Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 20 2023 05:53 Introvert wrote: As for reigning in and even abolishing DEI in the education infrastructure that's the opposite of crazy. Perfectly sane policy to ensure that at least some semblance of competency, merit, and free expression still exist on college campuses.
DEI does not necessarily reject competency, merit, or free expression. Also, free expression might actually be anti-competency, depending on what the expression is (e.g., the freedom to be anti-vaxx), so more context would be needed about what you're referring to.
Sure it does, it prioritizes other things above those three. The most recent example is at Stanford when a Trump appointed federal judge was shouted down and prevented from speaking and the DEI coordinator (or whatever he title was exactly) unofficially endorsed it. And these were, presumably, future lawyers who will have to argue in courtroom around the country. The professors that I had, and I'm sure many of us had, are nothing like these new little tyrants. And least they had some value for free speech dating back to their own decades and in my experience respected opposing views even if those views were drowned out.
I believe the Stanford president and the law dean made a public apology: "“What happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus,” Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and law dean Jenny Martinez wrote in a Saturday letter to 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump." https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes-after-law-students-disrupt-judges-speech-2023-03-13/
As far as believing that a workplace also valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion necessarily doesn't prioritize competency and merit is concerned, I feel like you could only believe that if you think that women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community can't be competent or have merit at that job. Additionally, there is intrinsic value in many jobs for hiring people from various backgrounds (especially when it comes to creativity and marketing); that doesn't mean that the resume of a newly hired black lesbian will necessarily lack the proper education or experience.
it'd be nice if we could ignore "woke"
It's my understanding that, for some time now, "woke" has just become a label to mean "anything that Democrats / liberals / progressives" support, so that Republicans / conservatives know not to support it, regardless of what it is.
On March 20 2023 05:53 Introvert wrote: As for reigning in and even abolishing DEI in the education infrastructure that's the opposite of crazy. Perfectly sane policy to ensure that at least some semblance of competency, merit, and free expression still exist on college campuses.
DEI does not necessarily reject competency, merit, or free expression. Also, free expression might actually be anti-competency, depending on what the expression is (e.g., the freedom to be anti-vaxx), so more context would be needed about what you're referring to.
Sure it does, it prioritizes other things above those three. The most recent example is at Stanford when a Trump appointed federal judge was shouted down and prevented from speaking and the DEI coordinator (or whatever he title was exactly) unofficially endorsed it. And these were, presumably, future lawyers who will have to argue in courtroom around the country. The professors that I had, and I'm sure many of us had, are nothing like these new little tyrants. And least they had some value for free speech dating back to their own decades and in my experience respected opposing views even if those views were drowned out.
I believe the Stanford president and the law dean made a public apology: "“What happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus,” Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and law dean Jenny Martinez wrote in a Saturday letter to 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump." https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes-after-law-students-disrupt-judges-speech-2023-03-13/
As far as believing that a workplace also valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion necessarily doesn't prioritize competency and merit is concerned, I feel like you could only believe that if you think that women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community can't be competent or have merit at that job. Additionally, there is intrinsic value in many jobs for hiring people from various backgrounds (especially when it comes to creativity and marketing); that doesn't mean that the resume of a newly hired black lesbian will necessarily lack the proper education or experience.
It's my understanding that, for some time now, "woke" has just become a label to mean "anything that Democrats / liberals / progressives" support, so that Republicans / conservatives know not to support it, regardless of what it is.
Yes, I know they apologized after the outcry. I don't see how that takes away from my point though. It may even strengthen it. This particular set of people within our educational institutions (DEI bureaucrats) are acting contrary to the stated goals and supposed ethos of our universities (hopefully embodied by the chancellor and presidents). I have no problem with state legislatures cutting off all funds for such a thing.
I feel like you could only believe that if you think that women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community can't be competent or have merit at that job.
