TheHonestMaple said:
Did I say that? I said what does diversity have to do with a housing development. Why is that a priority for these people?
Click to expand...

Why is anti-diversity such a priority for you when it's having zero negative impact on this development? It's a word being used in a document to fluff it up but it's having no meaningful impact.

Describe how "...will create a diverse, inclusive, mixed-income, urban community in Hamilton's north end" negatively impacts you personally, or this development :)

CLYEVqt.jpeg
 
Hawrylyshyn said:
Why is anti-diversity such a priority for you when it's having zero negative impact on this development? It's a word being used in a document to fluff it up but it's having no meaningful impact.

Describe how "...will create a diverse, inclusive, mixed-income, urban community in Hamilton's north end" negatively impacts you personally, or this development :)

CLYEVqt.jpeg
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like they're going to prioritize housing people based on their skin colour. That's not ok.
 
I sorta agree - if a person is denied because they already have their quota for "x amt o token x" vs "oh you actually need it? Ok then we will color-blind accept that you can be here" that's not cool. People who need it shouldn't be in some sorta privilege hierarchal chart if they actually need it.

Now if they accept people and it just HAPPENS to still be diverse then cool - but denying people or inputting people based on dei I've never been okay with - I can understand how people can be triggered by seeing mention of "diverse" though with all the dei crap we've had to deal with - yes it's great to be mindful of diversity, but..

it's not ok to have a tick chart of "we need 3 asians, 5 blacks 2 gingers and 5 single moms" like some sorta weird dei ester egg hunt. "Oh, you're asian? Sorry we already have 3 of those" "oh you're white? Sorry we already have one o those, or NONE of those.. gotta keep it diverse"

Not saying that's what happens - all I am trying to show is WHY people might be offended, and WHERE their mind goes WHEN they are offended.

The problem is due to DEI, the terms "diverse and inclusive" often, in other peoples minds, = "we-will hand pick a smattering of different types of people to make it look diverse, while removing entirely people who we think reflect the status quo (straight white males for example as "status quo") - did you earn the right to be here? No? Do you actually need this? No? But are you the right demographic for our diversity mosaic ? Yes? Then welcome on in!

So I get why The HonestMaple said what he did. I think the issue is more the wording or what the wording represents in peoples minds - "open to anyone who needs it regardless of race or creed" vs "open to anyone who matches specific races or creeds" might be better.
 
Last edited:
Chronamut said:
The problem is due to DEI, the terms "diverse and inclusive" often, in other peoples minds, = "we-will hand pick a smattering of different types of people to make it look diverse, while removing entirely people who we think reflect the status quo (straight white males for example as "status quo") - did you earn the right to be here? No? Do you actually need this? No? But are you the right demographic for our diversity mosaic ? Yes? Then welcome on in!

So I get why The HonestMaple said what he did.
Click to expand...

So their mind is making up an interpretation that is not what the words mean on their face, is not what the writer of the words meant, is bizarre, and would never, ever happen anywhere in Canada in reality? Ok, gotcha.
 
A Torontonian Now said:
So their mind is making up an interpretation that is not what the words mean on their face, is not what the writer of the words meant, is bizarre, and would never, ever happen anywhere in Canada in reality? Ok, gotcha.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Also contrary to that opinion, it has happened SEVERAL times in SEVERAL places - where people are hired entirely due to feeling like they have to hire tokens to placate the feeling of being diverse - and those people have not always been capable of doing their JOBS - it's why DEI hiring in the states just got shuttered in the govt field entirely. Merit based hiring vs token based hiring is how it needs to be.


Diversity and inclusivity are 2 of the 3 letters in dei - the third being equity - which means everyone gets the same opportunity even if everyone didn't equally earn it. The equity part is really the damning part - noone and I repeat NOONE is upset if people of "differences" is chosen for whatever - its only when there is a pattern of intolerance towards others in support of having to put "differences" first that there is an issue.

