5 ms·
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. Yo
by 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 agoWhen 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 agoThis 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?