Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[KLewchuk]

Can this ever be considered "unethical"?

[Impenitent]

that depends on the ethical standard you use

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Can this ever be considered "unethical"?

Oh, sure.

Is it ethical to make "equity" happen by pulling down to the lowest level anybody who has achieved anything? Is it ethical to pretend that foolish and evil people deserve the same as the wise and good? Or is it okay to have race-based hiring or head counts, even to "restore" alleged historical "inequities" (which, of course, is nonsense after the people actually involved are dead). Is it okay to have "equity" by gender, such that if there are 100 bricklayers you can't hire any of them because none is a woman, or if there are 100 nurses who need a job, you can't hire any of them because they are not men? There are lots of ways "equity" can become unjust...and unethical.

Or "diversity" -- is it always a good idea? Is a "diversity" of views of the value of a human life a good thing? Or is forced "diversity training," which is really nothing but indoctrination in artificial and unwarranted collective race-based guilt a good thing? How about mashing together people of different cultures, backgrounds and values, and pretending they don't actually have disagreements to deal with...just sweet "diversity"? Is that a good thing?

Is "inclusion" good for criminals? Should we let psychopaths and mass murderers vote? Should we "include" pedophiles in the ranks of those for whom we campaign? Should we "include" them in those who have access to children? Globalism creates even more problems: by being "included" in the massive whole, we find it necessary to overlook the needs of one region in order to serve the larger purposes of the ideological "globe." Is it ethical to suppress minority concerns in this way?

All three can be be real virtues, or toxic nonsense. It all depends on what is being advanced in the name of those values.

[KLewchuk]

Can this ever be considered "unethical"?

Oh, sure.

Is it ethical to make "equity" happen by pulling down to the lowest level anybody who has achieved anything? Is it ethical to pretend that foolish and evil people deserve the same as the wise and good? Or is it okay to have race-based hiring or head counts, even to "restore" alleged historical "inequities" (which, of course, is nonsense after the people actually involved are dead). Is it okay to have "equity" by gender, such that if there are 100 bricklayers you can't hire any of them because none is a woman, or if there are 100 nurses who need a job, you can't hire any of them because they are not men? There are lots of ways "equity" can become unjust...and unethical.

Or "diversity" -- is it always a good idea? Is a "diversity" of views of the value of a human life a good thing? Or is forced "diversity training," which is really nothing but indoctrination in artificial and unwarranted collective race-based guilt a good thing? How about mashing together people of different cultures, backgrounds and values, and pretending they don't actually have disagreements to deal with...just sweet "diversity"? Is that a good thing?

Is "inclusion" good for criminals? Should we let psychopaths and mass murderers vote? Should we "include" pedophiles in the ranks of those for whom we campaign? Should we "include" them in those who have access to children? Globalism creates even more problems: by being "included" in the massive whole, we find it necessary to overlook the needs of one region in order to serve the larger purposes of the ideological "globe." Is it ethical to suppress minority concerns in this way?

All three can be be real virtues, or toxic nonsense. It all depends on what is being advanced in the name of those values.

Could quibble, but won't. So then, lets move on. Is the latest societal obsession with DIE (e.g. the George Floyd effect) ethical or unethical?

[Immanuel Can]

Is the latest societal obsession with DIE (e.g. the George Floyd effect) ethical or unethical?

There's a lot that is unethical about it, clearly.

[KLewchuk]

Is the latest societal obsession with DIE (e.g. the George Floyd effect) ethical or unethical?

There's a lot that is unethical about it, clearly.

What specifically do you think is unethical?

[Immanuel Can]

Is the latest societal obsession with DIE (e.g. the George Floyd effect) ethical or unethical?

There's a lot that is unethical about it, clearly.

What specifically do you think is unethical?

Well, to be "obsessed" is definitionally to have an unhealthy and excessive focus on something. And DIE is an unhealthy ideology, as I said earlier. We certainly don't need a more obsessive focus on bad ideas, do we?

