Thread by @SarahTheHaider

It “exonerates” them to the extent that we might judge them as clueless (but well-meaning) participants in a harmful act.

But, as I said, there is nothing we would today call a woke absurdity that didn’t begin this way.

This road has been paved with good intentions. 1

https://twitter.com/bayesianfox/status/1456773235001921545

Let’s use trigger/content warnings as an ex. Initial intention was to protect assault victims from PTSD. But it has spiraled into something far more bizarre, and harmful to the learning and functioning of those same students- why?

Because the “right” intentions are not enough. 2

In this case - of course accessibility is good. But was this (anywhere near!) the best or most logical way to do this?

Clearly, no.

Was this is a way that will, directly and indirectly, encourage the racial essentialism already festering widely in our culture? Yes! 3

I will say again- the most bizarre aspect of it is that no one, of the many who participated in the making of the video, seemed to find a problem with this.

But how can that be? I don’t know. An interesting possibility was sent to me: Abilene paradox 4

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_p…

I’ve been predicting publicly a lot today, so let me make another: a few years from now, we won’t find this very unusual.

It has never mattered to the adoption of DEI norms whether a particular measure is actually effective, or at least, not harmful.

I’d love to be wrong!! 5/5