Let me clarify the bet I'm offering. Boston College, which my middle son attends, has more DEI administrators than history professors. If BC lays off A SINGLE DEI admin, you win the bet.
So when I see you in London on 1/25, you will get the best dinner you have ever had at the Savoy.
If you lose, you will have to read the first 20 pages of "White Fragility" on youtube.
I hope you're right. Here in Australia DEI bureaucracy is now so entrenched in non profit orgs (like the one where I work), charities, education and random companies that have nothing to do with social justice causes (I noticed the other day that even my local Ikea have plastered their entrance in DEI platitudes), that it's hard to see this going anywhere anytime soon.
The issue is that its basic premises, diagnoses and solutions have now been embraced by normies. They are the ones now cluelessly fanning the flames. I've seen normal people who aren't political, aren't on twitter, culturally conservative and would stare at you blankly if you mentioned things like 'woke' or the 'culture wars' embrace and regurgitate concepts like pronouns, microaggressions, white privilege and anti-racism. I hear the word 'equity' about 10 times a day now at my workplace.
My 12 year old daughter's bedroom walls are covered in progress pride flags and 'inclusivity' posters she made at school. I doubt very much her teachers have heard of Butler, Crenshaw, Kendi or Di'Angelo, in their minds they're just doing their tiny bit towards creating a better, more inclusive and kinder world. The DEI officers at my workplace are equally clueless, they're just getting paid good money to roll out more confirmation bias trainings, to create and send out PDFs about Intersectionality and to make sure those diversity boxes are ticked.
These ideas - most notably being 'inclusive' and striving for more diversity - are sticky and easy for normal people to digest. They appear to fit in with most people's views about fairness and equality and most people simply don't see the bad ideas lurking behind the facade because they don't have the time or inclination to dig any deeper. I also think these concepts feel good to many people - I'm convinced they get a rush of endorphins whenever they use words like 'privilege' or 'equity' in a sentence.
So whilst I share your optimism that those who lit the fuse will eventually be exposed and die out, the problem is that the ideas have escaped from the lab and are being spread like a feelgood virus by normal, everyday 'useful idiot' people who will never see the dark underbelly even if it's hitting them in the face.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
ELL OH ELL*: "Plagiarism itself is a white concept and holding scholars of color to this standard is an imposition of whiteness and an attempt to colonize Black and Brown people with white ideals."
Well, considering we teachers are asked to attend book studies where the selected books inform us that reading and writing are white conventions unsuitable for instructing people of different ethnicities and backgrounds, you are sure to be correct.
🙂 A clear case where Poe's Law should apply ... 😉🙂
Wikipedia: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a [DEI-ist or Wokester] in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." ... 😉🙂
You seriously think that that particular article has been "corrupted"? Have you ever actually looked at any articles there, read the sources, checked that they weren't bogus?
They have some 16 million articles, just in English alone -- you've evaluated all of them? No doubt there's some rot there -- mostly on anything to do with gender from what I've seen -- but still a great deal of value that you and too many others seem rather too quick to dismiss. Bit of an oldish article -- 2011 -- by Natalie Wolchover at Live Science that made the argument that it was, then at least, as good as Britannica, the gold standard:
When you have seen -- as I began to see in 2020 -- many Wikipedia articles be used as a way to discredit any doctor, scientist or journalist who spoke against the mainstream narrative around Covid*, by, for example, maligning them as a “conspiracy theorist” or a “quack”, it is pretty hard for me to now trust this source. Sure there are many articles that are likely 100% accurate but these tend to deal with uncontentious topics.
*Subsequently I noticed the same pattern on other topics, any story where perceptions had to be managed.
I can sympathize -- see my article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism for details. I've been "defenestrated" there as an editor for objecting to their claim that Olympian transwoman Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female".
But tarring all of the articles there and the whole platform with a brush suitable only for the "sins" of a few really isn't helpful.
If many of the important articles have big lies in them, how can you trust Wiki? That doesn't stop me from checking out articles that are not contentious.
No one cares what color Claudine Gay's skin is, nor where her ancestors came from. What matters about her is that she's a fake nerd put in place by an anti-intellectial cult that has seized control of important academic institutions. Looking forward to her upcoming testimony in front of Congress, and hoping it leads to additional subpoenas.