But I guess I should clarify my thoughts by first asking what you are thinking of when you speak of "the George Floyd effect"? Do you mean the riots? Or were you thinking of something else?

[KLewchuk]

There's a lot that is unethical about it, clearly.

What specifically do you think is unethical?

Well, to be "obsessed" is definitionally to have an unhealthy and excessive focus on something. And DIE is an unhealthy ideology, as I said earlier. We certainly don't need a more obsessive focus on bad ideas, do we?

But I guess I should clarify my thoughts by first asking what you are thinking of when you speak of "the George Floyd effect"? Do you mean the riots? Or were you thinking of something else?

Floyd is a metaphor for the post-modern, critical race theory, etc., which seems to be overwhelming society at the moment... including some philosophical discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

Floyd is a metaphor for the post-modern, critical race theory, etc., which seems to be overwhelming society at the moment... including some philosophical discussion.

Oh, that.

Yeah, that's total toxic nonsense. The CRT, I mean, not all of Postmodernism. Postmodernism has a some reasonable critiques of modernism, though not many productive solutions. But CRT...that's definitely unethical.

[KLewchuk]

Floyd is a metaphor for the post-modern, critical race theory, etc., which seems to be overwhelming society at the moment... including some philosophical discussion.

Oh, that.

Yeah, that's total toxic nonsense. The CRT, I mean, not all of Postmodernism. Postmodernism has a some reasonable critiques of modernism, though not many productive solutions. But CRT...that's definitely unethical.

CRT and pomo sure seem to be influential at the moment; or maybe I've just been focusing on it and have a nephew who is serious pomo (e.g. attended European Graduate School).

What are your thoughts... a temporary fad or a problem?

[Immanuel Can]

What are your thoughts... a temporary fad or a problem?

CRT? Temporary insanity. A thing so stupid it will surely die one day, of its own stupidity. But nobody knows how many people it will take with it. Too many already.

Postmodernism? Harder to say. It's more complicated, and has more to it. Some of its ideas are clearly lunatic, but some are quite justifiable criticisms of Modernism.

I think we do well to make the distinction between the two, because CRT is really irredeemable, but Postmodernism is not entirely so.

[KLewchuk]

What are your thoughts... a temporary fad or a problem?

CRT? Temporary insanity. A thing so stupid it will surely die one day, of its own stupidity. But nobody knows how many people it will take with it. Too many already.

Postmodernism? Harder to say. It's more complicated, and has more to it. Some of its ideas are clearly lunatic, but some are quite justifiable criticisms of Modernism.

I think we do well to make the distinction between the two, because CRT is really irredeemable, but Postmodernism is not entirely so.

I am not a pomo fan. True, "modernity"... depending on interpretation... has it's faults but something I think could be fixed from within. Pomo seems to be an over-reaction... to say the least. Are there particular pomo ideas you find valuable.

I am thinking that it isn't so much a "philosophy" but a psychological reaction. There are elements which some feel psychological comforting for various reasons.

[Immanuel Can]

Pomo seems to be an over-reaction... to say the least.

Well, Pomo is actually a form of "Late Modernism," as many have pointed out. It's really a product of the Modernist project working its way out to some ugly conclusions. In that sense, it's not a new thing, and not a "reaction" at all, but rather the old Modernist thing "bearing its fruit," so to speak.

Are there particular pomo ideas you find valuable.

Not always "valuable," although there are some things it has that are good. But certainly "understandable."

If the Modernist project denied the reality of objective morals, for example, then how surprised can we be if Postmodernism is morally relativistic completely? And if the Modernist project denied the legitimacy of the narratives of tradition, then how much right does it have to complain when Postmodernists point out that the Modernist "Myth of Progress" is also a narrative, and one that has no real justification? And if Modernism proclaimed the power of man over the power of nature, and then despoiled the environment, then how much justification is there in Modernism's claim that it has a perpetual legitimacy in doing so, especially when it's the next generation that's going to face the consequences?

