A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[Jimmy Higgins]

DEI is racist. It reduces people to a skin colour, making all other attributes irrelevant.

That is objectively false. "...making all other attributes irrelevant". That is ridiculous. If that were the case, African Americans that dropped out of high school would be admitted to medical school. The blind would be hired as bus drivers. Monolingual Hispanics hired as translators.

This is crux of the anti-DEI nonsense. The lie that it is only about race or gender or disability. People like Dr. Z need to exaggerate the influence of DEI in hiring or admissions in order to make it look like a big dirty secret.

I don't think I am.

You literally said that. You said with DEI nothing matters but race "making all other attributes irrelevant". That is absolute wrong. You didn't say DEI made identity into a factor that had an unfair advantage against others, you went black/white and said it was ONLY about identity. You might want to choose your words to be more accurately reflecting reality, but honestly, I think you exaggerated it on purpose because you have an agenda.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if English is Dr Z’s first language.

I doubt it, but he appears to know English better than me and that is my only language. I wouldn't confuse Dr.Z's issues with logic with his grasp of language.

“Issues with logic” COULD be down to differences in syntax, context etc. But you are outright inferring basic dishonesty or blatant racism made up in a pig’s lipstick. And you’re probably right.
For whatever reason, I prefer to confer the benefit of any doubt that might remain. Maybe he’s inadequately expressing himself. Or just being a dick to get a rise.
Unimportant.
BS is BS.

 

[Elixir]

DEI is not looking to restrict Asians or Whites from general society, working professions, or schools.

Do you believe Z doesn’t know that?

It’s only just POSSIBLE that Z’s problem is NOT that DEI doesn’t seek to restrict Asians or Whites from general society, Jimmy.
IMHO, his problem is that DEI seeks to eliminate existing restrictions (exclusion) of black and brown people from general society.

 

[Toni]

I think that a very common problem for many people is that we have limited experience with persons who are different from ourselves. Those differences can be race, skin color, ethnicity, country of origin, first language, sex, gender, orientation, level of disability/ability, educational attainment, profession, religion/religious affiliation, age/generation, political affiliation.

For starters.

Some of us are more self-satisfied and arrogant than others, and about different things.

I think that some of us or perhaps all of us to varying degrees tend to think of our experiences as typical and normal. We tend to get pretty married to our own POV and tend to view the world and other people through our own personal lens comprised of our own life experiences.

Some of us are more open than others to the fact that we may not be as bright as we thought we were or as informed or experienced or as typical.

Some of us recognize that better than others. For most of us, it is easier to see someone else's limitations with respect to prejudices and opinions compared with our own.

Some of us try harder to do something about the limitations of our experiences and understandings. Even go out of our way to meet and know different people and cultures and ideas and beliefs--and come to understand and accept others better than we did before and also to know and understand and accept ourselves better than we did.

But yea, I think that Dr.Z is pretty caught up in the belief in his own personal world view being THE only correct way to see the world.

 

[ZiprHead]

DEI is racist. It reduces people to a skin colour, making all other attributes irrelevant. One could try to argue its benefits. But that doesn't change the racism of it. Would anyone argue against this? Its also sexist.

Can you point to the facts that led you to believe this is true?

Frankly, the Trump administration fought against DEI because they want to be racist and don't want it being pointed out. Pete Hegseth and the immigration deportation push are prime examples. Then Trump admin literally went to the SC get targeting brown people approved.

 

[Emily Lake]

I just went to the official site of Trump’s cabinet and I counted exactly 1 non-white person. I’m counting Marco Rubio as white.

Why do you think you're the arbiter of who counts as white when it's convenient for you? Gabbard is of Samoan descent, was born in Samoa, and grew up in Hawaii. She's a Pacific Islander. Both of Rubio's parents are Cuban, he's legitimately hispanic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Huh, same here! Wonder if it's the same words -- mine were bougainvillea, ratoon and shalloon.

Spot on!

 

[Toni]

I just went to the official site of Trump’s cabinet and I counted exactly 1 non-white person. I’m counting Marco Rubio as white.

Why do you think you're the arbiter of who counts as white when it's convenient for you? Gabbard is of Samoan descent, was born in Samoa, and grew up in Hawaii. She's a Pacific Islander. Both of Rubio's parents are Cuban, he's legitimately hispanic.

Tulsi Gabbard is no longer part of Trump’s cabinet. She resigned June 30.