And I feel that this is clearly not the case. We could of course say that since the total population of people who may fit into a particular minority group are smaller than the total population we could expect to have a harder time filling relevant positions when searching for candidates with a particular identity. But we need not even say that. If the university is introducing new metrics by which to decide who to hire (and the federal government is evaluating grants based on these criteria) then quite obviously some other evaluations must lose weight. Universities were already places that love to brag about hiring people from various minority groups. If it was merely "make sure we don't discriminate against qualified candidates" then there wouldn't be much of a "need" for this in the first place. Higher ed loves brining in non-white males and we have civil rights laws to address discrimination. Moreover, there are the free speech issues the example of which I provided and you responded to. These things we consider bedrocks of academic quality are either weighted lower or are simply ignored (free speech for example). The only way I see you could raise this type of defense is if you were to argue that universities have discrimination issues. I guess the better way to phrase what I'm saying is the ask the question, what is a DEI office for?
On March 20 2023 06:50 ChristianS wrote: I mean if putting colleges through political purges led by guys like Chris Rufo is “the opposite of crazy,” I don’t want to be sane.
Fundamentally DeSantis’ central political identity is the “war on woke” which, generally, means things are happening culturally that conservatives don’t like, and while the “problem” isn’t a government policy, there’s still room to punish it with government power. Disney is too “woke” so you implement tax changes explicitly to punish them. Teachers are too “woke” so you implement changes such that if they admit they’re gay to students they could lose their job. Doctors are too “woke” so state-level policy forbids trans healthcare even for adults.
If people are exercising their freedoms in ways you don’t like, so you want to seize government power to punish them, there’s a decent chance you’re an authoritarian. In DeSantis’s case, book bans, cult of personality, and a press office explicitly geared toward personally punishing dissenters certainly make the word seem apt. Compared to Trump he’s definitely more likely to send CPS after parents of trans kids. On the other hand, Trump’s probably more likely to attempt violent overthrow of the government, so ya know, pick your poison. But “more sane version of Trump” just completely misunderstands the guy’s movement. He’s more systematic, the quirks are different, but the guy is more extreme than Trump in some pretty meaningful ways.
I pretty much agree. It’s easy for DeSantis to lean into the anti-woke stuff because I’m sure he realizes it’s a massively winning issue. Taking the side of common sense against the side of idiocy is bound to be the popular move.
@Intro: Don’t wanna go too long on this, but some points:
-Doesn’t really matter what his brand is in Florida, we’re talking about him running for president. Nationally his identity is pretty much entirely defined by “war on woke” stuff, I don’t care if Floridians like his policy on Everglades protection or Miami beach ordinances or w/e.
-You’re saying I “mischaracterized the education bill” but all I said was teachers are being told they might lose their job if they tell students their gay. And that’s… true? Oh, and I referenced “book bans,” which is also true? You’re explicitly saying “banning objectionable images is reasonable,” which seems to mean “he’s banning books and I like that.” Okay, good for you, why is that a mischaracterization though?
-“Undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about! A bunch of academic fields got dominated by liberals. That wasn’t a government policy, it was just how the scholars tended to land. But! If you don’t like the scholars winding up liberal, you could seize government power and try to use it to “undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate,” i.e. punish liberal academics and reward conservative ones, and if you’re someone with a lot of resentment toward the liberal mainstream of the professoriate, that might appeal to you. Now copy and paste that to every corner of society, from Ivermectin to the green M&M, and you’ve got a pretty good picture of “anti-wokeness.”
On March 20 2023 06:50 ChristianS wrote: I mean if putting colleges through political purges led by guys like Chris Rufo is “the opposite of crazy,” I don’t want to be sane.
Fundamentally DeSantis’ central political identity is the “war on woke” which, generally, means things are happening culturally that conservatives don’t like, and while the “problem” isn’t a government policy, there’s still room to punish it with government power. Disney is too “woke” so you implement tax changes explicitly to punish them. Teachers are too “woke” so you implement changes such that if they admit they’re gay to students they could lose their job. Doctors are too “woke” so state-level policy forbids trans healthcare even for adults.
If people are exercising their freedoms in ways you don’t like, so you want to seize government power to punish them, there’s a decent chance you’re an authoritarian. In DeSantis’s case, book bans, cult of personality, and a press office explicitly geared toward personally punishing dissenters certainly make the word seem apt. Compared to Trump he’s definitely more likely to send CPS after parents of trans kids. On the other hand, Trump’s probably more likely to attempt violent overthrow of the government, so ya know, pick your poison. But “more sane version of Trump” just completely misunderstands the guy’s movement. He’s more systematic, the quirks are different, but the guy is more extreme than Trump in some pretty meaningful ways.
