Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this sentence other than suggest that you can't read.

When I talked about DEI broadly, you said I was conflating DEI with DEI statements, and that this conversation was about the latter. You then proceeded to post a quote from your own article that's about broader elements of DEI.

This is a thing you do: you take whatever position you support, and then claim it's the normal thing to do and has been normal for a long time. It's sort of ironic, since what you're attempting to do is create a conservative argument for whatever the thing is, and I'm sure the idea of taking conservative positions nauseates you, but that's what you're doing. It just doesn't work, because you never have any basis for what you call normal, other than it's what you like.

So let me get this straight. You don't think it's normal and accepted for employers to ask candidates about values or principles they have identified as relevant to the role?

So... teamwork, self-sufficiency, a commitment to the work that the organisations undertake. Employers never ask about any of this.

The "haha conservative" bit is just kind of childish. Do you genuinely believe anti-conservatives must be against /anything/ staying as it is? So... doors have worked on the hinge/rectangular model for millenia, so anti-conservatives must hate them! Give me a break. There is no way for employment to function if employers cannot ask employees about things they think are relevant. That's not "conservative".

 

[Silvanus]

This isn't the trump card you think it is. I've said multiple times that I agree that private institutions are within their prerogative to have DIE training, or whatever (again, see the religious school analogy). I'm not fond of the existence of religious schools in principle, but as long as they operate, I can imagine them having specific terms of employment. So if universities insist on DIE statements, even to the extent that a poor DIE statement can forfeit the application regardless of any consideration, that's within their rights to do so.

So yes, universities can insist on DIE, even though I find the requirement extremely questionable, and equity extremely iffy (since equity by nature involves discrimination).

This passage doesn't address the point made in the bit you quoted. You're still not addressing the flaw in the logic.

You saw examples of X in some instances of Y. You then concluded that Y is, by its nature, the problem-- rather than X.

Doesn't that fit the definition though? People with experience say X, you with experience say Y. Hence, we have a "you said, they said" situation.

I don't have any issue believing you have experience with DIE requirements, but I don't see that as a trump card. Sorry, but I don't know you personally, nor have I seen any articles by you, so there's a weight of evidence that veers more to one side.

Of course it's still a "you said, they said". But you implied that you were siding with experience. But you weren't: there's experience on both sides. You just happened to read some articles from one side that peaked your sympathies, and then assumed that's where the weight of experience lies.

Actually, I said the principle of segregation is rotten. What I said about DEI was that diversity, equity, and inclusion are neutral, questionable, and positive respectively.

You seem to believe that segregation is unavoidable in DEI, despite how many times its been pointed out that its not.

Um, really? Because I can't think of a single instance where personal values of mine have ever come up in a job interview. If anything, when it comes to performance reviews (which I have to do five times a year), the only time personal values ever really came up was the consensus that it was best not to talk about personal values.

Teamwork is a value. Self-sufficiency is a value. Fairness is a value. An identification with the work that the organisation undertakes is a value.

 

[tstorm823]

When I talked about DEI broadly, you said I was conflating DEI with DEI statements, and that this conversation was about the latter. You then proceeded to post a quote from your own article that's about broader elements of DEI.

You're still doing it. The article is about broader DEI implementations. It's not saying anything bad about the principles of diversity, equity, or inclusion, they strongly support those things. It is policies attempting to enforce those principles, including diversity statements, that are under fire.

So let me get this straight. You don't think it's normal and accepted for employers to ask candidates about values or principles they have identified as relevant to the role?

Not in an essay like this, no. Unless I'm applying for a writing job, I do not expect to be asked for a writing sample about anything, certainly not a writing sample about social policies.

The "haha conservative" bit is just kind of childish. Do you genuinely believe anti-conservatives must be against /anything/ staying as it is?

Certainly not, nor do I think someone who sees themselves as conservative must be against anything changing. But I recognize that conservation and progress are two parts of the same philosophy, and would never suggest you can support one while being "anti" the other. I favor conservatism, but I'd be insane to call myself "anti-progressive".

Any argument that something should remain because it functions well for people is a conservative argument. There are potentially other arguments why something should remain the way it is: one might argue for the value of tradition for traditions sake, one might be a liberal and support a policy staying as is if it is a liberal policy, etc. But the way you are arguing, that something ought to be a certain way because that is how it currently is and it works, is a conservative argument. And arguments like that are why I say you are philosophically closer to me than you are to the communists who hang out here. Idealogues do not care about normal, they do not care about what is currently working, they care about conformity to their ideology. You are not an idealogue, you are a pragmatist, which leads to conservative positions sometimes.

