The DEI thread

[crazy canuck]

The majority of the population doesn't support getting rid of due process and it does seem to work and it is something that matters.  So not the best example you could have come up with.

Your criteria is that it be a wedge issue.  It has been a wedge issue for quite some time.  Also, the right claims that due process is not working.  That is why the need for the government to curb its "abuses".  That shows up in a lot of ways, too many to list here amongst the Trumpists.  And here in Canada the Conservatives saying they would use the Notwithstanding Clause to pass legislation our SCC has already rules is unconstitutional.

The difference is you support due process and you do not support DEI.  So it is the perfect example to show the logical inconsistency in your position that people should stop supporting DEI because it has been labelled by the right as being "woke".

[Josquius]

.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

OK. Next time there's a trans lynching I'll get my pitchfork.

If the left don't defend equal rights then there's no point in the left existing.

[Razgovory]

The majority of the population doesn't support getting rid of due process and it does seem to work and it is something that matters.  So not the best example you could have come up with.

Your criteria is that it be a wedge issue.  It has been a wedge issue for quite some time.  Also, the right claims that due process is not working.  That is why the need for the government to curb its "abuses".  That shows up in a lot of ways, too many to list here amongst the Trumpists.  And here in Canada the Conservatives saying they would use the Notwithstanding Clause to pass legislation our SCC has already rules is unconstitutional.

The difference is you support due process and you do not support DEI.  So it is the perfect example to show the logical inconsistency in your position that people should stop supporting DEI because it has been labelled by the right as being "woke".

No, I didn't say I didn't support DEI.  I'm ambivalent, but if doesn't really work and exists mostly as a way for corporations to launder their reputations, why should we defend it?  Trump and his team talk about getting rid of due process for illegal immigrants, which is not a popular issue (though really we've been deporting people without due process for a while now), and more importantly, is a meaningful issue.

[Razgovory]

.

This is my understanding, and if true why fight so hard to defend it?

The right are taking aim not just at shit ineffectual implementations of equality policies, but using DEI as a dog whistle for the entire concept of equality.
Big hints they're using it as a wedge to have a go at workers rights in general.

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.

OK. Next time there's a trans lynching I'll get my pitchfork.

If the left don't defend equal rights then there's no point in the left existing.

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

[Razgovory]

Eh, I read this.
https://thehub.ca/2024/06/03/elie-cantin-nantel-quebec-is-a-national-anomaly-why-the-socially-liberal-province-hasnt-gone-woke/

Well, half of it.

My guess is you did a quick google search and were happy when you found an article in English about Quebec that had the term DEI used in a negative context.  But if you read the reporters interpretation of what the motion was, you will understand it was not a rejection of DEI. No DEI programs in any Canadian provinces have a quota system. And so the motion was simply in keeping with Quebec provincial laws, which by the way, are entirely consistent with DEI principles are, in my view, the strongest statutory supports for those principles in the Country.

This seems to be another example of a misunderstanding of what DEI is both my the author of the article and you.

An easy way to steer clear of the right-wing bullshit is to recognize that any article whose title uses the word "woke" is crap.  The right doesn't even know what woke means, but they'll commit murder, if necessary, to stop it.

Woke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

You are correct that the term "woke" was used by the left. The meaning you have attributed to it's meaning at that time is not accurate.  It was not a term used in a disparaging way.

I do not believe you to be correct. The term dates back to prior to the Civil war when it was used by an organization called the "Wide Awakes".  It fell out of fashion among white people in the 1870's but remained in the Black vernacular.  It reenter white left-wing language in the 1960's and ended up replacing "Politically correct" among the left.  To quote Musa al-Gharbi

Since then, things have played out for "woke" much like they did for "political correctness":
within activist circles  the term increasingly gained two meanings.  In its initial contemporary usage, the term was used to identify someone who was alert to social injustice and committed to resisting it.  Gradually, however, the others on the left began to use the term pejoratively to refer to peers who were self-righteous  and non-self aware.  "Wokeness" came to be associated in these cercles with empty symbolic gestures and ideological dogmatism.  Eventually, the political Right seized on this intra-left disagreement and began using "woke" as a catchall for anything associated with the Left that seemed ridiculous or repugnant.  And this began to the luster off the term.

-Page 27, We Have Never Been Woke.

[Josquius]

quote]
If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.
[/quo

]

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

When it comes down to it DEI is just a modern corporate speak label for how they handle the core of what left wing politics is all about- equality for all.

Don't oppose the maximalist position of  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs" and you're a pretty crap leftist.

Complain if you like about shit implementations.
But rail against the very concept of meritocracy and you're just dancing to the fascists merry tune.

[Barrister]

So is this the Twitter thread?

Cuz I keep getting posts for Ye (formerly Kanye West)'s new video, amusingly titled:

Heil Hitler.

With the chorus (does it count as a chorus?) of 'N-word Heil Hitler'.

Oy vey.

Basic searches make it seem like it's being blocked - but not on Twitter!

[Razgovory]

quote]
If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.
[/quo

]

Don't be daft.  People were leftists before DEI.  During the French Revolution they let you sit on the left side of the assembly even if you didn't have sensitivity training or didn't allow transwomen to participate in women's sports.  You can still be a leftist without supporting equal rights to children or great apes.  And not taking the maximalist position on everything doesn't mean you need to lynch trans people.

When it comes down to it DEI is just a modern corporate speak label for how they handle the core of what left wing politics is all about- equality for all.

Don't oppose the maximalist position of  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs" and you're a pretty crap leftist.

Complain if you like about shit implementations.
But rail against the very concept of meritocracy and you're just dancing to the fascists merry tune.

