3 ms·
> the idea that every term should be crystalized down to a single unambiguous meaning is, ironically, quintessentially Orwellian. Sure, but no one is advocatin
by throwaway894345 4y ago
> the idea that every term should be crystalized down to a single unambiguous meaning is, ironically, quintessentially Orwellian.
Sure, but no one is advocating for a single unambiguous meaning of the term, the parent seems to be noting that concern should be paid when a word/phrase develops an opposite (or at least very contradictory) meaning, presumably in the context of a charged political environment. You may not believe that's what's happening here, which is fine, but that doesn't imply an argument in favor of singular meanings.
- tptacek 4y agoOh, this blog post is sure advocating for a single unambiguous meaning of the term "diversity"; the whole argument falls apart without that definition.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoI dunno, I felt like it hewed a lot closer to the original meaning of the word diversity than it's current usage in political parlance. I too think that diversity is more than skin deep but apparently skin is what matters today \shrug
- tptacek 4y agoNo part of my argument depends on invalidating your most intuitive definition of the term "diversity".
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoDo you disagree that many advocates for institutionalized DEI have a shallow definition of diversity? That is my experience. You are correct that if the author's definition does not match the one in the wild, their argument falls apart, but by and large, I don't think that's going on here. For what its worth, though I think we might disagree at some core level about this topic, I do appreciate your way of reasoning through your criticism. It's amazing how many disagreements start at the level of definitions without the disagreeing parties ever reconciling, or even acknowledging, the problem of messy definitions.