mouthporn.net
#scams – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar

By: Damo

Published: Nov 15, 2024

This month is #IslamophobiaAwarenessMonth. The ostensible goal of this initiative is to “deconstruct and challenge stereotypes about Islam and Muslims”. A noble aim you might think, as apparently do the organisations, institutions & individuals signalling their support.
However, Islamophobia Awareness Month was co-founded by the Islamist group MEND - an organisation closely tied to the terrorist support group CAGE and created with the purpose of “battering the Israel lobby” according to its founder Sufyan Ismail. 
MEND’s idea of challenging stereotypes appears to consist of attacking liberal Muslims & partnering with Salafist hate preachers such as Haitham al Haddad & Shakeel Begg.
Haddad supports death for apostasy. Begg was found by a judge to have “encouraged religious violence.”
One of MEND’s former directors, the now CAGE-employed Azad Ali, is also no stranger to court cases. This unrepentant Hamas supporter launched a libel suit against the Daily Mail for describing him as a hardline extremist who supports the killing of UK troops in Iraq. He lost.
MEND’s founder has pushed the scare-mongering assertion that British society hates Muslims, and has falsely and irresponsibly claimed that UK law does not consider threatening or committing violence against Muslims to be a crime.
Yet for a group who launched an anti-Islamophobia initiative, MEND are not keen on the infinitely more moderate group Tell Mama who exist for the same purpose. MEND have described them as being headed by a “pro-Zionist” & criticised their liberal position on homosexuality.
MEND were also less than enthused with the appointment of liberal Muslim Sara Kahn to lead the counter extremism commission, with one of their officials referring to her as “an Oreo” – a racist reference to those who are deemed brown on the outside but white underneath.
In 2018 head of counter-terrorism policing, Sir Mark Rowley, aptly criticised MEND’s undermining of efforts to tackle hate crime - referencing their absurd and divisive claim that Britain was "approaching the conditions that preceded the Holocaust".
It should be clear that partnering with extremists groups like MEND and their cohorts, or otherwise legitimising them, does nothing to challenge actual bigotry, and that anyone interested in actually making a difference in this area should be giving MEND a very wide berth.

==

In other words, "Islamophobia Awareness Month" is completely bogus, a propaganda tactic by Islamists to try to culturally embed the idea that any resistance to the demands of Islam constitutes racism and bigotry; namely, the imaginary crime of "Islamophobia."

The last time I posted about the fact "Islamophobia" doesn't exist, a number of people lost their minds, calling me the usual, predictable, tedious epithets.

So, before anyone screams at me like a blue-hair banshee, know that I will block and remove all traces of your reply or reblog unless you meet the following challenge: describe a real, legitimate, justified criticism of Islam in a way that does NOT and CANNOT constitute "Islamophobia."

That is my threshold. These kinds of people like to pretend that they're not trying to censor all criticism of Islam, they're just trying to protect people, by acting as if I just don't know enough (when I demonstrably know more than they do) and that it's the way I'm criticising it. So, demonstrate how it's done. If you cannot meet this straightforward challenge - and I'm pretty sure you can't, and you know you can't - then don't bother wasting my time or your own, because nobody needs to listen do you and you've already proven my point.

"Islam is not a race… Islam is simply a set of beliefs, and it is not ‘Islamophobic’ to say Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy." -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Avatar

