Thread by @peterboghossian

I find this fascinating

time.com/collection/100…

Very few of these individuals are actually influential, but they were mostly written about by people who are. 1)

It appears as if these individuals were chosen for reasons relating to superficial diversity and not actual influence. (Certainly not enough influence to be in the top 100.) Here are just two problems with attempting to artificially manufacture such outcomes. 2)

1) The legitimacy of the periodical is called into question. Readers won’t trust TIME because the people on the list are obviously not the most influential people. 2) Readers won’t trust that other people on the list are actually influential. 3)

By manufacturing diverse outcomes, those who composed this list are implying that systems are fair because they produce outcomes in which those who have different skin colors and sexual orientations are the most influential people of 2021. This is clearly false. 4)

And this is a microcosm of the larger problems we’re facing. If editors listed people who are actually the most influential, they’d be predominantly white and male, and consequently a very vocal minority would accuse TIME of racism. 5)

So TIME has to manufacture an outcome (lie) to make it appear as if they value diversity. In doing so they undermine their authority, as well as many people’s place on the list. 6)

But the most insidious thing of all is that this list offers the appearance of existing playing fields being level and because of that, it creates (superficially) diverse outcomes. But playing fields are not level, and the system is not fair, especially for minorities. 7)

This is what happens when you live in service to an ideology and not to the truth—you compromise your integrity and lose legitimacy while undermining the values you purport to serve. And this is exactly what’s happening to our society. 8)