I pretty much agree. It’s easy for DeSantis to lean into the anti-woke stuff because I’m sure he realizes it’s a massively winning issue. Taking the side of common sense against the side of idiocy is bound to be the popular move.
Not surprised you feel that way. How do you square that with the last election? Seemed pretty clear that Republicans went really hard on anti-wokeness, they underperformed, and voters said it was partly because pronouns and trans athletes just aren’t salient issues. They don’t care very much about it and they think it’s weird you do. (Edit: “You” as in Republicans campaigning on those issues, not you Blackjack specifically. Not actually sure how much trans issues actually matter to you specifically)
If photo shoots in front of a wall of gas ranges is “common sense” to you, I think “common sense” was poorly named.
Florida seems to be doing pretty well economically, no? I assume that's what would be DeSantis' main selling point to the more moderate voter blocks, because a whole lot of people consider the economy more important than culture wars.
My perhaps favorite professor explained a theory about how the Keynesian business cycles basically also apply to social policies, but that they tend to lag behind the business cycles. Essentially - in periods of economic prosperity, minority groups prosper - people become more willing to look at cases of injustice when they themselves are well off. Economic downturn however makes people more likely to look for scapegoats, and also makes people go 'but what about MY problems' rather than more abstract injustices felt by others. Trans rights is probably a bit on the side of this (wasn't really a political topic 13 years ago when I took his class), it doesn't seem like people connect it to the economy much, but immigration policies and attitudes towards immigrants seem much more closely connected.
I'm guessing this is another case of people having different definitions and working examples of what woke entails, and that the disagreement surrounds this as much as it deals with different attitudes towards specific examples, tbh. I mean, I'm sure there's also actual disagreement in terms of 'what does our ideal society look like and how do we get there', but I'm inclined to believe that BJ's examples of anti-woke agenda he opposes would be (paraphrased, but not hard to find stories that basically back this pov up) 'police in san fransisco neglects to enforce the law because they're afraid of backlash following BLM', or 'MTF trans athletes'. However, I think he's probably in agreement with the statements 'people should be allowed to be openly gay and talk about it' or 'black people should not be discriminated against'.
Then there's possibly some actual disagreement in terms of 'are quotas a good way of achieving a more equitable society' or 'to what degree are black people discriminated against for being black and to what degree are they discriminated against for being poor' or 'what's the actual intention/statement behind the supposed 'don't say gay bill'' or even 'what should be the role of police in society? Are harsh punishments and a 'tough on crime' approach a good way of dealing with crime or should we 'look to Norway'?'.
Basically think Bill Maher or South Park, not Tucker Carlson, and you'll understand BJ better.
In the sense of how DeSantis is an effective governor, under his administration the state has been consistently been growing in terms of inflows of capital and residents, which suggests what whatever economic policies he is pursuing they are broadly working. It appears that Florida is now a place which is attracting people from all around the U.S.
On March 20 2023 14:58 ChristianS wrote: @Intro: Don’t wanna go too long on this, but some points:
-Doesn’t really matter what his brand is in Florida, we’re talking about him running for president. Nationally his identity is pretty much entirely defined by “war on woke” stuff, I don’t care if Floridians like his policy on Everglades protection or Miami beach ordinances or w/e.
-You’re saying I “mischaracterized the education bill” but all I said was teachers are being told they might lose their job if they tell students their gay. And that’s… true? Oh, and I referenced “book bans,” which is also true? You’re explicitly saying “banning objectionable images is reasonable,” which seems to mean “he’s banning books and I like that.” Okay, good for you, why is that a mischaracterization though?
-“Undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about! A bunch of academic fields got dominated by liberals. That wasn’t a government policy, it was just how the scholars tended to land. But! If you don’t like the scholars winding up liberal, you could seize government power and try to use it to “undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate,” i.e. punish liberal academics and reward conservative ones, and if you’re someone with a lot of resentment toward the liberal mainstream of the professoriate, that might appeal to you. Now copy and paste that to every corner of society, from Ivermectin to the green M&M, and you’ve got a pretty good picture of “anti-wokeness.”
On March 20 2023 06:50 ChristianS wrote: I mean if putting colleges through political purges led by guys like Chris Rufo is “the opposite of crazy,” I don’t want to be sane.
