17 ms·
Coca-Cola says 'Be Less White' learning plan was about workplace inclusion
- nailer 6y agoKeep in mind the racist content wasn’t from Coca Cola (as the headline implies) but rather a LinkedIn Learning contributor based on the work of Robin DiAngelo. All material based on Robin DiAngelo’s work has since been removed from LinkedIn learning: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eu4u1VUWgAENWKd?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eu4u1VUWgAENWKd?format=jpg
- AlexandrB 6y agoIs this the same Robin DiAngelo that wrote White Fragility? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility
- thebladerunner 6y agoMost certainly.
- stuaxo 6y agoThe response to the videos certainly seems like it is that same fragility in action.
- gthtjtkt 6y agoHN isn't the place for your racist views, try Twitter instead.
- jwond 6y agoThis is a perfect example of a kafkatrap. If someone tries to defend themselves against accusations of fragility then it is used as evidence of fragility. It's a very transparent bullying tactic.
- nailer 6y agohttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap
- FriendlyNormie 6y agoBack to reddit you go, faggot.
- inglor_cz 6y agoShe has created an enormous racket for herself. Her per-employee profit might be higher than Apple's. After all, critical race theory books do not need any QA and, in current atmosphere, hardly any salespeople.
- tw04 6y agoWhether they produced it or not - if they were requiring new hires to sit through it, they've got some ownership of it. If the goal was to get people to be thoughtful about intentional or unintentional stereotypes they may hold, this was about as poor of a way of approaching the subject as possible. Starting out by telling every white person they were racist by the age of 3 is a pretty outrageous claim and a great way to shut down any constructive/thoughtful conversations about race.
- zozbot234 6y agoIt's worth noting that this sort of racially divisive workplace training has been made the subject of a recent executive order, banning it for all federal contractors. So this might be a good move from LinkedIn.
- gthtjtkt 6y agoDidn't Biden reverse that?
- treeman79 6y agoDay 1. Executive order. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/biden-has-embraced-critical-race-theory-but-you-can-still-fight-it https://www.manhattan-institute.org/biden-has-embraced-criti...
- throwaway3699 6y agoIt was fairly obvious this was going to happen. CRT-backed racism was literally in their manifesto.
- jimbob45 6y agoTrump banned it. Biden reversed the ban. Hating whites is back on the menu, boys!
- wzdd 6y ago> Dr. DiAngelo was not the creator or facilitator of the LinkedIn Learning course “Confronting Racism, with Robin DiAngelo.” She was unaware that her name, image, and work were being presented in this way and did not participate in or agree to the creation and distribution of an educational resource based on her research. Source: https://www.robindiangelo.com/ https://www.robindiangelo.com/
- nailer 6y agoThanks, I’ve updated my post accordingly. Note however that the training course accurately reflects DiAngelo’s racist views.
- Threeve303 6y ago> DiAngelo received her Ph.D. in multicultural education from the University of Washington in 2004 Honest question after reading her wikipedia page. Is this all that is required to spend 20 years teaching everyone how race relations should work? It seems like a bit of arrogance combined with some sort of grift. This is obviously a minefield to debate online so I'll just leave it at that.
- philistine 6y agoThe quote in the title of the article is really an inappropriate way to try to describe inclusiveness. It’s not about being less, it’s about including others more.
- silicon2401 6y agoFor you maybe, do you speak for everyone else? There are definitely a lot of people who want to reduce whiteness, not just include others more. A concrete example is media capitalizing Black but not white in reference to people. There's also this statement that apparently you would agree with, yet many people got upset by: "It's Okay To Be White". There's even a wikipedia article on it. Inclusiveness is not the same thing to everyone
- Ancapistani 6y agoI’ve also noticed this, and find it ironic because I recall reading about how capitalizing “white” but not “black” was a dog whistle around the time triple parenthesis hit the public consciousness.
- philistine 6y agoI am not "ok to be white". This specific sentence is a dog whistle to show acceptance of white supremacy. I would instead say that the privilege associated with my whiteness is maddening, and must be decried. What I don't like is a corporation including training material telling its employees to "be less white". This is confrontational, and in my point of view could cause more harm to minority groups. When you can, it is better to focus on teaching someone to reinforce positive aspects than to teach them to stop negative behaviours. But as a general point of view of Western society in general, I do think it should be less white.
