But, I guess it’s fine when they say “fuck your feelings” or call you anti-American, or a traitor, or a socialist, or a pedophile, etc. That’s them winning hearts and minds, but don’t dare say the women or minorities deserve a chance at promotion! My gosh! Where is my fainting couch?
A person saying that is unreachable anyway. You really think pointing out their error is going to mean anything to them, versus just hardening their position?
True, but I don’t really get the impression they’re trying to persuade anyone to change, as much as they’re appealing to people’s worst impulses.
And what I’m getting at with the comments about the all-in nature of the left is that there are a LOT of people in the center, and just a little right of center who aren’t right-wing loons, and who aren’t hateful or discriminatory, but who may just have discomfort with Drag Queen Story Hour. And I feel like the right way to approach this isn’t by saying “You’re hateful!” or lecturing them on how they have to accept it, but rather by being understanding and maybe showing them how it’s not drag queens trying to make kids gay, but rather showing kids that people come in all shapes, sizes, and looks, and that it’s ok to be yourself. I think that would go a lot further than anything else.
Of course, you have to combat the pernicious influence of the Right, which for a lot of the people I’m describing, appeals to their ignorance of how say… structural racism works. Rather than saying it exists and then implying that its victims deserve something, maybe point out how in the same situation at the same time, a Black man wouldn’t have had the same opportunities as their great grandfather did. Or their grandfather, or father. And how that compounds (or doesn’t) over the generations.
And finally, get away from the word “privilege”. Privilege to a lot of people implies something that someone has that most others do not. When you tell some middle class or lower white person that they’re “privileged”, they shut right down, because they don’t view it as privilege, just the normal state of things. And really, it should be the normal state of affairs for everyone, not just white people. But that implies that the POCs are lacking something, not that the white people have something special and as is often implied, unearned. And when they hear that, they naturally shut down, because in their minds, they don’t have any privilege- they’re struggling in their own ways. Appeal to their sympathy, not to their guilt.
Aside from anyone’s opinion of the program itself it is stupidly named. It seems to have been named to satisfy its proponents while at the same time fortifying its opponents. Both the left and the right make this mistake but the right seems to have put more effort into naming. If you want to make a new law just call it the American Patriotic Freedom Act no matter what it does.
You say that women and minorities deserve equal rights. They hear you attacking white men.
Yeah, insert that thing about equality and oppression.
That is not DEI
However all it takes to be “all in” is to not give a shit whether someone calls themselves Brian, Sheila or shibboleth. Who knew that being a social justice warrior was so low effort?
I’m fairness of course what makes this so difficult for many is the disinformation.
There might be potential for a sensible discussion on the scope of AA or what rules should exist for women’s sports. But we can’t get there while firefighting crap about trans predators any more that we can sensibly talk about immigration with “migrant crime wave” as the starting point.
And this may or may not be a motte and bailey comment. At first blush it sounds like one.
Except for the part where they also oppose equality of opportunity every chance they get.
Umm, exactly what is the bailey here?
Whenever a defender of a complex, controversial social issue declares that it is only about x (where x is some simple, relatively innocuous point) in fact it isn’t usually only about x.
Yes, I know that. Now what is the bailey in Mijin’s post?
“Being woke only means that you don’t care what gender someone identifies as.”
I’m pretty sure that’s the motte.
I’m also pretty sure the bailey is the fever dreams of transphobes like ‘You people want four year olds to transition and have their genitals surgically removed!’
Yes, my mistake.
No, the issue is that bump’s post that Mijin replied to was about the concept of “woke” in general and made no mention of trans issues specifically at all, then Mijin said that being all-in “woke” was nothing more than not caring about gender.
That’s the problem. Accusation someone of committing the motte-and-bailey fallacy requires that one show that the “bailey” isn’t, in fact, just a strawman.
Yep; if you’re going to strawman me and the rest of the progressive left, let’s at least hear it. What specific things we’re trying to force everyone to do?
Given that I, as someone on the progressive left, basically only ever talk about trans when defending them from bigots.
And how does one get from ‘I think everyone should be treated equally!’ to ‘You hate straight white men!’?
So now, after saying that being “all in woke” was just about being accepting of gender issues, you are saying that being “all-in-woke” isn’t just about being accepting of gender issues? It isn’t straw-manning if it is what you said.