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
People who celebrate the murder of their political opponents are not participating in the marketplace of ideas, they are encouraging deadly political violence by building a permission structure to legitimize and justify the murder of those they disagree with.
My freedom of speech means I get to clearly and succintly explain to the whole world that if you call for the assassination of your rivals this is not free speech, it is a direct incitement to political violence.
John Stewart Mill gave a famous example where he said that if someone claims corn dealers are starvering the poor this can be allowed if circulated through the press, but is not allowed when shouted in front of an excited mob assembled outside the house of a corn dealer....
1/ The Radical Left has used political violence to advance their cause for decades. What's new is the progressive left's professional class building a permission structure to justify the use of political violence
It's called Assassination Culture, and we need to talk about it
🧵
2/ To understand what's happening, you need to understand that the line between progressive-left professional class and radical left has been blurred. The extremist radical left and the socially progressive "bluesky left" are increasingly intertwined both socially and politically
3/ This is because many of the extremist radical from the 60's and 70' who advocated for, and participated in, the use of political violence have been welcomed into the mainstream institutions that are run by the progressive left professional class.
Look at the number of pro-athletes posting condolences about Charlie Kirk, and you'll see what a huge cultural figure he was.
He wasn't just famous in conservative circles, his clips debating college students were a loadbearing pillar of online political pop-culture
His willingness to calmly and politely debate all comers on any issue (at the very moment when cancel culture was strongest and people were afraid to say what they think) made him a sort of lovable internet folkhero.
He was an indelible piece of the online landscape.
Charlie was not quarantined to the "conservative ghetto" of online content; he broke contain and became a mainstream cultural figure.
Charlie became the cultural symbol of free debate, free speech, and settling differences in public with words
What he is describing here is the deconstruction of America as an ideal. The goal is to destroy America by subverting the conception of America as a force for good which sustains American confidence, and attacking the founding narrative from which America derives it's legitimacy.
They will try to redefine America in a way which subverts the legitimacy of America as a national project. They want to erase the current American narrative, and replace it with a new one which grants them the right to inherit America's wealth, power, prestige, and influence.
They will attack America the same way they attacked Universities: by undermining legitimacy, authority, and self-confidence by asserting that the whole project is just racism, colonialism, and oppression in disguise.
2/ on racist resentment against white people and racialist identity politics, complete with the racist stereotyping.
This shows a continuity of thinking over a period of a decade, and there has been no take back, or explanation for the disgustingly racist tweets she made.
3/ Chris said he didn't care if she was fired, the point was to use her posts to force the New Yorker to choose between equal enforcement of bans on hiring racists who make racist content, or to be explicit that racism against Jews and whites is allowed...