I was ridiculed at a faculty meeting for teaching students how to paraphrase properly, without 'find and replace' plagiarism. The Gas Lighter's rationale was that 'not even native speakers paraphrase according to standard.' Never mind that entirely rewriting a paragraph is a great exercise in an English Learning course. This person is a full professor. I got demoted. And the woman who sneered at me for teaching students to write analytical paragraphs because she 'didn't know what to think when she was in college' is now my supervisor.
I attended an "anti-racist" workshop at this same school for $100. Here's a quote: "Consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society."
Pratt Institute. The DEI person who said this was just promoted to run the DEI program while a search for a new head DEI administrator is underway; 6 figure salary for teaching people to rat on each other for perceived racist infractions.
"I attended an "anti-racist" workshop at this same school for $100. Here's a quote: "Consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society." "
Were it me I would have said You Say That Like Its Some Sort Of Bad Thing? Someone has To Do it an let me tell you Its A Lot Of Work.
You might "enjoy" this post and summary of the situation you refer to:
Rigger: "[Claudine] Gay is just a symptom, the Kaposi’s sarcoma on the AIDS patient that is our universities. The immune systems of our universities have been well and truly fucked -- by DIE, which itself is merely the consequence of a far greater disease."
It is a $7 Billion industry that is far too entrenched to go away that quickly. If it is still in place when I see you on 1/25., I will buy you dinner at the Savoy.
I very much hope you are right about the demise of DEI. But into the resulting gap, what substitute with a three-letter acronym might be inserted? I'll offer the following and invite others to critique and make better:
Individualism:
We want each individual to be judged not by their demographic characteristics but by their demonstrated behaviors, by their generation of value that is appreciated by others, by their adherence to the rule of law, and by a range of human traits that we agree are admirable and wise such as kindness, generosity, contribution, working hard, self-restraint, patience, modesty, and more. (Suggestions welcome.) We want to be judged by our actions as individuals.
Tolerance:
We want all to be tolerant of different characteristics, lifestyles, and opinions, but insist that no one be pressured to celebrate those things on behalf of others. We want to live and let live.
Equality:
We want to provide equal opportunity under the law, not overt or covert systems that handicap or advantage some because of pre-made presumptions about privilege or disadvantage. We all start from different places, at different times, with different talents, capabilities, resources, and experiences. We cannot change these starting points nor guarantee the ending point. But we can assure that the rules will be the same for all such that each may travel as far as they are able. We want equal treatment for all.
I know- these are old ideas that we believed had been adopted. But to catch-on today, you've got to have an acronym!
Your prediction would be plausible in a rational world. Alas, we now live in Double Down Bizarro World. Thus, I think it'll happen, just not quite that quickly..
Let me clarify the bet I'm offering. Boston College, which my middle son attends, has more DEI administrators than history professors. If BC lays off A SINGLE DEI admin, you win the bet.
So when I see you in London on 1/25, you will get the best dinner you have ever had at the Savoy.
If you lose, you will have to read the first 20 pages of "White Fragility" on youtube.
What do you say?
Love it.
Well, I hope you're right on DEI collapsing, but I fear they'll just further entrench and double down.
You're not dealing with logical and accountable people by any means.
It'll come back in another form
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Share this
Robert A. Heinlein
Evil never sleeps.
“Must be a yearning deep in [the] human heart to stop other people from doing as they please.” - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, 1966.
I hope you're right. Here in Australia DEI bureaucracy is now so entrenched in non profit orgs (like the one where I work), charities, education and random companies that have nothing to do with social justice causes (I noticed the other day that even my local Ikea have plastered their entrance in DEI platitudes), that it's hard to see this going anywhere anytime soon.
The issue is that its basic premises, diagnoses and solutions have now been embraced by normies. They are the ones now cluelessly fanning the flames. I've seen normal people who aren't political, aren't on twitter, culturally conservative and would stare at you blankly if you mentioned things like 'woke' or the 'culture wars' embrace and regurgitate concepts like pronouns, microaggressions, white privilege and anti-racism. I hear the word 'equity' about 10 times a day now at my workplace.
