What, exactly, have I said that's factually wrong?When that distinction makes the difference between something factually wrong and something factually right, yes, you should have to.
Even if I said, hypothetically, that diversity didn't exist long ago (which isn't much of a stretch, as the majority of societies have been hemogenous, and those that haven't have usually been empires), how would that actually be relevant to what's being discussed?As soon as someone makes a claim about something not existing long ago (as you did), then that necessarily expands the conversation to include what things were like a long time ago.
When we're discussing climate change, it's a red herring 90% of the time to say that the climate has always changed (which is true), that life has thrived when the planet's been much warmer (which is true), that humans have survived more extreme weather shifts than today (which is true). All of these statements are academic to the issue of climate change as it currently exists in the 21st century, and in the two centuries prior.
Yes, transport has been around for millennia. Diversity has been around in some form or another ever since human groups started bumping into each other. You're pulling a millennia old "technically" that's irrelevant to the actual subject, because it's silly to draw equivalents between the two.I brought it up because you said something factually incorrect. If someone said transport is a 1900s invention, and I said it's actually been around for millenia, it would be a bizarre defence to say "well, the context of the thread is modern stuff so obviously I meant modern forms of transport!"
Then why bring it up?This is a lie. Saying that two things qualify as examples of X doesn't mean those two things are equal in any other ways.
No-one's said transport is less than two centuries old. If, however, you're discussing something that exists in the present day, the bounds of conversation pertain to the present day.So to get this straight: you think it would be perfectly reasonable and correct to state that "transport is less than 2 centuries old"? Because the surrounding context is about modern stuff and thus we should all just assume that when you say "transport" you actually mean specific modern forms?
And this isn't even an assumption as you put it. The original topic was DIE statements. That's somehow broadened out to diversity, inclusion, and equity, which has further broadened out to, among other things, the sum total of human history because of a "technically." Instead of actually discussing the issue (which, to be frank, is a lost cause right now), we've gone down this semantic rabbithole.
But they ARE contentious. I've cited numerous examples of them being contentious. You've gone from actually engaging with the issues at hand to dragging wheelchairs into this.EXACTLY. But you haven't been saying "equity in these areas is contentious". You've been saying equity itself, and DEI, are contentious in themselves. That necessarily includes the innocuous and harmless stuff alongside the rest. This has been exactly my point from the start.
No-one has a problem with wheelchair ramps (and since I apparently have to do this, I'll say that yes, I'm certain that someone, somewhere, wants to remove wheelchair ramps, or wants to remove paraplegics or some eugenicist shit). If your point from the start, as you put it, is equity includes wheelchair ramps, congratulations. Equity includes wheelchair ramps. That doesn't actually address the issue at hand. Again, with climate change, this is like harping on and on about climate shifts over Earth's history, instead of actually engaging with AGW.
It IS funny, because you've taken us down this semantic rabbithole.Funny how a discussion about DEI, which encompasses equity, can lead to discussing examples of equity! How odd!
You're seriously engaging in the distinction between "can' and "does" in this context? You understand that by this measurement, nothing could ever be an issue unless it was true 100% of the time.It would be true to say equity CAN disadvantage people. But to say it necessarily disadvantages people, you must believe that any examples that qualify as equity must also disadvantage people. And that is mutually contradictory with your acknowledgement that wheelchair accessibility doesn't disadvantage anybody.
It's a waste of time to say this, this is clear, but again, no-one is complaining about wheelchairs. I've given you examples of equity, I've given you examples of people's issues with equity,
You might have had a leg to stand on if the subject of equity, on this thread, wasn't brought up in a clear, specific context. If I'm talking about equity in a given context, if I'm citing people in said context, and bringing up issues in said context, going outside that context doesn't actually address anything. It's not exactly a case of whataboutism, but it reminds me of when people pressed a company (Nike, I think) about paying its workers a living wage, and the entire thing entered quibbling as to what a living wage actually was. It's semantic avoidance of the actual issues at hand. Or, again, if I'm on the climate change thread, it's a waste of time to quibble that climate change has happened throughout Earth's history. It's a waste of time because everyone already knows this. I KNOW wheelchair ramps exist, the people I've cited know that wheelchair ramps exist, I'm sure that the universities requiring DIE statements have wheelchair ramps, none of this is actually relevant to the discussion. To mention a recent article on The Conversation, which details the tensions between equity and liberal democracy, asking "but what about wheelchairs?" doesn't actually add anything, unless you're such a literalist that a mention of something in one context must, ipso facto, include the thing in each and every other context. Again, if I'm discussing climate change, quibbling about climate change from millions of years ago, or debating whether it should be called global warming or climate change, doesn't add anything, it's just wasting people's time.The only way to reconcile this is to acknowledge that equity doesn't always disadvantage people.
If you condemn equity as a whole, then you're condemning all implementations and forms. And that's what you've been doing: rather than condemn specific instances, you've been condemning the entire principle.
By showing you perfectly innocuous forms of equity, I'm showing you that you cannot tar the entire principle with the same brush.
If you can cite people objecting to equity because of wheelchair ramps, by all means post it on the anti-woke thread, but until then...well, actually, I doubt there's going to be an "until then," because this has become a nitpicking of terminology rather than any actual engagement.