3 ms·

On the contrary, our current lens is a narrow ideology that generates criticism and complaints that apply so indifferently to everything as to make it meaningle

On the contrary, our current lens is a narrow ideology that generates criticism and complaints that apply so indifferently to everything as to make it meaningless. It exists mainly to separate people from their histories, which politically neutralizes and subordinates them to a small cadre of activated ideologues. It has discovered nothing. The value of books and magazines prior to about 1995, and art in general, is they are physical artifacts of peoples diverse lived experiences that provide waypoints, continuity, and a fabric for a society and civilization. They enable a stability and freedom from the power struggles of the present, and they are there for more than to be just gawked at and complained about, imo.

throw47382746 3y ago
On the contrary, our current lens is much more diverse and inclusive due to how much exposure we have to different cultures and viewpoints. It's also much more accepting and empathetic to those who were bullied for being different.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  ... and much less accepting and empathetic to those who are excluded from the "diverse cultures" category. Seriously. I understand that this is a politically charged issue in all kinds of ways, but as a white man who is the sole income earner of a traditional family, I expect to find all kinds of support for various identity groups pretty much everywhere I interact with others - but I've yet to find a single one that I identify with. While I don't share that view, it's easy to see how people who are explicitly excluded in that way can come to feel that "diversity" initiatives are a thinly-veiled attack on everything they believe in. Personally I see it as a correction of a long-term problem, and like most reactions, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In a generation I think it will settle down into something much more reasonable and equitable.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  We're not going to agree. Victimhood is not diverse, it's a single, homogenous, self-perpetualting ideological filter. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's "Ideology and Terror" essay for a deeper treatment of why some people believe what they do, and how movements like this use media to consolidate their strategy.

throw47382746 3y ago

On the contrary, our current lens is much more diverse and inclusive due to how much exposure we have to different cultures and viewpoints. It's also much more accepting and empathetic to those who were bullied for being different.

Ancapistani 3y ago
... and much less accepting and empathetic to those who are excluded from the "diverse cultures" category. Seriously. I understand that this is a politically charged issue in all kinds of ways, but as a white man who is the sole income earner of a traditional family, I expect to find all kinds of support for various identity groups pretty much everywhere I interact with others - but I've yet to find a single one that I identify with. While I don't share that view, it's easy to see how people who are explicitly excluded in that way can come to feel that "diversity" initiatives are a thinly-veiled attack on everything they believe in. Personally I see it as a correction of a long-term problem, and like most reactions, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In a generation I think it will settle down into something much more reasonable and equitable.
motohagiography 3y ago
We're not going to agree. Victimhood is not diverse, it's a single, homogenous, self-perpetualting ideological filter. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's "Ideology and Terror" essay for a deeper treatment of why some people believe what they do, and how movements like this use media to consolidate their strategy.