Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Then you should be mad at the GOP who erodes public education and encourages companies to increase executive salaries and bonuses rather than invest in R&D

Sure, they suck too. What do you think of my idea about the DEI pledges?

It’s not a “DEI pledge”. It’s “how will you develop these things we want a prof to do. How will build your research team? How will you build your cohort of funders? How will you excel at teaching? How will you expand the outreach of your field so that we have more people wanting to be physicists (or whatever)? How will you fit into the universities strategic plan of increasing the number of kids coming to us from community college?” Or whatever. This is how professors are evaluated. Why wouldn’t they be? Not all of these factors will be strong in each candidate. Which is to be expected.

This is

+1
Research has been so grossly centered on the white, able-bodied, hearing, cis-gendered male for so long we don't even know how to treat heart attacks in women and the maternal death rate among black women is horrifically and embarrassingly high in this country. To name just a few. THAT's what they mean. Be INCLUSIVE. No, your research that's only focused on the white able bodied hearing cis gendered male won't be allowed here, because it's inherently racist. This isn't a difficult concept.

Shouldn’t nearly all research everywhere be centered on cis gendered people? Since they’re like 99%+ of the world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Then you should be mad at the GOP who erodes public education and encourages companies to increase executive salaries and bonuses rather than invest in R&D

Sure, they suck too. What do you think of my idea about the DEI pledges?

It’s not a “DEI pledge”. It’s “how will you develop these things we want a prof to do. How will build your research team? How will you build your cohort of funders? How will you excel at teaching? How will you expand the outreach of your field so that we have more people wanting to be physicists (or whatever)? How will you fit into the universities strategic plan of increasing the number of kids coming to us from community college?” Or whatever. This is how professors are evaluated. Why wouldn’t they be? Not all of these factors will be strong in each candidate. Which is to be expected.

This is

+1
Research has been so grossly centered on the white, able-bodied, hearing, cis-gendered male for so long we don't even know how to treat heart attacks in women and the maternal death rate among black women is horrifically and embarrassingly high in this country. To name just a few. THAT's what they mean. Be INCLUSIVE. No, your research that's only focused on the white able bodied hearing cis gendered male won't be allowed here, because it's inherently racist. This isn't a difficult concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Then you should be mad at the GOP who erodes public education and encourages companies to increase executive salaries and bonuses rather than invest in R&D

Sure, they suck too. What do you think of my idea about the DEI pledges?

It’s not a “DEI pledge”. It’s “how will you develop these things we want a prof to do. How will build your research team? How will you build your cohort of funders? How will you excel at teaching? How will you expand the outreach of your field so that we have more people wanting to be physicists (or whatever)? How will you fit into the universities strategic plan of increasing the number of kids coming to us from community college?” Or whatever. This is how professors are evaluated. Why wouldn’t they be? Not all of these factors will be strong in each candidate. Which is to be expected.

This is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Then you should be mad at the GOP who erodes public education and encourages companies to increase executive salaries and bonuses rather than invest in R&D

Sure, they suck too. What do you think of my idea about the DEI pledges?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Then you should be mad at the GOP who erodes public education and encourages companies to increase executive salaries and bonuses rather than invest in R&D

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Nothing says inclusion more than "your kind is not welcome here." Universities are supposed to be promoting diversity of thought. Not forcing professor to pledge fealty to a certain ideology.

They always were the authoritarian party. They want the federal government to be weak only with regard to state authoritarianism and corporate oligarchy. This Supreme Court is what they wanted - federal government can't regulate anybody or anything, but states can mandate Christian fundamentalist nonsense and roll back civil rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Well, them too! Let's be inclusive.

Anyway, on that note, I will see your situational ethics and raise you.

Don't you worry that university DEI pledges might be sort of a back door for anti-Asian hate?

We have a lot of talented profs and researchers in the US who are of Chinese descent, and Chinese culture is racist as shit.

Shouldn't we exempt them from these pledges so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I don't want our country falling any further behind in the sciences than it already has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

In the context of this thread, why would this statement even apply? The complaint was about physicists who were alleged to have to sign fealty to DEI or something something

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Tell that to liberal arts PhDs! World’s already got enough bartenders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?

People can get a different job or different employer. No one is forcing you to take that particular job. Boostraps and free country.

Anonymous wrote:It really does boggle the mind. How did the party that strived for limited government for decades suddenly swing so far to being an authoritarian party that strives to impose its morale and political opinions onto everyone, across a spectrum of issues? And the blatant hypocrisy of demanding government stay out of their decisions and away from their bodies when it comes to their own personal beliefs, such as with vaccines, but demanding government interfere with people’s decisions and bodies when it comes to what they believe is right?

I used to be a moderate swing voter, and voted for Republicans just as much as Democrats over the years. But I just can’t vote Republican now, even though I may want their conservancy on some issues. I don’t trust them anymore not to suddenly take away rights just because that’s their own opinion, the hell with what anyone else thinks or what is democratic.

I agree it boggles the mind, but the answer is actually really simple - first, the GOP never really believed in limited government except as it applied to limits on them. Second, once it became clear that a majority of Americans didn't agree with their ideas and would vote them out, the GOP decided it would use all means at their disposal to retain power. They gerrymandered in the states. They packed the courts with Federalist society appointees. The began and continue to fight a culture war.

I didn't grow up with a lot of political talk in my home. I didn't even know my parents were/leaned Republican until a few years ago (which I guess is the most Republican thing ever, but my hometown is in one of the reddest counties in the country). I did not fully understand or realize until the Trump years that a hallmark of the Ronald Reagan Presidential campaign was a "state rights" speech in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Mississippi, that is. Where the civil rights workers whose murders were depicted in Mississippi Burning we actually murdered. It all clicked for me then. The GOP will attempt to hold onto power however they can. If that means destroying the country then they will do it. The more they can convince people that government is the enemy and voting is useless, the better for them.

The whole mandated-diversity thing just cracks me up. We'll tie you to a chair and beat you with rubber hoses until you AGREE WITH US that diversity of thought is important!!!

Reminds me of that Office Space scene.

"Well--well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Remind us what is so appalling abd authoritarian about principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Are you the one who posted the anti-ADA screed?

What's appalling about "equality"? That's all Communism was about. Supposedly. Oh wait, it was just about power.

If people are excited about DEI, they're free to be. For the purposes of diversity, we also need people who aren't.

Anyway, don't know what ADA screed you're referring to. That's out of my area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

Funny you mention that, because I think it's actually illegal in the US to force people to pledge fealty to the state

However, it's legal to do this sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei

And before you say harrumph, it's from Tablet, they're..... [conservative]! Yes, I tried to find coverage on the left, but man, it's hard! Anyway, there are lots of in-text citations.

A couple disquisitions on "authoritarianism": https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Seems to fit the definition quite nicely - rejection of pluralism and individual agency, "Political legitimacy is based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency" - and on an on.

You want to get the job, you want to get the promotion, well, bend the knee! And you better use the words our grifter consultants taught us so we know you're not faking! Doesn't matter if your work actually has anything to do with DEI, or if, God forbid, you think it's not the most important thing in the universe. If you want to feed your family, you better act like you do.

Does that sound like.... freedom? Or diversity?