In my country it happens on both side of the spectrum, they're just instrumentalised differently, I don't think it's a left vs right thing
"we only hire stanford grads, but some of them are black!" isn't really diversity.
"Inclusion" = Restricted speech and justification for purges
"Equity" = Equality of outcomes
I am white as milk from a Latin America country I dont know what I am suppose to complete. I consider myself latin but companies may think I am not brown enough to fit the category.
But GP didn't say Hispanic. He was referring to Latin America, whose people are called Latino.
Neither of the terms carry racial connotations. If you're Argentinian of pure Italian descent, you're still Latino. If you're one of the 2 million Spanish speakers of the Philippines, you're Hispanic. If you're one of the Guarani indigenous languages speakers of Paraguay who doesn't speak Spanish at all you're still Latino but not Hispanic.
(I don't know if that leaves them considered "Hispanic" or not. I think it does leave them considered Latin, though.)
G. CRISTINA MORA , Making Hispanics: How Activists, Bureaucrats and Media Constructed a New American (Chicago, Chicago University Press, 2014)
If you think the average republican voter would support enacting "fascism [to] tear down the tenants of democracy in the US, while siphoning as much money and power to big business and the upper classes as possible", then I suggest you talk to some more. You may be quite surprised.
Regardless, I think this is a major pitfall of the two party system. What you say certainly has truth. What I say has truth as well. However discourse usually devolves to attacking the extremists in each group and no real discussion can be had. I am optimistic about the future. Have a nice day.
Then the internet happened and society fractured along personal interest, whatever one is into now there are dozens of people with the same interest online. It became impossible to distinguish people on the basis of fashion either.
But to interact with strangers, we need some way to stereotype them, and so intersectionalism has tried to fill that gap. It won't work in its current form because nobody who presumes to declare on behalf of an identity group as to what is a proper way to treat members of that identity group is actually representative of any group. But the need to stereotype strangers somehow remains, so social offerings like this will continue to be brought forward.
I had to look up if this acronym was some kind of joke.
The word is queer. I'm still unsure as to why this word isn't used for most contexts where the LGBT[...] are currently used. We use the word "gay" and that used to be an insult like "queer" was too.
> Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
Now, some people personally identify as queer instead of lesbian, bi, or gay for all sorts of reasons; but it is the umbrella term.
Robin DeAngelo, is a frontrunner of 'white guilt', CRT, and other strange sides of the woke movement.
This quote pretty much sums it up, they want to put group identity first, above individualism.
> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate.
Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic
> Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.
I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans".
I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I had to scroll through dozens of your comments to find even one that didn't fit this description. That's clearly over the line, so I've banned this account.
No, it hasn't.
Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.)
So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
That's not the issue previously claimed but, like it, also false. CRT is not anti-White.
From CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-e...
> Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.
I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it.
Is this another case of redefining words and "anti-white" no longer means what I think it means or what? I'm confused.
edit: I'm rate limited, responding here.
> only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”.
No serious person claims that this or other ethnicity is an elite as a group, so I'm not sure what does it have to do with anything.
> Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish
Biden's cabinet being 1/3 Jewish (pretty sure it was about half few months ago) is just one example. And they're like what, 2% of the US population? Is that just an antisemitic lie or is the US administration somehow not a part of systemic structure?
Once again, people are worried about CRT causing unintentional antisemitism, but no one cares if it's going to cause anti-white hatred, despite that the exact same argument was used against others who tried to explain why things are like this. It's completely transparent what it is and any sane person can see through this gaslighting. But it's alright, if you want to genocide each other then I guess it's none of my business, since I live on the other end of the world and it doesn't involve me personally. I'm not sure myself why I care so much, I clearly shouldn't. Now go ahead and crucify me.
> I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it.
Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish, and we don’t factually have systematic structures favoring disfavoring the non-Jewish throughout society established for the benefit of the elite and protected because they serve the interest of the elites, so, yes ,if you substituted “Jewish” for “White” in what was previously a factually accurate account of structural power dynamics in the US, I would probably accuse you of inventing lies whose most probable motigation was anti-Semitism.
In this framework the difference you notice makes absolute sense.
