This question could apply to any of the topics we discuss here, but my department is getting on the DIE bandwagon, and I'm trying to explain how insidious the DIE agenda really is to a conservative normie in my department. Thinking back to how I ended up opposing this shit doesn't really help because I was largely drip fed experiences and information over a period of years that allows me to see this for what it is. The person I'm explaining this to sort of fell for the propaganda a bit. Who could be against inclusion, right? She's sort of getting it now that I'm exposing how it's not about including people that the left doesn't like, but I really feel I can't do a good job at giving an overview because I've never had to explain the situation to anyone who's uninitiated so to speak. Any arguments I could make or sites I could link to would help. Like I said she's conservative and willing to listen, so it's not so much about convincing and more about exposing DIE for what it is.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
It's anti-merit.
It's deliberately pushing things and people and fund forward into avenues that are known to be sub-optimal at best, or actively deleterious at worst. That's absolutely inherent to a non-meritocratic system - there's no way you are not damaging things when you ignore that.
On top of that lowering standards for groups of people teaches them they are not expected to be any better than they are.
Just as you don't instill good behaviour by letting someone flout the rules and get away with it, you don't instill high achievement or high participation by rewarding or low achievement and low involvement.
It's only because of decades of propaganda that this very obvious, logically straightforward concept needs explaining to anyone. It's so self-evident that it has to be indoctrinated out of people.
"Equity" literally means "equality of outcome". They are perfectly fine with the company crashing so long as everyone gets fired.