12 ms·

If you couldn't see the anti-China rhetoric was a smoke screen, now it should be pretty obvious, with the US going down a similar road (eg. vetting projects tha

If you couldn't see the anti-China rhetoric was a smoke screen, now it should be pretty obvious, with the US going down a similar road (eg. vetting projects that goes against the government's ideology... which is ironically what most far right politicians say they are against: ideology).

brookst 2y ago
It’s the classic authoritarian doublespeak: they are 100% supportive of your rights, freedom, and obligation to believe what they tell you to believe.
figassis 2y ago
This should make it clear. There is no such thing as being for or against ideology. If you exist, there are things you weakly believe in, and things you strongly believe in. The thing someone else strongly believes in, that we weakly believe in, we call ideology. So it's always been about fighting "their" ideology, not ideology. Always be skeptical when someone defends only the things they strongly believe in. That goes both ways, for the left and right.
- intermerda 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tome 2y ago
    > > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: > > There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. But this is completely false. The credulousness with which it gets repeated is telling.
    - deeg 2y ago
      Before the rise of Trump I might have agreed with you but now I think it's true for trumpers. Look at Musk, Mr. Free Speech until he doesn't like it. The quote above describes him exactly.
      - tome 2y ago
        On what basis do you declare Elon Musk "conservative"? (No less, the one man whose actions define conservatism!) Are you perhaps confusing conservatism with "current support of a Republican politician"? I agree with you regarding Musk's hypocrisy around free speech. Oh, and if you're looking for someone who believes the law protects him but does not bind him, you might like to read the news on the current (Democratic) mayor of Chicago.
        deeg 2y ago
        Musk is a major component of the administration that currently represents conservatives. He is/was the biggest donor to that administration. That makes him a conservative for now. I live in Massachusetts where three straight Speakers were convicted of various crimes so I'm well aware of Democratic malfeasance. Right now Trump and his enablers are so much worse.
        mindslight 2y ago
        The problem is that the word "conservative" has become so overloaded as to become useless, both as a punching bag (the above quote, which would be better stated as authoritarian or even more appropriately crypto-fascist), and as a fig-leaf for the radical reactionary agenda that has taken over the Republican party. The actual straightforward definition of wishing to slow change, supporting American institutions, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, etc, actually applies more to the current Democratic party. Musk's hypocrisy regarding "free speech" is more around him claiming to be libertarian, but that type of hypocrisy runs deep in the Libertarian party, as the attraction of freedom for me but not for thee is too strong and the party has been pwnt by moneyed sponsors the same as the two main parties.
ANewFormation 2y ago
If this were the case then they would be replacing the ideological conformity sections with different ideological conformity requirements. Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. Whatever a scientist happens to believe in, these changes would not imperil his ability to receive government funding. But in the previous system, if one felt that unconditional merit was the most fundamental factor in science (and refused to simply lie) he would have been found it much more difficult to secure funding.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. This is the significant part. Woke ideology was always unpopular when put to the test in the court of public opinion and sometimes even law. Whether it's entertainment products that got reviewbombed for incorporating "diversity", illegal hiring/enrollment quotas that once existed to enforce "inclusion", or the replacing of the word "equality" with "equity" because people started catching on that what was touted as equality actually wasn't. Now that we have a President (and by extension a party) who was elected to get rid of all that, promises to do so are being kept. As a Japanese-American, I 300% voted for and support this. Everyone should be judged on merit and merit alone, not whether they have the right skin color, sex organs/preferences, disabilities, or illnesses.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      I've been called several dozen kinds of labels to try and get me to be a nice and cooperative victim. I've also found myself labeled as the oppressor, as Asians are(were) often found too successful unlike other minorities. Sincerely screw all that racist noise with extreme prejudice. In this regard, the Left did more work than anyone to get me to vote Trump.
      - 2y ago
mrighele 2y ago
> vetting projects that goes against the government's ideology... This is with the previous administration was also doing. You were required to buy into the DEI ideology, prove your loyalty to the new religion.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  I don't understand why you are calling it a religion. What has been your personal experience with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies in employment? Mine has been that I watched a few videos that basically said: don't hit on people at work, don't mock people for disabilities, and don't treat people as lesser based on physical attributes. In other words, don't be an asshole to people at work. The only people I've seen given preferential treatment at work have been those who suck up to the leadership to get promoted.
  - joshvm 2y ago
    This is an interesting question. I've seen it implemented in a couple of ways. One of the simplest is stronger blinding of applications so you aren't biased by irrelevant personal information. For example this has been pretty effective in astronomy (proposals to get time on competitive instruments) where applications with female names were less likely to be approved. Simply removing the name was enough to improve the situation. The fallacy is that people think DEI encourages preferential or token "diversity hires". When implemented correctly, it should mean that successful applications (for jobs, grants, whatever) go to the most qualified or deserving candidate using unbiased/impersonal metrics. That may mean encouraging minority groups to apply, but at the time of review, you should have no idea who the applicant is.