One thing Postmodernists point out that is a real fault of Modernism is its propensity to see human beings as machines, as rational systems. Modernists tended to think that understanding human beings was always just a matter of material methodology. If you could find out the mechanical cause-and-effect relations, you could, in principle, predict and manage all human affairs, they thought. Everything would eventually be controllable, the Modernist legend held; we only have to find the "science" to bring it under our control. Postmodernism has blessedly thrown that naive, mechanistic belief into appropriate disrepute. So that's genuinely good.

So is the Postmodern realization of ideological Pluralism. Beliefs are not all equal, and we are not all progressing toward an inevitable Atheist state. Modernists tended to think we were. We were all going to get "enlightened," and give up everything but secularism. Not so, it seems. Postmondernism is much more interested in difference; Modernism was addicted to the idea of uniformity.

There's a lot more that could be said. I only offer those as examples. However, overall, Postmodernism is really just a form of Modernism...a toxic, late form, for sure, but not not the illegitimate offspring of Modernism. Postmodernism is Modernism's child and heir.

[KLewchuk]

Pomo seems to be an over-reaction... to say the least.

Well, Pomo is actually a form of "Late Modernism," as many have pointed out. It's really a product of the Modernist project working its way out to some ugly conclusions. In that sense, it's not a new thing, and not a "reaction" at all, but rather the old Modernist thing "bearing its fruit," so to speak.

Are there particular pomo ideas you find valuable.

Not always "valuable," although there are some things it has that are good. But certainly "understandable."

If the Modernist project denied the reality of objective morals, for example, then how surprised can we be if Postmodernism is morally relativistic completely? And if the Modernist project denied the legitimacy of the narratives of tradition, then how much right does it have to complain when Postmodernists point out that the Modernist "Myth of Progress" is also a narrative, and one that has no real justification? And if Modernism proclaimed the power of man over the power of nature, and then despoiled the environment, then how much justification is there in Modernism's claim that it has a perpetual legitimacy in doing so, especially when it's the next generation that's going to face the consequences?

One thing Postmodernists point out that is a real fault of Modernism is its propensity to see human beings as machines, as rational systems. Modernists tended to think that understanding human beings was always just a matter of material methodology. If you could find out the mechanical cause-and-effect relations, you could, in principle, predict and manage all human affairs, they thought. Everything would eventually be controllable, the Modernist legend held; we only have to find the "science" to bring it under our control. Postmodernism has blessedly thrown that naive, mechanistic belief into appropriate disrepute. So that's genuinely good.

So is the Postmodern realization of ideological Pluralism. Beliefs are not all equal, and we are not all progressing toward an inevitable Atheist state. Modernists tended to think we were. We were all going to get "enlightened," and give up everything but secularism. Not so, it seems. Postmondernism is much more interested in difference; Modernism was addicted to the idea of uniformity.

There's a lot more that could be said. I only offer those as examples. However, overall, Postmodernism is really just a form of Modernism...a toxic, late form, for sure, but not not the illegitimate offspring of Modernism. Postmodernism is Modernism's child and heir.

I think a key tenet of modernity is that truth exists and that is can be known through reason. If pomo just reacted to utopian visions, I could see value but it when too far in trying to undermine this tenet. Some Eastern philosophy, for example, adopt this tenet without utopian visions associated with western modernity.

Are you familiar with the "Alan Sokal" affair? He was a scientist that got tired of pomo BS... fancy words that are put together in sentences devoid of meaning. So he wrote a piece of BS... literally, he intentionally wrote piece of garbage and submitted it to a pomo journal. Published. He was criticized for the effort and the pomo folk said "he didn't understand" (typical refrain) but I think he did prove a point.

[Sculptor]

Can this ever be considered "unethical"?

There is always going to be a serious and potentially conflictual relationship between diversity and inclusion.
I think they can both go with equity, but they cannot all go together.
It's like politicians ; they are honest, ineffective, and corrupt but you can only chose two characteristics.