You must log in or register to comment.
Whatever you do, don’t email anything at all to DEIAtruth@opm.gov. Especially do not make them aware of “parties with lemons” or “girl in a tub” or “Swedish (SE) goat”.
This will all get filtered out pretty quickly. The best way to hit this is with very authentic looking email. Wasting their time is the best recourse.
I know from personal experience that signing up an email address at huge numbers of random online retailers becomes very annoying very quickly.
Definitely don’t do that with DEIAtruth@opm.gov.
They’re most likely only looking for email from other dot-gov addresses.
I don’t think they are that bright.
That’s trivial to filter out at the server level though. Might waste a few minutes of time, but a competent admin would barely be annoyed.
“Competent”
That assumes both competency and an admin that actually wants to effectively accomplish things. The people up top want this stupid shit, the people in the trenches generally either don’t give a fuck or don’t want this either.
Huge amounts of spam can just be cover for sandbagging if nothing else.
I think you just found a great use for a LLM chat bot. That and a temp email service.
No they can block a temp domain.
If they block say gmail or outlook they would block millions of people.
Yeah good point so more temp email account on yahoo or Gmail or outlook. So they can’t just block that email
Sounds like a great use for LLMs.
And write it in Spanish.
Hola, tu madre es una DEI.
Again, probably not going to be as effective if you do something that can very easily be noticed and filtered out. They’re not going to try to translate the Spanish just in case it’s an earnest report, they’re just gonna delete it and move on. An effective fake report should force them to waste actual resource on investigating it.
I just want to cause emotional damage with the language of the devil.
Again, not really the point of sending fake reports. They’d just see the Spanish, delete it, and move on. The point is to give them something they’ll see, want to read, and want to spend as much time interacting with as possible.
I’m not here to help you fix your country. I just stare in disbelief and cope with bad humor. They’d delete my German StaSi letter anyway.
It’s not my country either, and I’m not asking you to fix shit. You just posted something kinda dumb and kept doubling down on it.
Had ChatGPT write this
Date: January 23, 2025
Prepared by: [Your Name]
Subject: Investigation into the Hiring of a Suspected DEI CandidateIntroduction
This report presents an investigation into an individual suspected of being hired under the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiative, with concerns regarding their qualifications, experience, and motivations for the role. The individual in question has been hired for a DEI position, but questions have emerged about their expertise in the field and whether they were hired based on their alignment with the organization’s DEI goals or for other reasons, such as fulfilling diversity quotas.
Background
In recent months, the organization has made a concerted effort to enhance its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, launching several DEI initiatives across departments. A key part of this effort involved the recruitment of individuals to fill DEI-focused roles. One such individual was hired for the newly created position of DEI Specialist. This candidate, though well-spoken and outwardly passionate about DEI, has attracted attention due to concerns about their qualifications and whether they were hired primarily to meet diversity goals rather than based on merit or relevant experience.
Key Findings
-
Questionable Qualifications The individual’s resume lists several experiences that seemingly align with DEI work, such as positions in community engagement, social justice advocacy, and educational outreach. However, upon closer inspection, there is a lack of specific DEI-related accomplishments or formal education in fields typically associated with DEI (e.g., sociology, psychology, organizational behavior). Moreover, the individual’s most recent role is described as a general administrative position with limited involvement in DEI-related projects. This raises questions about the depth of their expertise in implementing and driving DEI initiatives.
-
Lack of DEI-Centric Experience Despite claims of previous experience in diversity-related roles, evidence of the candidate’s active involvement in DEI work is minimal. There is no substantive record of their contributions to significant DEI programs or any notable impact on organizational culture or policy. The few projects listed on their resume are either vague or appear to be non-DEI specific in nature, casting doubt on whether their prior experience is directly relevant to the objectives of the DEI role they were hired for.
-
Concerns from Colleagues Some colleagues have expressed skepticism about the candidate’s qualifications and ability to meaningfully contribute to DEI initiatives. While the individual is often enthusiastic in meetings, several team members have noted a lack of depth in their understanding of DEI concepts and strategies. There are reports of the individual leaning heavily on surface-level talking points, without demonstrating a clear grasp of the complex and nuanced issues inherent to diversity and inclusion work.