I was looking at Rubio as being Hispanic, which is an ethnicity just as being Irish American or Swedish American is an ethnicity. Google tells me that by virtue of being born in Cuba, which is considered part of Latin America, he is also Latino. My error was in considering Cuba to be part of the Caribbean nations instead of Latin America. Geography is not my long suite.

Note: Cameron Diaz would be considered white, I believe although her father’s family is Cuban.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which ideas that I defended do you feel I should be embarrassed to consider worth defending?

Racism.

You know, just because you're only capable of viewing the world through the lens of skin color doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow your lead. Grow the fuck up and stop being an exclusionary, inhumane, compassionless, cruel child about it. You're supposed to be smart, act like it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Diversity is a fact that needs to be recognized. We should tolerate diversity. That’s not racist.
Equality is a desirable paradigm - unless you’re a racist.
Inclusion would be an optimal outcome of diversity and equality. Unless you’re a racist.

Diversity is a noble goal... if it's achieved organically. Forced diversity is counterproductive.

Inclusion is a nice sounding word, but it has the same flaws as tolerance... and I know how youse feel about tolerating those who hold views you think shouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes exclusion is necessary and appropriate. We exclude adults from little league. We exclude sex offenders from living near schools. We exclude people with financial felonies from holding financial positions. We exclude children from strip clubs. Whether or not inclusion is a noble goal depends rather heavily on what we're being asked to include and why.

The E in DEI isn't for Equality, it's for Equity.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that a very common problem for many people is that we have limited experience with persons who are different from ourselves. Those differences can be race, skin color, ethnicity, country of origin, first language, sex, gender, orientation, level of disability/ability, educational attainment, profession, religion/religious affiliation, age/generation, political affiliation.

Some of us have a massive amount of experience with a huge variety of people from different backgrounds, different countries, different races, different sexes, and different orientations... and we still get called racists.

Not because we are actually racist. But because it's a convenient thought-terminating label that provides the transparent veneer of moral righteousness to gloss over the gaping holes in reason and fairness on display. If all you have to do is holler "witch", then you never have to deal with whether or not they're actually practicing black magic. The label is proof of crime, and it's abhorrent and insulting.

It's the logic of Salem.

 

[Toni]

I think that a very common problem for many people is that we have limited experience with persons who are different from ourselves. Those differences can be race, skin color, ethnicity, country of origin, first language, sex, gender, orientation, level of disability/ability, educational attainment, profession, religion/religious affiliation, age/generation, political affiliation.

Some of us have a massive amount of experience with a huge variety of people from different backgrounds, different countries, different races, different sexes, and different orientations... and we still get called racists.

Not because we are actually racist. But because it's a convenient thought-terminating label that provides the transparent veneer of moral righteousness to gloss over the gaping holes in reason and fairness on display. If all you have to do is holler "witch", then you never have to deal with whether or not they're actually practicing black magic. The label is proof of crime, and it's abhorrent and insulting.

It's the logic of Salem.

The following statement is not directed towards you but is a general statement:

It is altogether possible for a person to be exposed to people of many different backgrounds to still be racist. My experience with this comes from years when I worked in a diplomatic community ( as a local hire, no diplomatic status or credentials). I saw a lot that surprised me. It was my first exposure to colorism, and also made me realize just how much racism exists all over the world.

Exposure to different people with different t backgrounds, etc. does help people to grow beyond preconceived opinions about other peoples. It’s not always a necessity or sufficient.

 

[Emily Lake]

The following statement is not directed towards you but is a general statement:

It is altogether possible for a person to be exposed to people of many different backgrounds to still be racist. My experience with this comes from years when I worked in a diplomatic community ( as a local hire, no diplomatic status or credentials). I saw a lot that surprised me. It was my first exposure to colorism, and also made me realize just how much racism exists all over the world.

Exposure to different people with different t backgrounds, etc. does help people to grow beyond preconceived opinions about other peoples. It’s not always a necessity or sufficient.

True, but it's often sufficient when the opinions are based on second-hand stereotypes rather than direct knowledge.

Verging off topic... sometimes exposure makes things worse, but in my experience it's not generally a case of "surface level" differences. Sometimes the abrasion is due to cultural differences rather than skin color. And I know a lot of people are big on multiculturalism, but there are some serious risks in there as well.

