Before I understood the vast scope of how activist Left ideology would be driving cultural change, I noticed that “THE” definition of racism had changed overnight to power+prejudice. It was somehow just a done deal, presented as though we had all come to a new agreement on what was a sea change.
At the same time, the somewhat hidden nature of the fact that this definition was changed allowed them to play their favorite game of Motte and Bailey/shared vocabulary but two very different dictionaries. Who isn’t against racism meaning treating people differently and negatively based simply on their perceived racial identity? So one agrees to support anti-racism and finds out eventually that it’s not about shared power and opportunities, but about one particular category of people having absolute power if they fit into some ever-changing racial identity.
So I used my few opportunities to call out this new definition of racism only to be met with blank looks. It’s not that my acquaintances or members of the church groups were SJWs—it’s that they couldn’t imagine how this new lingo could potentially lead to big adverse changes.
Maybe I recognized the import because I had seen feminists making a similar move when they pushed the simplistic construct that rape is ever and always about nothing but power, and not about sex.
I have come to my own conclusion about the term "racism". I would define it as thus:
A political mythology built by the [ left/SJWs/Cultural Marxism/whatever ] to:
(1) assert white/European/Western people are the villains of human history,
(2) keep minority groups living in a perpetual state of persecution complex and grievance to exploit, and
(3) keep said "white" people in a state of guilt ridden self-loathing and maintain a taboo against organising around their own self-interest.
The funny thing is that it is mostly white people actually enforcing the above definition. It is also the template for how other terms like "sexism" and "homophobia" are structured. The common sense semantics are long gone and we are living in the 1984 world of language curated for political outcome.
Hello Peter! I’m a huge fan of your work to sustain our democracy through free-speech advocacy and criticizing social bodies that have lately been promoting harmful rhetorics and woke agendas. As a twenty-something conservative minded individual, I really resonate with many of your discussions over the years.
I write to you today as a metaphorical unicorn... Though I'm conservative, a Trump voter, and a pro-life Christian I am a DEI Specialist... I've been in this role since 2020 and have even recieved certification as a Diversity Practitioner. With that being said, I am curious of your thoughts on this. As a conservative, I'm VERY aware of the sentiment DEI has on our side of the table. I even agree with that the vast majority of DEI practice pushes harmful narratives and agendas that have been disguised as DEI, and I don't participate or align with these things at all.
For additional background on my work: I serve a large non-profit organization that specializes in care for individuals with disabilities, veterans, individuals needing recovery or rehabilitation, etc. The most vulnerable people in our society (in my opinion). My DEI practice more involves things like consumer self-advocacy, employee relations, and aiding the organization's culture in these really divisive times. I believe DEI has been a vessle to navigate these social challenges that our consumers and employees face where there are no real groups (at least within my organization) established internally that is equipped with the knowledge of culture, people-skills, and sociology as I'd say DEI is. Also, I've managed to put the radical absolutist thinking of BLM and LGBTQ groups at bay and help to establish a workspace that truly promotes freedom of thought. After Trump won this previous election, I urged leaders in the company to continue a bi-partisan approach and respect everyone's voting choice despite whatever qualms they had. This has been so helpful in reducing many internal conflicts that could disrupt the quality of care our consumers recieve, and has bettered many working enviornments where radical liberals and conservatives can find balance. Another instance you might be interested in, was an occasion where and LGBTQ therapist was ready to ostricize a pychiatrist as "not safe" because the phychiatrist wouldn't grant a consumer for top surgery. After discussions with that therapist and further investigation, we were able to repair their working relationship and remove the harmful narratives that sprung from that instance by helping the therapist to know that the psychiatrist was well in their clinical power to choose this and shouldn't be deemed harmful for giving their medical opinion. The psychiatrist wasn't even against trans-related procedures, but didn't feel experienced enough in that area to put their medical liscense at risk for allowing it.
I really believe that DEI has been harmful and many organizations and private practioners aren't certified and take an approach that is so divisive and sickening to society. We shouldn't force white people to sit in a circle and take responsibility for slavery or racism, nor blindly support causes that contribute to the breakdown of society (like forcing pronouns in bios). Many people will have to answer to their DEI practices, and as someone who has never contributed to those actions, I'm looking forward to that day of accountability.
I really would love to talk more with my conservative allies to find a way to hold general DEI practices taken up by radical movements accountable while still sharing it as a tool that has been pivotal to my experience in the human and health services field. (I'm not talking about college campuses because DEI has no place there in my humble opinion.) I would love to have your opinions about this as a representative of free thought which I too am so passionate about. I am fully willing to abandon this effort if I find that I will be forced to do things for a woke agenda that conflicts with my ethics and morality. But, I disagree with our political leaning and would like a leader adept in socio-political critique to help.
Thank you for your time and attention to this post. Again your content has really inspired me throughout my work and has kept me in check, and I look forward to hearing a response.