-
Background Check and References In an effort to further understand the candidate’s qualifications, HR initiated a background check and reached out to references provided by the candidate. While the individual’s previous employers and colleagues offered generally positive, though non-specific, feedback, no reference provided detailed examples of how the candidate contributed to DEI-related work. Furthermore, the candidate’s LinkedIn profile and public social media presence do not reflect a consistent history of involvement in DEI advocacy, leading to concerns that their professional image may have been crafted primarily for the purpose of securing a DEI role.
-
Perceived Motivation for Hire There is speculation that the individual was hired to fulfill diversity quotas or to demonstrate the organization’s commitment to DEI without necessarily focusing on their qualifications for the role. This suspicion stems from the timing of the hire, coinciding with a public push to improve organizational diversity, as well as internal communications emphasizing the need for quick action in hiring diverse candidates. While it is possible that the individual is genuinely passionate about DEI, the lack of experience and qualifications has prompted concerns that they may not be the best fit for the position, particularly if their hire was motivated by the desire to meet diversity goals.
Potential Implications
The hiring of an individual with questionable qualifications for a DEI role could have several significant consequences for the organization:
-
Erosion of DEI Credibility: If the individual is unable to contribute meaningfully to the organization’s DEI objectives, it could undermine the credibility of the organization’s diversity initiatives and its commitment to making substantive changes.
-
Internal Discontent: Employees who are genuinely committed to DEI may feel frustrated or demotivated if the new hire is perceived as unqualified, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or a lack of engagement with DEI efforts.
-
Risk of Tokenism: If the hire is seen as a token appointment or as fulfilling a diversity quota rather than a merit-based decision, the organization could face accusations of tokenism, which could damage employee morale and public perception.
-
Missed Opportunities: The organization may miss the opportunity to bring in a highly qualified DEI professional who can drive meaningful change and create a more inclusive workplace.
Next Steps
-
Further Review of Qualifications: A more thorough review of the candidate’s qualifications should be conducted, including interviews with previous employers and a deeper dive into their experience with DEI initiatives.
-
Feedback from DEI Team and Leadership: Input should be gathered from current DEI leaders within the organization to assess whether the individual is making progress in their role and if their work aligns with the goals of the DEI program.
-
Evaluation of DEI Initiatives: The organization should evaluate the effectiveness of its current DEI initiatives and determine whether the new hire is able to contribute meaningfully to these efforts. This evaluation will help identify any gaps in the team and clarify whether the candidate is meeting the organization’s needs.
-
Mentorship and Professional Development: If the individual shows promise but lacks experience, the organization could consider offering mentorship or additional training to help them grow into the role and better contribute to DEI goals.
-
Consideration of Role Adjustment or Replacement: If the candidate is determined to be an inadequate fit for the DEI position, the organization should consider adjusting their responsibilities or even initiating a new search to find a more qualified candidate who can effectively support the organization’s DEI goals.
Conclusion
The hiring of a candidate with unclear qualifications for a DEI role raises significant concerns about the organization’s commitment to achieving its diversity goals through qualified leadership. While the individual may have potential, further investigation is necessary to ensure they are capable of making the meaningful contributions expected from such a pivotal position. The organization must assess whether this hire aligns with its broader DEI objectives and take appropriate action to ensure the success of its initiatives.
The script you got is kinda the opposite of what you’d want it to write. This is for reporting someone for being not good enough at implementing DEI policies, which would be thrown out immediately as that’s the exact behavior the government now wants. The thing you’re looking to do is falsely report someone for implementing DEI.
-
Have you ever wondered how you would act if you were the neighbors of the family harboring Anne Frank and her family? A lot of people are about to find out for real.
Comparing this situation to Anne Frank is a bit silly, nobody’s being dragged off to the gas chambers.
First they came for the Socialists, but I did not speak out…
You can speak up for someone without going straight to nazis.
Calling someone a Nazi used to be extreme and over the top. These people are literally Nazis, it’s not being hyperbolic anymore.
Friendly reminder the SS didn’t start with gas chambers and didn’t openly advertise gas chambers.
Saying “you can’t compare a person to a Nazi until they’ve murdered their six millionth jew” is just defending Nazis.
Anne Frank didn’t die in a gas chamber. She was never in an extermination camp. She was at Auschwitz, not Auschwitz-Birkenau. She died in Bergen-Belsen, most likely from Typhus.