America is a country founded on enlightenment ideas, which were part of the leftist school of thought in the old borderline ecclesiocratic aristocracy that would have formed the 'right wing' of Europe.
Thus the american right wingers look back to what you'd consider leftist thought as their model of keeping society as it should be, whereas a European right winger may look back to the older days of European monarchs, national identity and religion.
In america, the right wing, looking back towards our american enlightenment ideals, wouldn't really believe in any of those things in the same way.
There are some bits of overlap, especially in the social issues since those are recent changes. But overall an american right winger is going to be a European classical liberal which is typically considered leftist.
divide et impera, working perfectly
It was hate speech against your neurodiverse colleagues. Doubleplus ungood.
People will mock this sentiment perhaps, but it's true. Take the polarizing issue of abortion for example. If the USA had the same abortion restrictions as Germany, you'd likely see the GOp drop most of its prolife stuff. Right now, the democrats are very extreme on abortion and other social issues compared to international norms.
It's why places like France are now also explicitly condemning american leftism despite nominally and fiscally being far to the left of the democratic party too.
If you have an issue with "Putting people in smaller and smaller box"es then you should start your rants by addressing religion or American voter policy.
Your take reads like in America's history black people were always able to vote and Civil Rights was really a rebranding of their rights because Black Americans collectively just wanted to now call it the 'Black Vote'.
Religions are predicated on in-group out-group dynamics, and the shared schizophrenic delusion of a, specifically old white male in the case of the dominant American religion Christianity, in the clouds telling them to hate homosexuals.
Your take ignores the fact that the oppressor is often the one compartmentalizing.
For example, the church refusing to marry same sex couples. So homosexual specific civil rights movements organize to force the hand of the chuch to begrudgingly allow them to marry.
But some people still want to tell trans people they are forbidden from using a bathroom. So now a T specific civil rights movement is needed from the previous compartment they were just lumped into of 'homosexual' because the L and Gs can use bathrooms without issue.
I agree the end goal should be one category: Entropic Debris. It encompasses all that is and will ever be.
I think compartmentalizing humanity as separate from the rocks we see in the night sky is unscientific, but I can recognise that such a take fails to address any of the frought and nuanced elements of contemporary human social interactions that need to be addressed with specificity.
I hear you and I mostly share your view tbh. As we speak, Republican lawmakers are pushing for legislations that aim to exclude voters from democratic expression ; Flint residents still don't have drinkable water. All of this exist, racism exist, poor people are suffering and even dying from it, minorities in larger proportions.
Still, is the X of Latinx the solution ? Or is it smoke and mirrors in the Big Tech goal of being perceived as noble ?
Respectfully.
Hardly, though this seems a strawman since anyone who advocates for the X in Latinx would be unlikely to claim it solves the Flint water crisis.
> Or is it smoke and mirrors in the Big Tech goal of being perceived as noble ?
This feels like conflating. The X in Latinx is independant of the Tech industry, and was most definitely used long before any Tech HR department caught on.
Latinx came out of the intersectionality of minority rights and issues of gender. Latin languages are gendered but we want to address Latin-American issues without profiling a single gender, a la Latino or Latina.
As another tool in the toolbox to fix oppressive systems the X in Latinx is a fine thing and people have been empowered by it, but it in isolation is certainly going to fall short of addressing the myriad of issues within this domain and I doubt any advocates for change would claim otherwise.
I think business leaders will do anything to avoid dilluting their ownership, which will be an important effort toward real positive change, and if their tactic is to distract organizers with superficial changes then organizers will need to remain diligent.
Take what is offered and keep working until what is offered is what you need.
> This was not a rant.
Maybe, but your replies seem to point to a specific interpretation of your comment of villifying, or at least mocking, of people who see themselves represented in LGBTTQQIAAP and its advocacy ilk, and a plea that the only reasonable response is to reject the activism wholesale.
"Black+", "Latinx+", "LGBTTQQIAAP". Putting people in smaller and smaller box in the name of equality and diversity.
I am the only one to feel this is coming to an absurd point ? I'm not an alt-right fan, nor would I vote Republican if I could, I'm a leftist in what's considered a traditional sense in my country, but this is beyond my understanding.
* Oh boy was that ableist ?