- silicon2401 6y ago> But as a general point of view of Western society in general, I do think it should be less white. Exactly my point
- 6y ago
- stuaxo 6y ago> Nigel Farage, reform UK leader and senior editor-at-large for Newsweek's "The Debate," also criticized the racism training materials. Of course he criticised it. https://giffenman-miscellania.blogspot.com/2016/08/nigel-farage-or-national-front-or-nf.html https://giffenman-miscellania.blogspot.com/2016/08/nigel-far...
- rtrdea 6y agoAnyone saying this isn't racist is blinded to reality
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThe key to solving this cognitive dissonance is to redefine 'racism' and all the implications that come with it.
- dudul 6y agoHasn't it already been done? Now we somehow have to take "power" (whatever it means) into account to decide if something is racist or not.
- sergefaguet 6y agoAs an international entrepreneur, I am delighted that large US companies spend their time and attention on inconsequential and toxic identity politics. More opportunities for us to exploit their weakness, create real value and shape the future And it goes without saying that the future we create and control will have no place for this drivel
- sangnoir 6y agoThe US has a long history with "toxic identity politics" - much of it very consequential. I dare say, there wasn't a time when America didn't care for "identity politics" - if there was, please let me know when.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Sparkle-san 6y agoYou make it sounds like non-American countries are going to take over America and then then rule over it with an iron fist. That being said I don't know how you'd create "real value" on top of what Coca-Cola does. They put sugar into water and sell it at absurd mark-ups.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI’m amazed that there is so much to do at Coca-Cola. You’d think by now the entire company would be a technician, a taste tester, and a marketer + an army of machines.
- inglor_cz 6y agoYou also need to buy scientists so that they muddy the waters re "excessive sugar consumption and health". Coca-Cola gives a lot of grants.
- Hydraulix989 6y agoOr an army of marketers
- sn_master 6y agoThe slides are here too if you want to check them directly: https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1362774562769879044?s=19 https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1362774562769879044?s=1...
- uxcolumbo 6y agoIs there a definition of what it means to be white (or any other color for that matter)? EDIT: to the down voters - this is a serious question. First we need to know what DiAngelo means with being white. The statement 'be less white' implies that all white learners of her course exhibit some negative traits. What are those negative aspects? How else can you change if you don't know what you're doing wrong in her eyes?
- germinalphrase 6y agoOne of the big problems with this entire conversation is the definition of terms. The word “white” has been defined hundreds of ways within the “woke” literature and multicultural academics - some of them having no connection to skin color. The nuance and depth of thought that has gone into these academic discussions is elided and you end up with “be less white” which is clearly and obviously inflammatory to a whole host of people. That nobody ever defines terms clearly causes everyone to talk past each other and the conversation becomes immediately divisive and counterproductive. There is a real conversation to be had here - but we’re not having it.
- seneca 6y agoYou're correct, but I think you're missing that this is done intentionally. I've heard it referred to as "humpty-dumpying", referring to the character is Through the Looking-Glass: > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." It's equivocating and a preemptive setup for a Motte and Bailey. You can then say blatantly racist things like "be less white", the Bailey, and when called on it, retreat to "oh well when I say white I don't mean white, I mean <some tortured definition>", which is the Motte. If it weren't intentional there would be very little reason to recycle words that already have established meanings and use them to mean something that doesn't explain the meaning with nuance, but supposedly changes it entirely.
- 6y ago
- throwawayyy1986 6y agoIt's almost as though woke people are intentionally trying to sabotage their own "equity" crusade. There's the well-meaning disciples, and then there's the predatory charlatans like DiAngelo and Kendi just profiting off human misery. I suspect Coca-Cola is just distributing whatever criminally priced propaganda they picked up from the charlatans.