    - admissionsguy 2y ago
      > The fallacy is that people think DEI encourages preferential or token "diversity hires". Why do you say it is a fallacy when the E in DEI stands for the so called equity, which means exactly that. You seem to be describing equality, which is something that DEI was intended to supersede. When you look at pre-Trump guidelines for FAA job applications, for example, there is an explicitly described preferential process for hiring from the favored groups.
eadmund 2y ago
I suspect that projects are always vetted against ideology, because everyone has one and everyone believes that his own is correct. I doubt that one could get NSF funding for a study of racial differences in IQ. I am certain that one could not get it for any ‘research’ based on the idea that the Earth is 7,000 years old. That seems like a really good thing! I think the news is less that a branch of the executive is complying with executive branch policy, and more that it’s surprising how much of the federal government’s actions are based not in the law and the Constitution, but rather in policy. One man almost sixty years ago creates a policy with a stroke of a pen, and it effectively becomes law; another now removes it with a stroke of a different pen. If the latter is a problem, surely the former was too; if the former was not a problem, then why is the latter? Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. This is like saying I read the first sentence of the wikipedia article and it doesn't mention something so it must not exist. Congress authorized it in 1950; it's extremely visible. [1] > The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is authorized and governed by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950," as amended, as well as other statutes authorizing NSF activities and making appropriations to the agency. [1]: https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation
  - eadmund 2y ago
    Yes, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq is the legal basis for the NSF. What’s the Constitutional basis for that law? The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments. For example, the Congress does not have the power to regulate rents outside of federal territories. Which enumerated power enables 42 U.S.C 1861? The Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ If the Constitution does not grant a power to the Congress, it does not have it and it has no more legislative authority in that regard than you or I do.
dumqe9834 2y ago
[flagged]
bArray 2y ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 2y ago
  > there shouldn't be a DEI astronaut requirement So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? And that wasn't a merit policy, that was an explicitly discriminatory policy against women long after the Soviet Union sent Valentina Tereshkova into space. (at time of writing, she is still alive and the only woman ever to have had a solo spaceflight!) > In the UK I had a grant application denied based only on DEI Calling BS on this, they're not going to simply state "DEI" as a reason.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    >So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? Do you have any control over this?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      I don't understand what you mean? Nobody has control over historical events? I don't control the astronaut policy?
      - mistermann 2y ago
        This = hallucinating reality. Now: in what way will you avoid addressing the point (if you do reply)....will it be in the heart of the distribution as usual, or can you generate an anomaly....
  - bArray 2y ago
    > So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? We should want the best astronauts, not the most diverse. It's the same as wanting the best doctor, or the best pilot. The UK team for Olympic 100m is majority non-white. I have no doubt that these are amongst the fastest people in the world. Based on DEI standards, should we pick people who are shown slower just to make a more colourful team? > Calling BS on this, they're not going to simply state "DEI" as a reason. You can call BS all you like, the application literally stated it so. The threshold for funding was met, but was rejected on the basis.
panic 2y ago
This type of political movement always claims to be against the exact things they’re for. They claim to be against censorship while using their actual influence to do things like forcing TikTok to change their moderation policy. They claim to want to protect children while putting child abusers in positions of power. It gives members of the movement an easy way to deflect criticism and express their feelings of grievance—don’t you know we hate censorship, and anyway it’s you who was censoring us! It’s only fair for you to feel a little of that pain that we feel!
- outside1234 2y ago
  They are against censorship of THEM not censorship of YOU
- sdenton4 2y ago
  Zuckerberg coming out strong for free speech, and then sending employees who push back on anti-DEI policy changes to HR... Free speech if you're a billionaire.
- malfist 2y ago
  It's not that hard to understand. Their view point is that there must be a class of citizens that the laws protect, but do not bind, and a class of citizens that the laws bind but do not protect. Nothing more than feudalism 2.0
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Nobody says they are against ideology. Everyone is pro-their own ideology and anti-everyone else's. Additionally, I don't think there was an anti-China "smokescreen" used here. Anti-DEI was a central pillar of the Trump campaign, so this purge seems to be fully in line with what was stated explicitly for months in 2024.
ebina-chonk 2y ago
[dead]
UltraSane 2y ago
DEI is just as much an ideology as the current GOP rabid anti-DEI.
plorg 2y ago
The abortive OPM memo attempting to suspend all payments by the government claimed it was necessary to root out all DEI and "transgender ideology". If you substitute "communism" it is straight up the language of the Red Scare.

