Super essay; thank you. I'm struck by how the notion that we should tip the playing field for reasons of social justice is invariably presented by proponents in a way which doesn't discriminate between ethnic minorities which tend to be disadvantaged (like those with African Caribbean and Traveller heritage in the UK) and those which tend to be advantaged (like those with Indian and Chinese heritage everywhere). And of course proponents never consider prior socioeconomic advantage relevant where it occurs amongst minorities otherwise mainly disadvantaged (personified in Claudine Gay, for example). The net effect is that DEI often appears as a device aimed at increasing the advantage of individuals already socio-economically privileged over people who are genuinely marginalised. When it comes to non-ethic aspects of DEI, such as sexuality and gender identification, there is similarly a complete de-linking of socio-economic need from the notion of social justice. But I guess you've illustrated that already in a post which refers to the history of the left; that is to say, the new left isn't really left at all. It could just as easily be described as of the right. This is not to suggest that being of the right is of itself a bad thing, simply to note the nature of the language games played by the new left in pursuit of individualistic self-interest. I'm embarrassed to say this, btw, as it's a typo which doesn't change any meaning in your piece, but I'm a Scot and while David Hume did have a house a couple of miles from the old border, he was definitely a Briton from the Northern side. :-)
I am massively impressed by "Revolt of the Elites" which has plenty of observations which were not apparent at the time (at least, not to me) and which could have been written yesterday.
A great historical overview which is very helpful in illustrating how the content of this term has changed completely according to it's historical setting. Diversity now seems to be a centrally imposed dogma in the form of DEI, which accepts no criticism, and offers very little in terms of justification other than emotional manipulation or adhominem attacks. What is fascinating is to see where those slotted into their respective identity categories refuse to accept their status as marginalised e.g. any non white conservative, or where one 'marginalised' group departs from the accepted view or behaviour towards another 'marginalised' group as seen in Hamtramck.
A fine essay for which many thanks. Coincidentally, I put up a short, significantly more lightweight, post yesterday that relates to this issue. Though I say it as shouldn't, I was quite pleased with my recasting of DEI as Diversity, Exclusion, Intolerance. I hope it isn't inappropriate of me to put a link here: https://davidpinder.substack.com/p/happy-friday-15
Yes. You are right. It is time to acknowledge and forefront the DEI refuseniks
Very true I use is all the time
Thanks for the link Davis
Super essay; thank you. I'm struck by how the notion that we should tip the playing field for reasons of social justice is invariably presented by proponents in a way which doesn't discriminate between ethnic minorities which tend to be disadvantaged (like those with African Caribbean and Traveller heritage in the UK) and those which tend to be advantaged (like those with Indian and Chinese heritage everywhere). And of course proponents never consider prior socioeconomic advantage relevant where it occurs amongst minorities otherwise mainly disadvantaged (personified in Claudine Gay, for example). The net effect is that DEI often appears as a device aimed at increasing the advantage of individuals already socio-economically privileged over people who are genuinely marginalised. When it comes to non-ethic aspects of DEI, such as sexuality and gender identification, there is similarly a complete de-linking of socio-economic need from the notion of social justice. But I guess you've illustrated that already in a post which refers to the history of the left; that is to say, the new left isn't really left at all. It could just as easily be described as of the right. This is not to suggest that being of the right is of itself a bad thing, simply to note the nature of the language games played by the new left in pursuit of individualistic self-interest. I'm embarrassed to say this, btw, as it's a typo which doesn't change any meaning in your piece, but I'm a Scot and while David Hume did have a house a couple of miles from the old border, he was definitely a Briton from the Northern side. :-)
I am massively impressed by "Revolt of the Elites" which has plenty of observations which were not apparent at the time (at least, not to me) and which could have been written yesterday.
A great historical overview which is very helpful in illustrating how the content of this term has changed completely according to it's historical setting. Diversity now seems to be a centrally imposed dogma in the form of DEI, which accepts no criticism, and offers very little in terms of justification other than emotional manipulation or adhominem attacks. What is fascinating is to see where those slotted into their respective identity categories refuse to accept their status as marginalised e.g. any non white conservative, or where one 'marginalised' group departs from the accepted view or behaviour towards another 'marginalised' group as seen in Hamtramck.
A fine essay for which many thanks. Coincidentally, I put up a short, significantly more lightweight, post yesterday that relates to this issue. Though I say it as shouldn't, I was quite pleased with my recasting of DEI as Diversity, Exclusion, Intolerance. I hope it isn't inappropriate of me to put a link here: https://davidpinder.substack.com/p/happy-friday-15