3 ms·

I believe the set of beliefs associated most often with DEI are weakest with no opposition at all. I believe a lot of it is reactionary. This is why it needs hu

I believe the set of beliefs associated most often with DEI are weakest with no opposition at all. I believe a lot of it is reactionary. This is why it needs huge media events where people can be outraged. But as far as ideas goes that would be general humanism like color blindness, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, guilty until proven innocent, equality instead of equity (although a balance here is probably most desirable, DEI tends toward totalitarianism). Maybe DIE isn't opposed to all these values, but it has positioned itself as such. And I believe opposing such values became en vogue by a class of academics to set themselves apart ironically. Although its ideas aren't that new as well.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Sorry, but I think we're talking past each other. My claim is that the values you mentioned(free speech &c.) are derivatives of enlightenment thought whose epistemological basis is objective reality. This appears tautologically true for true-believers within objective reality. The DEI values are derived from an internal contradiction within objective reality which is something like, "How can X,Y,and Z bad things exist when people can [supposedly] embody <the values you've listed>?" That's the contradiction I'm referring to within the symbolic universe of objective reality. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance that is typically either resolved through individual failings (individualism being another value) or in the case of the avant-garde, substituting the whole or parts of objective reality with an alternative one ie: the subjective one. The big hurdle here seems to be understanding objective reality as itself a totalizing and reified instantiation of a particular symbolic universe. It's something that's difficult to explain through text, but a glancing shot might be to examine the contradiction at the horizon of objective reality, namely that the displacement of a subjective reality by objective reality's totalizing nature precludes the values that objective reality contains, specifically "the individual's freedom to choose one's reality." In a universe where individuals are free to choose anything, not being able to choose subjective reality feels like the universe singing a version of Meatloaf's ballad on repeat[1]. I can't help but point out that the values you've mentioned (to me) aren't a response to DEI, but what DEI is responding to. The way I know this is that they predate DEI. Values that are a response to DEI cannot predate DEI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(But_I_Won%27t_Do_That) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(Bu...
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I do indeed believe in objective reality, but enlightenment also taught me that my perspective can only ever be subjective as well as I can only hope that I can approach these values to a sufficient degree. This is an important realization and a potent argument to disarm a lot of DEI initiatives. Because it often proposes to be able to discern inequality objectively and redistribute it in a just manner. Impossible from an equally subjective perspective. And they do that by violating the values first proposed. Subjectively and objectively they simply do away with them completely. Abstracted further, the way you describe some DEI ideas react to the enlightenment ideas, is to say that idealism doesn't solve real problems (color blindness is nice an all, but inequalities remain). That is not wrong even if everyone indeed believed in equality. Everyone wants to provide disability access and is in favor of that. But ask yourself how often you actually acted on that wish. Or how often you forgot about it. But there are pragmatic ways to solve it without discriminating the healthy at all. But don't let all that fool you. This isn't a battle about objective or subjective reality. It is much more simple. It is about monarchy and people believing their ideas makes them your betters. This is what prestigious institutions want to sell in the modern world where logistics of knowledge come into reach of everyone. The need to differentiate themselves and their institutions. People that believe they should cut the pieces of the pie you deserve in their opinion. One as subjective as everyone else's. Why is it successful? Because it instills fears in its followers. That there are evil racist and sexist people that are out to get you. In response the believers do away with enlightenment values. I believe it to be wrong that there are deeper thoughts behind it. In the end these are just people with special interests trying to sell their religion. The Alex Jones of Harvard. I wouldn't even say they are smarter in selling their product. Maybe a bit more subtle. Their failure is that they are absolutely incapable to connect to the working class in a competitive economy. No, psychologically safety and bad words aren't on the mind of people that try to get by and fear the need to justify their jobs every minute.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Great exchange! thank you

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Sorry, but I think we're talking past each other. My claim is that the values you mentioned(free speech &c.) are derivatives of enlightenment thought whose epistemological basis is objective reality. This appears tautologically true for true-believers within objective reality. The DEI values are derived from an internal contradiction within objective reality which is something like, "How can X,Y,and Z bad things exist when people can [supposedly] embody <the values you've listed>?" That's the contradiction I'm referring to within the symbolic universe of objective reality. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance that is typically either resolved through individual failings (individualism being another value) or in the case of the avant-garde, substituting the whole or parts of objective reality with an alternative one ie: the subjective one. The big hurdle here seems to be understanding objective reality as itself a totalizing and reified instantiation of a particular symbolic universe. It's something that's difficult to explain through text, but a glancing shot might be to examine the contradiction at the horizon of objective reality, namely that the displacement of a subjective reality by objective reality's totalizing nature precludes the values that objective reality contains, specifically "the individual's freedom to choose one's reality." In a universe where individuals are free to choose anything, not being able to choose subjective reality feels like the universe singing a version of Meatloaf's ballad on repeat[1]. I can't help but point out that the values you've mentioned (to me) aren't a response to DEI, but what DEI is responding to. The way I know this is that they predate DEI. Values that are a response to DEI cannot predate DEI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(But_I_Won%27t_Do_That) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Do_Anything_for_Love_(Bu...

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I do indeed believe in objective reality, but enlightenment also taught me that my perspective can only ever be subjective as well as I can only hope that I can approach these values to a sufficient degree. This is an important realization and a potent argument to disarm a lot of DEI initiatives. Because it often proposes to be able to discern inequality objectively and redistribute it in a just manner. Impossible from an equally subjective perspective. And they do that by violating the values first proposed. Subjectively and objectively they simply do away with them completely. Abstracted further, the way you describe some DEI ideas react to the enlightenment ideas, is to say that idealism doesn't solve real problems (color blindness is nice an all, but inequalities remain). That is not wrong even if everyone indeed believed in equality. Everyone wants to provide disability access and is in favor of that. But ask yourself how often you actually acted on that wish. Or how often you forgot about it. But there are pragmatic ways to solve it without discriminating the healthy at all. But don't let all that fool you. This isn't a battle about objective or subjective reality. It is much more simple. It is about monarchy and people believing their ideas makes them your betters. This is what prestigious institutions want to sell in the modern world where logistics of knowledge come into reach of everyone. The need to differentiate themselves and their institutions. People that believe they should cut the pieces of the pie you deserve in their opinion. One as subjective as everyone else's. Why is it successful? Because it instills fears in its followers. That there are evil racist and sexist people that are out to get you. In response the believers do away with enlightenment values. I believe it to be wrong that there are deeper thoughts behind it. In the end these are just people with special interests trying to sell their religion. The Alex Jones of Harvard. I wouldn't even say they are smarter in selling their product. Maybe a bit more subtle. Their failure is that they are absolutely incapable to connect to the working class in a competitive economy. No, psychologically safety and bad words aren't on the mind of people that try to get by and fear the need to justify their jobs every minute.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Great exchange! thank you