Before I understood the vast scope of how activist Left ideology would be driving cultural change, I noticed that “THE” definition of racism had changed overnight to power+prejudice. It was somehow just a done deal, presented as though we had all come to a new agreement on what was a sea change.
At the same time, the somewhat hidden nature of the fact that this definition was changed allowed them to play their favorite game of Motte and Bailey/shared vocabulary but two very different dictionaries. Who isn’t against racism meaning treating people differently and negatively based simply on their perceived racial identity? So one agrees to support anti-racism and finds out eventually that it’s not about shared power and opportunities, but about one particular category of people having absolute power if they fit into some ever-changing racial identity.
So I used my few opportunities to call out this new definition of racism only to be met with blank looks. It’s not that my acquaintances or members of the church groups were SJWs—it’s that they couldn’t imagine how this new lingo could potentially lead to big adverse changes.
Maybe I recognized the import because I had seen feminists making a similar move when they pushed the simplistic construct that rape is ever and always about nothing but power, and not about sex.
Yes. And the definitional change has also infected dictionaries as well. Look up “woman,” as an example.
I have come to my own conclusion about the term "racism". I would define it as thus:
A political mythology built by the [ left/SJWs/Cultural Marxism/whatever ] to:
(1) assert white/European/Western people are the villains of human history,
(2) keep minority groups living in a perpetual state of persecution complex and grievance to exploit, and
(3) keep said "white" people in a state of guilt ridden self-loathing and maintain a taboo against organising around their own self-interest.
The funny thing is that it is mostly white people actually enforcing the above definition. It is also the template for how other terms like "sexism" and "homophobia" are structured. The common sense semantics are long gone and we are living in the 1984 world of language curated for political outcome.
Hello Peter! I’m a huge fan of your work to sustain our democracy through free-speech advocacy and criticizing social bodies that have lately been promoting harmful rhetorics and woke agendas. As a twenty-something conservative minded individual, I really resonate with many of your discussions over the years.
I write to you today as a metaphorical unicorn... Though I'm conservative, a Trump voter, and a pro-life Christian I am a DEI Specialist... I've been in this role since 2020 and have even recieved certification as a Diversity Practitioner. With that being said, I am curious of your thoughts on this. As a conservative, I'm VERY aware of the sentiment DEI has on our side of the table. I even agree with that the vast majority of DEI practice pushes harmful narratives and agendas that have been disguised as DEI, and I don't participate or align with these things at all.
For additional background on my work: I serve a large non-profit organization that specializes in care for individuals with disabilities, veterans, individuals needing recovery or rehabilitation, etc. The most vulnerable people in our society (in my opinion). My DEI practice more involves things like consumer self-advocacy, employee relations, and aiding the organization's culture in these really divisive times. I believe DEI has been a vessle to navigate these social challenges that our consumers and employees face where there are no real groups (at least within my organization) established internally that is equipped with the knowledge of culture, people-skills, and sociology as I'd say DEI is. Also, I've managed to put the radical absolutist thinking of BLM and LGBTQ groups at bay and help to establish a workspace that truly promotes freedom of thought. After Trump won this previous election, I urged leaders in the company to continue a bi-partisan approach and respect everyone's voting choice despite whatever qualms they had. This has been so helpful in reducing many internal conflicts that could disrupt the quality of care our consumers recieve, and has bettered many working enviornments where radical liberals and conservatives can find balance. Another instance you might be interested in, was an occasion where and LGBTQ therapist was ready to ostricize a pychiatrist as "not safe" because the phychiatrist wouldn't grant a consumer for top surgery. After discussions with that therapist and further investigation, we were able to repair their working relationship and remove the harmful narratives that sprung from that instance by helping the therapist to know that the psychiatrist was well in their clinical power to choose this and shouldn't be deemed harmful for giving their medical opinion. The psychiatrist wasn't even against trans-related procedures, but didn't feel experienced enough in that area to put their medical liscense at risk for allowing it.
I really believe that DEI has been harmful and many organizations and private practioners aren't certified and take an approach that is so divisive and sickening to society. We shouldn't force white people to sit in a circle and take responsibility for slavery or racism, nor blindly support causes that contribute to the breakdown of society (like forcing pronouns in bios). Many people will have to answer to their DEI practices, and as someone who has never contributed to those actions, I'm looking forward to that day of accountability.
I really would love to talk more with my conservative allies to find a way to hold general DEI practices taken up by radical movements accountable while still sharing it as a tool that has been pivotal to my experience in the human and health services field. (I'm not talking about college campuses because DEI has no place there in my humble opinion.) I would love to have your opinions about this as a representative of free thought which I too am so passionate about. I am fully willing to abandon this effort if I find that I will be forced to do things for a woke agenda that conflicts with my ethics and morality. But, I disagree with our political leaning and would like a leader adept in socio-political critique to help.
Thank you for your time and attention to this post. Again your content has really inspired me throughout my work and has kept me in check, and I look forward to hearing a response.