Woopah
Member
You can both be inclusive and not hire people based on hair colour.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Totoki: "We create infinite realities"; He wants to promote DEI, combat climate change; Sony's profit growth will be driven by PlayStation (margin of
SweetTooth
Gold Member
Sony NEEDS to relocate back to Tokyo asap!
midnightAI
Member
That's not what it means, and you know it. It means they can't turn someone down for a job because of their ethnicity, religion, sexuality or disability.
hyperbertha
Member
Gamers: "Japan fire this woke pos Hermen Hulst and reinstate Kaz Hirai! Woke policies will ruin your brand!!"
Japan :
Japan :
Last edited:
Shadowstar39
Member
The photo is literally putting people on a pedestal.. Exactly what I said equity is in my last post. It's special privilege based on immutable characteristics which is explicitly racist, sexist, etc... Exactly what these assholes describe to people like me who want "colorblind/ be kind to others" society. They do want to be kind, except to said groups and they want carp Blanche ability to deplatform, insult, be nasty to people they hate, as seen on Twitter and this exact site before Elon and before changes here.
If you want to help people get a leg up as per that image you do it based on wealth. Poor people of all backgrounds need a hand up. Why should LeBron James and Oprah and Elton John get special privileges, hiring advantage, or cash due to skin color, orientation, gender, etc...?
All this shit had infected gaming in a trickle since 2014. People were blind to it, I hope it's got more to see the light on what's going on. When I browse reddit though getting downvoted in the thousands for any of my views, leaves me discouraged. Although in the real world things aren't so crazy, for now. I fear boomers dying off. As much as Gen z makes fun of them (I'm Gen x and they are my parents), they are a bullwurk against this type of thing, mostly.
Bojji
Member
How? You can only hire people based on how good they are for the job.
If you hire or not hire them on reasons like: height (unless they are too small to do their job obviously), skin color, sex, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, hair color, nepotism etc.
^ All this is sexist, racist and many other "ist's".
Shadowstar39
Member
None of it should be in corporate to begin with. I see this in my Corp and I'm in Desktop/network support for a metal foundry/tech company. We deal with industrial, aerospace and military grade metals. I see the people with dei names and the bs emails they put out. Why do I need to read about women's history month? So many of the floor workers send this stuff in as spam and I got to tell them it's legit and they write back telling me these people are crazy. It's a waste of time and money and a grift for people that are causing more harm then good. Simple solution. Scrap it all and make mandate, "be kind, treat people how you want to be treated"... The end.
Last edited:
David Ricardo
Member
Hiring the person with the under represented inmutable characteristic instead of the best one at the job.
So, if your workforce is 70% women, and you are hiring. If both a woman and a man apply for the job, even if the woman is better at the job and has more experience, you would give preference to the man because his sex is under represented in the company.
That´s equality of outcome.
Woopah
Member
Agreed, you hire the best person for the job, regardless of skin or hair colour or anything.
But doing that doesn't stop you from being inclusive.
We want to be a company where straight people are happy to work and gay people are happy to work. That doesn't mean I'm going to hire people because they are straight or because they are gay. I don't know people's sexuality when I hire the.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
Thank you for explaining.
If that was the case, then companies would only hire people from one gender until they reach 50/50.
The company I work for is mostly men and has several DEI programmes. But we hire men all the time.
There's no company objective to get to a 50/50 gender split. Nor do we tell people to hire someone who has worse skills or experience than another candidate.
Last edited:
David Ricardo
Member
If you hire people ONLY on the basis of merit, that´s not DEI. Your workforce might be diverse and everyone feel included or whatever, but that´s not DEI. For it to be DEI you would have to go the extra mile and give preference to under represented groups.
midnightAI
Member
Edit : sorry wrong person
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
No it isn't. We do a lot of DEI programmes at my company that aren't related to hiring under represented groups.
One of the DEI projects I'm currently supporting is for International Men's Day. That project is not about giving preference to men or any other group when hiring.