Fundamentally DeSantis’ central political identity is the “war on woke” which, generally, means things are happening culturally that conservatives don’t like, and while the “problem” isn’t a government policy, there’s still room to punish it with government power. Disney is too “woke” so you implement tax changes explicitly to punish them. Teachers are too “woke” so you implement changes such that if they admit they’re gay to students they could lose their job. Doctors are too “woke” so state-level policy forbids trans healthcare even for adults.
If people are exercising their freedoms in ways you don’t like, so you want to seize government power to punish them, there’s a decent chance you’re an authoritarian. In DeSantis’s case, book bans, cult of personality, and a press office explicitly geared toward personally punishing dissenters certainly make the word seem apt. Compared to Trump he’s definitely more likely to send CPS after parents of trans kids. On the other hand, Trump’s probably more likely to attempt violent overthrow of the government, so ya know, pick your poison. But “more sane version of Trump” just completely misunderstands the guy’s movement. He’s more systematic, the quirks are different, but the guy is more extreme than Trump in some pretty meaningful ways.
I pretty much agree. It’s easy for DeSantis to lean into the anti-woke stuff because I’m sure he realizes it’s a massively winning issue. Taking the side of common sense against the side of idiocy is bound to be the popular move.
Not surprised you feel that way. How do you square that with the last election? Seemed pretty clear that Republicans went really hard on anti-wokeness, they underperformed, and voters said it was partly because pronouns and trans athletes just aren’t salient issues. They don’t care very much about it and they think it’s weird you do. (Edit: “You” as in Republicans campaigning on those issues, not you Blackjack specifically. Not actually sure how much trans issues actually matter to you specifically)
If photo shoots in front of a wall of gas ranges is “common sense” to you, I think “common sense” was poorly named.
I don't think holding off the "red wave" from a batshit political party of bible thumpers and election deniers is as big of a win as you think it is. I would think that for most people women losing their rights to an abortion is a more salient issue than whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I don't think this disproves that anti-woke is a winning issue for Republicans.
On March 20 2023 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Florida seems to be doing pretty well economically, no? I assume that's what would be DeSantis' main selling point to the more moderate voter blocks, because a whole lot of people consider the economy more important than culture wars.
My perhaps favorite professor explained a theory about how the Keynesian business cycles basically also apply to social policies, but that they tend to lag behind the business cycles. Essentially - in periods of economic prosperity, minority groups prosper - people become more willing to look at cases of injustice when they themselves are well off. Economic downturn however makes people more likely to look for scapegoats, and also makes people go 'but what about MY problems' rather than more abstract injustices felt by others. Trans rights is probably a bit on the side of this (wasn't really a political topic 13 years ago when I took his class), it doesn't seem like people connect it to the economy much, but immigration policies and attitudes towards immigrants seem much more closely connected.
I'm guessing this is another case of people having different definitions and working examples of what woke entails, and that the disagreement surrounds this as much as it deals with different attitudes towards specific examples, tbh. I mean, I'm sure there's also actual disagreement in terms of 'what does our ideal society look like and how do we get there', but I'm inclined to believe that BJ's examples of anti-woke agenda he opposes would be (paraphrased, but not hard to find stories that basically back this pov up) 'police in san fransisco neglects to enforce the law because they're afraid of backlash following BLM', or 'MTF trans athletes'. However, I think he's probably in agreement with the statements 'people should be allowed to be openly gay and talk about it' or 'black people should not be discriminated against'.
Then there's possibly some actual disagreement in terms of 'are quotas a good way of achieving a more equitable society' or 'to what degree are black people discriminated against for being black and to what degree are they discriminated against for being poor' or 'what's the actual intention/statement behind the supposed 'don't say gay bill'' or even 'what should be the role of police in society? Are harsh punishments and a 'tough on crime' approach a good way of dealing with crime or should we 'look to Norway'?'.
Basically think Bill Maher or South Park, not Tucker Carlson, and you'll understand BJ better.
One of the fundamental questions that separate the left and the right is equity vs equality.
What constitutes fair? Is it fair if everyone has to follow the same rules and standards regardless of their birth and circumstances? This is the concept of equality. Is it fair if people with different backgrounds should have adjusted rules and standards so that they all achieve the same overall result? This is the concept of equity.