By: Te-Ping Chen and  Lauren Weber

Published: Jul 21, 2023

Two years ago chief diversity officers were some of the hottest hires into executive ranks. Now, they increasingly feel left out in the cold.
Companies including NetflixDisney and Warner Bros. Discovery have recently said that high-profile diversity, equity and inclusion executives will be leaving their jobs. Thousands of diversity-focused workers have been laid off since last year, and some companies are scaling back racial justice commitments.
Diversity, equity and inclusion—or DEI—jobs were put in the crosshairs after many companies started re-examining their executive ranks during the tech sector’s shake out last fall. Some chief diversity officers say their work is facing additional scrutiny since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions and companies brace for potential legal challenges. DEI work has also become a political target.
“There’s a combination of grief, being very tired, and being, in some cases, overwhelmed,” says Miriam Warren, chief diversity officer for Yelp, of the challenges facing executives in the field.
In interviews, current and former chief diversity officers said company executives at times didn’t want to change hiring or promotion processes, despite initially telling CDOs they were hired to improve the talent pipeline. The quick about-face shows company enthusiasm for diversity initiatives hasn’t always proved durable, leaving some diversity officers now questioning their career path. 
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in police custody in May 2020, companies scrambled to hire chief diversity officers, changing the face of the C-suite. In 2018, less than half the companies in the S&P 500 employed someone in the role, and by 2022 three out four companies had created a position, according to a study from Russell Reynolds, an executive search firm. 
Once mostly tasked with HR matters, today’s diversity leaders are expected to weigh in on new product development, marketing efforts and current events that have an impact on how workers and consumers are feeling. Warren and other CDOs said the expanded remit is playing out in a politically divided environment where corporate diversity efforts are the subject of frequent social-media firestorms
Falling demand
New analysis from employment data provider Live Data Technologies shows that chief diversity officers have been more vulnerable to layoffs than their human resources counterparts, experiencing 40% higher turnover. Their job searches are also taking longer. 
“I got to 300 applications and then I stopped tracking,” says Stephanie Lubin, who was laid off from her role as diversity head at Drizly, an online alcohol marketplace, in May following the company’s acquisition by Uber. In one case, Lubin says she went through 16 rounds of interviews for a role she didn’t get, and says she is now planning to pivot out of DEI work.
The number of CDO searches is down 75% in the past year, says Jason Hanold, chief executive of Hanold Associates Executive Search, which works with Fortune 100 companies to recruit HR and DEI executives, among other roles. Demand is the lowest he has seen in his 30 years of recruiting.
At the same time, he says, more executives are feeling skittish about taking on diversity roles.
“They’re telling us, the only way I want to go into another role with DEI is if it includes something else,” he says of the requests for broader titles that offer more responsibilities and resources. He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago.
During the pandemic, some companies moved people into diversity leadership if they were an ethnic minority, says Dani Monroe, even when they weren’t qualified. Monroe served as CDO for Mass General Brigham, a Boston-based hospital system and one of the largest employers in the state, until 2021 and convenes a yearly gathering of more than 100 CDOs.
“These were knee-jerk reactions,” she says of the hurried CDO hires, adding that some of those elevations didn’t create much impact, leaving both sides feeling disillusioned.
On-the-job obstruction 
American workers are split on the importance of a diverse workforce, surveys find
Diversity chiefs also encounter obstruction from top executives, says Melinda Starbird, a human resources and diversity executive who has worked at AT&T, Starbucks and OfferUp, an online marketplace. Leaders sometimes associate diversity efforts with mandates, such as the equal-employment rules that apply to federal contractors. Those requirements for compliance can create executive resistance that bleeds over into other cultural or policy shifts, such as adding Juneteenth as a company holiday, she says. 
“Even if you report to the CEO, it’s still a battle and it’s a smaller budget,” says Starbird, who was laid off from OfferUp in November during a broader restructuring. 
Many diversity executives feel a lack of buy-in from their colleagues. In a survey of 138 diversity executives conducted this spring by World 50 Group, a networking organization for corporate leaders, 82% said they had sufficient influence to do their job, down 6 percentage points from 2022. Asked if they felt supported by middle managers, 41% said yes, an 8-percentage-point drop.
Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in June, companies are anticipating spillover legal action could have an impact on them. Those that are still hiring CDOs want people who can help the board navigate the political and legal landscape of diversity work and figure out how to take defensive moves to shield them from litigation, says Tina Shah Paikeday, global leader of Russell Reynolds’s diversity, equity and inclusion practice. 
“They recognize it would be smart to get ahead of that.”
People are more resistant to company-backed efforts to advance diversity when they are worried about their own jobs, whether because of impending layoffs or disruptions from AI, says David Kenny, chief executive of Nielsen, the media-ratings company. 
Kenny was both CEO and CDO for a time, taking on the diversity role to emphasize how important it was to the future of the business. Even as CEO, it could be a tough sell. Efforts to restructure compensation to make it more equitable created a backlash.
“A lot of it is, ‘I’m losing my slice of the pie,’ ” he says.