Same with the project on how to work with people who are neurodivergent, or the one about career development for people who are over 50. They are not about giving someone a job based on their age or whether they have dyslexia.
Last edited:
ShadyAcshuns
Member
I see they're not listening to MLK with all this DEI bullshit. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite.
BouncyFrag
Member
Allsotiresome.gif
WTF is "International Men's Day"?
Oh, I see: https://nationaltoday.com/international-mens-day/
History of International Men’s Day
In 1968, an American journalist named John P. Harris wrote an editorial highlighting a lack of balance in the Soviet system, which promoted an International Women’s Day for female workers but failed to deliver a male counterpart. Harris stated that though he agreed there should be a day to celebrate women, the day served as flaw within the communist system.Yeahhhhhhhhh, the notion that men need a day to tell them how great they are USED to be called "Super Bowl Sunday", a celebration of masculinity, competition, and friendly rivalry which is a bedrock need for men and has been shown to be true across many generations.
Anyway, sounds like you roll up a lot of internal PR into the DEI banner at your company. Nothing wrong with that, and promoting a culture of tolerance between clashing cultures is fine if that is necessary for your workforce. Its the idea that you MUST have a certain ratio of genders or ethnicities, for no reason other than "equity" as a concept, that is the rub because it undermines meritocracy and proper function of organizations at many levels.
Bernardougf
Member
Yeah but will games consistently miss sales target ? Maybe something will sell 5 mil and it should sell 10 .. and so on .. and things will get progressively worse ... disney and star wars are proof that nothing is to big to fail.Sony have strong fanboy army (like Nintendo), they will fuck up all boycotts.
For some reason they weren't able to save concord
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
In all the infinite realities that he searched, there wasn't any!
Yes,one example of mismanagement.I guess you haven't been following Ubisoft then.
Woopah
Member
But we don't have a desired ratio for gender or ethnicities in our company. That's not what we are trying to achieve.
Our International Men’s Day campaign mainly focuses on men's mental health and encouraging our male colleagues to speak up when they are struggling, rather than just staying silent.
My role is for Europe so we don't do anything for the Superbowl.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
BS.
Equality is giving everyone a fair chance to thrive.
Equity is making sure everyone gets to the same place regardless of how hard they work or how talented or skilled they may or may not be.
One of these two is merit driven, the other is based on DEI BS that people have no control over besides what made up gender they want to identify as.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
How would that work in corporate setting? People have different ranks, different salaries and get different bonuses depending on how hard they work.
At no point in any DEI project I've supported has someone said that we should not be merit-driven, or that hard work or skill doesn't matter.
Timberwolf25
Member
People have different ranks and salaries and get bonuses commensurate with the position they hold/the amount of responsibility within the company. I'd also pay people more depending on what they bring to the table, a highly skilled person should get paid more than a less skilled person unless the company gives out points for the amount of time they've been with the company.
I wouldn't expect a janitor to get paid the same as the same as the CEO regardless of sex, color, religion, height, weight, hair color or any other crap.
If your company truly believes in the BS you're spouting, then they should pay everyone the same amount regardless of what position they hold. Go ahead and do it and at least show the courage of your convictions. I somehow doubt your company will.
Woopah
Member
Of course we won't. Because no part of our DEI programme is about paying everyone the same salary.
The harder you work or the more valuable the skills you have, the higher you get paid.
The only place I've seen "equity = paying everyone the same, no matter how hard you work" is this thread. That's not what we mean by equity at all.
Last edited:
JayK47
Member
Seriously though, I guess this makes sense. It is the reason I have yet to grab a PS5, besides how hard it was to find a few years back. So many games I was excited for wound up being a woke mess and it continues to this day. Few games from Sony seem fine, like Stellar Blade. Not enough to buy into the system. So clearly, Sony has swallowed the DEI load and may never recover from it. On the bright side, there are plenty of games to play on Steam and I can wait for most console exclusives to eventually go there. I vote with my wallet and do not buy games from companies that hate me.