- insickness 6y agoFrom the third slide: > To be less white is to: > > - be less oppressive > - be less arrogant > - be less certain > - be less defensive > - be less ignorant > - be more humble > - listen > - believe > - break with apathy > - break with white solidarity Basically associating everything negative with being white. If this is not racism, I don't know what is.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mc32 6y agoWow! That’s incredible. How does something like this pass muster? Hey let’s find every negative stereotype about a class of people and let’s tell them to be less of that stereotype! Nice.
- walkedaway 6y agoThis is basically Silicon Valley mentality broadening its influence. I would guess - just a guess - that a corporation like Coca-cola sees this kind of stuff heralded in Silicon Valley and things "hey we can be hip too!"
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoThis isn't just SV. I'd argue that it arose from academia, and slowly crept into SV from that. I see it in the media and most large companies with a powerful HR department.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bradlys 6y agoPretty good slide tbh. I identify a lot of white behavior there. You can say it’s generic shit but Karen is usually white for a reason - the cultural values and privilege that typically come with whiteness are all right there. Source: am white 50% of the time. Would love to know how the people upvoting downvoting identify in terms of race.
- throwaway803453 6y ago"In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white," one of the slides read. "Research shows that by age 3 to 4, children understand that it is better to be white." And the problem is these kids grow up and then one day have a female boss, or minority boss and if they aren't prepared they add subtle dysfunction to the team and it bruises their ego. I see this even today with my team, one of our employees seems to resent and refuse to learn from our developers in Central America. Or a buddy of mine that can't seem to understand the woman on his team is his boss and not his peer/subordinate so she should get to make the final decision.
- germinalphrase 6y agoFor anyone curious, the “black doll/white doll” research on childhood development goes back to the 1930’s (and has been repeatedly researched since). Both white and black children alike will associate positive attributes (pretty/nice/good) with the white doll and negative attributes (ugly/mean/bad) with the black doll. It’s taken as an indication that even as toddlers, children can/will develop racial identities based on larger cultural stereotypes.
- chewmieser 6y agoThis is from LinkedIn's learning portal, which is used by numerous companies (like Coca-Cola). The training claims to be created by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (author of books such as White Fragility). Dr. DiAngelo has a statement on her website claiming that she had nothing to do with this content and it was created without her consent: Dr. DiAngelo was not the creator or facilitator of the LinkedIn Learning course “Confronting Racism, with Robin DiAngelo.” She was unaware that her name, image, and work were being presented in this way and did not participate in or agree to the creation and distribution of an educational resource based on her research. The course consisted of a selection of clips from an interview Dr. DiAngelo did for the outlet Big Think in 2018, in promotion of her book. The videos were re-edited and presented as an anti-racism training resource by LinkedIn Learning, who licensed the clips from Big Think. She did not provide the slides that were included with the video, and they do not represent the work she does for her virtual or in-person presentations, trainings, and workshops. The course was removed voluntarily by the owners and creators of the content when it was brought to their attention that it was being used without her knowledge.
- mc32 6y agoPart of the problem here is this kind of training has become “an industry”. There is a positive feedback loop and people want to cache in. To make more money you create demand. How do you create demand? You make it obligatory training. This one is about devaluing a culture for political reasons. But there are other topics like coöperation, teamwork, time management, etc. occasionally there are good insights. Mostly it’s regurgitated bullshit that has a stamp of approval and ticks off a compliance box somewhere. It’s a goldmine.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoAnd how do you make it obligatory training? By (perhaps implicitly) threatening a company that a howling mob will destroy their image if they don't show that they're fully committed to the position that the training is supposed to achieve. And how do you show that you're fully committed? By having the training. And what does the training teach you to do? To confront racism wherever you see it. Thus the training recruits you to become part of the howling mob to threaten the next business with. It's so perfect that I can't tell if that's just an accidental side effect of following an ideology, or if it's a deliberate mafia-style shakedown with the added genius of a positive feedback loop that amplifies the threat as time goes on.
