It didn't happen at work. It only happened online. Does that mean that it's not DEI because DEI only happens at work and if you experience something similar to it online then it's not DEI?
Do we have a word for that?
Because, for example, I have had people on the internet explain stuff like this.
Remember Spider-Man 2, the video game? There was a really funny video floating around because the Spanish-language version had Peter Parker explain the use of the term "Latine". This wasn't in the English translation! Just the Spanish one. (There was also a bit of a mix-up when some folks pointed out that Miles Morales didn't have a Puerto Rican flag hanging in his home, he had a Cuban flag and it resulted in a bunch of people alternating between explaining that the flags are pretty close and other people explaining that Puerto Ricans are the types to have a couple dozen things around the house with Puerto Rican flags on them (coffee cups, refrigerator magnets, denim jacket pins, flags) and so the types to be flying Puerto Rican flags would know what a Puerto Rican flag looked like... but everybody agreed that the devs probably meant well).
So is there a term for this sort of Derpily Earnest Inclusion?
It may be stuff that I have experienced (you know, with people giving short lectures on the importance of gender neutral language and whatnot and explaining, at length, that Spanish, as a language, is sexist).
But it's incorrect DEI?
Does that mean that it's DEI but someone dumb was using it dumbly?
Okay. Can we shorten this to "bad DEI"?
I mean, if the argument is that it's not DEI because DEI can only come from the Southern region of France, we're going to need a term for the thing that used to be called CRT, then was called bad DEI, and now is wandering around with only a referent but no reference.
I have *ZERO* problems with the interrogation of officials! Seriously, I wish we had a *LOT* more.
But the failure of the AP to say "the Gulf of America (the gulf formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico)" or "the Gulf of America (née Mexico)" comes across as stupid petulance instead of smart petulance.
On top of that, the AP isn't being punished (defined as "the stick"). It's merely not being rewarded (defined as "the carrot").
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
This may look like "whataboutism" so I will attempt to clarify.
I am crazy and have no problem with not voting for either of the two real parties due to stuff like failure to support free speech and, more importantly, the Enlightenment Ideals behind the idea of it.
But if we're in a zero-sum game between Team Good and Team Evil and both Teams are doing a good job of not supporting free speech and, more importantly, the Enlightenment Ideals behind the idea of it, the choice becomes something much more like "which side do you want to see lose more?"
And it's not about "Free Speech" at that point. It's just about which side is doing a less perfect job of making a mockery of the idea of Free Speech.
And so you're stuck with "here's Team Evil doing something awful" versus "here's Team Good doing something awful".
So the example of "Free Speech" is a press outlet not getting privileged access?
60 Minutes had a segment last night where the reporters were interviewing German politicians who were explaining that it was illegal to insult someone. Like, "go to jail" illegal.
I understand that ceasing to extend a privilege can have a chilling effect! I can!
It's just been a wild ride these last few years and the AP having privileges revoked for failing to recognize and follow a new government policy on the new name of the Gulf of Mexico seems like a fairly straightforward interaction.
It's not like there isn't a list of thousands of news outlets that would beg, borrow, or steal for the position that the AP cheerfully gave up.
CRT is an obscure legal theory. From Richard Delgado himself:
Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
Whatever the heck it is that the Smithsonian was doing, it wasn't that.
So now the thing that is being fought is ‘talking about race in stupid ways’?
No, I'm pretty sure that what is being fought is "quit talking about race in ways that cost us votes".
If we were having this discussion on this site, and were smart people, we’d be talking about motte-and-bailey.
Perhaps most importantly: DEI programs in the government literally exist in real life, and have actually done things in real life, they are not _assumptions_ we cobble together out of _other places_ like ‘Museum exhibit’ and ‘article in magazine’ and ‘What someone who writes on DEI has said’. These programs are not some hypothetical we are debating, where we try to prove what is ‘really DEI’.
You mean stuff like Kendi's thing at Boston University? Was that really DEI? Was it CRT?
It's more complicated than that. It's more that, by one measurement, the US has sent $177 Billion. But of that $177 Billion, about $100 Billion was non-monetary aid like weapons and training and ammo and stuff where the aid money changed hands before Ukraine saw a benefit.
Siphoned off?
I'm sure that everybody's getting fair market value.
I guess that if he hasn't given that indication, we should send another couple billion to Ukraine in the hopes that one of the billions actually makes it there.
