CreakyJoints
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
- Messages
- 304
I hope the OP is not interpreted as a call to hate the "alien" as if they are the enemy. It was simply to illustrate a pernicious form of divide and conquer, since it has been known in psychological research for decades that people are much more likely to distrust and get violent against people unlike them. Basically, the "redirected aggression" stemming from various forms of oppression (such as deteriorating financial prospects) is more likely to manifest in physical violence and avoidance of unity when the group is very diverse. And I don't think there is any doubt that most of the large companies, and especially FAANG, as well as various members of the "elite" such as Bill Gates, Bezos, Zuck, Dorsey, etc have all been very avid promoters of diversity in the workplace. When the elite is so keen on promoting a specific idea it is probably because it is in their interest, and the article in the OP simply gives a possible explanation behind the diversity push. At this point, diversity is almost a national strategy in most Western countries at all levels of society, not just in business.
I also hoped that wasn't the case, but a cursory glance towards the comments is very, very disheartening. There were so many things they could have focused on in this piece, but I believe that's how the majority of their readership will interpret it. I think that was also the intention of the original Business Insider article, and perhaps it was also the intention when the document itself was leaked in the first place. It feels rather like a tactic to distract from their other horrific practices or to deflect blame somewhat. Diversity is, after all, a very hot topic right now.
I think @tankasnowgod also made a good point just now as I was typing this that it could easily be used as a wedge in scenarios where language barriers become an issue. Changing people's shifts so they are unable to work at the same time as people who might be considered agitators, or even from colleagues they are more trusting of is a fairly common union-busting tactic, I believe, so it stands to reason they might also pick workers based on their inability to meaningfully cooperate. Again, the other factors they track are quite worrying too: news that Amazon routinely survey their workers for 'loyalty' seems rather dystopian in itself, and there are still a number of things they don't mention in either article which might be worse.
Again, I agree with all of this, but I think in answer to your point and also to @LucyL's post, that it is possible it is the other way around, it may be a case of them being opportunistic rather than a case of diversity being a bad thing by definition. I also agree that its cynical use as a tool of oppression is widespread by colossal bastard-corporations at this point, but again I don't believe it is the problem itself and it could just as easily be used (and should be used) as a unifying banner against them once people stop being suspicious each other and begin to direct that to those in control.
Thank you all for your responses, by the way! I feel like this has been quite a constructive discussion so far and I really appreciate how measured and reasonable it has been.