- rayiner 6y agoI first heard this notion of trying to "be less white" in the context of Robin DiAngelo: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/anti-racist-education-is-anything-but https://www.aei.org/op-eds/anti-racist-education-is-anything.... I found it alarming, but people assured me she was just a crackpot. To see such rhetoric become normalized enough to be presented in training materials for a Fortune 500 company is truly disturbing.[1] Rhetoric like this is deeply problematic, especially for mixed-race people: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/anti-racist-education-is-anything-but https://www.aei.org/op-eds/anti-racist-education-is-anything.... About 1 in 6 children today are mixed race, and most of them have some white ancestry. What does it mean to a mixed-race person to tell them to "be less white?" I don't want my half-white daughter being told "be less white." (More like me, less like my wife?) The thing is--if some random guy on the street said it, like when someone yelled "go back home" to my wife and daughter, I could shrug that off. You can't eliminate bigotry from society completely. But educated people normalizing this sort of rhetoric in Fortune 500 companies is intolerable. That's bigotry backed by a theoretical and ideological framework. That's something I can't just shrug off. I have been reading Thomas Chatterton Williams (an American writer of mixed heritage who now lives in France) lately. In my view, he has the better take on this: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/part-of-a-larger-battle-a-conversation-with-thomas-chatterton-williams https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/part-of-a-larger-battle-.... We also can't overlook what this rhetoric does to ordinary white people. "Be less white" is easy to say for educated and privileged white people like Robin DiAngelo. They aren't bothered by the implications of this because of their own status and security. They see it as harmless "punching up." Let me tell you, that's not how my grandmother in-law perceives it. To her, "white privilege" is an academic abstraction. She grew up in real poverty and never went to college. By contrast, "be less white" is quite easy to understand as a statement of overt racism. And, perplexingly to her, its overt racism that's evidently being given sanction at the highest levels of our society. [1] An excellent assessment of DiAngelo's book: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizi....
- ephemeral54321 6y agoI agree with your points completely, though DiAngelo is not white. She is the daughter of two Ashkenazi Israelis.
- nobodyCloak 6y agoHonestly seeing the comments on here makes me feel a little better about life. Even if there are people out there who want to judge me literally by the color of my skin and not the content of my character, I’m happy there are still a lot of people here who don’t want to go back to the 1950s way of looking at race (or heaven forbid to the racially-focused social Darwinism that caused so much suffering in the early and mid-20th century in so many countries).
- ceilingcorner 6y agoThe average person isn’t racist, isn’t sexist, and mostly just wants a decent deal for everyone. Unfortunately, those don’t make for attention-grabbing news headlines.
- lazyeye 6y agoIm also genuinely surprised to read the comments here. I typically expect US silicon valley types to be woke to the point of mental retardation.
- inglor_cz 6y agoImagine "Be Less Black", "Be Less Jewish", "Be Less Native American", "Be Less Inuit". Neoracism. We need a word that captures the essence of such thinking and "neoracism" is a good candidate.
- Minor49er 6y agoWhat's the difference between "racism" and "neoracism"?
- inglor_cz 6y agoThe same as between Nazism and neo-Nazism. Not much in essence, slightly different mimicry, identical roots.
- viklove 6y agoWell a lot of people seem to think the definition of racism has changed to mean "power + prejudice," instead of just judging someone based on their race, so theoretically "neoracism" would just mean what "racism" meant ~20 years ago.
- curryst 6y ago"power + prejudice" is referred to as "structural racism". It's a sociology term. It was never intended to replace the common definition of racism, it was meant to be a framework for thinking about the different types and effects of racism. Structural racism doesn't preclude other types of racism, and structural racism can be a cause for acts of racism. I think the focus is on structural racism now because the more blatant forms are drastically less common than they used to be.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> "power + prejudice" is referred to as "structural racism" I'm not sure where you got that idea, but structural racism doesn't actually require prejudice at all (it often involves it's, but includes institutional features which preserve disadvantage through neglect as well as active discrimination.) > It was never intended to replace the common definition of racism Yes, “power + prejudice” was, when coined in 1970, specifically designed to replace the common understanding of “racism” and explain why relatively disadvantaged groups (who those endorsing the definition tend to describe actually powerless rather than merely relatively disadvantaged) cannot be racists in the context of the society in which they are disadvantaged, no matter how prejudiced they were.
