know why someone cares much about what their workmates are or want to be
Costco just does the bare minimum of ethical behavior and is somehow one of the most ethical companies in America
Company A: "We're done with this DEI shit. Fire everyone browner than a paper bag and promote only the most nepotistic failkids during White Boy Summer"
Company B: "We're going to continue hiring and promoting on merit and... oh wow, we've got a bumper crop of talented, motivated LGBTQ and POC suddenly lining up outside the door."
Wonder what happens next
Company A starts what we’ve discovered is essentially an inbreeding program, with extra steps. Generations of it will fail and live off large corporate bailouts, which it will later use to try eating smaller companies to appear successful from the outside to the less educated public.
Company A starts what we’ve discovered is essentially an inbreeding program, with extra steps.
The Habsburgs prove you can keep grinding on for a while even when you're inbreed to shit. But the notion that you need to inbreed in order to get ahead in business is borderline superstitious. Rather, large and entrenched businesses have the luxury of doing this inbred bullshit so long as their social networks can support a steady business income from monopolized industry and captured markets.
And as a trans person I'll also say my Costco membership isn't going anywhere. That'd also because I have a big dog and she can't afford est anywhere else.
Even though they're cheap you shouldn't feed dogs hotdogs /s
Coincidentally, I had to give a past dog pain meds after an ACL surgery, and the pills were notoriously bitter and awful. Hiding them in hotdogs worked for a little while until she tasted a pill once. We also did cheese and chicken, which again worked until she tasted a pill then didn't trust us anymore. It was a long couple weeks.
the pills were notoriously bitter and awful
... Did people taste them? How do we know the dog meds tasted bad?
Often times dog meds are just people meds. I just looked it up and in my case we were giving her Tramadol. Once upon a time we were giving our dogs Zyrtec for allergies, but the dose was like 6x the human equivalent. We found an alternative that maybe was new at the time that was much cheaper and was a single pill dose.
Our cat was the same way. Pill pockets worked until they tasted it once. Then we'd have to switch flavors or brands.
It's probably not just the policies themselves. Caving to that type of pressure raises a big red flag about leadership competence.
Companies didn't adopt DEI to "go woke" they adopted it because it gave them access to a larger talent pool, which was often cheaper because they had not previously been recognized and therefore didn't have the work history to command higher wages. There was always a business case to be made for this kind of program and its why it was so broadly implemented.
No one abandoned programs like this because they were costly or harmful, the only companies that did so were trying to score political points with jerks. And the outcome of that is pretty predictable.
I've walked into a Target one time since they used the excuse of political pressure to drop their dei initiatives, and haven't made a purchase. I can't control a lot of things, but what I can do is not give money to shitty people and companies (short of taxes and other legally required payments). The list keeps growing, and I'm far from perfect at avoiding places, but the spend has definitely gone down at most of these places that I'm aware of.
Target has completely changed direction, btw. They fired the asshole CEO and flipped 180. Public is understandably hesitant to trust, but keep in mind Target is based in Minneapolis and they were not happy.
Target actually has an entire surveillance and video forensic side business based in Minneapolis that works closely with Federal law enforcement and almost certainly worked directly with ICE and their operations in Minneapolis and is likely why they were exceptionally aggressive in that city.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237917.pdf
Target is the tip of the fucking spear when it comes to fascist corporate/state law enforcement collaboration. They are NOT on our side and never have been.
Most, if not all, large corporations are inherently evil. Target is exceptional in that they have made a deliberate choice to make evil a core element of their business operations.
Awful and depressing. Target is a giant company and I can only speak to what I can see. Needless to say, I didn’t know about this.
I would like to include large partnerships and sole propietorships for sake of pedanting
It’s not that corporations are inherently evil. It’s that profit optimizing algorithms are inherently non-empathetic. These companies are basically algorithms, in the same way that a computer is basically a calculator (bad analogy, I know).
Every company has a value stream in which capital is produced through labor. The working components are the protocols, the procedure is the algorithm. The algorithm gets optimized by C-suite for the benefit of stakeholders. Benefit, meaning profit.
We’ve always known that corporation interests only sometimes align with social interests, because there’s a difference. Socially, you want a good life. Corporations want good profit. Sometimes having good profit means capitulating to society, but most often it actually doesn’t.
I’d like to see more worker owned businesses. The problem is that we don’t really have a culture where groups of people come together in order to form democratically run worker collectives. How can we build this culture?
If we could build that culture, I’d favor worker collectives over traditional corps any day of the week. It would fit into my mind much like preferring open source over SaaS.
I want to see groups of people with entrepreneurial spirits that get excited about the idea of building a worker collective to compete in the various sectors of the economy. We could create a “hit list,” containing some of the most shitty companies that we’d like to displace. We can target them while prioritizing collectives to produce.
Nuh-uh. They had the benefit of the doubt before, no longer. Have they brought back DEI initiatives? No, so they can fucking burn in a hole for all I care. They not getting my money.
Headline: “Thrived”
Body: “Performed just as well”
Hmmmm
So this is saying that pulling back dei practices did not negatively impact the companies. I would love to see the comparison of projected revenue and benchmarks.
I'm surprised it's only just as well. DEI is meant to help the cream rise to the top
Incorrectly searched for “tim cook trump,” when it seems like the intent was to search for Apple’s hiring and retention practices
That being said, Tim Cook kissing the ring and Trump's ass puts just as bad a taste in my mouth about Apple as it does companies that did strip their DEI policies.
Love me some Costco.
Except for that one time they wouldn't sell me ONE huge pack of pastries without me also taking the free second huge pack of pastries. Like, what? I'll take the loss, man, I don't need 15000 calories.
all 2 comments