If these DEI policies were making people's lives better, if they were improving society, I would not argue against them. I'm not a libertarian who thinks it is inherently bad to get people to say what you want them to. But as a practical measure, the policy fails to meet its stated goals, potentially even backfiring because people don't like being told what to think, while putting continually more power and influence into the hands of the people who implemented the failing policies in the first place.

 

[Hawki]

Why do you keep saying DIE? Is it a passive aggressive bit? A mistake you've committed to?

Good question. The answer is yes.

When I talked about DEI broadly, you said I was conflating DEI with DEI statements, and that this conversation was about the latter. You then proceeded to post a quote from your own article that's about broader elements of DEI.

So let me get this straight. You don't think it's normal and accepted for employers to ask candidates about values or principles they have identified as relevant to the role?

So... teamwork, self-sufficiency, a commitment to the work that the organisations undertake. Employers never ask about any of this.

I'd hardly really call those values. Those are values so broad that calling them values at all is meaningless. Saying I'm comitted to the job is all well and good, the values of said job are going to vary based on the nature of the job itself. For instance, one job might involve caring for the elderly, another might involve caring for the environment. Those are worthy pursuits, but the values of one job aren't really the same as the other.

The "haha conservative" bit is just kind of childish. Do you genuinely believe anti-conservatives must be against /anything/ staying as it is? So... doors have worked on the hinge/rectangular model for millenia, so anti-conservatives must hate them! Give me a break. There is no way for employment to function if employers cannot ask employees about things they think are relevant. That's not "conservative".

Well, butting in (again), it's not just conservatives objecting to these things.

This passage doesn't address the point made in the bit you quoted. You're still not addressing the flaw in the logic.

You saw examples of X in some instances of Y. You then concluded that Y is, by its nature, the problem-- rather than X.

Very few things are going to be 100% true 100% of the time, one can still have an issue with the broader issue at hand. A pacifist would be against war in all its forms (generally), even if they'd probably also acknowledge that the moral weight of different wars varies.

But if you want to know my issues with DIE, as is, it can be summed up as:

-I think it's questionable to put that much effort on diversity. Diversity, as I see it, is value neutral, and there's all kinds of types of diversities in the world, even if universities tend to focus on some rather than others.

-Equity is highly contentious, since it conspicuously isn't equality. Equity sounds great, but then you have examples such as the pricing system based on ethnicity I mentioned earlier in the thread (i.e. discrimination based on ethnicity), or the removal of advanced courses in schools because some students are out-performing others, or quotas/affirmative action.

-That a DIE statement is required to gain access to employment

-That an application for employment can be rejected based purely on the DIE statement

-That it's clearly hindering some individuals' abilities to do their job

-That it's added a layer of burucracy to universities that's hardly wanted nor needed.

And look, sure, none of what I said is going to be 100% true 100% of the time. But you don't need to reach that threshold to have issues with something.

Of course it's still a "you said, they said". But you implied that you were siding with experience. But you weren't: there's experience on both sides. You just happened to read some articles from one side that peaked your sympathies, and then assumed that's where the weight of experience lies.

You seem to believe that segregation is unavoidable in DEI, despite how many times its been pointed out that its not.
[/quote]

Look, serious question - does something have to occur every single time for someone to have a problem with the occurrence?

There's very little in the world that's absolute. No, segregation isn't going to occur every single time the above principles are implemented, that's true of every single issue. Not every man is going to abuse a woman, that doesn't mean domestic violence isn't an issue. Not every Russian supports Putin's war, that doesn't change the fact that Russia is still waging war. But if you want to talk about segregation, my position is:

-Segregation based on ethnicity/race is wrong. Period. Putting a smiley face on it doesn't change that.

-Diversity and equity, as it's been practiced in many cases, has led to segregation, and at times, discrimination. I've given the playdate, dorm, and graduation examples, affirmative action would come under discrimination. Defenders can call it positive discrimination, it's still discrimination nonetheless.

This is part of a wider shift that seems to have occurred within the US and UK (not in Aus, thankfully, least not yet) that I won't get into, since it goes far beyond DIE statements as a whole (it would come under what I'd define as wokeism, but again, that's a broad topic), but often, it feels like I'm going insane. That things that are so fundamentally wrong on a moral level are being celebrated as progressive. As Coyne himself points out, liberals fought against segregation 60 years ago, but now, are often the ones championing it.

