4 ms·

Where "significant progress" is defined as... DEI goals are so vague as to be non-existent which make it possible to continue to use DEI as a moniker on the pa

Where "significant progress" is defined as... DEI goals are so vague as to be non-existent which make it possible to continue to use DEI as a moniker on the path towards ideological obedience.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Obedience towards what ideology?
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  Clearly the one pushing for the adoption of DEI. Call it "The Ideology Which Shall Not Be Named" if you please although that hardly makes for a good acronym - too many consonants. If you are really interested in where this all comes from I'd suggest perusing James Lindsay's New Discourses which is centred around this subject. DEI finds its origin in Critical Social Justice which in its turn is an offshoot from "Theory" [1], short for "critical [2] postmodern theory". New Discourses is full of references which makes it possible to trace back anything found there to its source - which is more or less all that Lindsay does, he starts at some academic utterance related to this subject and traces the references back to their roots. [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-theory/ [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical/
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    The guy who refers to the Pride flag as "the flag of a hostile enemy?" No thanks.
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        If there's one thing the Internet has taught us, it's that some first-pass filtering is necessary to function in the modern world of unfettered information access. It doesn't take much looking into the person running the site to know the site's going to be well-researched (in the sense that it dives deeply on one viewpoint and disregards others) well-crafted (in the sense it possesses some modicum of capability wielding the English language, a property some confuse for a correct argument) one-sided content that will mislead a reader who takes it as fact. The ad hominem attack was a fallacy(1) in the days where debate was a nice, orderly thing among an intellectual elite in a salon. In the modern world, it's necessary to defend the listener against a gish-gallop attack of people who try and craft reality by volume. (1) technically, it should also be noted that the purpose of the formal rules of argumentation was to teach its students how to win arguments, not seek truth. In that regard, of course excluding the fact your opponent is arguing for, in the case of James Lindsay, white genocide is beneficial because it gives one a chance at winning the argument where none should be given.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > Also realise that the "pride flag" represents only a small vocal minority of those who it claims to represent, that many of those it purports to represent do not agree It's not the stars-and-bars, for christssake. The rainbow flag has always just been a "pride" flag. Even if you want to be reductive about it, it wasn't designed with anything other than gayness in mind. If you see that as the flag of your enemy, you're saying more about yourself than the state of US identity politics. I've had to play the "queer moderate" role on this site more times than I'd care to admit, but your perspective on this topic completely confuses me. You're mad that... queer progressives are now too queer and progressive? Literally your last three comments have been about mocking a "mindset that shall not be named" for crimes that are substantiated on nothing other than racism and presupposed conflict. The irony is suffocating your point here, but I'd still like to hear your itemized list of complaints about this enemy host that rallies under the rainbow flag.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    James Lindsay's shtick is doing enough research on academic leftism (for lack of a better term) to identify some of its primary sources, and then harvesting jargon from it to confuse and intimidate people who (like him) haven't taken the time to follow any of the underlying scholarship. It's a grift. In particular, DEI (we're almost always referring to what I'd call "institutional DEI", a particular organizational orthodoxy about proactive inclusion and avoidance of bigotry") is not, in fact, an offshoot of Critical Theory, or Critical Postmodern Theory, or Critical Social Justice, or Critical Race Theory, and the point where you're pretending you can distinguish these things in a tweet (some of them are actually at odds with each other!), you've already given away the game.
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      Lindsay shows a trail running from a bunch of German and French philosophers in the 1800's through their followers and hangers-on all the way to the present. You don't show anything in support of your claims other than a few ad-hominems. Given the matter-of-fact way in which you make your claims I assume you can disprove the trail dug up by Lindsay and enlighten us about the real background of the "DEI movement". If your proof holds up better than Lindsay's - and others, he not being the only one who came to these conclusions - your claim will win out but until such a time I'll keep on looking into the followers of the Frankfurt school to find out where this all came from and what the most likely goals are.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        When an argument is about a particular person, it's not a fallacious ad hominem to impeach that person. If that's not obvious to you, there's not much point in continuing to discuss.
        the_third_wave 3y ago
        This is more or less exhibit A in why it often is so difficult to have objective discussions around contented subjects: The argument is not about the person, the argument is hardly ever about the person. It is about the message the person brings, in this case Lindsay's message on the origins of "critical social justice" or "DEI". Stop looking at the messenger and start concentrating on the message. In this case my question was centred around the absence of anything to support your statements around the origins of "DEI" while Lindsay's statements check out due to the lengthy trail all the way back to the 1800's. Do you have anything to support your statements, anything free from circular references where A says B as supported by C where C says B because A says so? Where does DEI come from according to you?