- underseacables 6y agoLinkedIn takes it down but who was ultimately responsible for it? The fact that it has Coca-Cola‘s logo on it to me seems to be that Coca-Cola paid for this training, or at the very least endorsed it. It would be highly unethical and possibly illegal to just slap a company’s logo on a presentation even if it was recommended to their employees. I think we do need training in how to work together better regardless of background, but I think a better approach would have been to talk about ethics, values, and treating one another with respect, forgiveness, and fairness. Just be kind to one another!
- dang 6y agoAll: if you're going to comment on a divisive topic like this one, please make sure you're up on the latest HN guidelines and are using the site in the intended spirit. The intended spirit is curious conversation. That means finding things of interest in what others have to say and/or the story, and responding from that interest. If you're feeling angry at things you've heard before and reacting with things that have been said before, that is not curious conversation. That is ideological battle, in which people use hardened pre-existing points to bash each other's positions. We don't want that here—but please understand why: it's simply a question of preserving this site for its mandate. Battle mode a.k.a. flamewar takes over threads completely if allowed to, and destroys the curious conversation that HN is supposed to exist for. Since we're trying to be a particular kind of website, we need a community which understands what the site is for and avoids using it for what it's not for. Some accounts are not only using this particular thread for ideological battle, but are using HN primarily for ideological battle overall. That's the line at which we start banning accounts. If you're not familiar with how and why we draw the line at that standard, there's lots of past explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dudul 6y agoAre there been any study around the effectiveness of these "trainings"? How many people get out of a training where a slide tells them to be "less white, ie more tolerant, less oppressive, etc" feeling more tolerant? And how many get out angry and more alienated than before?
- itsdrewmiller 6y agoI doubt there's anything on this particular type of training, but https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail and the paper it summarizes are still the best summary I've seen about what does and doesn't have a positive impact on diversity in the workplace. It says diversity trainings in general do not seem to be useful.
- loudtieblahblah 6y agoCoca cola was invented/founded by a Confederate Lieutenant Colonel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stith_Pemberton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stith_Pemberton They supported Nazi Germany against US embargo rules, inventing Fanta to keep business in the Nazi economy https://timeline.com/fanta-coca-cola-nazi-845ee7e513af… https://timeline.com/fanta-coca-cola-nazi-845ee7e513af… Theyve had Columbian union organizers murdered by right wing militias https://prospect.org/api/amp/features/coca-cola-killings/?__twitter_impression=true https://prospect.org/api/amp/features/coca-cola-killings/?__... They've built an empire off of oppression. And now they want to shame middle and working class white people for OUR sins of birth? Lol
- sn_master 6y agoI am only replying because I hate the spread of misinformation like this. Hundreds who saw this probably believed you without spending a second facts-checking. All the profits from Fanta were kept away from the Nazi government by the American Coca-Cola managers in Germany and then handed over the parent company when the war was over. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta-in-nazi-germany-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta... The Columbia story has nothing to with racism. It's all internal Colombian politics, not one race raging a war against another. John Stith Pemberton died 133 years ago and is irrelevant to any discussion regarding the current Coca-Cola.
- loudtieblahblah 6y agoYou vying for a job there or something?
- loudtieblahblah 6y agoCoca cola was invented/founded by a Confederate Lieutenant Colonel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stith_Pemberton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stith_Pemberton They supported Nazi Germany against US embargo rules, inventing Fanta to keep business in the Nazi economy https://timeline.com/fanta-coca-cola-nazi-845ee7e513af… https://timeline.com/fanta-coca-cola-nazi-845ee7e513af… Theyve had Columbian union organizers murdered by right wing militias https://prospect.org/api/amp/features/coca-cola-killings/?__twitter_impression=true https://prospect.org/api/amp/features/coca-cola-killings/?__... They've built an empire off of oppression. And now they want to shame middle and working class white people for OUR sins of birth? D'Angelo gets paid 10s of 1000s to white wash corporate criminals as social justice heroes.
- sn_master 6y agoAll the profits from Fanta were kept away from the Nazi government by the American Coca-Cola managers in Germany and then handed over the parent company when the war was over. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta...