Anyway, you do realize they didn’t start off with gas chambers, right? You need incremental steps, making it worse little by little, because otherwise people won’t accept it. First it was the rhetoric, and the rhetoric got worse and worse. Taking away people’s rights. Taking over the newspapers to print whatever you want them to. Changing laws, removing laws, writing new laws. Violence in the streets to intimidate and persecute people, using his brownshirts. Imprisoning political opponents (socialists and communists were first, of course, because they resisted the hardest). Imprisoning anyone who went against the propaganda; journalists, scientists, artists, teachers, any and all intellectuals basically. Banning political parties except your own. Executing religious leaders that refused to kiss the ring. Anything and anyone that could possibly ever turn into a weapon against him, even his own people weren’t safe. But each step came after the previous, a 100 little steps that resulted in industrialized genocide. You can’t start at 100.
The extermination camps weren’t built until '41/'42 and mostly they did that because executing shitloads of people was very traumatizing for his own murder squads (Einsatzgruppen) and very time-consuming. It wasn’t efficient, it was bad for their mental health. They had already gassed people in smaller settings like hospitals, mentally and physically disabled people. They industrialized it, but it wasn’t what they advertised in the 30’ies. If Hitler had stood up during elections and said “hey guys, you know what would be cool? Let’s gas millions of people!” he never would have gotten to power. But once he had power… well, he could do whatever the fuck he wanted. His rabid supporters loved it, any and all actual resistance was already squashed, and anyone who didn’t love it had to pretend they did, because otherwise they’d be dragged off.
Even then, remember that the most votes the Nazis ever got was 39%. 39% too many, obviously, but they never had a majority. The only reason Hitler got absolute power in the first place is because the conservatives worked with him, thought they could control the Nazis, use them against the socialists and communists. They made him chancellor, and then Hindenburg died and Hitler made himself president as well. Of course by then there was nothing or nobody who could even try to stop him anymore. But yeah, the conservatives handed him power on a silver platter. Underestimated him. Sounds familiar, no?
Remember: Nazis in the 30’ies hadn’t done yet what Nazis in the 40’ies ended up doing. They were still fucking Nazis.
Hitler wasn’t Hitler, until he was.
Edit: Also remember that extermination wasn’t even the goal at first. What they wanted was to get rid of the Jewish people, not necessarily kill them all. Jewish people could voluntarily leave, some were being deported to Poland and other places. Entire ships filled with Jewish people were sent to Cuba (where they were denied entry) and the US (where they were denied entry) and other places (often being denied entry and being forced to go back where they came from, only to still end up in concentration camps). They even had an ultimate deportation plan (the first Final Solution, I guess): The Madagascar Plan. They were going to deport all Jewish people to Madagascar. But when they couldn’t defeat the British and any invasion of GB was deemed impossible, they gave up on the plan.
We have already seen that camps with immigrants are apparently perfectly acceptable in the U.S. and now with the new shit being built in Texas… do you really think all these people are actually going to be deported? Or are they going to rot in camps while being used as slave labor? How many are going to die from horrific conditions? Americans actually voted for all this, Trump has never been shy about his intentions. And they still refuse to accept any Nazi-parallels. Just because people aren’t being gassed, doesn’t mean any comparison is false.
Edit 2: correction: I don’t actually know if any building has already started. But Texas has offered land to Trump for his Mass Deportation Facilities. Sources: here and here
For now…
Sounds like something a Nazi would say.
Shut the fuck up
Yet.
…yet.
And I don’t think this time it will be gas chambers. More like drone warfare a la Ukraine.
You’ve fast forwarded about 10 years.
Jesus Christ you guys need to go outside.
They are literally instructing people to report “wrong think” and threatening retribution if they don’t.
Either wake the fuck up or admit you are on the side of fascism.
You need to step outside your myopic manboy bubble of video games and dank memes and start recognizing the shit that’s going around you for what it is: fascism.
You just trying to generalize Lemmings? I haven’t touched a video game in at least a month, and the only time I see a meme it’s here?
I’m not saying there’s not cause for concern, but I’ve been hearing every republican since Reagan called “literal Hitler”. It’s boring and extremely hyperbolic.
Yeah, but most of them didn’t have top advisors sieg heiling on the inauguration stage. There has been a steady escalation here that shows no signs of stopping. Once you notice that you’re actually on a slippery slope, it’s no longer a fallacy.
So much bait getting taken.
‘BuT He wAs jUst tHrowIng his HearT to thE cRowd’ I hear you say. Well, motherfucker, what fucking crowd the second time he did it?!
spoiler
Get the fuck outta here.
Holy fuck I hadn’t seen the video. Wiiiiild.