My 12 year old daughter's bedroom walls are covered in progress pride flags and 'inclusivity' posters she made at school. I doubt very much her teachers have heard of Butler, Crenshaw, Kendi or Di'Angelo, in their minds they're just doing their tiny bit towards creating a better, more inclusive and kinder world. The DEI officers at my workplace are equally clueless, they're just getting paid good money to roll out more confirmation bias trainings, to create and send out PDFs about Intersectionality and to make sure those diversity boxes are ticked.
These ideas - most notably being 'inclusive' and striving for more diversity - are sticky and easy for normal people to digest. They appear to fit in with most people's views about fairness and equality and most people simply don't see the bad ideas lurking behind the facade because they don't have the time or inclination to dig any deeper. I also think these concepts feel good to many people - I'm convinced they get a rush of endorphins whenever they use words like 'privilege' or 'equity' in a sentence.
So whilst I share your optimism that those who lit the fuse will eventually be exposed and die out, the problem is that the ideas have escaped from the lab and are being spread like a feelgood virus by normal, everyday 'useful idiot' people who will never see the dark underbelly even if it's hitting them in the face.
" in their minds they're just doing their tiny bit towards creating a better, more inclusive and kinder world. "
I could mention a number of people in the last 100 years that thought that.
and generally their "good ideas" were responsible for the deaths of millions in implementation
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
you can always rely on CS Lewis to say something perfectly
ELL OH ELL*: "Plagiarism itself is a white concept and holding scholars of color to this standard is an imposition of whiteness and an attempt to colonize Black and Brown people with white ideals."
Well, considering we teachers are asked to attend book studies where the selected books inform us that reading and writing are white conventions unsuitable for instructing people of different ethnicities and backgrounds, you are sure to be correct.
Our world is reaching peak insanity; soon there will be no direction but the other way...
Ya, drum circles would be a better method
🙂 A clear case where Poe's Law should apply ... 😉🙂
Wikipedia: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a [DEI-ist or Wokester] in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." ... 😉🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Wikipedia has been fully corrupted.
You seriously think that that particular article has been "corrupted"? Have you ever actually looked at any articles there, read the sources, checked that they weren't bogus?
They have some 16 million articles, just in English alone -- you've evaluated all of them? No doubt there's some rot there -- mostly on anything to do with gender from what I've seen -- but still a great deal of value that you and too many others seem rather too quick to dismiss. Bit of an oldish article -- 2011 -- by Natalie Wolchover at Live Science that made the argument that it was, then at least, as good as Britannica, the gold standard:
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
As for where they've gone off the rails, see my article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
When you have seen -- as I began to see in 2020 -- many Wikipedia articles be used as a way to discredit any doctor, scientist or journalist who spoke against the mainstream narrative around Covid*, by, for example, maligning them as a “conspiracy theorist” or a “quack”, it is pretty hard for me to now trust this source. Sure there are many articles that are likely 100% accurate but these tend to deal with uncontentious topics.
*Subsequently I noticed the same pattern on other topics, any story where perceptions had to be managed.
I can sympathize -- see my article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism for details. I've been "defenestrated" there as an editor for objecting to their claim that Olympian transwoman Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female".
But tarring all of the articles there and the whole platform with a brush suitable only for the "sins" of a few really isn't helpful.
If many of the important articles have big lies in them, how can you trust Wiki? That doesn't stop me from checking out articles that are not contentious.
You yourself are a victim of wokepedia and still you defend them?!?
It is completely compromised; I came to understand that mid-2020.
Horse crap.
*except this kind of nonsense exists in our insane world
I love such a positive prediction for the new year. Hallelujah!
No one cares what color Claudine Gay's skin is, nor where her ancestors came from. What matters about her is that she's a fake nerd put in place by an anti-intellectial cult that has seized control of important academic institutions. Looking forward to her upcoming testimony in front of Congress, and hoping it leads to additional subpoenas.
This is a brilliant prediction. From your lips to God's ears.