==

The grift is over.

There seems to be a built-in implication that much of the movements around DIE in the last few years have been performative: organizations making the approved signals to keep the puritans at bay. Perhaps they've now figured out that these measures are, at best, unable to demonstrate their efficacy, or at worst, anti-productive. The number of DIE programs that can or even will quantify or demonstrate their effectiveness with metrics and data can be counted on one hand; the truly fanatical ones will scold you for even suggesting that you should. Or more likely, perhaps they've figured out that as an insurance policy, the impact to the bottom line is no longer worth the investment; throwing buckets of money to purchase indulgences during a moral-religious panic might have made sense in 2020, but not so much in 2023.

Study after study reveals that none of this social snakeoil - from the phrenology of "implicit bias training" to the Maoist struggle sessions of "white fragility training" - actually help, and reliably make things worse by making everyone fixate on identity politics rather than doing anything productive. Meaning DIE is nothing but expensive and destructive virtue signaling. If you want to destroy an organization from the inside, there's no better way than embracing DIE.

You're far better off sticking to your core telos, supported by liberal ethics like equal opportunity, colorblindness and the ideal of meritocracy. Or more formally, Merit, Fairness and Equality (MFE). Whatever results you get from a fair process are inherently fair.

"Diversity" in particular is always about superficiality and thinly-veiled racism, while "equity" requires someone in authority to artificially create preferred outcomes (establishing the perfect conditions for an authoritarian), rather than a system of fairly and consistently applied rules (equality).

I can name five people, men and women, where I work who have different ethic ancestry, who grew up within 40 miles of each other and have the same local accent.

And I can name five white men who grew up on four different continents with three different first languages, who have worked for over a dozen different organizations, from multi-national companies to military to non-profits to education institutions before immigrating.

"Diversity" apparatchiks don't acknowledge the diversity in the latter. Only, like any good racist, the bogus "diversity" in the former.

Source: twitter.com
Avatar

I gave up fish-sticks to cleanse everyone’s aura. And even though you didn’t ask me to, you need to declare lifelong fealty to me because your aura is so dirty. Yes, I cleansed it, and that’s why you owe me, and why it’s still so dirty. Now if you’ll excuse me, my fish-sticks are ready. #SameLogic

Source: facebook.com
Avatar

What do you think of tarot? Do you think Jung’s theory on it being related to the subconscious holds any weight?

Avatar

It’s horseshit, and no.

Not only can picture cards not have any fore-knowledge of the world around them, but their vague, non-specific messages and the fact their “meaning” has to be interpreted renders them completely subjective. You see what you want to see. Or worse, the tarot reader tells you what you or they want you to believe. Exactly the same as horoscopes or any other fortune-telling scam.

Which is to say, it’s not a completely worthless practice, because it’s effectively a crude psychological test that can give an insight into the mind of the reader, the one doing the “interpreting” of the random, meaningless pictures - what they think, what they want, how they view themselves or others, their motivations.

By the way, this effect has been studied:

If it was “true,” someone would have picked up one of the many, many prizes. Belief in them is as much an unfalsifiable “faith”-based belief as any religious idea. Like prayers to “god”, they’re never “wrong”, they’re just telling you something else, or something that will make sense later, or some other excuse to sustain the illusion. How would we detect that tarot isn’t a valid mechanism for figuring out the world around us? Anything at all?

Just for fun:

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net