To take the example of college admissions, equality is the concept that you can enter Harvard if you get X score in the SAT. It used to not be the case during segregation; blacks simply weren't allowed to enter. Equity is the concept that you have an equal chance of entering Harvard regardless of whether you are black or white, taking into account that Blacks on average have lower SAT scores due to their worse socio-economic conditions, and so the SAT score required for Blacks is lower.
There's arguments on both sides for which is the real "fairness". There is not much point in saying something is unfair without also discussing what your definition of fair is.
On March 20 2023 17:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Florida seems to be doing pretty well economically, no? I assume that's what would be DeSantis' main selling point to the more moderate voter blocks, because a whole lot of people consider the economy more important than culture wars.
My perhaps favorite professor explained a theory about how the Keynesian business cycles basically also apply to social policies, but that they tend to lag behind the business cycles. Essentially - in periods of economic prosperity, minority groups prosper - people become more willing to look at cases of injustice when they themselves are well off. Economic downturn however makes people more likely to look for scapegoats, and also makes people go 'but what about MY problems' rather than more abstract injustices felt by others. Trans rights is probably a bit on the side of this (wasn't really a political topic 13 years ago when I took his class), it doesn't seem like people connect it to the economy much, but immigration policies and attitudes towards immigrants seem much more closely connected.
I'm guessing this is another case of people having different definitions and working examples of what woke entails, and that the disagreement surrounds this as much as it deals with different attitudes towards specific examples, tbh. I mean, I'm sure there's also actual disagreement in terms of 'what does our ideal society look like and how do we get there', but I'm inclined to believe that BJ's examples of anti-woke agenda he opposes would be (paraphrased, but not hard to find stories that basically back this pov up) 'police in san fransisco neglects to enforce the law because they're afraid of backlash following BLM', or 'MTF trans athletes'. However, I think he's probably in agreement with the statements 'people should be allowed to be openly gay and talk about it' or 'black people should not be discriminated against'.
Then there's possibly some actual disagreement in terms of 'are quotas a good way of achieving a more equitable society' or 'to what degree are black people discriminated against for being black and to what degree are they discriminated against for being poor' or 'what's the actual intention/statement behind the supposed 'don't say gay bill'' or even 'what should be the role of police in society? Are harsh punishments and a 'tough on crime' approach a good way of dealing with crime or should we 'look to Norway'?'.
Basically think Bill Maher or South Park, not Tucker Carlson, and you'll understand BJ better.
Coincidentally I was listening to this Bill Maher podcast with Bob Costas where he talks about what woke is while on my drive to work today. Also somewhat relates to DPB's post about "woke" just being anything that democrats/liberals support and therefore Republicans have to oppose. Lasts for about 1 minute from the timestamp
Bill Maher is a life-long liberal, he donated $1 million to Obama, he was sued by Trump for calling him the descendant of an orangutan or something like that. Yet he still gets tons of shit from people that say he has become alt-right or that he is no longer liberal because he doesn't buy into all of the new woke bullshit. Just like Jon Stewart was talking last week about how he received swift backlash of people telling him how dare he align himself with the alt-right for supporting the lab leak theory. When Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are getting criticism for supporting the right-wing you should know it's gone off the rails. Pretty much anyone that doesn't have 100% compliance with woke ideology is denounced.
I bet the Democrats could enjoy a nice supermajority if they just cut out all the woke bullshit. Like I said, most people with common sense realize how stupid a lot of it is. Take this story from a few days ago where a San Francisco appointed reparations committee came back with proposals that included
Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a family.
It doesn't even have a chance of passing because I doubt such a huge amount of money even exists to give away unless you want to spend 100% of the city budget on it and to hell with police and fire and sanitation and whatever else. All they are doing is succeeding in making a parody of themselves.
On March 20 2023 05:53 Introvert wrote: As for reigning in and even abolishing DEI in the education infrastructure that's the opposite of crazy. Perfectly sane policy to ensure that at least some semblance of competency, merit, and free expression still exist on college campuses.
DEI does not necessarily reject competency, merit, or free expression. Also, free expression might actually be anti-competency, depending on what the expression is (e.g., the freedom to be anti-vaxx), so more context would be needed about what you're referring to.