I was ridiculed at a faculty meeting for teaching students how to paraphrase properly, without 'find and replace' plagiarism. The Gas Lighter's rationale was that 'not even native speakers paraphrase according to standard.' Never mind that entirely rewriting a paragraph is a great exercise in an English Learning course. This person is a full professor. I got demoted. And the woman who sneered at me for teaching students to write analytical paragraphs because she 'didn't know what to think when she was in college' is now my supervisor.
I attended an "anti-racist" workshop at this same school for $100. Here's a quote: "Consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society."
I predict needing a new line of work in 2024.
What institution?
Pratt Institute. The DEI person who said this was just promoted to run the DEI program while a search for a new head DEI administrator is underway; 6 figure salary for teaching people to rat on each other for perceived racist infractions.
"I attended an "anti-racist" workshop at this same school for $100. Here's a quote: "Consider yourself part of the white group that is detrimental to society." "
Were it me I would have said You Say That Like Its Some Sort Of Bad Thing? Someone has To Do it an let me tell you Its A Lot Of Work.
They invite ridicule, no sense being impolite.
You might "enjoy" this post and summary of the situation you refer to:
Rigger: "[Claudine] Gay is just a symptom, the Kaposi’s sarcoma on the AIDS patient that is our universities. The immune systems of our universities have been well and truly fucked -- by DIE, which itself is merely the consequence of a far greater disease."
https://rudolphrigger.substack.com/p/transing-away-the-gay
I did! Thanks! I hope you'll enjoy my forthcoming essay "A Buck-Fifty: A Harsh Lesson on Race Relations, Worth Every Penny"
It is a $7 Billion industry that is far too entrenched to go away that quickly. If it is still in place when I see you on 1/25., I will buy you dinner at the Savoy.
If you're serious then I accept your dinner!!
Thanks for using OpenTable!
OpenTable
Savoy Grill – Gordon Ramsay
Table for 2 on Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 6:30 pm
Name: Jens Heycke
Confirmation #: XXXXXXXX
See menu | Get directions
Savoy Grill
Savoy Hotel
London, WC2R 0EZ
020 7592 1600
See clarifying terms of my bet below: If my son's college (Boston College) lays off a single DEI admin by 1/25, you win the bet.
If they don't lay DEI staff off, you need to read the first 20 pages of D'Angelo's "White Fragility" on youtube.
That I cannot due as it breaks copyright law.
Our child too went to BC. Except for some great friends... a total waste of money. Loathe the place.
There are many of us who hope you are correct!
One month? Lol. You forgot to add the /s
Thanks for all of the videos and writings Peter. Aren’t you enjoying your new career leaps more than the crazy at PSU?
I very much hope you are right about the demise of DEI. But into the resulting gap, what substitute with a three-letter acronym might be inserted? I'll offer the following and invite others to critique and make better:
Individualism:
We want each individual to be judged not by their demographic characteristics but by their demonstrated behaviors, by their generation of value that is appreciated by others, by their adherence to the rule of law, and by a range of human traits that we agree are admirable and wise such as kindness, generosity, contribution, working hard, self-restraint, patience, modesty, and more. (Suggestions welcome.) We want to be judged by our actions as individuals.
Tolerance:
We want all to be tolerant of different characteristics, lifestyles, and opinions, but insist that no one be pressured to celebrate those things on behalf of others. We want to live and let live.
Equality:
We want to provide equal opportunity under the law, not overt or covert systems that handicap or advantage some because of pre-made presumptions about privilege or disadvantage. We all start from different places, at different times, with different talents, capabilities, resources, and experiences. We cannot change these starting points nor guarantee the ending point. But we can assure that the rules will be the same for all such that each may travel as far as they are able. We want equal treatment for all.
I know- these are old ideas that we believed had been adopted. But to catch-on today, you've got to have an acronym!
I like these! Consider reordering so that your acronym is TIE.
I hope you are right. But in the Midwest, we're 5 to 10 years behind. So, it'll be 2029 or better before DEI is D-E-A-D.
Very interesting predictions! Would love to see you debate Marc Lamont Hill.
Your prediction would be plausible in a rational world. Alas, we now live in Double Down Bizarro World. Thus, I think it'll happen, just not quite that quickly..
“Double Down Bizarro World”, that’s lovely!
From your lips to God’s ears!