Teamwork is a value. Self-sufficiency is a value. Fairness is a value. An identification with the work that the organisation undertakes is a value.

Said something similar, but yes, these are values, but these are vanilla-based values. Saying "I value teamwork" or "I value fairness" is the bare minimum of values. They're the things you might get asked about in a job interview, but they're not personal values. They're not values that tell anyone much about a person. Saying "I value fairness" doesn't tell you much about me, because most people, generically speaking, value fairness.

When I'm talking about values, I mean it's something that's valuable to you on a personal, fundamental level. Unless they're directly relevant to the profession, they aren't the kind of values an employer should ask about in a professional context - as I've said, I've had job applications, I've had performance reviews, those kind of values have never come up. So with DIE, if someone doesn't value equity, but the position requires you to value equity...well, sure, it's within the employer's prerogative to require the applicant to value equity to get the position, doesn't mean that I or people like Haidt or Coyne have to agree.

 

[Silvanus]

You're still doing it. The article is about broader DEI implementations. It's not saying anything bad about the principles of diversity, equity, or inclusion, they strongly support those things. It is policies attempting to enforce those principles, including diversity statements, that are under fire.

I'm taking exactly the same approach I have from the start: pointing out that the issues Hawki and his original article objected to are not with DEI itself, and aren't definitive or inherent to DEI.

You then posted two articles which both suggest improvements to delivering DEI, seemingly failing to notice that that is fully in line with what I've been saying.

Not in an essay like this, no. Unless I'm applying for a writing job, I do not expect to be asked for a writing sample about anything, certainly not a writing sample about social policies.

That's incredibly bizarre, then. In every job I've ever worked, candidates have been expected to write short passages about their interest in the role/sector, and basic other aspects like teamwork. That ranges from entry-level to technical specialist, and includes my (brief) experience of acting as an interviewer.

Any argument that something should remain because it functions well for people is a conservative argument.

Lol, this canard again. It's not "conservative" in the political sense-- else everybody on the planet, from Robespierre to Lenin, would be taking "conservative" positions 9 times out of 10, because they don't want to change the basics of human nutrition or the essential shape of a shelter.

Someone is a political conservative if they want to conserve and retain certain specific political/societal/economic structures. Not if they want to retain something really basic like a functional interview format.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd hardly really call those values. Those are values so broad that calling them values at all is meaningless. Saying I'm comitted to the job is all well and good, the values of said job are going to vary based on the nature of the job itself. For instance, one job might involve caring for the elderly, another might involve caring for the environment. Those are worthy pursuits, but the values of one job aren't really the same as the other.

Right. And someone working at a university is going to encounter a diverse student body. So it's quite relevant to know if the candidate believes universities should or shouldn't be diverse.

Well, butting in (again), it's not just conservatives objecting to these things.

I think you need to read more of the context behind that quote. I didn't bring up conservatism, or say that opposing DEI is necessarily conservative. Tstorm brought it up as a dig, insinuating that I was being conservative for wanting the employment interviews in question to stay the same.

Very few things are going to be 100% true 100% of the time, one can still have an issue with the broader issue at hand. A pacifist would be against war in all its forms (generally), even if they'd probably also acknowledge that the moral weight of different wars varies.

[...]

And look, sure, none of what I said is going to be 100% true 100% of the time. But you don't need to reach that threshold to have issues with something.

My issue isn't that it's "not 100% true 100% of the time". What you're describing is not what defines DEI. It's not required, definitive, or anything else. It's just one specific version that cropped up a few times.

Look, serious question - does something have to occur every single time for someone to have a problem with the occurrence?

OF. COURSE. NOT.

But if I oppose something, I oppose... that thing. I don't then transfer my opposition to anything else that might have sometimes included it. That's what you've done: you oppose discrimination, and you've seen that in some instances, DEI has led to discrimination. But rather than just continuing to oppose discrimination, you've chosen to oppose DEI as a whole, including the majority of implementations that aren't discriminatory.

A and B: We oppose liquid lead being around kids. It can poison em.

A: Look, lead is in paint! Paint is bad!

B: well no, only lead-based paint. Oppose the lead, but there's no reason to wholly oppose paint.

A: Well, nothings true 100% of the time... does it have to be a 100% incidence for you to oppose something?? Paint is bad!

^ that's how this conversation seems to me.