Putting the small car on the road and going pedal-to-the-metal is a good play. It's not necessarily a *WINNING* play, but it changes a bunch of dynamics for the slowpokes in the back.
Also, with a clearer head, it looks like somewhere between 40-60% of the game is strategy and the rest is rolling dice and hoping for the best.
But the sooner the dumb rolls ruin the game, the sooner you can yell "let's play again!"
I was more interested in how Vox, even Vox, was now publishing articles saying "Okay... some of this stuff has gone a little too far..." before explaining that we need to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Remember way back when we were discussing CRT all the time and hammering out what was and what was not Critical Race Theory?
We hammered out that everybody who was complaining about CRT was not, in fact, complaining about what CRT actually was but they were, instead, complaining about bad DEI.
Well, now here we are. Complaining about bad DEI instead of CRT.
Or not even. Nobody disagrees that bad DEI is bad! Hey, even Bouie concedes that DEI programs serve little purpose beyond corporate PR!
I agree that rolling back Civil Rights Enforcement would be bad. Restricting the recruitment of Black professionals? That would be bad!
But bad DEI? Bad DEI is one of those things that undercuts the entire thing.
Remember this?
I'm sure you do. I'm sure you also remember that the Smithsonian pulled it.
My argument is that the Smithsonian was right to pull it and a *LOT* of the DEI folks out there should have followed the lead of the Smithsonian and, had they done so, we wouldn't be here talking about how even freakin' Vox is talking about the importance of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater now.
Or are we having a discussion about Eric Levitz, a person I don’t think anyone particularly cares about and I’d barely heard of before?
I always see the whole "let's talk about the author instead of what the author wrote!" thing as a kind of tell.
But, if you ask me, "Eric Levitz" sounds like a white name. Let me google... wait wait wait. Yeah, let's not talk about the author.
So we have to be there indefinitely, giving them money indefinitely, until... what?
If the answer is "until we're relatively certain that it won't happen again the second we stop looking", I'd like to know how we're going to measure that.
Wait, so they have to send out a letter that says "you have grounds to sue us"?
I think that I will instead counter-offer a letter that says "Starbucks only discriminates against bad beans. Never against employees. Here's a coupon for a free Capuchino" would be where the line should be.
The eternal question is "is a war continuing a worse moral failure than it ending on terms you don't like?"
And if the war doesn't end, we can ask it again next year.
"This is all well and good, but why do we have to keep sending funds to keep the war continuing?" is a good question to ask and, to be fair, I have received a handful of good answers to the question.
"We have a moral obligation to make sure that the war ends on our terms and not their terms."
"We're getting real-time feedback on the quality of the weapons we're sending Ukraine and that means that our weapons will be even better next time."
"Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold."
Until I researched it, I wondered if maybe that was just the legend in my little corner of Michigan. As it turns out, nope. People in Texas talked about it, people in California talked about it so...
Covid also ruined some small stuff. My friend's oldest kiddo is 9 and I asked her if she knew a playground rhyme that began "Miss Suzie had a steamboat..." and she told me that she didn't.
This was lore that was handed down from 3rd grader to 1st grader for decades... and two years of safer-at-home wrecked it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/17/2025”
As dog-whistles go, that's one that is outside even my range of hearing.
The screenshot that I saw had it at 1:14, though... which I understand is 13:14.
Different time zones, I guess.
"
The only way we can protect Democracy is to make sure that we don't have elections.
On “From Vox: How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI”
It didn't happen at work. It only happened online. Does that mean that it's not DEI because DEI only happens at work and if you experience something similar to it online then it's not DEI?
Do we have a word for that?
Because, for example, I have had people on the internet explain stuff like this.
Remember Spider-Man 2, the video game? There was a really funny video floating around because the Spanish-language version had Peter Parker explain the use of the term "Latine". This wasn't in the English translation! Just the Spanish one. (There was also a bit of a mix-up when some folks pointed out that Miles Morales didn't have a Puerto Rican flag hanging in his home, he had a Cuban flag and it resulted in a bunch of people alternating between explaining that the flags are pretty close and other people explaining that Puerto Ricans are the types to have a couple dozen things around the house with Puerto Rican flags on them (coffee cups, refrigerator magnets, denim jacket pins, flags) and so the types to be flying Puerto Rican flags would know what a Puerto Rican flag looked like... but everybody agreed that the devs probably meant well).
So is there a term for this sort of Derpily Earnest Inclusion?