For example... I've met and worked with a LOT of people of middle eastern descent. Most of them are great, and I like them. But some of them are not great. And when it's not great... it's not about their skin color, it's about their degree of assimilation.

Those who refuse to assimilate aren't immigrants, they're colonizers.

 

[Toni]

The following statement is not directed towards you but is a general statement:

It is altogether possible for a person to be exposed to people of many different backgrounds to still be racist. My experience with this comes from years when I worked in a diplomatic community ( as a local hire, no diplomatic status or credentials). I saw a lot that surprised me. It was my first exposure to colorism, and also made me realize just how much racism exists all over the world.

Exposure to different people with different t backgrounds, etc. does help people to grow beyond preconceived opinions about other peoples. It’s not always a necessity or sufficient.

True, but it's often sufficient when the opinions are based on second-hand stereotypes rather than direct knowledge.

Verging off topic... sometimes exposure makes things worse, but in my experience it's not generally a case of "surface level" differences. Sometimes the abrasion is due to cultural differences rather than skin color. And I know a lot of people are big on multiculturalism, but there are some serious risks in there as well.

For example... I've met and worked with a LOT of people of middle eastern descent. Most of them are great, and I like them. But some of them are not great. And when it's not great... it's not about their skin color, it's about their degree of assimilation.

Those who refuse to assimilate aren't immigrants, they're colonizers.

Heh—I used to work with a lot of people from all over the world but primarily Middle Eastern nationals or immigrants. I agree that most were great and that some ( not limited to Mid Eastern origins) were not. I did not see it as a question of country of origin so much as it was a question of racism and colorism.

There were lots of cultural differences, yes, and for the most part, I saw those as being differences not one ‘better’ than the other but as suffering ways of looking at the world, families, obligations, hospitality, etc. less benign were some differences in perceptions of class and socioeconomic status and the roles or limitations assigned to them.

 

[ZiprHead]

Diversity is a fact that needs to be recognized. We should tolerate diversity. That’s not racist.
Equality is a desirable paradigm - unless you’re a racist.
Inclusion would be an optimal outcome of diversity and equality. Unless you’re a racist.

Diversity is a noble goal... if it's achieved organically. Forced diversity is counterproductive.

Can you point to an example of forced diversity coming out of a DEI program?

 

[laughing dog]

I just went to the official site of Trump’s cabinet and I counted exactly 1 non-white person. I’m counting Marco Rubio as white.

Why do you think you're the arbiter of who counts as white when it's convenient for you? Gabbard is of Samoan descent, was born in Samoa, and grew up in Hawaii. She's a Pacific Islander. Both of Rubio's parents are Cuban, he's legitimately hispanic.

Hispanic can be either white or nonwhite. Toni made a legitimate choice and was honest about it. If you disagree, then it’s 2 non-white members.

Tulsi Gabbard is not in Tfumo’s cabinet, so her race is not relevant to the racial makeup of yhe the cabinet..

 

[Toni]

Diversity is a fact that needs to be recognized. We should tolerate diversity. That’s not racist.
Equality is a desirable paradigm - unless you’re a racist.
Inclusion would be an optimal outcome of diversity and equality. Unless you’re a racist.

Diversity is a noble goal... if it's achieved organically. Forced diversity is counterproductive.

Inclusion is a nice sounding word, but it has the same flaws as tolerance... and I know how youse feel about tolerating those who hold views you think shouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes exclusion is necessary and appropriate. We exclude adults from little league. We exclude sex offenders from living near schools. We exclude people with financial felonies from holding financial positions. We exclude children from strip clubs. Whether or not inclusion is a noble goal depends rather heavily on what we're being asked to include and why.

The E in DEI isn't for Equality, it's for Equity.

Now do the military.

 

[Bomb#20]

Inventing the baseless strawmen you impute to your opponents is choosing folly over reason and invention over science. When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian Americans in order to make more positions available for African Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion.

Those two sentences right next to each other are pretty damn hilarious.

What I said about you is not a strawman; it's well-founded in your statements upthread. I admit when I wrote that, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt -- I took for granted when you argued for excluding some and including others based on race, you intended for which people were which to be based on comparing numbers of each race hired with numbers in the overall population: so-called "representation". Perhaps you had different criteria in mind and I'd have reflected your meaning better by writing "When you argue for racially discriminating against white Americans in order to make more positions available for Native Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion."; if so, sorry, my bad.

