Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

@polezaivsani@chaos.social @t0k

I would like to note that "Diversity" in the language of the woke means something very different from what we think they do:

“Diversity”

Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.

We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”

Under these Critical Theories, if you happen to be some particular identity (e.g., “racially black,” as Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine “1619 Project” seemingly inadvertently put it), then your voice is only authentically Black (“politically Black”) if it speaks in terms of Blackness—a radical black-liberationist political mindset—as that is understood by Critical Race Theory. Otherwise, the black person in question is said to be suffering internalized racism (a form of socially brainwashed false consciousness that prevents him from knowing his own best interests) or is race-traitorous. Therefore, a “racially black” but not “politically Black” hire wouldn’t constitute a proper Black “Diversity” hire because the “Diversity” perspective requires having taken up the right black-liberationist politics of Critical Race Theory. Literally anything else supports “white supremacy,” which is the opposite of “Diversity,” and thus doesn’t qualify. The person’s identity is their politics, and this is why we see prominent black figures being cancelled for not holding the proper “politically Black” line.

How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.

What this means in your organization is having to hire people who have been trained into an exquisitely sensitive form of offense-taking and whose primary work effort will be problematizing everything they can read racism into. And make no mistake, the Theory says the racism must be and always is present (“the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?'” –Robin DiAngelo). The “Diversity” hire is there to help make sure it’s found and “made visible.” Diversity training is meant to make this way of thinking and the resulting cancel culture it creates standard operating procedure in your organization. At a bare minimum, the increased focus on “Diversity” initiatives will constitute a drain of valuable resources that make your organization less productive and less competitive. At worst, your organization will fracture in a Hobbesian way around these divisions like The Evergreen State College.

Therefore, when we see a call for more “Diversity” in hiring, that means hiring more Critical Theorists who have a wider variety of identity statuses but identical politics about identity in general. It’s a call to hire more Critical Theorists. You should only take that on if that’s what you really want because you’re not getting anything that points to the usual ideas of diversity.

Now we can answer our question about what this DIE work is “essential” to achieving, then. Taking on DIE is “essential” for fomenting and effecting your organization’s part in the Critical revolution. This will be achieved by finalizing Gramsci’s long march through the institutions and forcing the Critical narrative on everyone so as to establish and perpetuate its nascent hegemony. That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/diversity-delusion/

@TheFuzzStone@fosstodon.org I don't know what their intentions are, but in effect, woeness certainly serves as a tool that helps the Big Tech Oligarchs to assert their moral authority and to reinfore their power upon the general population, it diverts people's attention from whether their abusive usage of proprietary software is undermining people's freedom to whether their opponents are woke enough. Suddenly,
it feels as if the woke oligarchs have become morally superior to the free software movement.

@unl0ckd People like Nadine Strossen still upheld many important liberal principles, it's worth noting that the new generation of ACLU has already degraded into a standard social justice activist organization as it's been taken over by the woke. (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech)
The same will happen to the Free Software Movement if we just sit and watch the woke virus infiltrating another object.

@msaunders

http://techrights.org/2021/03/27/objective-look-at-phony-scandal/

https://linuxreviews.org/Grass-roots_Richard_Stallman_Support-Letter_Has_Reached_3600%2B_Signers

什么叫选择权呢？可以选是，可以选否，也可以不选，这叫有选择权，只能选是，不能拒绝，否则就要丢掉工作，这叫强迫。

这种"造成既定事实，迫使反对方承认"的做法，未尝不是一种短视。

@meina 关键是人从古猿进化成智人花了几百万年，而如果人工智能真的在当代拥有了低级人类智力的话，这个过程其实只花了几十年，也就是说，再过几十年的话，就智力而言，人类与人工智能的差距其实就相当于古猿于低级人类的差距，这还是在排除了指数增长的情况下。

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/diversity-delusion/

“Equity”

Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means “arranging the system so that citizens are treated equally.” “Equity” means “adjusting shares so that outcomes are made equal from one citizen to another.” It arises from what is known as “social equity theory,” and it means engineering equality of outcome.


“Equity” justifies its “essential” necessity by identifying any disparity in outcome that comes out on average in the negative for the “protected classes” defined by Theory (so, not white and usually not Asian, e.g.) as the result of bigotry. This results in DIE approaches using the worst-possible means of measuring when “Equity” has been achieved and when it lacks. On-average differences, according to Critical Social Justice Theory, are “inequities,” and these must imply discrimination and bigotry in a systemic sense, and therefore must be adjusted for. This demand for “Equity” is taken to be true even if there is no evidence of (or strong evidence against) any discrimination whatsoever (asking for this evidence is also taken as evidence of racism because it suggests something overrides the experience of “lived realities”).