I didn’t say I left bait. I’m talking about every other post on lemmy being about musk getting his photo takin while waving.
Keep that head buried bro
Didn’t say I didn’t think there was cause for concern, but the comparison to Anne Frank is wild hyperbole.
Yes, and comparing 1933 Germany to Nazis is hyperbolic, but it only took them 6 years to get there.
This is history repeating itself. People are seeing the first steps in that direction and calling out where it’s going.
you need to open your eyes dumb fuck. The US government is a Nazi government
Hyperbole.
So i know this guy who only got hired because of the color of his skin. His name is Donald Trump, he’s the token orange guy. No idea how to do his job.
DEIAtruth@opm.gov is asking for non-stop spam. DDOS the fuck out of the US government.
Spam is easy to filter out. It’s important to make it look as authentic as possible
in this case, the first filter rule would be to route mail from gov and contractor domain to an actual inbox.
Good thing that’s not hard to spoof at all
Oh God, I hope no one knows how to write an LLM script to write huge numbers of plausible-sounding reports sent from anonymous email accounts. It would be even worse if the reports were set up to send investigators into organizations that shouldn’t exist, like ICE.
Finally a use case for LLMs!
Probably not a good idea if you’re actually inside the US though.
They’ll just filter out anything not coming from .gov
Cool Americans should report their obnoxious Republican coworkers.
Wow, this email address sure loves porn. It has an account everywhere.
Might be great to also sign up for accounts on lots of legitimate sites that love to send out email as well. Harder to blanket-ban those emails. Some that might be great:
- LinkedIn profile and looking for work
- Amazon and yes, I would love to hear about new offers and deals
- Yes, I am looking to buy a new car and please email me new offers from all of your dealerships
- DNC, RNC, and Green party political announcements, plus email blasts from state representatives
- MSNBC & Yahoo news
ACT BLUE!!! donate like $0.01 and they’ll happily spam that email more than a bot could and share it with every dem candidate in existence.
I bet someone could get AI to write a bunch of bogus emails to send that look like legit reports
Start reporting DEI hires like Amy Coney Barrett and Marco Rubio? Did they give Vivek a position or did they just lead him on? The letter my brother received asking him to rat out his coworkers was sent by a woman, probably a DEI hire.
Will “suspected of being a DEI” be the new McCarthy witch hunt?
Yes, these, the immigrant hotlines, and the anti lgbtq+ messaging are the new witch hunts. The same message as before but a little bit louder and a whole lot worse.
Are you now or have you every identified as black?
Remember that white woman who identified as black?
DUI hires like that hegseth asshole seem like tip top candidates
I can identify some obvious mental disability hires.
Actual Nazi shit
Rat out your non-conformist comrade to The Party’s Commissariat.
The shitty part is, what does that even mean?
“Hey, they hired a black dude, better report it to the DEI Snitch list.”
Its just a weird open invitation for assholery.
It reads like they’re looking for teams that have cleverly been restructured or renamed to circumvent the order.
Probably just a threat to force conformity. Unless the companies come up with actual disciplinary policy.
This wasn’t regarding private companies, it was about government agencies. They’re asking government employees to rat out other government employees.
Except they may have policies that tell them they can’t contract with anyone who uses DEInpolicies now.
Which is basically, everyone.
Ah yes the Ministry of Truth over here
Secret police kind of crap. This is scary!
Signed
- Hans Landa
The way this is worded…
I dont think this is to go after minorities. It will have that effect, at least for minorities who received a promotion or position change within the last 4 months, but that isn’t the goal here.
This is to lay the groundwork to fire a very specific person. Somebody the president likely doesn’t have the ability to unilaterally fire himself, but somebody he can throw under the bus and perhaps have a show trial thrown their way, which would begin the process to remove that person.
Question: who has the ability to block necessary parts of the administration’s coming goals, can’t directly be fired by the president, and has oversight over the employment contracts of federal employees?
deleted by creator
I think we just figured it out with the help of chat GPT.
It’s either the national labor relations board or the consumer protections.
Why not both?
Oh they definitely want both of them, I just think they worded this to specifically go after one.
Become a Government informer. Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won.
Ah someone else beat me to the Red Dwarf reference
Civil Protection ahh notice
They need to report the people asking to them to report
Btw, there’s no apparent reason anyone couldn’t send them an email. Would be a shame if they received so much email that it made it difficult to spot real ones.
I feel there is an endless number of incompetent chishet white men who would fit the definition.