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/17/2025”
OH SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONLY PARTY WITH AGENCY
On “From Vox: How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI”
This example is an example of _incorrect_ DEI.
This is where I need stuff clarified.
It may be stuff that I have experienced (you know, with people giving short lectures on the importance of gender neutral language and whatnot and explaining, at length, that Spanish, as a language, is sexist).
But it's incorrect DEI?
Does that mean that it's DEI but someone dumb was using it dumbly?
Okay. Can we shorten this to "bad DEI"?
I mean, if the argument is that it's not DEI because DEI can only come from the Southern region of France, we're going to need a term for the thing that used to be called CRT, then was called bad DEI, and now is wandering around with only a referent but no reference.
"
Is insistence on stuff like "LatinX" DEI?
On “From Washington Post: The Trump Lexicon”
I have *ZERO* problems with the interrogation of officials! Seriously, I wish we had a *LOT* more.
But the failure of the AP to say "the Gulf of America (the gulf formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico)" or "the Gulf of America (née Mexico)" comes across as stupid petulance instead of smart petulance.
On top of that, the AP isn't being punished (defined as "the stick"). It's merely not being rewarded (defined as "the carrot").
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
"
This may look like "whataboutism" so I will attempt to clarify.
I am crazy and have no problem with not voting for either of the two real parties due to stuff like failure to support free speech and, more importantly, the Enlightenment Ideals behind the idea of it.
But if we're in a zero-sum game between Team Good and Team Evil and both Teams are doing a good job of not supporting free speech and, more importantly, the Enlightenment Ideals behind the idea of it, the choice becomes something much more like "which side do you want to see lose more?"
And it's not about "Free Speech" at that point. It's just about which side is doing a less perfect job of making a mockery of the idea of Free Speech.
And so you're stuck with "here's Team Evil doing something awful" versus "here's Team Good doing something awful".
"
So the example of "Free Speech" is a press outlet not getting privileged access?
60 Minutes had a segment last night where the reporters were interviewing German politicians who were explaining that it was illegal to insult someone. Like, "go to jail" illegal.
I understand that ceasing to extend a privilege can have a chilling effect! I can!
It's just been a wild ride these last few years and the AP having privileges revoked for failing to recognize and follow a new government policy on the new name of the Gulf of Mexico seems like a fairly straightforward interaction.
It's not like there isn't a list of thousands of news outlets that would beg, borrow, or steal for the position that the AP cheerfully gave up.
On “From Vox: How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI”
CRT is an obscure legal theory. From Richard Delgado himself:
Whatever the heck it is that the Smithsonian was doing, it wasn't that.
So now the thing that is being fought is ‘talking about race in stupid ways’?
No, I'm pretty sure that what is being fought is "quit talking about race in ways that cost us votes".
If we were having this discussion on this site, and were smart people, we’d be talking about motte-and-bailey.
OMG! That's part of the name of the essay I wrote way back when!
Perhaps most importantly: DEI programs in the government literally exist in real life, and have actually done things in real life, they are not _assumptions_ we cobble together out of _other places_ like ‘Museum exhibit’ and ‘article in magazine’ and ‘What someone who writes on DEI has said’. These programs are not some hypothetical we are debating, where we try to prove what is ‘really DEI’.
You mean stuff like Kendi's thing at Boston University? Was that really DEI? Was it CRT?
Whatever it is, it's at Howard now.
On “Beware: Promises Being Kept”
It's more complicated than that. It's more that, by one measurement, the US has sent $177 Billion. But of that $177 Billion, about $100 Billion was non-monetary aid like weapons and training and ammo and stuff where the aid money changed hands before Ukraine saw a benefit.
Siphoned off?
I'm sure that everybody's getting fair market value.
"
"Spheres of Influence" and political realism worked for a century or so. I'm not sure "Moral Authority" is working out.
It seems to have created a whole bunch of perpetually adolescent countries incapable of defending or feeding themselves.
"
I guess that if he hasn't given that indication, we should send another couple billion to Ukraine in the hopes that one of the billions actually makes it there.
Or else we're bad people.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Thunder Road Vendetta!”
Played a couple more games of Thunder Road.
Putting the small car on the road and going pedal-to-the-metal is a good play. It's not necessarily a *WINNING* play, but it changes a bunch of dynamics for the slowpokes in the back.
Also, with a clearer head, it looks like somewhere between 40-60% of the game is strategy and the rest is rolling dice and hoping for the best.