This is where “systemic racism” (to name just one form of systemic bigotry) becomes relevant, serving as a kid of “bigotry of the gaps” catch-all explanation for all differences that Theory would call “oppression.” The underlying belief in the Theory is that everyone must be intrinsically the same, therefore any differences on average must be the result of overt or hidden discrimination, especially when the relevant causes aren’t known or knowable. The DIE Theorist’s job is to find the “hidden” discrimination, especially since the overt parts have been eliminated in law for decades.


That hidden discrimination might be found in the organization itself (which will be charged with it, no matter how much it bends backwards to do the opposite) or in the vague workings of society, culture, education, representation, language, feelings, or anything ever experienced. Women being “assigned” the female sex at birth, for example, is often construed as sufficient to have begun “socializing” (what Critical Theory calls brainwashing by society) them into a set of beliefs and attitudes that lead them to feel unsuited to work in certain industries, like technology and on oil rigs (wait, no, not the second one). From there, everything that goes into their entire experience as as girl, then woman, is part of the “systemic” bigotry (here, sexism and misogyny) that “must” be the cause of this result. “Equity” wants to make up for it through social engineering, but not so much on the oil rig.


The objective of “Equity” is to create perfectly “Equitable” outcomes in high-status employment sectors (and basically nowhere else). On a superficial reading, as we will see, this means that employment statistics in high-status jobs, especially where cultural production or potential harms are concerned, will have to match exactly the prevailing demographic percentages in the population, even though this is literally impossible without large-scale social engineering including forced quotas. (Random stochasticity, that is, noise in the system, should make perfect alignment with prevailing demographic percentages extremely improbable, after all, even if the system were perfectly free of difference and discrimination of every sort.) That means that “Equity” implies using identity-based quotas and vigorous social engineering to achieve them. Because outcomes have to be perfectly equitable for “Equity” to have been achieved, it genuinely represents something close to an ethno-communist totalitarianism if it were put into full practice.


Bear in mind that “Equitable” outcomes require discrimination. In Ibram X. Kendi’s bestselling book How to Be Antiracist, he makes no bones about this point; it’s not like it’s some secret Theory is trying to keep from us. Kendi writes, “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” It is on this line of thought precisely that we have recently seen the California State Legislature vote to remove the anti-discrimination verbiage from its state constitution. “Equity” would require us to discriminate against “dominant” groups and in favor of “oppressed ones,” as Theory has defined it, so achieving “Equity” means doing identity-based discrimination, potentially endlessly because they’ll be virtually impossible to achieve just due to random fluctuations in population dynamics.


Even creating “Equitable” outcomes like perfect parity won’t be enough, however, because Critical Race Theory is also what might be described as “ethno-historical.” Thus, even if there are no current disparities to be found (and there always will be because they can also be made up at the level of culture or subjective feelings), in any cases where there are historical ones to appeal to, those will have to be made up for too in order to achieve “Equity.” Thus, applying “Equity” from a Critical perspective results something like a combination of affirmative action and reparations, in one form or another.

“Inclusion”

“Inclusion,” when understood Critically, is easily the most sinister of these three ideas (“Equity” is just kind of stupid and communistic and “Diversity” just has a tricky definition). “Inclusion” is genuinely insidious and twisted because inclusion means “welcoming,” but in DIE even being welcoming gets interpreted through the increasingly familiar Critical lenses of power dynamics and protected classes.


In the DIE program, an “Inclusive” environment is one that cannot create feelings of “exclusion” or “marginalization” for any protected classes or their “authentic” (that is, Theoretically consistent) voices. That is, “Inclusion” means limiting speech to agree with Theory up to and including physically excluding dissenters, disagreement, and even anyone who represents “dominant” identity groups, even by “adjacency” or “complicity.”


Truth needn’t even be relevant for these complaints. For example, the new bid by some realty companies not to refer to the largest bedroom and bathrooms as “master” bedrooms and bathrooms is a kind of “Inclusive” thinking. Even though the term originated in 1926 in a Sears catalog, and thus has nothing to do with slavery, the very idea that some people might associate the term “master” with slavery means the term has to be stricken from real estate. We see this with makeup companies removing “whitening” and “lightening” lines. We see this with college students and even workers demanding black-only spaces or asking for a minimum of white people being around lest the presence of dominant group members make them feel uncomfortable. We see it, at least perhaps, with the now-famous anti-racist scholar Ibram X. Kendi deciding changing his name from Ibram Henry Rogers to Ibram Xolani Kendi.


