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:
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.