Reading the HN comments section sometimes feels akin to doing archival research on letters to the editor during the peak of the civil rights movement.
It's astonishing how consistent the tropes are.
I think it is very illuminating to read letters from that period, because they aren't just vitriolic racists like schools often teach. These are people trying to come off as "very reasonable", offering a civil, moderate path forward for the South, etc., etc. It's fascinating to see that rhetoric being deployed to defend what is an obvious evil and compare to who is using that rhetoric now.
In order for the comparison to be informative, it must also be accompanied by some argument about whether or not the accusations are accurate, which sort of takes us back to the original question.
I was only trying to point out the parallels in bad argumentation between now and then.
Top level comment said, paraphrased, "it's a shame people dismiss her as a Twitter personality when she has a highly respected body of work in the field."
My reply was to press that, in my view, she's not being dismissed as "just a Twitter personality", but rather her Twitter behavior is worthy of examination in itself.
Finally, I've never read civil rights era letters to the editor, so I'm not referencing or borrowing any specific rhetoric from there. I'm using bog standard English language words to describe the arguments and advocacies that I am seeing in the present.
You are the one bringing up comparisons to Nazis, so it appears that you have now fallen prey to Godwin's law.
Don't really know how else to respond to vague accusations of engaging in a "divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy."
So let me make some arguments for you to consider.
-To declare that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) have inherently privileged knowledge of boundary-less, undefined, fuzzy social dynamics is a divisive assertion. It seeks to divide authority along identity lines.
-To advocate that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) should actively be given privileged decision-making status over collective processes or structures is a divisive and dogmatic advocacy. It seeks to divide power along identity lines.
-To denounce as ethically compromised the people who disagree with you on complex open topics, such as the above two notions, is outright dogmatic. To assume one's perspective is so undeniably true that discussion can only be aggression is a dogmatic position.
I contend that all three of these dynamics are rampant in the preferred methods and among the prominent leadership of the currently en vogue Racial Justice and DEI movements (lots of crossover).
To tie it back to the start: I've observed Timnit engaging in these things, fanning these flames and boosting others who do so too.
But note that my comment implies there are other ways to advocate for diversity and justice. The broad BLM/Kendi/DiAngelo/Gebru style is not the only form and theory of diversity advocacy.
A simple alternative, for example, would be to call attention to the same problems without 1) preemptively attacking other people based on their own immutable identity characteristics, and 2) trying to draw new lines and hierarchies of privileged voice and power.
Lots of people (I suspect the majority of the sympathetic) practice this alternative. However, the louder, Timnit-aligned strain seems to enjoying social privilege in this area at this moment. How ironic.
Actually, you're right, but you're making the opposite point than you think you are. I wasn't alive in 50's or the 60's (and I was too young to even remember the 70's), so my whole life I just took for granted that what the history books had to say about racial inequalities at those times was true. It's hard to miss, though, that people are saying the exact same things today when I can look around and observe that they aren't true and haven't been at any point in my lifetime. It doesn't make me question my perspective on the world as it is today, it makes me wonder how true the history books reflected reality at that time.
> it makes me wonder how true the history books reflected reality at that time.
What parts of the history books do you think might not be true?