- loudtieblahblah 6y agothey still contributed to the Nazi economy. They employed Germans against the US embargo and made profits from a people exterminating a number of populations at once. Not quite IBM's level of evil, but still scummy. Hiding profits to avoid taxes is what they do now in every country. They're going to hide behind "hurr tax shelters, me no support nazis"? How about you just don't setup shop in Nazi Germany as US law demanded of US companies.
- sn_master 6y agoYou mean they employed Germans to make unhealthy diabetes-inducing drinks to other Germans instead of letting them go to the battlefield and kill Americans, or work in weapons factories that all demanded all the labor they could get? Yeah right, really evil, specially evil when they handed all their profits to the US when the war was over. The US embargo was on exports only, which is why Fanta was invented in the first place when the Coke syrup was no longer allowed to be exported. Coca-Cola did not violate any embargos. The company was founded in Germany in 1923 ten whole years before the Nazis took over, and when US had good relations with Germany. You can't fault them for doing business in a friendly country. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta-in-nazi-germany-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coca-cola-invented-fanta...
- Solar19 6y agoAs a brown person and hopefully a champion of reason, I would like to encourage you white folks to be a bit less obedient and compliant with this madness. It is long past time that this ideology was firmly and squarely rejected, contested, questioned. Leftist ideology is extremely troubling and has devolved into a cult. It should never have been possible for an ideology of this quality to co-opt all these orthogonal communities and organizations and workplaces. This climate of fear, intimidation, and dog-whistle-whistling is unacceptable if we're going to have a decent civilization. I think those of you who disagree with leftist ideology need to be a lot more vocal about it. When your employer, of all things, tries to shove this ideology down your throat, say No. Hard no. Make it clear that you're no more interested in such indoctrination than you would be in a Scientology brown bag or a mandatory prayer break. You need to surface your ethical and substantive disagreement with this political ideology, and to make it crystal clear that it is in fact a partisan political ideology that is being "taught". This has gone on long enough. It's time to push leftists into the normal cult boundaries that any civilization must have. I think we need to take civilization a bit more seriously than we have – I wouldn't assume that civilization can survive arbitrary ideological assaults. And the stress that leftists are causing everyone, including themselves, is a non-trivial harm and ethically relevant.
- honestdevthrow3 6y agoHere's the problem though, and for the record I fully agree with you; It's enough of a third-rail-topic that I can't even respond to this with my normal account; we're already seeing enough attempts at crime-by-association (SSC and the latest accusations) that combined with an apparently welcome tendency to examine all past actions for transgression, even if I thought I had something to say that was currently within the overton window I'd be hesitant to put it on the internet because of how the winds seem to be blowing. I _certainly_ would not speak negatively of any of these programs at work, that would be an excellent way to end my career (putting this bluntly, you have more leeway than a white man does in speaking up about these things at this juncture; but even that has limits, look at the diversity chief of Apple who was let go.) I worry this becomes a vicious cycle. We're already past the point that many reasonable voices disengage out of fear, so there is very little pushback until this has gone far enough to become untenable. (And this shouldn't be taken as some right wing dogwhistle, there have been HN articles lately detailing papers showing that this fear is present across the spectrum; and it's somewhat emblemic that I need to clarify this point.) We're watching the iron law of oligarchy played out in an ideology.
- andyxor 6y ago#BoycottCocaCola
- sershe 6y agoI would highly recommend the "Cynical Theories" book for some background on the academic disciplines and "scholars" this stuff is coming from. I feel like the book is in fact too kind, but it is a good background (and it makes a case for liberal/universalist social justice, which is what I thought social justice was about). Being an unapologetic modernist and an enlightenment, for the lack of better word, fundamentalist, what struck me the most is how, whereas I used to think that "math and science are white imperialism" people are freak edge cases, they in fact represent the core beliefs of the movement and its philosophical roots. The conclusion that I drew (not in the book as such) is that the whole "studies" edifice has no more claim to truth and morality than Old Testament theology, or taking some other random philosophical notion like Letzter Mensch and running with it to characterize society.