These terms are everywhere, and they do not mean what most people think they mean. These terms are loaded, and I'd like to show you what under the surface of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives.
A Thread:
2/ When most of us hear "diversity," we might think: "make sure our group has people with different ideas, perspectives, and viewpoints, so we can look at whatever problems we face from many different angles."
This is *NOT* what Social Justice means by diversity.
3/ Sometimes people hear "diversity" and think: "make sure not to discriminate against people because of what they look like; if you do you'll end up rejecting good people and leaving 'talent on the table'."
Again, this is also *NOT* what Social Justice means by diversity
4/ Finally, some people hear diversity and think "we need people from all walks of life, with all kinds of experience, because different types of experience will help us solve a wide variety of problems."
And yet again, this is *NOT* what Social Justice means by diversity.
5/ To understand how social justice thinks about diversity, you have to remember that Social Justice places a heavy emphasis on group identity, and think of people in terms of their cluster of identities. So, are you a straight white male, or are you a black Muslim woman?
6/ Social Justice thinks the different identities you have are what determine your "social location." In other words, your race, sex, religion, and so on will determine your access to resources (money) and social capital (clout).
You could think of it like a video game where...
7/ there are different levels of difficulty. Social justice says "straight white men" play life on easy mode because society was built by and for straight white men, where "black disabled transgender lesbians" play life on the most difficult mode for exactly the same reason.
8/ Your identity list, and ONLY your identity list (IE, black, bisexual, woman) determines where you are on the social ladder. How much money you have is irrelevant. Your score in the game doesn't matter, it's the level of difficulty you play on.
Read that again.
9/ Social Justice thinks our social position, the level of difficulty we play on, is the lens we see the world through. So a gay person sees reality through a lens only available to gay people, and the same would apply to black, woman, lesbian, trans, and all other identities.
10/ Further, Social justice thinks everyone must adopt the Social justice ideology or they are decieved. They think anyone who doesn't agree with Social Justice has been "duped" by the system, or has "false consciousness," and must be woken up. Hence the term "woke."
11/ This is the kind of thinking going on when a black person gets called an "oreo" (black on the outside white on the inside) or when Nikole Hannah Jones (1619 project editor) said there is a difference between being "racially Black" and being "politically Black."
12/ So you can't just hire people in your organization that have Black skin, they must also have a Black political ideology. If you hired a Black person who thought Social Justice was nonsense, that would not count as diversity because that person has a "white mindset."
13/ This means "diversity" according to Social Justice occurs when you have a group of people of "marginalized" identities (black, gay, trans, female) who all completely agree with Social Justice and are sufficiently "woke." Non-woke minorities don't count toward "diversity."
14/ So, for example, if you hired a non-woke Black person they would call them a "token," "uncle Tom," or "race traitor." Only woke people thinking in terms of oppressed identity according to Social Justice count toward diversity.
They think everyone else is "false diversity."
15/ Once we see the game that is played, we can explain inclusion and equity in short order:
According to Social Justice, Inclusion is *NOT* making everyone feel welcome, and it is *NOT* merely ending discrimination.
16/ Woke people think an "inclusive" space is where no member of a marginalized group will feel, attacked, pressured, out of place, unwanted, or experience any other form of social discomfort. This means people with marginalizes identities must be supported at all times.
17/ The result of this is that anything that you might say which would offend a marginalized person is not allowed. For example, an Atheist could not, in an inclusive space, say Allah does not exist, because that may offend Muslims. Social Justice would see that as...
18/ an attack on a marginalized person. If you attempted to prove it using science, they would say you're just using the white western idea of science to attack the poor marginalized Muslims. (if you said "but science is true" they would claim your only saying that to get power)
19/ Now, Social Justice would say eventually ALL OF SOCIETY must be an inclusive space. That means that if the woke Social Justice advocates get their way free speech is gone, and no one would be allowed to say anything offensive to "marginalized people" lest anyone feel excluded
20/ I would note, this does not apply to white people, and the reason why brings us to "equity."
Equity is *NOT* equal opportunity. Equity is *NOT* equality under the law. And equity is *NOT* judging everyone by the same standard.
Equity is something far different...
21/ Just like diversity and inclusion, equity is concerned about who has social power, and wants to do something incredibly expansive. It is described as "adjusting shares in order to make citizens A and B equal." What they mean by this is that they want to take from those...
