Here are some problems with factoring historical injustices into decision making processes. Also known as “equity.”
1) Groups will compete for the distinction of having been the most historically oppressed so that they will receive the largest share of resources.
2) Individuals and groups will undervalue the traits necessary for success to the extent that they’ll receive an unequal distribution in their favor. This cycle cannot be broken because merit is inherently disincentivized.
3) The system will incentivize frequent airing of past injustices. This is because doing so will increase the likelihood of receiving a greater share of whatever is being distributed.
4) Proponents of equity-based systems must increase their confidence in the claim that “past oppression was responsible for current disparities” beyond the warrant of the evidence. If they did not, they would not be eligible for as many resources.
We cannot create fair systems by treating people differently on the basis of identity markers or past injustices. We can create fair systems by placing equality front and center. This begins with granting everyone a public education of the first rate and exceptional health care.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is important to understand that DEI is not simply an admin arm of higher ed but an ideological apparatus that grew from a body of academic literature. In 2018, @HPluckrose, @ConceptualJames, @MikeNayna, & I exposed the DEI-related fields as totally fraudulent. THREAD
2. We engaged in a one-year immersive exploration of DEI-related fields. We attempted to understand DEI disciplines as “outsiders within” and test their scholarship at its highest levels. (We using fake identities.)
3. Our success metric was three papers in leading DEI-related journals. We thought if we could get three absurd papers published at the highest level it would be the academic scandal of the century & higher ed would be forced to address the problem.
Currently at the @MrAndyNgo court case in Portland. He’s the plaintiff. I’ll be live tweeting the trial. The defendant waived his right to a jury.
The judge is meticulous in establishing rules of conduct for the media and all those present. I am genuinely impressed with his thoroughness, clarity, and professionalism.
At 37 minutes in he’s still establishing and clarifying rules for the media.
Opening statement by the prosecution is quite strong. Mention of witnesses and video evidence (not yet seen). Robbery in the third degree is the charge.
More discourse in a society does not translate into a more advanced society. What matters is not just that discourse is occurring or is allow to occur, but what the discourse is about that’s a way to measure a society’s advancement. 1/5
In China there’s discourse about about the poetry of Mao Zedong and the reasons it’s wonderful. Among the topics censored women’s rights and China’s skewed sex ratio. 2/5
In Iceland they don’t discuss gay marriage not because they have brutal free speech dictates, but because the moral arc bent toward justice and the issue has been resolved. 3/5
My gym in #Budapest has a culture of leg hunting, esp in no gi. They frequently catch me with knee bars and even heel hooks. (The latter are forbidden at most gyms until brown as they are *incredibly* dangerous.)
I’ve had to change up my game and be incredibly mindful of where I place my feet. This is good, but I find myself defending my legs at the expense of trying to take top. I’ve not yet figured out a way to balance leg defense from relentless leg hunters while trying to guard pass.
On another note. I finally figured out why I kept vomiting after my workouts. I couldn’t find just filtered water so I’ve been drinking mineral water. It was literally making me sick.