4 ms·

I am a turbolib who hates Andreessen but I think the progressive media outlets have been somewhat misinterpreting his leaked messages there. I didn't read it as

I am a turbolib who hates Andreessen but I think the progressive media outlets have been somewhat misinterpreting his leaked messages there. I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.

judahmeek 1y ago
> I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration. When racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric gets distilled into desired policy, what else is there besides changes to race-based preferences in admissions & changes to immigration? It seems like Andreessen supports Trump's entire racial platform, just not the rhetoric that Trump's MAGA base uses.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  I think you're distilling too much if you lose the distinction between the people who don't want race-conscious admissions and the people who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, even if the second group isn't getting their way.
  - judahmeek 1y ago
    Except Trump never supported repealing the Civil Rights Act, so you're trying to use a straw-man that's too extreme even for him. Also, you're ignoring that Andreessen opposes immigration in addition to race-conscious admissions[0]. 0: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/marc-andreesen-and-the-billionaire https://www.thebulwark.com/p/marc-andreesen-and-the-billiona...
GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
perhaps a distinction, but without a difference.
- mindslight 1y ago
  There was a difference, when such criticism could mean something else besides supporting a fascist movement with kidnap gangs, concentration camps, and destruction of longstanding American institutions. DEI was indeed tedious and suffocating, but actual fascism red in tooth and claw is far far worse.
  - meowface 1y ago
    Yeah, I am not at all defending Trump or his supporters. I just think it's important to distinguish taking issue with universities or employers having explicit racial preference in admissions or hiring (which many liberals take issue with) vs. opposing or hating immigration or non-whites. Trumpism is almost exclusively the latter two. Andreessen wrote: >"The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal. When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America." I am not necessarily accepting the premise, but this statement doesn't seem racist in itself, to me.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      I did this steelmanning for decades. Teased out the nuance. Assumed people were coming from the best intent, even if they expressed themselves ham-fistedly. Rolled my eyes at friends reflexively shoehorning everything into "racism". Hated the refrain of "dog whistle" rather than addressing the actual point. And so on. At the point when we've got an overtly fascist administration that is ineffective at doing anything but making a show of putting some powerless brown people in concentration camps, yet is still being cheered by a large number of people? I'm coming around to the idea that the underlying hidden variable is really just racism. So I'm done engaging with the dog whistles as rational points, at least until the pendulum starts swinging back. I'm certainly not going to be a useful idiot enabling this shit. (I'm even left wondering if the reactionaries' constant refrain of "California [delenda est]" isn't just a straight up invitation to enter the racism closet. I spent time in LA. The place is a nuthouse. But when I respond to the "California..." narrative with actual sympathetic criticism it's still just crickets like I'm not understanding something)
pstuart 1y ago
DEI has been successfully reframed by the Right as being Affirmative Action v2, when it's really about having "equal opportunity" to compete for job opportunities (e.g., not just handing out jobs to friends of friends). tl;dr -- DEI is actually about meritocracy.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  Did you see these pieces? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-american-academia-parallels-soviet-union/676305/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-... https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard/ https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh... As someone who supported EOE policies, university DEI went way too far in some places. Unfortunately it took someone like Trump to end that. Dems didn’t seem to be aware or were afraid to rock the boat.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    There's plenty of cases where it was mishandled (along with mishandling plenty of other things). This is a classic playbook of taking egregious missteps on handling policy and blaming the policy itself instead of the administrative failure. For example, we want "drug free" schools, right? So the "easiest" thing to do is establish zero tolerance rules that lead to situations like this: https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year-old-ibuprofen-ruled-unconstitutional https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year... Does that mean we no longer want "drug free" schools?
    - mixmastamyk 1y ago
      I was careful with my claims and there are many more examples. Also there are valid philosophical reasons to disagree with such policies. You vastly downplay what happened in those instances as “mishandling.” They read straight out of a dystopian novel. If real people can’t be trusted to administer policy of promoting bias without becoming biased, then the policy must be abolished. (Not surprisingly.)

