Particularly, the most I've been able to hunt down are vague claims that her organization is Hinduphobic. If that's indeed the issue, what are the concrete examples of this?
I find it very interesting that the group in power is trying very hard to suppress any criticism, basically silencing the disadvantaged minority (within the Indian diaspora).
> Thenmozhi Soundararajan, the founder of Equality Labs, a Dalit civil rights organisation
Hm ok https://www.equalitylabs.org/mission
> Equality Labs is an Ambedkarite South Asian power-building organization
What is this Ambedkarite thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement
> The movement was launched in 1956 by Ambedkar when nearly half a million Dalits – formerly untouchables – joined him and converted to Navayana Buddhism
So it's a Buddhist deal. Is Buddhism anti-hinduism? Um, it isn't exactly pro-hinduism, now is it?
I'm not sure that's the steeliest man, but it's a start.
But they "they want to preserve their culture". I chose apartheid to avoid Godwin'ing the discussion, but it applies there as well. Or the US South in the 50's, and all those other places where a group feels threatened by "them" and are disinterested in expanding the definition of society or even citizenship.
I just don't think these issues are as simple as "good or bad". At the end of the day, English overtaking French is a real phenomenon. Are they supposed to just sit there and let it happen only to end up with a possibly more divided society where half the population can't communicate with the other?
I'm not saying the solution they came up with is right (actually I think having to pass these types of laws is just a sign of weakness) but at the same time I refuse to think that it's fuelled by xenophobia.
Hell, lynching black folk were "supported by the majority" in the US back then. Might still be, based on where you look. Change-or-leave isn't a terribly even-handed approach when you expect it to NOT be applied to yourself when outside of Quebec.
And as others have said and written, if you have to take such aggressive measures to preserve one's culture, it's already dead. Trying to make the internet be something other than English or Mandarin is a fools errand. I would think it's being driven by the boomers who have spent their lives in pursuit of a goal. They'll accept the scorched-earth "victory" independent of the cost, as otherwise their adult lives were mis-spent or wasted. Their counterparts had 'Nam to deal with, or the wars of the 80's and 90's.
They could have tried to make the situation positive and played along with the rules of civil society. But they chose not to and Montreal (again) will pay the price. The rest of the province couldn't care less.
Although if you think that term is hard to understand, I'm sorry to inform you about literally anything written by Europeans, which is more or less made to be impossible to understand on purpose.
I don't think most reasonable people will make that mistake.
> people who want to do philosophy without studying any of it
strikes me as unnecessary gatekeeping. The context here is fairly basic logic and critical thinking that clearly does not require formal study. I hope that more people who haven't ever been formal students of philosophy employ critical thinking, not less!
The people who say “steelman” a lot aren’t just busy with other things. They’re like full time bloggers and write huge essays constantly about their own system of critical rationalism and thinking correctly and all that, all philosophical topics.
Avoiding the literature is more intentional. Part because they want their community to use all different words so they’ll sound different and engineer-y. Part because they’d be annoyed that midcentury philosophy already tried their project and now thinks it doesn’t work.
Language is mutable and redundant. Different people come up with similar concepts independently over centuries and that's fine. Nobody has a copyright on philosophy.
Making your scarecrow out of steel doesn't make them a better arguing partner.
Two options arise out of it:
Hire someone else not prone to or going through this societal conflict at the moment ($$$), or forbid the topic and risk losin conscientious objectors amongst workers/leadership.
The executive case with a shareholder value tilt would be avoid and reject the conversation, sink the risk, evaluate fallout, and hire replacements as necessary. You've still done your fiduciary duty, but damn those meddlesome cats.
The Stakeholder value executive prioritizing social change would likely engage with the topic, seeing it as an opportunity to raise awareness, get free press, attract talent, etc.
I can only really see a case for suppressing it if it were something you couldn't afford to not have.
This is the same company that makes and throws away products and apps continuously?
The goal is trying something out, if it doesn't measure up, it's yeeted in the bin.
Besides which, you're expecting rationality and consistency out of people in positions of power. You already lost. People concerned with the issue of maximally optimizing for wealth accrual are seldom burdened with a burning need to be rational and consistent. At least I've seen precious few positive examples thereof.
Interesting social contract.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...
Say, by analogy, what if another manager in a different situation, who made the 'cancel' decision on a talk, was concerned that the lecture they were being asked to approve was extremist? Then say, if Americans knew Hindu culture they might agree, just as they understand why they wouldn't invite their own untouchables to speak.
In this activist case, it's absolutely offensive to compare the Hindu untouchables with our untouchables because theirs are born into it where ours are just uneducated or indoctrinated and it would be such a grotesque insult to those people living in India, or anywhere in the world, that no serious person could even compare them out loud, and I'm even taking a considerable personal risk to write the comparison hypothetically.
But what if that's how that manager felt? How would "we" (progressive, though still mostly white, hegemonic We) respond to a speaker representing our own untouchables, and even though the comparison itself is so disgusting?
The steelman case for the protests and for the manager is that they are acting on convictions as strong and (they believe) principled as any of our own, however unjustly in this case. Even though they're wrong, until we understand their own complete revolt that caused them to take such a reckless stance in this case, there is no way to engage with them, or understand the source of the conflict. This isn't mere empathy or a "both sides,"-ism, as I don't think we can empathize with someone we fundamentally know is so wrong. However, I do think one can have compassion for everyone involved, and it is immensely difficult, as it requires imagining something you are truly revolted by, and then imaging what it would be like for someone like a Dalit friend or someone you loved to see you feel that way about them. The tension between the heartbreak at imagining their eyes in that moment and then also the feeling of what can only be described as disgust for people with the most offensive values, is I think, the compassion, where you feel both the revolt at being confronted with the very worst of the worst, and also what it feels like that no matter what you do and how much goodness you bring that you will always be an object of social disgust. This is why compassion is hard, but beautiful, but so very hard! Being able to do that suggests a greatness of soul to me.
The steelman case here isn't about pretending the broken logic of the protesting managers beliefs was somehow true, it's from asking, what if someone you loved or were responsible for felt one way or the other in this conflict about you? There is a basic misundertanding between two parts of a culture, where maybe these Brahmins don't trust the Dalits and the Dalits interpret that as contempt, which is returned by being provocative and giving the other just what they might expect? Bit of a homily, but in this sense, the steelman case shows how a specific kind of compassion might provide some future basis on which to establish both trust and respect, even if it's a very high bar.