22/ who have a lot, and they want to give to those who do not. However, THEY ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT MONEY, they are talking about social power, social capital, and social influence. They mean clout...they mean POWER, and they say so explicitly:
23/ Further, they don't mean just making things equal now, they mean making up for past injustices. It isn't enough to make sure (for example) Black and White people have equal shares of society, Black people must be given more to make up for the times White people had more...
24/ In the minds of the Woke, society must give the garden of the marginalized extra water and fertilizer to make up for the social drought that they went through due to white western capitalist oppression. However, since this is according to identity lines that means...
25/ Oprah, Obama, and Jay-Z are entitled to reparations because they are members of a marginalized group, and poor white opiate addicts dying in the rust belt must help foot the bill because they are white males and part of the oppressor class.
This is how Woke people think.
26/ So, when you are at work, church, university, or school, and you see these terms used keep in mind that what is behind them is an entire worldview that has cloaked itself in language that mimics liberal equality and justice, but is very far from both. Keep in mind what is...
27/ hiding under the surface of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
It's a fitting coincidence that Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity form the acronym "DIE," which is exactly what happens to any organization or institution that adopts the ideas of Wokeness and Social Justice.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Indigenous displacement is an idea from postcolonial theory often used to normatively criticize western nations; often using statistical demographic change as evidence of the charge.
My question is: why this doesn't idea apply to London?
2/ The point I am trying to bring out here is related to a question asked by the philosopher Joseph Heath: "What is the difference between a settler and an immigrant?"
Concepts like "indigenous displacement" appear to be neutral descriptions but are in fact normatively loaded...
3/ And the result is that they get deployed according to the normative political considerations of the person using them.
This is why Europeans who move to the U.S. are called "settlers" but Syrian refugees get called immigrants.
"Catholics would be tolerated on the fringes of society"
This sentence is why the dissident right will fail. Trad-Caths/Catholic Integralists see protestants as an abhorration of the true faith. So there's *zero* chance they ever agree to be "tolerated at the fringe of society."
The dissident right has a Protestant wing and a catholic wing.
Protestant DR types think some form of *protestant* Christianity (usually but not always some form of Calvinism) needs to be the default religion of the public.
Trad-caths think it should be catholicism...
And the trad-caths are never, evr, going to let the protestant calvinists (whom the catholics view as a heretical abhorration of true Christianity) force catholics to be merely "tolerated at the fringes."
Likewise, protestants will *never* submit to catholic rule. Ever.
Since "noticing" appears to be a thing, I'd like to say that I "notice" things as well....And I can't help but *notice* the obsession that certain people have with Israel, even though other nations (China, India, Russia, etc) impact the U.S. far more....
I also can't help but notice that those same sorts of people are obsessed the influence of wealth Jews, but have nothing to say about the influence of money from China, Qatar, Russia, India, and so on.
The Jews are, apparantly, an item of incredibly deep concern...
For a great number of people, and I can't help but *notice* that the far greater and more pernicious influence (and subversion) coming from foreign money in other countries gets mysteriously ignored, and I *notice* that Israel is held to a higher standard than every other country
1/ Wokeness is the alloy of the political ideology and moral value framework from Critical Theory with the social constructivist worldview and epistemology of postmodernism.
As the political side of woke recedes culturally, it leaves behind the underlying postmodern worldview.
2/ The teleology of the woke project came from the moral commitments of intersectional social justice (Trans-rights, Race based activism, etc)
Those movements are being dissolved by their own incoherence and absurdity (Land acknowledgements, claiming men can become women, etc)
3/ The dissolution and exhaustion of the political movement that provided the teleology and moral value framework for wokeness leaves the entire social movement around which those things were built without any thing to serve as locus for meaning, purpose, or values.
The left has what @wesyang calls a "Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus." It's an apparatus of messaging distribution which is owned and operated by leftists top to bottom, and disseminates only the information which aligns with leftist moral norms and political priorities.
@wesyang The lefts messaging apparatus used to be the information distributor for all of society (we called it "mainstream media") but new media alternatives and the rollback of social media censorship regime's mean society is no longer a captive audience for the lefts messaging apparatus
For decades it was the progressive leftist worldview from which the norms of public life and the values of the common culture were derived. The at-large culture was the home of leftists, and conservative evangelicals were treated like unwanted guests.
Those days are over.
The culture is changing so quickly that people are about to get whiplash. It's no longer the case that the default values of public life are those of the social-justice left, (or of "progressives") and progressives no longer get to determine what is allowed in "polite company."
In other words, the progressives no longer get to simply assume that their goals, values, and priorities get to take center stage in the at-large culture.
The presumption of progressive leftists that they get to set the terms of the debate no longer carries any weight.