judahmeek 1y ago

> I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration. When racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric gets distilled into desired policy, what else is there besides changes to race-based preferences in admissions & changes to immigration? It seems like Andreessen supports Trump's entire racial platform, just not the rhetoric that Trump's MAGA base uses.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
I think you're distilling too much if you lose the distinction between the people who don't want race-conscious admissions and the people who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, even if the second group isn't getting their way.
- judahmeek 1y ago
  Except Trump never supported repealing the Civil Rights Act, so you're trying to use a straw-man that's too extreme even for him. Also, you're ignoring that Andreessen opposes immigration in addition to race-conscious admissions[0]. 0: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/marc-andreesen-and-the-billionaire https://www.thebulwark.com/p/marc-andreesen-and-the-billiona...

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago

perhaps a distinction, but without a difference.

mindslight 1y ago
There was a difference, when such criticism could mean something else besides supporting a fascist movement with kidnap gangs, concentration camps, and destruction of longstanding American institutions. DEI was indeed tedious and suffocating, but actual fascism red in tooth and claw is far far worse.
- meowface 1y ago
  Yeah, I am not at all defending Trump or his supporters. I just think it's important to distinguish taking issue with universities or employers having explicit racial preference in admissions or hiring (which many liberals take issue with) vs. opposing or hating immigration or non-whites. Trumpism is almost exclusively the latter two. Andreessen wrote: >"The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal. When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America." I am not necessarily accepting the premise, but this statement doesn't seem racist in itself, to me.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    I did this steelmanning for decades. Teased out the nuance. Assumed people were coming from the best intent, even if they expressed themselves ham-fistedly. Rolled my eyes at friends reflexively shoehorning everything into "racism". Hated the refrain of "dog whistle" rather than addressing the actual point. And so on. At the point when we've got an overtly fascist administration that is ineffective at doing anything but making a show of putting some powerless brown people in concentration camps, yet is still being cheered by a large number of people? I'm coming around to the idea that the underlying hidden variable is really just racism. So I'm done engaging with the dog whistles as rational points, at least until the pendulum starts swinging back. I'm certainly not going to be a useful idiot enabling this shit. (I'm even left wondering if the reactionaries' constant refrain of "California [delenda est]" isn't just a straight up invitation to enter the racism closet. I spent time in LA. The place is a nuthouse. But when I respond to the "California..." narrative with actual sympathetic criticism it's still just crickets like I'm not understanding something)

pstuart 1y ago

DEI has been successfully reframed by the Right as being Affirmative Action v2, when it's really about having "equal opportunity" to compete for job opportunities (e.g., not just handing out jobs to friends of friends). tl;dr -- DEI is actually about meritocracy.

mixmastamyk 1y ago
Did you see these pieces? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-american-academia-parallels-soviet-union/676305/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-... https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard/ https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh... As someone who supported EOE policies, university DEI went way too far in some places. Unfortunately it took someone like Trump to end that. Dems didn’t seem to be aware or were afraid to rock the boat.
- pstuart 1y ago
  There's plenty of cases where it was mishandled (along with mishandling plenty of other things). This is a classic playbook of taking egregious missteps on handling policy and blaming the policy itself instead of the administrative failure. For example, we want "drug free" schools, right? So the "easiest" thing to do is establish zero tolerance rules that lead to situations like this: https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year-old-ibuprofen-ruled-unconstitutional https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/strip-search-13-year... Does that mean we no longer want "drug free" schools?
  - mixmastamyk 1y ago
    I was careful with my claims and there are many more examples. Also there are valid philosophical reasons to disagree with such policies. You vastly downplay what happened in those instances as “mishandling.” They read straight out of a dystopian novel. If real people can’t be trusted to administer policy of promoting bias without becoming biased, then the policy must be abolished. (Not surprisingly.)