brookst 2y ago

It’s the classic authoritarian doublespeak: they are 100% supportive of your rights, freedom, and obligation to believe what they tell you to believe.

figassis 2y ago

This should make it clear. There is no such thing as being for or against ideology. If you exist, there are things you weakly believe in, and things you strongly believe in. The thing someone else strongly believes in, that we weakly believe in, we call ideology. So it's always been about fighting "their" ideology, not ideology. Always be skeptical when someone defends only the things they strongly believe in. That goes both ways, for the left and right.

intermerda 2y ago
[flagged]
- tome 2y ago
  > > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: > > There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. But this is completely false. The credulousness with which it gets repeated is telling.
  - deeg 2y ago
    Before the rise of Trump I might have agreed with you but now I think it's true for trumpers. Look at Musk, Mr. Free Speech until he doesn't like it. The quote above describes him exactly.
    - tome 2y ago
      On what basis do you declare Elon Musk "conservative"? (No less, the one man whose actions define conservatism!) Are you perhaps confusing conservatism with "current support of a Republican politician"? I agree with you regarding Musk's hypocrisy around free speech. Oh, and if you're looking for someone who believes the law protects him but does not bind him, you might like to read the news on the current (Democratic) mayor of Chicago.
      - deeg 2y ago
        Musk is a major component of the administration that currently represents conservatives. He is/was the biggest donor to that administration. That makes him a conservative for now. I live in Massachusetts where three straight Speakers were convicted of various crimes so I'm well aware of Democratic malfeasance. Right now Trump and his enablers are so much worse.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        The problem is that the word "conservative" has become so overloaded as to become useless, both as a punching bag (the above quote, which would be better stated as authoritarian or even more appropriately crypto-fascist), and as a fig-leaf for the radical reactionary agenda that has taken over the Republican party. The actual straightforward definition of wishing to slow change, supporting American institutions, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, etc, actually applies more to the current Democratic party. Musk's hypocrisy regarding "free speech" is more around him claiming to be libertarian, but that type of hypocrisy runs deep in the Libertarian party, as the attraction of freedom for me but not for thee is too strong and the party has been pwnt by moneyed sponsors the same as the two main parties.

ANewFormation 2y ago

If this were the case then they would be replacing the ideological conformity sections with different ideological conformity requirements. Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. Whatever a scientist happens to believe in, these changes would not imperil his ability to receive government funding. But in the previous system, if one felt that unconditional merit was the most fundamental factor in science (and refused to simply lie) he would have been found it much more difficult to secure funding.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. This is the significant part. Woke ideology was always unpopular when put to the test in the court of public opinion and sometimes even law. Whether it's entertainment products that got reviewbombed for incorporating "diversity", illegal hiring/enrollment quotas that once existed to enforce "inclusion", or the replacing of the word "equality" with "equity" because people started catching on that what was touted as equality actually wasn't. Now that we have a President (and by extension a party) who was elected to get rid of all that, promises to do so are being kept. As a Japanese-American, I 300% voted for and support this. Everyone should be judged on merit and merit alone, not whether they have the right skin color, sex organs/preferences, disabilities, or illnesses.
- pjc50 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I've been called several dozen kinds of labels to try and get me to be a nice and cooperative victim. I've also found myself labeled as the oppressor, as Asians are(were) often found too successful unlike other minorities. Sincerely screw all that racist noise with extreme prejudice. In this regard, the Left did more work than anyone to get me to vote Trump.
    - 2y ago

mrighele 2y ago

> vetting projects that goes against the government's ideology... This is with the previous administration was also doing. You were required to buy into the DEI ideology, prove your loyalty to the new religion.

bloopernova 2y ago
I don't understand why you are calling it a religion. What has been your personal experience with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies in employment? Mine has been that I watched a few videos that basically said: don't hit on people at work, don't mock people for disabilities, and don't treat people as lesser based on physical attributes. In other words, don't be an asshole to people at work. The only people I've seen given preferential treatment at work have been those who suck up to the leadership to get promoted.
- joshvm 2y ago
  This is an interesting question. I've seen it implemented in a couple of ways. One of the simplest is stronger blinding of applications so you aren't biased by irrelevant personal information. For example this has been pretty effective in astronomy (proposals to get time on competitive instruments) where applications with female names were less likely to be approved. Simply removing the name was enough to improve the situation. The fallacy is that people think DEI encourages preferential or token "diversity hires". When implemented correctly, it should mean that successful applications (for jobs, grants, whatever) go to the most qualified or deserving candidate using unbiased/impersonal metrics. That may mean encouraging minority groups to apply, but at the time of review, you should have no idea who the applicant is.
  - admissionsguy 2y ago
    > The fallacy is that people think DEI encourages preferential or token "diversity hires". Why do you say it is a fallacy when the E in DEI stands for the so called equity, which means exactly that. You seem to be describing equality, which is something that DEI was intended to supersede. When you look at pre-Trump guidelines for FAA job applications, for example, there is an explicitly described preferential process for hiring from the favored groups.

