You brought up diversity. You did not say "diversity in a comparable form to today".
I shouldn't have to, for the reasons I've given.
You just said diversity, a term which encompasses any form of demographic mixing/coexistence, whether its comparable to today's form or not.
Yes, but we're not discussing the history of diversity across human existence, are we?
I inserted the Great Migrations as an example of demographics mixing. I DID NOT "equate it with diversity as the concept is currently applied"-- this is a lie.
Then why bring it up? There's a clear context in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss diversity over the last 300,000 years, then do it in its own thread. Even if you didn't literally equate it, that's the implication, because otherwise, it's a non sequitur.
That quote literally just says it's an example of diversity. It in no way draws an equivalence between that form and the form we have today.
It very literally does. You're equating the diversity of human history with diversity as it's currently understood/practiced today. Which, I might remind you, started off in the context of diversity, inclusion, and equity. We've gone from DIE statements to the entire history of humanity. If you don't see how this is concept creep, then I can't help you.
Yes, I brought up voting, as an analogy. I pointed out that if someone said voting existed prior to 1900, that sentence is 1) factually correct and 2) in no way, shape, or form drawing an equivalence between older forms of voting and modern democracy.
You seemingly believe that if something can be said to exist a long time ago, it must therefore be equivalent to modern forms. Transport existed millenia ago? Oh, so I must be saying simple carts are equivalent to trains and automobiles!
Except by that analogy, if we're specifically discussing cars and trains, it's silly to bring up carts and wagons, unless we were discussing transport in its totality.
If this was about diversity in its totality, sure. But it isn't. We've gone from DIE statements, to diversity, to human history. And as interesting as human history is, this is the "woke" thread, not the "human history" thread.
Yet, you still act as if deliterious examples automatically tarnish non-deleterious instances.
Well, no, because no-one has an issue with wheelchair ramps or whatnot. The issues of equity are in the areas I've cited. No-one, not on this thread, or any link, has mentioned wheelchairs. The actual controversy about equity is where forced outcomes are sought after, regardless of whatever deleterious effects might prevent themselves. AA, cancelling of advanced classes, etc.
Nope, this is a lie. The term encompasses perfectly fine policies as well as some more contentious ones. You're the only one acting as if the entire concept is affected by specific, individual approaches within it.
Again, look at the history of this thread. This started off with DIE statements, now we're discussing wheelchairs.
I had no interest in discussing wheelchairs, you brought them up. No-one has an issue with wheelchairs.
"Wheelchair ramps do not disadvantage people" [...] "Equity results in people being disadvantaged" [...] "Wheelchair ramps fall under equity".
You're contradicting your own post, within the same paragraph, to try to maintain this broad brush condemnation.
Those aren't contradictory statements. If I said wheelchair ramps disadvantage people, that would be false. If I say equity disadvantages people, that would be true, through the examples given.
I've given examples of equity in practice (y'know, the equity that was originally being discussed), I've given examples of how it disadvantage people, and now we have...wheelchairs. As if wheelchair ramps in of themselves somehow negate every issue with equity. No-one is discussing wheelchairs. No-one is suggesting that equity requirements in higher ed are relevant to wheelchairs. The only reason we're discussing wheelchairs is that you've inserted them into the topic, as if to say "well if you're fine with wheelchairs, equity's great, right?"
Then why did you post them in response to a section of my post which wasn't anything to do with that?
It's extremely rich to accuse me of going off-topic when every tangent on the DIE topic has been introduced by you. We've gone from diversity to Great Migrations, from equity to wheelchair ramps, to, um, cars.
And again, it wasn't a direct response to you, per se, it was an addition to the wider topic. If I wasn't caught up in this endless cycle of semantics, you probably wouldn't even be questioning it, since the topic had already gone down the police reform vs. police abolition route.
cbcny.org