Sure it does, it prioritizes other things above those three. The most recent example is at Stanford when a Trump appointed federal judge was shouted down and prevented from speaking and the DEI coordinator (or whatever he title was exactly) unofficially endorsed it. And these were, presumably, future lawyers who will have to argue in courtroom around the country. The professors that I had, and I'm sure many of us had, are nothing like these new little tyrants. And least they had some value for free speech dating back to their own decades and in my experience respected opposing views even if those views were drowned out.
I believe the Stanford president and the law dean made a public apology: "“What happened was inconsistent with our policies on free speech, and we are very sorry about the experience you had while visiting our campus,” Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and law dean Jenny Martinez wrote in a Saturday letter to 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump." https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/stanford-apologizes-after-law-students-disrupt-judges-speech-2023-03-13/
As far as believing that a workplace also valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion necessarily doesn't prioritize competency and merit is concerned, I feel like you could only believe that if you think that women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community can't be competent or have merit at that job. Additionally, there is intrinsic value in many jobs for hiring people from various backgrounds (especially when it comes to creativity and marketing); that doesn't mean that the resume of a newly hired black lesbian will necessarily lack the proper education or experience.
it'd be nice if we could ignore "woke"
It's my understanding that, for some time now, "woke" has just become a label to mean "anything that Democrats / liberals / progressives" support, so that Republicans / conservatives know not to support it, regardless of what it is.
Yes, I know they apologized after the outcry. I don't see how that takes away from my point though. It may even strengthen it. This particular set of people within our educational institutions (DEI bureaucrats) are acting contrary to the stated goals and supposed ethos of our universities (hopefully embodied by the chancellor and presidents). I have no problem with state legislatures cutting off all funds for such a thing.
This isn't a "DEI bureaucrat" thing. These were law students protesting a judge, and yes, there is a discussion to be had about whether or not heckling and walking out of a speech are good ideas. Keep in mind that the DEI associate dean defended the judge's right to free speech while she was talking to him. The DEI associate dean believes in the very freedom of speech that you're wishing DEI advocates supported. Even though she significantly disagreed with his views - and told him so - she also said he deserved to speak.
I feel like you could only believe that if you think that women or people of color or the LGBTQ+ community can't be competent or have merit at that job.
And I feel that this is clearly not the case. We could of course say that since the total population of people who may fit into a particular minority group are smaller than the total population we could expect to have a harder time filling relevant positions when searching for candidates with a particular identity. But we need not even say that. If the university is introducing new metrics by which to decide who to hire (and the federal government is evaluating grants based on these criteria) then quite obviously some other evaluations must lose weight. Universities were already places that love to brag about hiring people from various minority groups. If it was merely "make sure we don't discriminate against qualified candidates" then there wouldn't be much of a "need" for this in the first place. Higher ed loves brining in non-white males and we have civil rights laws to address discrimination. Moreover, there are the free speech issues the example of which I provided and you responded to. These things we consider bedrocks of academic quality are either weighted lower or are simply ignored (free speech for example). The only way I see you could raise this type of defense is if you were to argue that universities have discrimination issues. I guess the better way to phrase what I'm saying is the ask the question, what is a DEI office for?
DEI school programs are so much more than simply disagreeing-with-judges-while-also-standing-up-for-their-right-to-free-speech, so I don't know if it's fair to cut funding for an entire program just because it's run by someone who did something that was potentially objectionable. DEI programs also provide necessary mentorship for minorities where no such mentorship previously existed; create cultural centers that provide visibility for identities in areas that might otherwise be whitewashed or inconsiderate of social, sexual, or ethnic differences; and they can act as a voice and a face for individuals and groups that otherwise are voiceless and faceless.
We've all seen a million studies revealing conscious or unconscious bias when it comes to employment, such as the situations where two people have identical resumes except one of them has a conventional white name while the other has a conventional Hispanic or Black-sounding name, and the "white" person receives many more responses. There are laws against discrimination, and there are protected classes, but that doesn't mean that racism or sexism is solved. A lot of places still have discrimination issues, and just because many universities are progressive and might not have as many of those social issues doesn't mean they're perfect. The fact that they're actively addressing these issues is why they're making progress faster than private businesses that aren't; if a company doesn't address the importance of equity, it doesn't mean that they don't have equity issues.