Whatever. I'll stop guessing at your racial preference hierarchy and just rewrite agnostically. When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. Happy?

Didn't think so.

And I'm certainly not going to sit here and pretend that anyone campaigning against "DEI hires" is ever either:

1. Not racist

or

2. Not associated with the regime of Donald John Trump, and his allies on the "Right" and the "Left", who have allowed him to legally seize power of an increasingly illegitimate state.

That, sir, is an argument for racially discriminating against Asian and/or non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African- and/or Hispanic- and/or Native- and/or Pacific Islander Americans. It's a stupid, brain damaged, illogical argument -- it is, after all, an ad hominem argument and therefore fallacious -- but it's an argument nonetheless. The fact that you bring up Trump shows you're talking about America rather than Cambridge or Bangalore or wherever. So evidently the people you are claiming to be 100% racist are those campaigning against DEI hiring practices in America. The fact that you call them racist and not sexist or whatever shows you're talking about race-based DEI, not our DEI practices on behalf of women, trans people, et al. Well, the whole point of the race-based DEI hiring practices in America is to racially discriminate against Asian and non-Hispanic white Americans in order to make more positions available for African-, Hispanic-, Native-, and Pacific Islander Americans -- calling it "DEI" instead of racial preferences doesn't change which practice is at issue. The whole point of anyone "campaigning against DEI hires" is to try to abolish those racial preferences and replace them with colorblind hiring. Furthermore, we can tell that you are not merely making a statistical ad hominem about the hidden motives of typical campaigners -- you aren't saying anything as mild as "Most of them are lying about their goals and secretly want to bring back discrimination against black people.". The fact that you claim it's 100% -- "pretend that anyone" -- shows that you are not inferring racism from any independent knowledge you have about the campaigners in your own experience, but rather are inferring racism from the colorblindness goal itself. And since we already know from your posting history that you regard racists and Trump as very bad, your whole paragraph implies "Switching to colorblind hiring in America would be very bad." That, sir, is an (ad hominem) argument for continuing to racially discriminate in favor of somebody and continuing to racially discriminate against somebody else.

None of this is rocket science. So quit gaslighting us.[/Captain Obvious]

 

[DrZoidberg]

DEI is racist. It reduces people to a skin colour, making all other attributes irrelevant.

That is objectively false. "...making all other attributes irrelevant". That is ridiculous. If that were the case, African Americans that dropped out of high school would be admitted to medical school. The blind would be hired as bus drivers. Monolingual Hispanics hired as translators.

This is crux of the anti-DEI nonsense. The lie that it is only about race or gender or disability. People like Dr. Z need to exaggerate the influence of DEI in hiring or admissions in order to make it look like a big dirty secret.

I don't think I am.

You literally said that. You said with DEI nothing matters but race "making all other attributes irrelevant". That is absolute wrong. You didn't say DEI made identity into a factor that had an unfair advantage against others, you went black/white and said it was ONLY about identity. You might want to choose your words to be more accurately reflecting reality, but honestly, I think you exaggerated it on purpose because you have an agenda.

My agenda is that woke is a memetic poison that turns otherwise reasonable and intelligent people stupid. Woke people mean well. And that's nice. But the damage it does by distorting everything around it makes it evil. It operates on a logical trap where every critique against it, is erroneously, interpreted as an attack on minorities, allowing wokes to feel like morally superior and on the side of the weak. But its just a feeling. They're really not.

Wokes are in reality just petty bullies picking on people who haven't an interest in picking up the latest trendy pc jargon. And that's all it is. They help nobody. They protect nobody. Once someone is woke its a constant struggle to avoid accidentally saying something, on the ever increasing, naughty list. Its so easy to accidentally say a bad thing that wokes all live in fear. Like verbal ascetics constantly needing to watch their words and keep themselves pure.

Its not a new thing. Religious moral purity sects keep popping up and they're all the same. They have their short time in the sun. But they all die out, because its an exhausting way to live, and its a complete waste of time. It benefits nobody. Its a pure social poison.

That's my agenda

 

[Bomb#20]

What I wrote:

Which ideas that I defended do you feel I should be embarrassed to consider worth defending? If what you have in mind isn't on that list, quote me defending them.

How Politesse snipped it:

Which ideas that I defended do you feel I should be embarrassed to consider worth defending?

Racism.

Seems to me his snippage choice speaks volumes...