In fact, we see this notion of “Inclusion” behind almost every attempt to restrict speech, representation, and action to the narrow set of each of these that positively ensures absolute psychological comfort for all members of protected “minoritized” classes at all times. Given that “Diversity” requires hiring people who are trained to find egregious offense in everything, including microaggressions and wild interpretations, “Inclusion” becomes a wide-open license for utter control of speech, representation, and behavior, even down to the level of physical presence in a space or organization. This includes literal calls for re-segregation under a label of “desegregation.”


So, when some organization says it is essential to increase “Inclusion” within its halls, what it means is that there can be allowed absolutely no dissent from the Critical Theory party line. Why? Any disagreement would make people who embrace the relevant Critical Theory, which they will have synonimized with their personal identity, feel “uncomfortable.” Disagreement subjects them to idea-based “harms” or “traumas,” and the mere presence of people who disagree reminds them of how “dominant” groups “take up too much space.”


This is not an exaggeration. Because the relevant Critical Social Justice Theory literally explains that every disagreement with it is an attempt to “preserve privilege,” every disagreement is comprehensible in that Theory only as a hostile act against “marginalized” and “oppressed” groups. Thus, “Inclusion” means only allowing people to think, act, and speak in accordance with the shifting and often nonsensical demands of the Critical activists who are embedding themselves in the organization through the requirements of DIE.

“Diversity”, “Inclusion”, “Equity”

“Diversity”

Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.


We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”


Under these Critical Theories, if you happen to be some particular identity (e.g., “racially black,” as Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine “1619 Project” seemingly inadvertently put it), then your voice is only authentically Black (“politically Black”) if it speaks in terms of Blackness—a radical black-liberationist political mindset—as that is understood by Critical Race Theory. Otherwise, the black person in question is said to be suffering internalized racism (a form of socially brainwashed false consciousness that prevents him from knowing his own best interests) or is race-traitorous. Therefore, a “racially black” but not “politically Black” hire wouldn’t constitute a proper Black “Diversity” hire because the “Diversity” perspective requires having taken up the right black-liberationist politics of Critical Race Theory. Literally anything else supports “white supremacy,” which is the opposite of “Diversity,” and thus doesn’t qualify. The person’s identity is their politics, and this is why we see prominent black figures being cancelled for not holding the proper “politically Black” line.


How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.


What this means in your organization is having to hire people who have been trained into an exquisitely sensitive form of offense-taking and whose primary work effort will be problematizing everything they can read racism into. And make no mistake, the Theory says the racism must be and always is present (“the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” –Robin DiAngelo). The “Diversity” hire is there to help make sure it’s found and “made visible.” Diversity training is meant to make this way of thinking and the resulting cancel culture it creates standard operating procedure in your organization. At a bare minimum, the increased focus on “Diversity” initiatives will constitute a drain of valuable resources that make your organization less productive and less competitive. At worst, your organization will fracture in a Hobbesian way around these divisions like The Evergreen State College.


Therefore, when we see a call for more “Diversity” in hiring, that means hiring more Critical Theorists who have a wider variety of identity statuses but identical politics about identity in general. It’s a call to hire more Critical Theorists. You should only take that on if that’s what you really want because you’re not getting anything that points to the usual ideas of diversity.


Now we can answer our question about what this DIE work is “essential” to achieving, then. Taking on DIE is “essential” for fomenting and effecting your organization’s part in the Critical revolution. This will be achieved by finalizing Gramsci’s long march through the institutions and forcing the Critical narrative on everyone so as to establish and perpetuate its nascent hegemony. That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.

川普的支持者经常受到的指责就是他们生活在”另类事实”中，有着脱离现实的看法，可是，只要你要对美国的左翼运动有所了解，你会发现美国的”进步人士”持有的想法同样荒唐，甚至更加荒唐。两者的区别在于，川普的支持者通常把信任都寄托在川普本人身上，以一位政治家的观点为正确的准绳，而”进步人士”则是经常把商业媒体视为真相的裁决者，如果商业媒体打算攻击某个人或某个组织，那么作为它支持者的”左翼进步人士”就会充满义愤地对该对象进行辱骂和骚扰，而从不去思考商业媒体说的是真相还是谎言。川普支持者不相信媒体，很大程度上也正是因为主流媒体本身不值得信任了，然而以政治家的个人言论为真相的这种做法，其危险程度丝毫不逊于以媒体为真相。