eadmund 2y ago

I suspect that projects are always vetted against ideology, because everyone has one and everyone believes that his own is correct. I doubt that one could get NSF funding for a study of racial differences in IQ. I am certain that one could not get it for any ‘research’ based on the idea that the Earth is 7,000 years old. That seems like a really good thing! I think the news is less that a branch of the executive is complying with executive branch policy, and more that it’s surprising how much of the federal government’s actions are based not in the law and the Constitution, but rather in policy. One man almost sixty years ago creates a policy with a stroke of a pen, and it effectively becomes law; another now removes it with a stroke of a different pen. If the latter is a problem, surely the former was too; if the former was not a problem, then why is the latter? Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies.

lesuorac 2y ago
> Speaking of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional basis for this large structure of federal funding for the sciences? Nothing in Article I, Section 8 appears to cover it: the encouragement of science appears to be limited to copyright and patent monopolies. This is like saying I read the first sentence of the wikipedia article and it doesn't mention something so it must not exist. Congress authorized it in 1950; it's extremely visible. [1] > The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is authorized and governed by the "National Science Foundation Act of 1950," as amended, as well as other statutes authorizing NSF activities and making appropriations to the agency. [1]: https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation https://new.nsf.gov/about/authorizing-legislation
- eadmund 2y ago
  Yes, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq is the legal basis for the NSF. What’s the Constitutional basis for that law? The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments. For example, the Congress does not have the power to regulate rents outside of federal territories. Which enumerated power enables 42 U.S.C 1861? The Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ If the Constitution does not grant a power to the Congress, it does not have it and it has no more legislative authority in that regard than you or I do.

dumqe9834 2y ago

[flagged]

bArray 2y ago

[flagged]

pjc50 2y ago
> there shouldn't be a DEI astronaut requirement So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? And that wasn't a merit policy, that was an explicitly discriminatory policy against women long after the Soviet Union sent Valentina Tereshkova into space. (at time of writing, she is still alive and the only woman ever to have had a solo spaceflight!) > In the UK I had a grant application denied based only on DEI Calling BS on this, they're not going to simply state "DEI" as a reason.
- mistermann 2y ago
  >So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? Do you have any control over this?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    I don't understand what you mean? Nobody has control over historical events? I don't control the astronaut policy?
    - mistermann 2y ago
      This = hallucinating reality. Now: in what way will you avoid addressing the point (if you do reply)....will it be in the heart of the distribution as usual, or can you generate an anomaly....
- bArray 2y ago
  > So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era? We should want the best astronauts, not the most diverse. It's the same as wanting the best doctor, or the best pilot. The UK team for Olympic 100m is majority non-white. I have no doubt that these are amongst the fastest people in the world. Based on DEI standards, should we pick people who are shown slower just to make a more colourful team? > Calling BS on this, they're not going to simply state "DEI" as a reason. You can call BS all you like, the application literally stated it so. The threshold for funding was met, but was rejected on the basis.

panic 2y ago

This type of political movement always claims to be against the exact things they’re for. They claim to be against censorship while using their actual influence to do things like forcing TikTok to change their moderation policy. They claim to want to protect children while putting child abusers in positions of power. It gives members of the movement an easy way to deflect criticism and express their feelings of grievance—don’t you know we hate censorship, and anyway it’s you who was censoring us! It’s only fair for you to feel a little of that pain that we feel!

outside1234 2y ago
They are against censorship of THEM not censorship of YOU
sdenton4 2y ago
Zuckerberg coming out strong for free speech, and then sending employees who push back on anti-DEI policy changes to HR... Free speech if you're a billionaire.
malfist 2y ago
It's not that hard to understand. Their view point is that there must be a class of citizens that the laws protect, but do not bind, and a class of citizens that the laws bind but do not protect. Nothing more than feudalism 2.0

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

Nobody says they are against ideology. Everyone is pro-their own ideology and anti-everyone else's. Additionally, I don't think there was an anti-China "smokescreen" used here. Anti-DEI was a central pillar of the Trump campaign, so this purge seems to be fully in line with what was stated explicitly for months in 2024.

ebina-chonk 2y ago

[dead]

UltraSane 2y ago

DEI is just as much an ideology as the current GOP rabid anti-DEI.

plorg 2y ago

The abortive OPM memo attempting to suspend all payments by the government claimed it was necessary to root out all DEI and "transgender ideology". If you substitute "communism" it is straight up the language of the Red Scare.