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:
Diversity was a thing for a long time. The idea initially was that if there is no discrimination then diversity will naturally occur. Great, good principle that everyone could get behind.
This however did not produce the expected diverse results so now they want to push for affirmative action as the rule. This means you favor some people over others, not by merit but by gender and skin color. DIE is discrimination, you can't hold the belief that racism, sexism and discrimination are wrong and think DIE is morally good.
If anything is more about the end justifies the means. However what are the costs?
What is it resolved by the DIE? Any metric that shows how DIE helps things? I assume it helps the diversity hires themselves but that is about it. What great societal problem are they fixing that it requires an evil act to do it?
This is how marxists launder their ideas. They camouflage their agenda in something "good people" agree with thus they don't have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, just demonize anyone who disagrees.
The original idea is flawed because it relies on the unproven assumption of tabula rasa where there are no inherent cognitive differences between groups of genetically different humans. This is obviously false but because of institutional capture nobody can publicly say it and keep his job.
After decades of subverted institutional indoctrination the average person can't challenge the premise without incurring the social cost of being perceived as "racist" or "sexist". We can't even TEST the original principle anymore, and every past experiment whose results didn't forward the narrative were buried.
Every "disparity" can be explained by inherent differences.