5 ms·
It makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research inv
by UncleMeat 2y ago
It makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research involving these groups. Diversity is good when it involves "race realists." Free speech is bad when students are advocating for divestment initiatives. Free speech is good when a professor calls somebody the n-word online.
The goal is white supremacy and antifeminism.
- jgyter 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- anonfordays 2y ago[flagged]
- explodes 2y ago[flagged]
- anonfordays 2y agoUnfortunately, unlike the post above mine, my list is grounded in reality. Again, both sides play this game, both sides claim to have "reality" on their side.
- philosopher1234 2y agoAs loathe as you may be to admit it, there is such a thing as truth. Both sides claiming something doesn’t mean both sides claims are true (or conversely that neither sides claim is true). You don’t seem to be thinking very well.
- anonfordays 2y agoWhoosh, my point exactly. This is an r/selfawarewolves-tier comment. You don't seem to be thinking very well.
- latentcall 2y agoCome on man this isn’t Reddit.
- viraptor 2y ago> Diversity is bad when it involves Whites, men, straight people or research involving these groups. If you think that's what the "other side" is saying, then you've completely misunderstood what the diversity idea is about. You can't compare one idea with the misrepresentation of the opposing idea. That's just making things up.
- soco 2y agoIt even has a name: strawman argument. And it's so popular!
- dani__german 2y agoand yet when fields with a dearth of White Men offer recruiting events tailored to them, the "other side" is up in arms about it. Its clear that no part of DEI wants to include Whites, Men, or the doubly dreaded White & Men combo. https://journals.rcni.com/nursing-standard/comment/a-focus-on-recruiting-men-panders-to-bogus-inequality-concerns-ns.36.6.22.s12/abs https://journals.rcni.com/nursing-standard/comment/a-focus-o...
- anonfordays 2y ago[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoThe problem is- they are not anti-racist honest. You are either nurture or nature, but if its all nurture, they refuse to discuss that part, compare those parts, work out the problematic parts and compose better societal models. They just idealise, bigott stay quiet and adverse engage only with those who respond civilized. Its all lies and damned lies and statistics.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago[flagged]
- forty 2y agoI'm not sure what "agree with the Palestinians" would mean. Like they are not happy with being genocided? I think that would be most people's feeling in that situation, though that doesn't show any proximity in belief, value or principle.
- pfannkuchen 2y agoYeah I guess this is what happens to censored viewpoints. Most people have only heard a caricature of it. The world is really a lot more interesting if you try to understand everyone’s actual perspective. It also becomes much more coherent. Nobody is evil, they just have different interests and viewpoints. In what I’ve seen of “race realist” writings online, they tend to be very anti Israel. So to associate the admin with “race realists” for cracking down on anti Israel protests strikes me as lacking an understanding of either the admin or of the “race realists” perspective.
- watwut 2y agoYeah, Nazi seen themselves as heroes building better future for the Germany. Stalinists seen themselves as heroes too. They just had different interests and viewpoints. And those different viewpoints indeed make them indeed "evil". And dangerous. Also, seeing people whose goals are cruelty to others or harm to me as neutral is wrong.
- actionfromafar 2y agoYou say that as if the "admin" is one person. It's a loose collection of interests.
- sterlind 2y agoof course "race realists" tend to be anti-Israel; many of them are genuine neo-Nazis. the term arose back in the '90s among white supremacists, who tend to be heavily antisemitic. the Trump admin aren't (for the most part) "race realists." or antisemitic. or philosemitic. no, the Trump admin is cynically indifferent to the plight of the Jewish people. they're using antisemitism as a cause celebre, a useful cudgel to attack their enemies on the Left. Republicans are using Jews the way the Democrats used trans people - as pawns in a game of identity realpolitik. at least until our political liability outweighs our usefulness, then we get left holding the bag. you can spot false allies like this because they will amplify the most extreme voices, the most divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, when speaking for their charge. I guarantee you, most trans people didn't want Canadians fined for using the wrong pronouns, and most Jews don't want grad students deported for writing an op-ed. the loudest voices aren't ours.
- kristopolous 2y agoWhen these people use "freedom of speech" all they mean is they want to say their vile Nazi stuff without people complaining.
- mtsr 2y agoAlso called freedom from consequences. Free speech makes sense in a free society, freedom from consequences does not. Yet that's what they're calling for.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago[flagged]
- matthewdgreen 2y agoI was one of the people who briefly tried to take right wing “free speech” arguments at face value, eg when Elon Musk bought Twitter. Almost instantly he began allowing white supremacists and actual declared neo-Nazis back onto the platform, while kicking people off for any speech he didn’t like. I don’t think the claim “the recent right wing enthusiasm for ‘free speech’” does, in fact, selectively benefit Nazis and white supremacists” is actually wrong when you evaluate the effects.
- NoImmatureAdHom 2y agoWould you argue that the "kicking off" is more or less intense under Elon vs. the other guy? My impression that the rate of censorship overall has plummeted. Pre-Elon, it was easy to get banned for wrongthing. People would gang up on wrongthinkers, mass-report them, etc. I wonder what the rates of actual bans have been.
- kristopolous 2y agohttps://fortune.com/2024/09/25/twitter-x-account-suspensions-triple-transparency-report-elon-musk/ https://fortune.com/2024/09/25/twitter-x-account-suspensions... tripled. They just want to protect nazi speech, like I said in the downvoted comment. I don't care what your vibes are here. They aren't even against actual anti-semitism. Happy merchant memes, george soros conspiracies, protocols stuff, that's all A-ok because it's nazi stuff. If you have the wrong opinion on israel palestine, it's the concentration camp for you. The first group the nazis sent were social democrats, peace activists, journalists ... The famous nazi book burning was at an lgbt institute. I mean they're just doing nazi shit. I don't know why this isn't clear.
- montjoy 2y agoThe goal is power. Suppressing DEI, etc is just a simple way to find a group of people that have different values and eliminate them from the power structure.
- phatskat 2y agoAn important part about targeting DEI and trans communities is that these two groups stand for immutable properties: I can’t change my race. I can’t stop being my gender identity. When you “other” people based on immutable properties, it becomes very dangerous. If you can’t force someone to be white and straight, what do you do with them? The government stops funding programs to help these groups, they spread lies and fear about them, and then they sit back. When the people in power tell their supporters that the “other” are the enemy, what recourse is left for one’s safety other than violence. Authoritarian regimes always trend towards genocide, and they always target groups with immutable traits.