My problem is equating the "worst" of the Diversity Equality Inclusion with the rest of the legitimate efforts to move the country out of the cesspool a lot of the deep rual areas of the country advocate for. You can't be "anti woke" all you want but if you acept that the majority of the democratic party supports that you also have to acept that the majority of the conservative party wants the kind of repulsive things that mainstream republicans deny like cutting social security, medicare, child labor laws, child marriage laws, banning any kinds of books from classrooms, and the open distain for the poor hungry weeping people that come to our shores. The distain for any kind of infighting is pretty fascist to me gotta admit.
And I don't know man the people who want to lower suicide rates in the transgender community vs the people who human traffic migrants are an easy choice for the common folk I think.
Does anyone here want to seriously avow the "don't' say period" bill in Florida right now? I don't see DeSantis out there denouncing it or anything from mainstream republicans.
On March 21 2023 01:32 Sermokala wrote: My problem is equating the "worst" of the Diversity Equality Inclusion with the rest of the legitimate efforts to move the country out of the cesspool a lot of the deep rual areas of the country advocate for. You can't be "anti woke" all you want but if you acept that the majority of the democratic party supports that you also have to acept that the majority of the conservative party wants the kind of repulsive things that mainstream republicans deny like cutting social security, medicare, child labor laws, child marriage laws, banning any kinds of books from classrooms, and the open distain for the poor hungry weeping people that come to our shores. The distain for any kind of infighting is pretty fascist to me gotta admit.
And I don't know man the people who want to lower suicide rates in the transgender community vs the people who human traffic migrants are an easy choice for the common folk I think.
Does anyone here want to seriously avow the "don't' say period" bill in Florida right now? I don't see DeSantis out there denouncing it or anything from mainstream republicans.
I had no idea what you were referring to, so I looked it up. Wtf.
"As Florida Republicans are introducing and advancing a wave of bills on gender and diversity that are likely to be signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), one GOP lawmaker acknowledged this week that his proposed sexual health bill would ban girls from talking about their menstrual cycles in school. ... “So if little girls experience their menstrual cycle in fifth grade or fourth grade, will that prohibit conversations from them since they are in the grade lower than sixth grade?” Gantt asked. McClain responded, “It would.”" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/florida-bill-girls-periods-school-gop/
While most girls get their period around age 11-12, many start at age 10, 9, or even 8 years old.
Because they know that creating fear and stigma around something likewise creates ignorance. As much as Florida's teachers disagree with the Don't Say Gay law, they still are going to refrain from sharing anything about themselves with their students going forward because at the end of the day they need to put food on their tables, and that means covering their asses from a random lawsuit by a conservative parent taking their job. When you successfully sow fear and confusion you stagger any possibility of those same people being informed and educated on the topic, which is ultimately what this is about. You make it a lot harder for the next generation of women to be angry and informed about how Republicans dismantled their rights when you make it a taboo subject for them to even understand what's happening to their bodies, under the threat of punishment by the state.
The goal is to create a chilling effect where people are afraid to educate themselves and each other. It sure isn't about sexuality, you don't see a similar set of laws banning the heterosexual agenda being promoted in books. It's about inhibiting the spread of actual information, it's about tamping down the number of people who will be angry enough about stuff like Roe v. Wade to actually do something about it in the future.
Speaking of which, I was assured rather vigorously that Conservatives were having serious conversations about how to support the people they were forcing to give birth post-Roe. I wonder what's come of that. Haven't heard anything about it myself. Seems like they got what they wanted and hoped we would forget.
On March 21 2023 02:01 Simberto wrote: But...why? What is the point of that?
Ideally you should have (some) sex ed before puberty, so you don't get utterly confused once it happens to you.
Why would you explicitly ban that?
(And yes, i know the answer is "republican crazy fundamentalist bullshit reasons")
It's logically consistent with Republicans' views on sex education: They think that people won't have sex if they don't talk about sex in schools, so girls obviously won't ever get their periods if they don't talk about periods in schools.
On March 21 2023 02:09 NewSunshine wrote: Speaking of which, I was assured rather vigorously that Conservatives were having serious conversations about how to support the people they were forcing to give birth post-Roe. I wonder what's come of that. Haven't heard anything about it myself. Seems like they got what they wanted and hoped we would forget.
