Comment by JohnMakin
5 days ago
> Because (a) that's not the topic at hand,
What is the topic at hand? The author's true beliefs? You're also just guessing them based on stuff he hasn't written. I can make my own conclusions based on a wealth of information on similar "essays" (much of this is not original and quite regurgitated), but we can't sit here and pretend they're simply unknowable. If you really got so worked up that you'd write this many words about the performative nature of DEI/wokeness etc, then why would you so overwhelmingly focus on the things about this that impact you rather than the groups these kinds of policies actually impact? What are PG's "damages" compared to such groups? C'mon. This is why I say this kind of talk is dishonest. If I were to give you the complete benefit of the doubt here, I would tell you to simply look to what else PG has written on social media or his blog about similar topics to conclude what he actually feels about such initiatives and whether they are worth doing at all even when done correctly (spoiler, he doesn't think so). Reading his problem statement, you wouldn't immediately guess that, and that's what I believe is dishonest (not to mention cowardly).
Why this is a problem is that this person, perhaps more than several 9's of people out there in the business world, actually has the means and capacity to do something meaningful about this and instead spends all of his mental and emotional energy bitching about a problem that honestly really isn't a real problem for anyone that is actually trying to help the problem at hand here.
> and (b) in American discourse, it's rather obvious what the correct (or at least default) position is with regard to racial discrimination and injustice: Don't discriminate on the basis of skin color, national origin, or any number of other things that have nothing to do with a person's character. Love your neighbor as yourself. It's even been written into law, including an amendment to our constitution.
This is just so decidedly untrue I don't even know where to begin. This author can't even bring himself to say without dancing around the language (weird that he has no issue with terminology in this case) that George Floyd was murdered in cold blood, which is an absolute fact backed by evidence. Why do you think this? We live in a world where saying afro americans should have the same opportunities as whites is "woke propaganda." Why do you think this?
it just reads like a petulant teenager complaining he got his wrist slapped for saying the n word in class. Sorry if that's "offensive" or oppressing anyone, I'm just reading the words he literally wrote. If he has anything else to say on this matter in contradiction to what I've said, please by all means show me. Again, I can draw my own conclusions based on what similar people (and not to mention PG himself) have had to say about this topic.
> What is the topic at hand? The author's true beliefs?
The topic at hand is woke ideology, sometimes known as "identity politics" -- the worldview preached by people like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, as well as many university professors. This ideology is very distinct from the Civil Rights Movement and other ways of attacking racism and other forms of oppression, because its foundational propositions are incompatible with them, namely: (1) Everyone, whether they know it or not, is either an oppressor or oppressed. This is the most correct way of viewing society. (2) Race is the characteristic that most tends to separate people along this axis (although any aspect of identify politics also goes here -- even israel/palestine. There are people being arrested in the UK for saying or posting things that are even slightly against palestine, like "Why do we have Palestinian flags in our town square instead of a UK flag? -- which leads to a loud knock at 5am the next morning and an arrest. Just 1 example."). (3) Black people are the oppressed, and white people are the oppressors (but also add any other groups identified under identity politics).
This ideology inherits so much from Marxism - where (1) is identical, but (2) is proletariat vs bourgeoisie and (3) is capital ownership. It also tends to lead to categorically similar outcomes. In particular, it seems to tap into what I've heard described as "ancient tribal circuits in people's brains", by identifying "them" as the enemy, whoever "they" are (in anti-racist woke ideology, it's white people). Young people inculcated with these types of ideologies are literally becoming ready for tribal warfare, whether that's an intentional outcome or not.
> If you really got so worked up that you'd write this many words about the performative nature of DEI/wokeness etc, then why would you so overwhelmingly focus on the things about this that impact you rather than the groups these kinds of policies actually impact?
Because woke ideology actively inhibits healing, brotherly love, and government policy that helps people who are actually oppressed. It sets people up against each other. "Kill all of those people" is a gross overreaction. The French Revolution happened because of real, very big problems, but mass guillotining was a big overreaction that caused far more problems than it solved. If woke ideology continues unabated, we're headed for a similar outcome. MLK spoke against "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and I agree -- but that doesn't mean overreactions don't exist as a category. MLK and Malcolm X also spoke out against initiating violence.
I'll stop there, since I'm sure you already disagree enough with everything I said. But I hope that at least helps clarify the "anti-anti-racist" position a little. It is not pro-racist at all. Instead it's saying "marxism will make this a lot worse, so let's not go that direction."
One thing more that I should say. In the above post, I argued against woke ideology primarily from the grounds of its similarities to Marxism and its outcomes. What I left out was the assertion that its foundational propositions simply aren't true. That's the primary basis by which any system of belief ought to stand or fall.
The oppressor/oppressed axis is not the most correct or best lens through which to view society, because in truth, everyone is both. We all at times sin against others and are sinned against ourselves. We all fail to love at least some of our neighbors as fervently and generously as we ought to. In a sense, we're all in this mess together, and although helping and defending the oppressed and downtrodden is a noble and very good thing, it doesn't follow that entire demographics of people ought to be labeled as "oppressors" and opposed (in the same way that entire demographics shouldn't be intentionally discriminated against on the basis of the demographic variable itself--either directly or indirectly). Sin is individual, and should be addressed on an individual basis, since we each bear individual accountability for our behavior. From the government's perspective, individuals who have discriminated against people on the basis of race or otherwise oppressed people ought to be individually tried and sentenced through the court system. If that's not happening, hire better DAs and write better laws. If that isn't happening, engage in political campaigning and activism (with the right message), or at least support those who do.
What makes an ideology wrong isn't first whether its outcomes are bad, but whether its propositions are false. (Note the notions of good and bad themselves need to also be subjected to the truth test, which is why pure utilitarianism is fundamentally ungrounded to reality.)