Where "significant progress" is defined as... DEI goals are so vague as to be non-existent which make it possible to continue to use DEI as a moniker on the path towards ideological obedience.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Obedience towards what ideology?

the_third_wave 3y ago
Clearly the one pushing for the adoption of DEI. Call it "The Ideology Which Shall Not Be Named" if you please although that hardly makes for a good acronym - too many consonants. If you are really interested in where this all comes from I'd suggest perusing James Lindsay's New Discourses which is centred around this subject. DEI finds its origin in Critical Social Justice which in its turn is an offshoot from "Theory" [1], short for "critical [2] postmodern theory". New Discourses is full of references which makes it possible to trace back anything found there to its source - which is more or less all that Lindsay does, he starts at some academic utterance related to this subject and traces the references back to their roots. [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-theory/ [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical/
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  The guy who refers to the Pride flag as "the flag of a hostile enemy?" No thanks.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      If there's one thing the Internet has taught us, it's that some first-pass filtering is necessary to function in the modern world of unfettered information access. It doesn't take much looking into the person running the site to know the site's going to be well-researched (in the sense that it dives deeply on one viewpoint and disregards others) well-crafted (in the sense it possesses some modicum of capability wielding the English language, a property some confuse for a correct argument) one-sided content that will mislead a reader who takes it as fact. The ad hominem attack was a fallacy(1) in the days where debate was a nice, orderly thing among an intellectual elite in a salon. In the modern world, it's necessary to defend the listener against a gish-gallop attack of people who try and craft reality by volume. (1) technically, it should also be noted that the purpose of the formal rules of argumentation was to teach its students how to win arguments, not seek truth. In that regard, of course excluding the fact your opponent is arguing for, in the case of James Lindsay, white genocide is beneficial because it gives one a chance at winning the argument where none should be given.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Also realise that the "pride flag" represents only a small vocal minority of those who it claims to represent, that many of those it purports to represent do not agree It's not the stars-and-bars, for christssake. The rainbow flag has always just been a "pride" flag. Even if you want to be reductive about it, it wasn't designed with anything other than gayness in mind. If you see that as the flag of your enemy, you're saying more about yourself than the state of US identity politics. I've had to play the "queer moderate" role on this site more times than I'd care to admit, but your perspective on this topic completely confuses me. You're mad that... queer progressives are now too queer and progressive? Literally your last three comments have been about mocking a "mindset that shall not be named" for crimes that are substantiated on nothing other than racism and presupposed conflict. The irony is suffocating your point here, but I'd still like to hear your itemized list of complaints about this enemy host that rallies under the rainbow flag.
- tptacek 3y ago
  James Lindsay's shtick is doing enough research on academic leftism (for lack of a better term) to identify some of its primary sources, and then harvesting jargon from it to confuse and intimidate people who (like him) haven't taken the time to follow any of the underlying scholarship. It's a grift. In particular, DEI (we're almost always referring to what I'd call "institutional DEI", a particular organizational orthodoxy about proactive inclusion and avoidance of bigotry") is not, in fact, an offshoot of Critical Theory, or Critical Postmodern Theory, or Critical Social Justice, or Critical Race Theory, and the point where you're pretending you can distinguish these things in a tweet (some of them are actually at odds with each other!), you've already given away the game.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    Lindsay shows a trail running from a bunch of German and French philosophers in the 1800's through their followers and hangers-on all the way to the present. You don't show anything in support of your claims other than a few ad-hominems. Given the matter-of-fact way in which you make your claims I assume you can disprove the trail dug up by Lindsay and enlighten us about the real background of the "DEI movement". If your proof holds up better than Lindsay's - and others, he not being the only one who came to these conclusions - your claim will win out but until such a time I'll keep on looking into the followers of the Frankfurt school to find out where this all came from and what the most likely goals are.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      When an argument is about a particular person, it's not a fallacious ad hominem to impeach that person. If that's not obvious to you, there's not much point in continuing to discuss.
      - the_third_wave 3y ago
        This is more or less exhibit A in why it often is so difficult to have objective discussions around contented subjects: The argument is not about the person, the argument is hardly ever about the person. It is about the message the person brings, in this case Lindsay's message on the origins of "critical social justice" or "DEI". Stop looking at the messenger and start concentrating on the message. In this case my question was centred around the absence of anything to support your statements around the origins of "DEI" while Lindsay's statements check out due to the lengthy trail all the way back to the 1800's. Do you have anything to support your statements, anything free from circular references where A says B as supported by C where C says B because A says so? Where does DEI come from according to you?