Said something similar, but yes, these are values, but these are vanilla-based values. Saying "I value teamwork" or "I value fairness" is the bare minimum of values.

Diversity and inclusion are pretty bare minimum values. Equity in most cases is too-- the only times I've seen objections, those objections have been from extreme, fringe implementations.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I'm going to propose a conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no evidence for it, and I'm not going to use it to inform my behavior in real life. I'm just throwing it out there because, if it turns out to be true, I want the credit.

The reason so many middle aged white male "celebrity academics" are suddenly shifting to the right and speaking out against "progressive" politics is because at some point it's going to come out that they have been using their students to live out their favorite harem anime storylines (because basically every male academic over a certain age has done that) and when that happens they will need a bunch of rational smart boys to rally around them, claim it's all an SJW conspiracy, and keep buying their books.

Also, while not quite in the field of education, Russel Brand's hard pivot to reactionary RW conspiracy crap in recent times is now looking a lot more like such an eerily similar self-preserving rebrand tactic. These groups require absolutely no evidence for their beliefs, and actively chase the perception of a shared persecution by those pesky "fact checkers", making them fertile ground for a whole load of sex pests looking for a market who'll brush any accusations or even actual criminal convictions under the rug as long as you blame it on their idea of an enemy while championing their cause by repeating the same few trite conspiratorial scriptures to pass the vibe check.

 

[Baffle]

Also, while not quite in the field of education, Russel Brand's hard pivot to reactionary RW conspiracy crap in recent times is now looking a lot more like such an eerily similar self-preserving rebrand tactic. These groups require absolutely no evidence for their beliefs, and actively chase the perception of a shared persecution by those pesky "fact checkers", making them fertile ground for a whole load of sex pests looking for a market who'll brush any accusations or even actual criminal convictions under the rug as long as you blame it on their idea of an enemy while championing their cause by repeating the same few trite conspiratorial scriptures to pass the vibe check.

Part of me wants to say that at least Brand being awful scum is something we can all agree on, but I just know there's someone here frantically masturbating in the wings, ready to swoop in, all covered in jizz, bollocking on about how they're after him because he's a threat to the establishment.

 

[Ag3ma]

Also, while not quite in the field of education, Russel Brand's hard pivot to reactionary RW conspiracy crap in recent times is now looking a lot more like such an eerily similar self-preserving rebrand tactic.

Having watched the documentary, and reading the dates of some of the pointed comments from other comedians about a sexual predator in the field (and it's not hard to see they meant Brand, albeit with enough plausible deniability to avoid a defmation suit), I cannot help but wonder if either the entertainment industry belatedly started to realise he was a significant risk a few years ago and the job offers started to thin, or he realised he needed to remove himself somewhat. Hence Brand seeking a new way to keep the money rolling in.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm taking exactly the same approach I have from the start: pointing out that the issues Hawki and his original article objected to are not with DEI itself, and aren't definitive or inherent to DEI.

You definitely did not take my advice on rereading your own words. Cause you pretty much immediately equated oppositions to DEI statements with opposition to diversity and inclusion:

If a candidate is opposed to diversity, equity and inclusion in that environment, then that means they don't think certain people should be there, and don't think people should be treated equally, depending on their backgrounds & characteristics.

And when Dreiko suggested you were working under a false equivalency, your response was:

So... these are people who are in favour of diversity and equity and inclusion, but will refuse to write a statement in support of those principles because they don't like the fact the organisation is asking them to do it?

Yeah, if that's their sticking point, then those candidates are being pointlessly obtuse. It's a candidate selection process for a job. You have to do it the employer's way.

What part of any of that is supposed to indicate that the issues are with specific policies and not inherent to DEI? As far as I can tell, you went immediately, full force into defending the specific policy the article was against. You weren't defending DEI in spite of the policy, you were actively defending mandatory diversity statements. And you only stopped doing that when I showed you sources that support DEI being critical of the same policies. And then you try to say this:

You then posted two articles which both suggest improvements to delivering DEI, seemingly failing to notice that that is fully in line with what I've been saying.

As though your changing position isn't fully immortalized in this thread and we can all still read it back.

That's incredibly bizarre, then. In every job I've ever worked, candidates have been expected to write short passages about their interest in the role/sector, and basic other aspects like teamwork. That ranges from entry-level to technical specialist, and includes my (brief) experience of acting as an interviewer.

I have had entirely the opposite experience.