Pretty sure that was Introvert, back when the ruling was handed down. I was told we needed to trust them that they didn't gut Roe just to fuck over pregnant people, that there was going to be follow-up to the ruling in other areas to give them what they need to see through a pregnancy.
Of course, I can list about a dozen reasons why that's bullshit, from the fact that people can't terminate a pregnancy that will certainly kill them in some states, to the fact we haven't heard a peep about it since the R's got their win, to even just the simple timing of it. If you wanted to create a safety net for pregnant people you could do that before you destroy their right to healthcare, not maybe after, probably, no seriously.
So, to answer your latter question, yes. His subsequent approval of conservative leaders using the state to punish people expressing ideas he doesn't agree with likewise doesn't surprise me.
On March 21 2023 02:09 NewSunshine wrote: Because they know that creating fear and stigma around something likewise creates ignorance. As much as Florida's teachers disagree with the Don't Say Gay law, they still are going to refrain from sharing anything about themselves with their students going forward because at the end of the day they need to put food on their tables, and that means covering their asses from a random lawsuit by a conservative parent taking their job. When you successfully sow fear and confusion you stagger any possibility of those same people being informed and educated on the topic, which is ultimately what this is about. You make it a lot harder for the next generation of women to be angry and informed about how Republicans dismantled their rights when you make it a taboo subject for them to even understand what's happening to their bodies, under the threat of punishment by the state.
The goal is to create a chilling effect where people are afraid to educate themselves and each other. It sure isn't about sexuality, you don't see a similar set of laws banning the heterosexual agenda being promoted in books. It's about inhibiting the spread of actual information, it's about tamping down the number of people who will be angry enough about stuff like Roe v. Wade to actually do something about it in the future.
Speaking of which, I was assured rather vigorously that Conservatives were having serious conversations about how to support the people they were forcing to give birth post-Roe. I wonder what's come of that. Haven't heard anything about it myself. Seems like they got what they wanted and hoped we would forget.
I think this analysis is pretty solid. Removing information and creating taboo about a basic biological fact of being a woman is an effective way to make sure they don't have the knowledge and perspective needed to secure their rights (or even understand them). It also has the effect of making just being female in some way stigmatized. A big part of preventing resistance when you are removing rights and power from people in a society is making they themselves believe they are inferior. It's really obvious how it's done with homosexuality and queerness in general - and it's the same tactic here.
I think the speed at which this sort of policy is coming out should make something abundantly clear: The US conservative political movement isn't sliding towards `women aren't people' level of bullshit. It's always been there, and they're just showing what they'll do given a bit of momentum.
On March 21 2023 02:18 NewSunshine wrote: Pretty sure that was Introvert, back when the ruling was handed down. I was told we needed to trust them that they didn't gut Roe just to fuck over pregnant people, that there was going to be follow-up to the ruling in other areas to give them what they need to see through a pregnancy.
Of course, I can list about a dozen reasons why that's bullshit, from the fact that people can't terminate a pregnancy that will certainly kill them in some states, to the fact we haven't heard a peep about it since the R's got their win, to even just the simple timing of it. If you wanted to create a safety net for pregnant people you could do that before you destroy their right to healthcare, not maybe after, probably, no seriously.
So, to answer your latter question, yes. His subsequent approval of conservative leaders using the state to punish people expressing ideas he doesn't agree with likewise doesn't surprise me.
I know Texas has expanded services on this front, but I also suspect that anything I list from any state will be considered insufficient by you since you already think Republicans hate poor people and don't want to give them healthcare. And again every state has life of the mother exceptions for the very few even arguable cases where where an abortion after the legal date is necessary for the mothers life.
And I will never not get a laugh out of leftists who apparently eagerly want the state to punish dissenters (see Jack Philips, or COVID laws in CA) get mad that they think conservatives are going to play by their rules.
I will reply to DPB and ChristianS when I'm off my phone
Aren't there cases of hospital waiting for the woman to be literally dying before removing the dead fetus? like this one twitter.com Also i'll never not get a laugh out of people trying to make the comparaison between spreading a deadly disease and a life saving medical operation. Actually I don't, i just shake my head in disgust. I mean, what's a million deaths really
EPT
