Seriously they make so many of the same arguments sometimes that I question whether or not .ml isnt a poe instance of some kind.
Seriously they make so many of the same arguments sometimes that I question whether or not .ml isnt a poe instance of some kind.
But the comment in the middle doesn’t imply that they wouldn’t have been hired without DEI. It only implies that if you ignore the second half of the sentence, like the .ml poster did.
I can see how it’s worded a little awkwardly, but the part after the word hired is not a separate piece.
It’s not meaning “beacuse she didn’t get the job” it’s meaning “because the reason she got the job was not for DEI reasons”.
I can tell it’s not separate, rephrase it though and you can get “they can think she was a DEI hire, or they could not think of her (not know she exists) because she wasn’t hired because of some element of her racial background (in the event that they didn’t have a DEI policy)”.
I’m not seeing how one can read that differently. Is it supposed to be ‘they could think that or they could not think that’? Because while true, that’s just assuming people would change their thinking spontaneously.
Edit, I think a lack of punctuation is the problem. Two different reads depending on where you put a comma.
“Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn’t hired due to some aspect…”
“Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn’t hired, due to some aspect…”
The first comma isn’t there in the OOP either way, so mentally putting it in makes sense, the second one completely changes the context though if you mentally insert on there. So I’d call it very awkwardly written, heck I’m not attached to this person and I read it in the second way at first brush. Particularly easy to go that route since ‘not think of at all’ would make it sound like they’re not around to be thought of.