I just saw The Wild Robot, which has as a central theme the notion that if you are born defective or weak, then it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY (and your parents to help you) to get STRONGER, because the flock can't, and won't, accommodate weakness because life is hard. If you want to do things like everyone else, you have to adjust to THEM, they don't adjust to you.
Another theme is that when faced with adversity folks with different, and often adversarial, natures can temporarily put aside their differences for a common cause, and it takes a leader to show them that cause. It's not about celebrating individuality and making one group abandon their nature for another, but rather how to unite for a goal that benefits everyone.
It's an interesting film to view through the current "social wars" if you want to use that lens, though I think it is a very retro themed (no idea when the book its based on was written though) family film that you don't necessarily see too often these days.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
We'll see.
It's all just marketing and PR. Corporations talk about the environment and racial equality but it's all bullshit. They even discuss stock buybacks in this presentation. It would be nice if they actually genuinely cared about these things but it's all a facade. Disney talks about stuff like this, but then has toys made in Haiti by children.
Physiognomonics
Member
Basically this.
Timberwolf25
Member
I wish it was just PR and marketing, but seeing what they've done to beloved franchises like Star Wars, Marvel, Toy Story, The Little Mermaid and upcoming shows like Snow White says otherwise.
FunkMiller
Member
Clearly it isn’t, given what has been included in the actual product.
If you put dogshit in a Big Mac, it wouldn’t be the marketing and PR that kills its sales.
Last edited:
So you are against companies having racial diversity or representation in games? Not sure what the problem or issue is there unless you're a bigot.
And actively trying to make the environment cleaner or working against climate change is not a bad thing, but I am fairly certain that is all bullshit.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
There it is, the ole resorting to if you don't agree with our BS, you're a bigot escuse. That didn't take long.
I happen to be a minority myself so I have no problem with racial diversity at all.
They only seek profit, and care very little about social or environmental issues. It's all window dressing.
InterMusketeer
Member
This phrase means nothing.
Bro, you are the one complaining about diversity in gaming and media. What conclusion am I suppose to come too? Enlighten me, what is wrong with having more diversity in media. And if you don't like it, then don't buy it. But like I said these multinational corporations do not care about this stuff, it's only about increasing shareholder value. They like giving off the public perception that they do. Where they actually put their money says otherwise.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
They do indeed seek profit… but the people making decisions think profit lies in a direction it clearly does not.
It matters not how genuine their attitudes towards social issues are, what matters is what ends up in the product they sell to the audience.
You can’t just hand wave everything away as just ‘marketing and PR’. Thats not how these things work.
It means nothing because companies use it for self promotion and create the illusion they for these things. It's all buzz words, but I am using their words because people here are trying to tell me these corporations are being upfront and honest about these things. And I disagree and the only thing they really care about is profit, not social justice issues. They would sell you a shirt that says "Destroy Sony" if it generates a large revenue.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
Where have I complained about diversity in gaming/media?
My stance is that you hire based on merit not diversity. I have no problem at all with diversity.
InterMusketeer
Member
Disagree. The proof is in the pudding. You might say it's lipservice, at least to a degree, but they're actively putting this stuff in games so they're actively contributing to its spread and success.
Maybe I am just old, but I know these multinational entities use PR speak to sell bullshit all of the time. And they talk out both sides of their mouths and very rarely are they being earnest.
I know I am forbidden to discussing politics on this forum, but it is lip service. You think corporations are aligned with leftists ideaology, I am assuming. When you are lobbying to roll back regulatory laws to protect the air or water or consumer safety or worker protections, I don't think that aligns. These entities only care about maximizing share holder value.
InterMusketeer
Member
Companies can be hypocritical too, just like people can. They have a vested interest in this DEI stuff and that's why they're pushing it. The fact they're doing other, conflicting things too doesn't change that.
I am a leftist, but I am also not aligned with these perpetually online weirdos who want to ban people who disagree with them more than 5% of the time.
So by all means, please explain to me why DEI is bad and why you think companies like Sony are pushing it.