Color blind policies.

I don’t think you understand. A color blind policy will, by definition, be unable to address issues which are not color blind.

1

So how do you account for the fact that, in many instances where a white person and a black person have the exact same qualifications, the white person will be far more likely to be hired?

How do you account for the fact that many people who are racial minorities aren’t born into families that can afford things like living in a house that doesn’t have leaded paint on the walls, meaning that a black person who has the exact same qualifications as a white person has had to work a lot harder to overcome their disadvantages to get those qualifications?

How do you account for the fact that diverse teams of individuals simply produce better results in the free market than homogeneous ones as a result of their more varied viewpoints?

There are so many reasons why “equity based on gender or skin color” for hiring and college applications and so on is absolutely necessary to address the inequities in our society, and why the baby steps that we’ve made since the civil rights movement haven’t been nearly enough to address the problems that they were meant to address. Frankly we should be talking about reparations in the form of just straight up giving large swathes of land and fat stacks of cash to certain groups, especially African Americans and American Indians, not these piddly little affirmative action programs that only kind of exist in colleges but everyone assumes exist everywhere else too.

2

Nobody is brought down in the name of equity. What is brought down are the systems that privilege certain people based on aspects of themselves that they cannot control. If you think that tearing down white supremacy and patriarchy is the same as tearing down white people and men, then you need to ask yourself why you think that those groups of people are inseparable from their privileges

3

No argument here, Hollywood has always had lazy and awful shit and their attempts at lazy and awful inclusion are bad. Often the very groups that Hollywood directors purport to represent come out hard against bad representation too - like that french trans cartel leader film that just came out where the director said he didn’t bother researching Mexico or Mexican culture before making a film that takes place there and where everyone speaks Spanish really badly.

I just think there’s a contradiction in a) continuing to use a platform that is developed primarily by Communists and b) thinking that the platform being associated with Communists “actively harmful to the reputation of the Lemmyverse”. The fact is that the Lemmyverse is associated with Communists - or “tankies” as you insist on calling them - and so if that’s its reputation then the reputation is accurate.

the reputation of the Lemmy-verse

As long as the main devs of Lemmy are Dessalines and other communists, then the reputation of the Lemmy-verse being tied to a bunch of highly communist instances is just an objectively correct fact. Liberals are free to fork their own version of the software and call it something else.

You can tell they’re communists cuz they live rent free in the heads of every .world user.

They’re not doing it on purpose. The people currently making these decisions do not understand the government, what it does, why it is powerful, where the money comes from, etc. It’s like someone stripping the copper wiring out of their own house.