Who is saying that  "no, actually, anyone who doesn't fit into the empowered majority actually should be excluded from good jobs"?  That's not a slogan I'm seeing anywhere.  I very much question that the very concept of meritocracy is in peril here.

Something like "Hire from groups A, B, and C, but make special effort to promote group C" doesn't seem, on the face of it, particularly meritocratic.  

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it is interesting the extent to which corporate world appears to have u-turned on this.

I don't think it's that surprising given my perception - formed almost entirely in the US - that most companies were doing it to make a showing of trying to do something about diversity without real interest in achieving substantive impact.  It was easy to give up once the political wind shifted because there was never fundamental commitment to it.

[The Minsky Moment]

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think it's that surprising given my perception - formed almost entirely in the US - that most companies were doing it to make a showing of trying to do something about diversity without real interest in achieving substantive impact.  It was easy to give up once the political wind shifted because there was never fundamental commitment to it.

I suppose the challenge to that is whether corporations and that arrangement of the economy can ever meaningfully be committed to or deliver significant diversity - inequality is embedded in it.

I personally think the left/liberal types should ditch all attachment to and defence of DEI as embodied in corporations and public sector bodies and beyond. I think if you have a political project and most people's experience of that message is from HR teams, corporate leaders, the language of internal comms then that's a problem in advancing your political goal because most people hate their bosses and HR (for good reason)

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

I agree to a point though this has always been the case. I remember people disagreeing that "woke" was emptied of meaning in our discourse, but I think it was - and think of Orwell on this:

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Having said that - I do think there's an issue on the liberal/left (and I think it's particularly strong in the US) of a very short jump from grad school and activist circles to a shibboleth. I think it was there with "defund the police" (with some people insisting it means what it says, others - including myself - that it was more complex), I think the shift to "equity" and accompanying diagram explaining the difference between it and equality and I think the language of "privilege". If, as someone who studied a humanities subject, I have to do a but of reading or look at some diagrams to understand a word then I'd argue it's perhaps not the best for communicating politically - especially if you're vacating widely understood, commonly used words like "equality", "inequality", "unfairness".

And in all of those cases I think there's been a tendency to die on the hill of particular words of sets of words. In part because what they're actually for is less political persuasion than as a shibboleth, I think the changes and the adjustments are to signal that you have done the correct reading, are aware of current practice. As I say, fine in the seminar room or with hyper-engaged activists but, I think, potentially alienating when it hits the general public. Especially as I think some are better at or more interested in defending specific forms of words than the underlying principle.

[Razgovory]

If their strategy is to attack something that is unpopular and doesn't work to get you to defend it so they can use it as wedge, then the smart thing is not to defend it.[/size]

That doesn't matter at all. The "it" will be constantly defined so that the Left is always defending "it" unless the left caves entirely and goes full maga.  Just like the new Pope and Barack Obama are "Marxists".  "Woke" just means "not Maga" and "DEI" just means "stuff we maga people don't like"

The best and only response is for people to defend what they believe in and think to be true and just, make their case for it, and not be deterred by idiotic name calling.

I think that it does matter.  We don't support things simply because MAGA is against it, or at least shouldn't support thing for that reason, that would be dumb.  The country isn't just made up of MAGA and the left and quite a bit of what would be MAGA was on our side until recently.  We absolutely can win some of those people over, and start by not fighting live or die struggles over meaningless issues like corporate lip service.

Who is support of DEI suppose to win over?  Democrats have been losing minority voters since Obama was elected.  Trump has increased his share of minority voters each time he ran.  So we aren't winning them over with this.  The working class?  They've pretty much all gone over to Trump as well.  Support for DEI comes from, I think, white, well educated affluent people, who just happen to make up the core of the Democratic party.  Why do they support it?  I think to prove they aren't racist.

[Razgovory]

And in all of those cases I think there's been a tendency to die on the hill of particular words of sets of words. In part because what they're actually for is less political persuasion than as a shibboleth, I think the changes and the adjustments are to signal that you have done the correct reading, are aware of current practice. As I say, fine in the seminar room or with hyper-engaged activists but, I think, potentially alienating when it hits the general public. Especially as I think some are better at or more interested in defending specific forms of words than the underlying principle.

This was Al-Gharbi thesis, that a large amount of left-wing politics, the "woke" elements in particular are about fitting in with right people and achieving status in those groups.  This is why people fight over stuff of very limited importance, such as corporate DEI, Transgender sports, tearing down statues, renaming schools etc.  The point is not to convince people or even to advance an ideology so much as to prove one's bona fides.  These sort of symbolic battles are very important to a class of people he calls "Symbolic Capitalists", most of the knowledge economy types, but not to the working class and that is why the working class has largely left the Democrats.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I don't think that's quite what I'd argue.

My point is more that I think many of these fights are worth having. If you want to have them and win, then it's about persuading people. I think normally that's best done by using words people already understand and are in common circulation. Using better, more precise but less well known word is unhelpful in my view, as is being rigidly attacked to a specific set of words (even if they're not commonly understood in the way you mean or heavily contested). In politics I think it's worth sacrificing precision (or lack of it) for your audience widely understanding what you're talking about and arguing for. This is where I think there is something of the seminar room about it - because it reminds me of (some) academics and (some) academic sneering at communicating with the wider public.

[grumbler]

Woke was used by the left before it was used by the right, in particular it was to be used as way for center-leftists to criticize those further to the left.

Source?  On the left it has always meant "be aware that you, as a black person, won't get the same forbearance from the cops that white people get, so avoid situations where forbearance could be an issue."  I've never seen it used by the left to be "ineffable  evil that must be exorcised even tat the cost of decency and democracy" that seems to be the right's approach.  They don't know what it is, but they will kill to stop it.