我在这里当然不是说，”两边都一样，因此现状不存在改善的可能性”，我的看法是，要走出目前的困境，媒体需要重拾职业道德，左派需要彻底的重生。

@Jill@va-11.com linuxreviews上的一篇文章也详细追溯了该公开信的源头https://linuxreviews.org/Grass-roots_Richard_Stallman_Support-Letter_Has_Reached_3600%2B_Signers

@Jill@va-11.com http://techrights.org/2021/03/27/objective-look-at-phony-scandal/
这篇文章给了一条详细的时间线，里面也提到了微软对许多开源组织和科技媒体的控制。

错別字：”犯错的权力”应改为”犯错的权利”

替巨头企业审查(Big Tech Censorship)和取消文化(Cancel Culture)辩护的人经常提出这样一种观点：(第一修正案所规定的)言论自由限制的只是政府，而不是团体和组织，而且言论自由也并不意味着你可以免于批评或免于承担后果，因此，如果某人遭到了政府以外机构或团体的审查，抵制，或者”取消”，他的言论自由并未受到侵犯。


这种观点所暗示的是，言论自由的合法性来自于且仅来自于法律，在法律规定的范围之外，团体和组织对言论自由的限制和封杀就是合理的。


但言论自由，作为人们的一项基本权利，真的是法律所授予的吗？如果某个独裁政党上台，修改了法律呢？如果一些自命正义的人士控制了立法，而他们认为自由应该让位于正义呢？是不是这就意味着言论自由不是一项权利呢？


对于这一个问题，启蒙主义早已给出了答案，那就是人的自然权利要优先于具体的法律条文，人权作为“人类天生要享有的权利”，并不是宪法赋予的，宪法的作用仅仅是保障和实现人权的一种手段。正如《独立宣言》中说到的那样：


我们认为下面这些真理不言而喻：人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。正是为了保障这些权利，人们才在他们之间建立政府，而政府之正当权力，则来自被统治者的同意。任何形式的政府，只要破坏上述目的，人民就有权利改变或废除它，并建立新政府。


也就是说，人的基本权利是与生俱来的，是造物主赋予他们的，人的自然权利本身，要优先于人们为保护这些权利所做出的制度安排。至于具体的法律，人们在制定它的时候，总是要反复推敲，考虑其可行性的。第一修正案只对政府做限制，我想更大程度上是因为它在现实中可以操作，如果它连非政府组织也要管的话，一是不现实，二是会损害人们的其它权利，例如自由结社的权利。可是，虽然第一修正案没有对政府以外的领域进行规定，但这并不表明在这些领域中言论自由权就是不存在的。第一修正案没有对这些领域进行规定，不代表在这些领域中言论自由无关紧要，恰恰相反，这正好表明了在这些领域中，言论自由更需要人们的争取和捍卫，因为”自由的代价就是永远保持警惕”
既然法律管不了，那么自由就只有靠民众自觉的捍卫。政府管制固然是对自由的一大威胁，但公众舆论、道德习俗对自由的威胁，也就是约翰·密尔说的”习俗的暴政”，同样不可轻视。 如果在民间社会中言论自由的精神不再被坚守，那么再好的法律也无法保护言论自由的权利。正如孟德斯鸠在《论法的精神》中说的：”政体的原则一旦腐化，最好的法律也会变坏，成为对国家有害的法律。但是当原则健全的时候，即使是不好的法律也会产生好的法律效果；原则的力量能够带动一切事物。” 言论自由，作为现代民主制度的核心价值，远非是法律条文上的规定那么简单。


那么言论自由是否不意味着你可以免于批评或免于承担后果呢？当然不是！因为自由是所有人的自由，每个人都有批判或赞扬的权利，我无意否认这一点。但是我的确认为，基于理性和证据的文明讨论，要远远地好于煽动情绪的断章取义，和掩盖事实的恶意中伤。


言论自由当然也不意味着所有的言论可以免于承担后果。问题在于，这里的”后果”指的具体是什么？如果某人刻意地散播关于另一个人的谣言，对另一个人造成了明显的经济损失，或者向外国散播本国的军事情报，那么他当然应该受到法律的制裁。可以如果某个人只是真实地表达了自己与正统意见不同的看法，就要被媒体和社交封杀，丢掉自己的工作，那么这无疑是对言论自由的无耻攻击。我不认为所有言论都可以免于承担后果，但我的确认为，任何人都不应该因为持有异端思想而被封杀。寡头企业与觉悟左派是当代言论自由的大敌，捍卫言论自由即意味着与这两者作战。

@KirisameUkiyo@nya.one 就算是虚假的版本的赛伯朋克在我看来也比现状坏得多。

@perfume63 ，现在的农民工至少能吃上肉，不会饿死了。毛时代农民的命运还要悲惨得多。