Of course using DEI as a pejorative or a slur is reactionary, but there are legitimate criticisms of DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion sound good on their face, but things get complicated when even a little critical thinking is applied. Diversity of what, exactly? Diversity of culture, beliefs, ideals? Ok, but some cultures have beliefs that DEI proponents might find problematic, like homophobic ideas or sexist ideas. So, clearly, we don’t actually want too much diversity of ideals. DEI proponents don’t want to be inclusive to people they see as intolerant, so clearly there are limits to diversity and inclusion.
Equity is justice and fairness, but what is considered just and fair can change from culture to culture. If we are a diverse and multicultural country, which culture’s conception of justice and fairness do we use to determine what is equitable?
You’ve misapplied progressive language in such a way as to make me suspect this comment is an example of astroturfing. I almost hope that is the case, because the alternative is that you have allowed ignorance and implicit bias to lead you down a path of self justified racism/bigotry. As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception. Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we’d ban most religions. Even western ones.
As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception.
I’m not sure progressives are the dominant culture in America, but regardless exclusion based on preconception is not the only kind of exclusion. You can exclude cultures based on behaviors that have demonstrated to lead to unacceptable consequences, and that does include white conservatives. It’s clear that liberals believe white, Christian conservative culture is at least partly unacceptable, even dangerous, and yet you insist it be tolerated. This seems, foolish. Especially since those conservatives seem hell bent on destroying your culture. It’s like refusing to remove a murderer from your home because that would go against the spirit of inclusion.
Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we’d ban most religions. Even western ones.
But what you’re describing isn’t inclusion, it’s passive assimilation. Discouraging behaviors you consider detrimental isn’t inclusion, it’s the opposite. Even if you are not excluding the whole culture, you are excluding part of it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but it’s not inclusivity and diversity, it’s promoting cultural homogeny, at least homogeny of some core principles. So, even if you don’t want to outright ban most religions, even western ones, because that would go against your core principles, you do want to “ban” (albeit not overtly) some aspects of those cultures.
This sounds like armchair/keyboard intellectual semantic circle jerk. It completely ignores history, the effects and affects of that history, and thus the actual present reality that is the result.
If we are a diverse and multicultural country, which culture’s conception of justice and fairness do we use to determine what is equitable?
Def not yours. Playing at intellectual arguments on the level of a high school debate may make you feel good. Beyond that not very helpful and certainly lacking humanity.
Of course using DEI as a pejorative or a slur is reactionary, but there are legitimate criticisms of DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion sound good on their face, but things get complicated when even a little critical thinking is applied. Diversity of what, exactly? Diversity of culture, beliefs, ideals? Ok, but some cultures have beliefs that DEI proponents might find problematic, like homophobic ideas or sexist ideas. So, clearly, we don’t actually want too much diversity of ideals. DEI proponents don’t want to be inclusive to people they see as intolerant, so clearly there are limits to diversity and inclusion.
Equity is justice and fairness, but what is considered just and fair can change from culture to culture. If we are a diverse and multicultural country, which culture’s conception of justice and fairness do we use to determine what is equitable?
You’ve misapplied progressive language in such a way as to make me suspect this comment is an example of astroturfing. I almost hope that is the case, because the alternative is that you have allowed ignorance and implicit bias to lead you down a path of self justified racism/bigotry. As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception. Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we’d ban most religions. Even western ones.
I’m not sure progressives are the dominant culture in America, but regardless exclusion based on preconception is not the only kind of exclusion. You can exclude cultures based on behaviors that have demonstrated to lead to unacceptable consequences, and that does include white conservatives. It’s clear that liberals believe white, Christian conservative culture is at least partly unacceptable, even dangerous, and yet you insist it be tolerated. This seems, foolish. Especially since those conservatives seem hell bent on destroying your culture. It’s like refusing to remove a murderer from your home because that would go against the spirit of inclusion.
But what you’re describing isn’t inclusion, it’s passive assimilation. Discouraging behaviors you consider detrimental isn’t inclusion, it’s the opposite. Even if you are not excluding the whole culture, you are excluding part of it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but it’s not inclusivity and diversity, it’s promoting cultural homogeny, at least homogeny of some core principles. So, even if you don’t want to outright ban most religions, even western ones, because that would go against your core principles, you do want to “ban” (albeit not overtly) some aspects of those cultures.
This sounds like armchair/keyboard intellectual semantic circle jerk. It completely ignores history, the effects and affects of that history, and thus the actual present reality that is the result.
Def not yours. Playing at intellectual arguments on the level of a high school debate may make you feel good. Beyond that not very helpful and certainly lacking humanity.