I want to push back on your use of the word “ideology” in this context. The original comment and your response seems to react to what some academics call “comp

I want to push back on your use of the word “ideology” in this context. The original comment and your response seems to react to what some academics call “complex systems”—people and preferences (in this case). If I’m reading this response correctly, there is a charge that simple models are being applied to complex systems. And some peoples don’t like the outcomes. (I have to be careful here myself, making such a simple statement lest I go from the pan into the fire-—I recognize some people who “don’t like outcomes” are fighting for social recognition and civil rights). Back to my point…the definition of ‘ideology’ which I find useful comes from Peter Sloterdijk's 1983 book, “Critique of Cynical Reason” where he explored the rationale of cynicism and social discontent. Sloterdijk describes the difficulty of an argument with someone intent on lying to you. Take that a step further. Its an order of magnitude more difficult to find agreement with someone who has a false belief (ie. a witness to an event who has a false belief because of a unconscious bias). Finally, he defines “ideology” as an personal and internal idea—unexpressed—of how the world works. In the above example of a queer woman of color objecting to the appointment of a queer white person, that’s not an internal and unexpressed personal belief driving their argument. Her argument is right there in the open. The first one is impossible problem and the second one is a complex problem. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system [2]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Reason/wDNyQgAACAAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Rea...