Thus the interpretation is one of those nebulous things where sometimes it means one thing, sometimes it means another, sometimes it's harmless and exactly what it should be, othertimes there is a seedy undertone to it that seems to be all accepting but is really intolerant of some groups in favour of others. Thus why you will find one of the 2 reactions of such things on this forum, and frankly everywhere else - just gotta be understanding of why it's seen like that - both have their merits, both have examples that can be pulled from.

I can literally think of 2 examples off the top of my head where a build was made ONLY for a specific demographic - although to be fair those were not advertised as being 'diverse and inclusive" to my knowledge - one being the one for battered women (that ruin they repurposed), and the other being for indigenous people of need. (that 6 story thin tower they are almost finished building, I think there was one other type minority it was for too) - it's a weird feeling because someone might want to be in that building and its like "nope sorry, you're not of this minority, you can't be here".
 
Last edited:
A Torontonian Now said:
So their mind is making up an interpretation that is not what the words mean on their face, is not what the writer of the words meant, is bizarre, and would never, ever happen anywhere in Canada in reality? Ok, gotcha.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous take. DEI stuff is racism. There's no denying it. It needs to stop. It has infected every aspect of our society, right down to housing
 
TheHonestMaple said:
Ridiculous take. DEI stuff is racism. There's no denying it. It needs to stop. It has infected every aspect of our society, right down to housing
Click to expand...
I don't know if I would say it's racism - I'd say it's reverse intolerance - where it originally was that certain people would just never be considered now its only people who are the most different who are considered - from one pendulum swing to the next - checking off boxes on a list like pokemon when really it should just be "we don't discriminate - but if all the people who were qualified for the job were say.. white.. that's okay - if they were all black, that's ok" but not one of every type - that's in many cases simply unrealistic. Whenever someone is NOT able to be included, there is a problem, on EITHER side of the spectrum.

The concept of "privilege" if you're male, white, straight, christian etc - all seen as under the "oppressor" umbrella of people, those are the types that dei in past examples tended to discriminate against - nevermind the fact you could be some of or all of those and still have been extremely hard done by in life and still be told you have privilege and thus other people in dei projects have more right to need than you do.

I really really hope that is not what happens in this project, and simply anyone that is in need is accepted. And none of us are saying it is guaranteed to happen (although it might), we're just having a discussion around DEI.
 
Last edited:
Even if DEI meant reverse discrimination (which it doesn't, it just means acting sensitive to various perspectives) what does that have to do with a project saying it wants to create a "diverse, mixed-income community"?

It does not say DEI, just diversity. The implication is that, based on statistics, they expect a diverse range of people to want to live there. That's a good thing, or a neutral fact, depending on perspective, but nothing to be up in arms about. Can we not use words now without them being twisted?
 
A Torontonian Now said:
Even if DEI meant reverse discrimination (which it doesn't, it just means acting sensitive to various perspectives) what does that have to do with a project saying it wants to create a "diverse, mixed-income community"?

It does not say DEI, just diversity. The implication is that, based on statistics, they expect a diverse range of people to want to live there. That's a good thing, or a neutral fact, depending on perspective, but nothing to be up in arms about. Can we not use words now without them being twisted?
Click to expand...
Perhaps social housing should be given to people based on economic need - not their skin colour. Just a thought. DEI is insidious.
 
A Torontonian Now said:
Even if DEI meant reverse discrimination (which it doesn't, it just means acting sensitive to various perspectives) what does that have to do with a project saying it wants to create a "diverse, mixed-income community"?

It does not say DEI, just diversity. The implication is that, based on statistics, they expect a diverse range of people to want to live there. That's a good thing, or a neutral fact, depending on perspective, but nothing to be up in arms about. Can we not use words now without them being twisted?
Click to expand...
as long as that's what it stays at all is good- its only bad if someone applies and they are turned away due to not being "diverse" enough. Noone has issues with color-blind applications.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top