When I was referring to DEI, I was meaning that they not hire people simply based on their race, gender, orientation, etc, but instead on their actual skills & abilities to tell the story effectively.
"Diversity, Equality and Inclusion" exists to counter
not hiring people because of their race, gender, orientation etc, not hiring people
because of their race, gender, orientation etc. Check it out online, any point of authority on the subject I've been able to find (including the UK government Home Office statement on it, EDIT - Link below) only mentions elimination of discrimination, not the creation of it.
We incorporate equality into our core objectives, making every effort to eliminate discrimination, create equal opportunities and develop good working relationships between different people.
www.gov.uk
What you may be referring to is called "Positive Discrimination" and is not DEI. If someone has convinced you that DEI is anything other than expunging discrimination and persecution of people because of certain traits they may posses, they are either mistaking the two for whatever reason or trying to radicalise you for reasons known only to them or to whomever has radicalised them. If it's misappropriation of terms, that doesn't happen by accident. It's usually to devalue, distract and destabilise the thing that has been misappropriated because someone somewhere doesn't want it to happen as it devalues, distracts and destabilises whatever they have invested their interests in, and try to convince bystanders who have low-to-no direct experience of it, because it doesn't apply to them, that it's happening is in a worst possible dystopia form that
could impact them if only it actually existed in that way in the first place. The mob forms, their interests are defended if not entrenched and progressed.
Example: You have a vacancy and a highly qualified woman applies, but the office manager marks them down as unsuitable for the position because they are concerned the woman, of childbearing age, may fall pregnant and they will have to go through the hiring process again to find maternity cover. That is negative discrimination and an Equality issue - if that woman is best qualified for the job and would otherwise have got it if she was male, she should get it. Not a man of lesser qualification just because that man can't get pregnant. Equality is not: a woman with gets the job over dudes with similar or higher skillsets because the hiring managers want to tick the quota box and some eye-candy will do nicely. That's positive discrimination, not DEI.
Example: In the UK ex-convicts find it hard to get a job regardless of what they were convicted for, because who's going to trust people who have broken the law? A shoe-repair chain has become famed for not discriminating against ex-convicts to the point it is now common knowledge they will give their application a fair shot at a job and thus get more applications from that sector. They won't give a guy with no hands a job because he's ex-con, but they won't discriminate against him because he's been in the slammer. This is Inclusion. Inclusion is not: Giving preference to applicants from a certain school or university over other institutions because of Fraternity bonds that assume anyone who went to Alpha Sierra Sierra is "their kind of guy". That's positive 'Frat Bro' discrimination, not inclusivity.
Example: ex-military because some have issues adjusting to life on Civvy-Street, Example: Older people because they have less time to go before retirement, Example: People of different racial or religious backgrounds, Example: Sexual orientation, Example: Gender identification, Example: preference of sports team, example, example, example, absolutely anything can be discriminated against for absolutely any reason. These above examples may not be perfect but they make the point:
DEI is to stop negative discrimination, regardless of its root causes, not to force positive discrimination to fill quotas etc - you're not going to hire men as bra user acceptance testers, there is no Inclusion quota for how many males have to be in that role, but there are people out there right now who will pretend that there is and there are.
And that I believe is all I have to say on the matter. It's basically the same as I already said, but long-hand so I'll allow it.
As for looters, well I'm a bit of an extremist in regards of that subject, I believe that thieves aren't punished harshly enough anymore. Unless somebody is stealing a loaf of bread just to eat something because they & their kids are starving and the government is ignoring them, we need to go old school by bringing back the removal of hands. Once enough of the thieves have been dealt with in this way, then they'll know that doing so will eventually result in their death & they will deserve it for having chosen to be a human parasite. If somebody breaks into my home, I'll kill them on the spot & feel good about it, because they chose to try to take something that was mine, so I'd have taken their worthless life. If I was a business owner, I'd be constantly pestering those in charge to actually punish criminals by making the laws give more harsh penalties with less loop holes & holding the police accountable for how much crime is going on.
I understand and accept your example as your opinion, I would not dream of telling you it's not because it is, but I would point out your above statement contains a paradox:
Criminal steals for non-urgent non-family feeding related reasons (likely villainous criminal greed related reasons) > Criminals hands are removed so they cannot steal whatever it was they were previously stealing > With no hands, criminal can no longer do what they previously legally did to fulfil the basic human needs of them and their family like putting food on the table > Criminal now regularly stealing a loaf of bread just to eat something because they & their kids are starving and the government is ignoring them, because they are a former criminal whom the government itself removed the hands of - which you state is a reasonable exception for minor theft.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying I know a better way to deal with criminals, I don't, but I'm saying the above arrangement contains said paradox that takes a potentially functional member of society and makes them a for-certain unproductive member of society.