But the sooner the dumb rolls ruin the game, the sooner you can yell "let's play again!"
On “Beware: Promises Being Kept”
I'm sure you've seen the footage of Zelenskyy asserting that only half of the $177 Billion given to Ukraine ever actually made it there.
Peace sells, I guess.
On “Chicago, The Champion City”
"Hack" is almost certainly George Hackenschmidt. Which would make "Frank" Frank Gotch.
Which would mean that this cartoon is referencing one of the most important matches in wrestling history.
On “Beware: Promises Being Kept”
a plausible long-term deterrent
Every year, every billion, makes the whole thing more irritating and more and more people are asking "why is this my obligation, again?"
"Because it's good and right!", say the people who don't provide a whole lot of billions but a lot of moral authority.
It's not a situation that will create a plausible long-term anything.
On “From Vox: How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI”
I was more interested in how Vox, even Vox, was now publishing articles saying "Okay... some of this stuff has gone a little too far..." before explaining that we need to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Remember way back when we were discussing CRT all the time and hammering out what was and what was not Critical Race Theory?
We hammered out that everybody who was complaining about CRT was not, in fact, complaining about what CRT actually was but they were, instead, complaining about bad DEI.
Well, now here we are. Complaining about bad DEI instead of CRT.
Or not even. Nobody disagrees that bad DEI is bad! Hey, even Bouie concedes that DEI programs serve little purpose beyond corporate PR!
I agree that rolling back Civil Rights Enforcement would be bad. Restricting the recruitment of Black professionals? That would be bad!
But bad DEI? Bad DEI is one of those things that undercuts the entire thing.
Remember this?
I'm sure you do. I'm sure you also remember that the Smithsonian pulled it.
My argument is that the Smithsonian was right to pull it and a *LOT* of the DEI folks out there should have followed the lead of the Smithsonian and, had they done so, we wouldn't be here talking about how even freakin' Vox is talking about the importance of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater now.
Or are we having a discussion about Eric Levitz, a person I don’t think anyone particularly cares about and I’d barely heard of before?
I always see the whole "let's talk about the author instead of what the author wrote!" thing as a kind of tell.
But, if you ask me, "Eric Levitz" sounds like a white name. Let me google... wait wait wait. Yeah, let's not talk about the author.
On “Beware: Promises Being Kept”
So we have to be there indefinitely, giving them money indefinitely, until... what?
If the answer is "until we're relatively certain that it won't happen again the second we stop looking", I'd like to know how we're going to measure that.
"
If you're obviously in the right, that doesn't happen.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Wait, so they have to send out a letter that says "you have grounds to sue us"?
I think that I will instead counter-offer a letter that says "Starbucks only discriminates against bad beans. Never against employees. Here's a coupon for a free Capuchino" would be where the line should be.
Because commercialese is a thing.
On “From Vox: How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI”
These lies, distortions, and misinformations have gotten so bad that they've even infected Vox. Vox!
I went to look at Jacobin and The Nation and they don't have any articles about the importance of a Steelmanned DEI instead of a Strawmanned one.
Are there no objective opinion writers out there?
On “Beware: Promises Being Kept”
The eternal question is "is a war continuing a worse moral failure than it ending on terms you don't like?"
And if the war doesn't end, we can ask it again next year.
"This is all well and good, but why do we have to keep sending funds to keep the war continuing?" is a good question to ask and, to be fair, I have received a handful of good answers to the question.
"We have a moral obligation to make sure that the war ends on our terms and not their terms."
"We're getting real-time feedback on the quality of the weapons we're sending Ukraine and that means that our weapons will be even better next time."
"Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold."
And next year is just 10 1/2 months away!
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Tootsie Roll Pop Indian”
Until I researched it, I wondered if maybe that was just the legend in my little corner of Michigan. As it turns out, nope. People in Texas talked about it, people in California talked about it so...
Covid also ruined some small stuff. My friend's oldest kiddo is 9 and I asked her if she knew a playground rhyme that began "Miss Suzie had a steamboat..." and she told me that she didn't.
This was lore that was handed down from 3rd grader to 1st grader for decades... and two years of safer-at-home wrecked it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Okay. That's where we can draw the line.
If Starbucks fights this and wins (defined as either "in court" or "Missouri backs down"), then that's Starbucks.
If they settle out of court (or worse), that's the AG.
Agreed?