The DEI thread

[Razgovory]

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.

I already provided it.

[Razgovory]

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.

It does explain why so many organization quickly bent the knee to Trump and reversed policies.  The beliefs they held were not as strong as their desire for power, money and influence.

[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.

I already provided it.

Anecdotes by some guy isn't really evidence, even though he mixes a mean word salad. For that matter, he doesn't actually say (AFAICT - feel free to provide a quote showing that I am wrong) that "woke" was first used pejoratively by the left.

I have not seen any examples of leftists publicly labeling other leftists as "woke" as an insult. Feel free to steer me to some examples.

[Admiral Yi]

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"

Then presumably at some point they will run out of things that are unpopular and don't work.

[Jacob]

The right has a very good propaganda machine for making relatively anodyne things unpopular so they can rail against it.

I think your presumption is incorrect. They will not run out.

[Zoupa]

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"

Then presumably at some point they will run out of things that are unpopular and don't work.

I don't think the popularity of a thing is the right measure for whether that thing should be enacted or not. Then you're back at 3 wolves and 2 sheep.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think the popularity of a thing is the right measure for whether that thing should be enacted or not. Then you're back at 3 wolves and 2 sheep.

I totally agree.  Unfortunately for both of us, the popularity of thing is intimately connected to whether it *can* and *will* be enacted.

[Bauer]

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.

Funny I always thought woke meant that you have become conscious of your unconscious biases.  I guess this word means many things to many people.

I think the right interprets it to mean the lefts attempts to allegedly impose their will upon them with DEI policies and what not.

[Bauer]

One thing I don't often see brought up in discussion about DEI is its impact reducing group think,  which is something that resonates with me.  I've seen how common, stupid, irritating group think is in the workplace.

Although in practise I have also noticed how different DEI subgroups form mini group think cliques that are sometimes even more annoying.

Being a person who isn't easily influenced by others I often get annoyed by these behaviours.  I kind of wonder if humanity itself is even capable of moving beyond them.

[Josquius]

]
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.

That's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

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. 

More hire the best person no matter who they are. But beware of bias, both conscious and conscious, which means group C tends to be really under represented and make a bit of an effort to have some representatives from that group at the interview stage.

[Admiral Yi]

That's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

They're not saying it, basically or otherwise.  You're inferring it, or making it up, whichever suits your taste.

[Josquius]

That's basically what they're saying with the anti EDI hysteria.

They're not saying it, basically or otherwise.  You're inferring it, or making it up, whichever suits your taste.

It clearly is. Remember it's not in isolation that they're making good faith criticisms of diversity policy failing to ensure a meritocracy.
It all comes as part of a package with the woke monster, "critical race theory", "cultural Marxism", white lives matter, the great trans panic, and all manner of other nonsense.

[Admiral Yi]

Until they say it, or do it, all that is just your narrative.  Repeating "clearly" doesn't change that.

[Josquius]

Until they say it, or do it, all that is just your narrative.  Repeating "clearly" doesn't change that.

We've been dealing with this stuff long enough now you really should know better.
It's not like they're even making much of an effort to keep the quiet part quiet these days. Did you miss the Hitler salute?

[Admiral Yi]

I saw the Hitler salute.  If you want to predict that at some point only white men will be hired for any job, I'll take the bet.