Oh boy! It’s “Cultural Marxism” all over again. I wonder if an incel somewhere is going to use this as a justification for committing mass murder, a la a certain Norwegian.
Nobody could have seen this coming. /s
Someone should probably tell the so-called “DEI Mayor.” I think it was actually just a bunch of racists using that term, not people who just thought we had a dedicated DEI professional on city staff to champion diversity, equity, and inclusion.
He will be so shocked to learn it was racism the whole time.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But as online clips of the 39-year-old Democrat in his city of Baltimore varsity jacket began circulating, the conversation around the bridge collapse shifted from Scott’s emergency management strategy to his skin color.
It comes against the backdrop of huge row-back and assaults on bedrock civil rights measures after more than a half century of legislative and social gains, with Florida leading the charge of red states pushing bans on DEI efforts in higher education and public office.
“There’s always been this idea in societies that inherit from colonialism and slavery that opening up opportunities to those who are gravely marginalized incurs this kind of tax,” says Jamie Thomas, a linguistic anthropologist with a focus on race and pop culture.
For decades, says Ellen Berrey, a University of Toronto sociologist whose research explores the cultural dynamics of race and racism, law, organizations, and social movements, DEI was a safe word – “code for everybody.
Even “Baltimore” – which, as Thomas notes, “has such a history of anti-Blackness and racism and violence” – became a conservative metonym for a largely Black city with more problems than points of interest, resonating even more after Freddie Gray’s 2015 death in police custody.
But Baltimore mayor Scott provided the ultimate mic-drop response to the right wing’s coded attacks, one that revealed the gap between his would-be detractors and the three-letter insult that keeps crossing their lips.
The original article contains 1,266 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This bot missed all the important parts of the article and cobbled together barely comprehensible, seemingly random parts of random paragraphs from the source.
So another normal autotldr comment eh?
They don’t usually make me feel like I’m having a stroke when I’m reading them, though
This is the way things have always been. Use a word to classify something, and it’ll be quickly turned into an insult and/or slur.
Words like “idiot” were originally medical terms used to describe those with mental illness or special needs. Then people started using it to insult people they didn’t like. And every replacement quickly gets similar treatment. When I was growing up, the term “Mentally removed” was the preferred and most common term to use. Then people hijacked it and turned it into a general-purpose insult. Today, the word “Special” is getting similar treatment. And whatever term will become the new acceptable term will get the same treatement in short order.
The same happens with race. Every classification of race eventually gets devolved and turned into a racial slur. And then when they start using a new term to describe them, the racists quickly turn that into a slur as well. This will be no different. Just like they did before, bigots have once again taken a general purpose term and turned it into an insult. And if it gets bad enough where people have to start renaming their DE&I departments and programs, whatever term is used to replace DE&! will be given the same treatment.
A professor I had in undergrad once use the term “vernacular treadmill” to describe that process. It just keeps spinning and we have to update what we define as insulting as it becomes used that way.
“Euphemism Treadmill” on Wikipedia. Very interesting subject!
Of course using DEI as a pejorative or a slur is reactionary, but there are legitimate criticisms of DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion sound good on their face, but things get complicated when even a little critical thinking is applied. Diversity of what, exactly? Diversity of culture, beliefs, ideals? Ok, but some cultures have beliefs that DEI proponents might find problematic, like homophobic ideas or sexist ideas. So, clearly, we don’t actually want too much diversity of ideals. DEI proponents don’t want to be inclusive to people they see as intolerant, so clearly there are limits to diversity and inclusion.
Equity is justice and fairness, but what is considered just and fair can change from culture to culture. If we are a diverse and multicultural country, which culture’s conception of justice and fairness do we use to determine what is equitable?
You’ve misapplied progressive language in such a way as to make me suspect this comment is an example of astroturfing. I almost hope that is the case, because the alternative is that you have allowed ignorance and implicit bias to lead you down a path of self justified racism/bigotry. As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception. Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we’d ban most religions. Even western ones.
As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception.
I’m not sure progressives are the dominant culture in America, but regardless exclusion based on preconception is not the only kind of exclusion. You can exclude cultures based on behaviors that have demonstrated to lead to unacceptable consequences, and that does include white conservatives. It’s clear that liberals believe white, Christian conservative culture is at least partly unacceptable, even dangerous, and yet you insist it be tolerated. This seems, foolish. Especially since those conservatives seem hell bent on destroying your culture. It’s like refusing to remove a murderer from your home because that would go against the spirit of inclusion.
Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we’d ban most religions. Even western ones.
But what you’re describing isn’t inclusion, it’s passive assimilation. Discouraging behaviors you consider detrimental isn’t inclusion, it’s the opposite. Even if you are not excluding the whole culture, you are excluding part of it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but it’s not inclusivity and diversity, it’s promoting cultural homogeny, at least homogeny of some core principles. So, even if you don’t want to outright ban most religions, even western ones, because that would go against your core principles, you do want to “ban” (albeit not overtly) some aspects of those cultures.
Dude I’m left wing which is why I’m against racist shit like dei. I’m sorry but it was a terrible idea when implemented and it’s still terrible.
What idiot thought they’d fix racism with more racism?
I’m left wing let me parrot right wing talking points about how inclusion hurts white people!
It’s not a subtle or clever tactic and it doesn’t fool anyone these days but people still insist on LARPing/concern trolling in comment sections. It’s like a compulsion.
“As the most Lefty Left McLefterson who ever Lefted here’s some right wing talking points I heard on Tucker Carlson’s Twitter show”
Lmao yeah okay pal 🙄
“I’m a black gay guy and I can personally say that Obama did nothing for me, my life only changed a little bit and it was for the worse. Everything is so much better under Trump though. I feel respected - which I never do when democrats are involved.”
Diversity, equity and inclusion is racist?
Dude I’m left wing
So, we’re on the same page that racism is a problem and we should eradicate it.
The part where we disagree is that it will be solved if we ignore it. DEI initiatives are a redress to things like systemic racism and other inequalities. Once we truly don’t have to force people to do it, it’ll be great.
Not exactly. I think we should act to alleviate inequality but we don’t need to resort to racism to do it.
How about instead of race we use economic indicators to choose who to help? It’s a far more accurate indicator and easier to test for than holding up a color chart (family income, education, tax returns) and actually helps more people that need it than only helping (insert the race you want to preference here).
What exactly is racist about diversity, inclusion or equity?
This is the big issue: we as leftists complain that liberals don’t listen to us, but when they actually adopt our language, we just accuse them of being racists.
Many left wingers are on the left solely because they hate liberals, and once they age out of protesting, almost always move to the far right. Seeing that you consider equity to be racist, I would say it is highly likely you have already began the rightwing creep and just haven’t realized it yet.
Racism = treating differently based on race.
Changing the colour of your clan robes from white to black doesn’t make you less of a racist.
You’re falling into the trap so many do where they think their racism is the only good one and is right and justified. Spoiler, every racist thinks the same. Just treat people the same mate.
Please, tell me more about “my racism.” I’m genuinely curious what somebody who likely does nothing for their or anybody else’s community has to say about “my racism.”
People here want to pretend like only conservatives would dislike DEI but they’re wrong.
I want to live in a world where people think about the color of people’s skin the way they do hair or eye color - which is to say they don’t.
I’m sorry but I will not treat you differently based on the color of your skin.
These are the same people who were pushing “Latinx” meanwhile no one who is actually a part of that community knew what the fuck they were on about. Thankfully it seems to have died pretty quickly.
