When did "woke" - i.e. "awake and not closing ones eyes to the problems in the world" become some sort of slur ? What does it say about people that use it as such?
I can’t remember the exact date. It’s all part of a “tradition” since at least the 90s. First things were PC, then there were SJWs, then woke, then DEI. Who knows what they will call it next. It’s always complaining about the same thing, just with new verbiage.
The problem is that they went too far. Over-correction is a thing.
Instead of getting distracted by what is a slur and who is using it, focus on the meat of the matter, which is discrimination in all forms beyond merit. Anyone distracting from the core topic is a part of the problem.
Discrimination is not bad in itself. A scientific approach is to apply discrimination over biased sample to compensate the bias. The difficulty is how to compensate fairly. And when you compensate fairly, you will have people who will say you compensated too much and other people who will say you compensated too little.
When I look at the other opinions and values of the majority of people who say that DEI compensate unfairly and too much, I either see that 1. they don't even accept to consider that maybe there was a bias, 2. they also defend policies quite marked politically. These two things make me think there is not really a compensation that it is too big, and that it is just the people who have different values that say they disagree. If it was indeed unfairly balanced, they would be more "pro-DEI on principle" that would react on the dysfunction. (not saying they don't exist, but they are just too few)
If they actually wanted to correct the bias, they would push for standardized testing. Instead, they parasitically push for their own positions, salaries, and to put on good theater. I see the difference and I am not amused.
So what you are saying is that you see a bias against males, or a bias in "pro-DEI" people's behavior.
But where is your standardized testing to prove that? Does it mean that you are not interested in finding the correct correction, but rather to push for a situation that profit you (either because it is directly advantageous, or because it says that "your side" is right and "their side" is wrong)?
This is what I don't understand. Saying "bias = 0" is as much a critical decision as saying "bias = 17". But it looks like people can both say "they say there is a bias of 17 but they don't test it enough to my eyes so they are bad, we should act as if the bias was 0, and I don't do any testing but it is ok because my critics against them don't apply to me".
(edit: also, I think that your argument "standardized testing" is just in bad faith. A lot of DEI policies come with method to measure the impact and process to adapt the correction level based on how things evolved. You may not like these methods, but these methods would simply not even exist if indeed they were not interested in finding the correct correction. It feels like it's an easy argument "they do stuff, but let's just decide it does not count unless I arbitrarily decide it does")
To espouse DEI already is going too far. Isn't this something they do?
Don't they favor females instead of males?
A better question is: why does Python even need the PSF staff? I am not convinced it does. The staff use donations to pay themselves salaries, to achieve what exactly that is so necessary? Do they even do any of the technical work?