Lol, this canard again. It's not "conservative" in the political sense-- else everybody on the planet, from Robespierre to Lenin, would be taking "conservative" positions 9 times out of 10, because they don't want to change the basics of human nutrition or the essential shape of a shelter.

Firstly, it's not "don't want to change", rather it's "want to not change". 9 times out of 10, someone may not be trying to change something, but that doesn't mean they are actively advocating for maintaining the status quo. If someone says to you "I think the shape of shelters should be something else", it may not be something you would personally say, but are you going to actively dispute it and insist current practices are preferable?

Secondly, it goes beyond just wanting things to not change, it's wanting things to not change based on the argument that the current status quo is established as effective. That is a specific way of reasoning, one that that you wont find much of in the viewpoints of Lenin.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Part of me wants to say that at least Brand being awful scum is something we can all agree on,

I recognise the name, but had to google to confirm that he married Katy Perry and that he collaborated with Noel Fielding, and that's about all I know of him.

 

[Baffle]

Noel Fielding

He's currently shitting himself.

ETA: I'm not aware that Fielding has done anything illegal, though the recent news has resurfaced his relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 30 (but I think this is a thing people are generally aware of and wasn't hidden at the time IIRC). But I imagine he's looking at the smoking corpses of Kutcher and Kunis and thinking maybe he won't be a character witness.

 

[Ag3ma]

He's currently shitting himself.

ETA: I'm not aware that Fielding has done anything illegal, though the recent news has resurfaced his relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 30 (but I think this is a thing people are generally aware of and wasn't hidden at the time IIRC). But I imagine he's looking at the smoking corpses of Kutcher and Kunis and thinking maybe he won't be a character witness.

It might be legal, but I believe there is something deeply concerning about 30-year-olds dating 16-year-olds. Apart from the high likelihood the relationship is exploitative, people that age wanting partners so immature is not healthy.

 

[Baffle]

It might be legal, but I believe there is something deeply concerning about 30-year-olds dating 16-year-olds. Apart from the high likelihood the relationship is exploitative, people that age wanting partners so immature is not healthy.

It is indeed as weird as all else.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It might be legal, but I believe there is something deeply concerning about 30-year-olds dating 16-year-olds. Apart from the high likelihood the relationship is exploitative, people that age wanting partners so immature is not healthy.

I wonder if some (small) part of it is due to teens on TV being played by attractive people in the 30s. I don't want to generalise teenages, but I don't look forwards to being on a train full of them.

 

[Ag3ma]

I wonder if some (small) part of it is due to teens on TV being played by attractive people in the 30s.

No, I think it's just people with a mental development problem, sexual problem, or liking naive partners that they can dominate and control.

I think there probably are a few where it's a genuine, balanced and decent relationship, but they're likely a very small minority.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, I think it's just people with a mental development problem, sexual problem, or liking naive partners that they can dominate and control.

I think there probably are a few where it's a genuine, balanced and decent relationship, but they're likely a very small minority.

Yeah, overwhelming majority of times has to be really messed up.

 

[Baffle]

No, I think it's just people with a mental development problem, sexual problem, or liking naive partners that they can dominate and control.

I think there probably are a few where it's a genuine, balanced and decent relationship, but they're likely a very small minority.

I think for some it is a need to hold onto their own youth via that contact, a disconnection from reality that, in particular, celebrity allows.

I do think that when you get home at the end of the day and sit down together to discuss how the day went and one of you says 'I've really worried about my mocks, I should have taken different subjects', you need to take a very long, hard look at yourself and realise you've mega fucked up.

 

[Silvanus]

You definitely did not take my advice on rereading your own words. Cause you pretty much immediately equated oppositions to DEI statements with opposition to diversity and inclusion:

And when Dreiko suggested you were working under a false equivalency, your response was:

What part of any of that is supposed to indicate that the issues are with specific policies and not inherent to DEI? As far as I can tell, you went immediately, full force into defending the specific policy the article was against.

All of this is overlooking the fact that the reasons given for opposing DEI statements-- both by Hawki and the initial article's author-- are based on objections to DEI itself.

Firstly, it's not "don't want to change", rather it's "want to not change". 9 times out of 10, someone may not be trying to change something, but that doesn't mean they are actively advocating for maintaining the status quo. If someone says to you "I think the shape of shelters should be something else", it may not be something you would personally say, but are you going to actively dispute it and insist current practices are preferable?

Well yes, if their ideas are worse or unworkable. And apparently that makes me conservative, in your bizarre reckoning.