12-25-2025, 09:00 AM
(12-25-2025, 07:23 AM)benji wrote: I would note that if what Evan and the journalist says is true, then racial representation/preferences/etc. are impossible. They're saying that their entire DEI agenda is based on a malicious lie purely because it allows them to exercise power.
The resulting appeal to a group social position would be similar to the trans debate. In that they're saying the group does not materially exist but should be treated as if it is a material group despite there also being no way to determine who actually is in the group except "vibes" determined by whoever happens to have social power.
You wind up basically saying "we need more people with dark skin" and "we need people who perform stereotypes of gender" because these things are inherently good. Which isn't actually a progressive theory, just an inversion of the supposed conservative one, which makes it a reactionary theory. The first is determined because they imagine the "other side" thinks "whites are good" and the latter because they think "roles determined by sex are good." They simply invert it and then argue for its moral social necessity. Because progressive must be the opposite of conservative like good opposes evil.
They have no interest in defending the absurd position, for example that skin color is evidence for moral value, but they also worry that allowing the actual evidence allows people to make the wrong choice. To use the genetics example, as shown by the paranoia over Sydney Sweeney, that people will look at genetics and automatically come to the moral conclusion that whites are superior. As such, it's necessary to either attack genetics as a concept or make any knowledge derived from it morally suspect. You see the same thing with sex in the trans arguments.
It underpins essentially their entire anti-democratic worldview. They look at the state of the world, see imperfection and conclude complete failure, subconsciously they know this is the result of the infinite choices of the masses including themselves. Therefore the only solution is to deny everyone choice and only allow them to make the correct choices. Then perfection will flow into existence because there's no such thing as unintended consequences. It's something with a long legacy in our philosophy: Plato, Rosseau, the entire Marxist line, etc.
Sure thing, boss.

4 users liked this post: