This is exactly the sort of tone that improving balance is intended to counter.
There is a difference between diversity of "the place where you are forming an opinion", and diversity of what that opinion is.
By saying that a council needs to equally represent diversity of opinions completely ignores how widespread those opinions actually are. Decisions about action to take about going "defcon 3 on the jews" should not need to be decided by a council where you're focusing on equity of diverse opinions; ie, 50% of people think anti-semitism is bad, and 50% think anti-semitism is good. It's a bastardization of the word "diversity" in order to support whatever fringe belief is up for discussion.
That's why it's important to remove appeals to popularity from moral reasoning.
I don't think one political coalition has a monopoly over the words it uses
Looking at college campuses, I see a lack of diversity of perspective
Looking at executive boards, I see a lack of ethnic diversity (and also diversity of perspective)
> So anyone that is celebrating this Musk announcement is telling on themselves
Just like how anyone who's upset about it is upset that they have less space to shove their insipid beliefs down the throats of others. Maybe reddit is a better choice for them?
If anything, it has been successfully appropriated and destroyed by intersectionalists on the left, where diverse means anything but diversity of opinions and where people's diversity is just evaluated by racial, religious, sexual and sexual orientation characteristics.
The fact that the "head of diversity" of Apple, a black woman was fired for pointing that out is a proof of the existence of that monopoly by the left.
https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-j...
The news of Ms Smith being fired pained me when it came out; the people behind that "outcry" should be ashamed. The mob won again.
There is evidence that Twitter has been actively colluding with large pharmaceutical giants to target and purposefully ban those for being skeptical of them and the vaccine. [0] So one is not allowed to be skeptical and criticize that?
Perhaps everything on what is being read out on the news is the absolute truth then. Surely they can never be wrong. /s If we question the media and companies like PayPal or Twitter dislike that, then say goodbye to your account without giving a reason of what was violated [1] and in the case of the former you must pay a $2,500 fine for what they call 'misinformation'.
Exciting times ahead! /s
[0] https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/pfizer-board-member-scot...
[1] https://twitter.com/llsceptics/status/1567658400573448192
>It USED to mean "include representation of those not from the mainstream - those that don't typically have major representation, but whose opinions are valuable to be included"
The majority of Twitter moderation staff appear to be more left wing than the mainstream. Allowing more center and right wing people on the decision making would be allowing a marginalized group within Twitter to have a voice.
Populism from the far right has adopted a strategy of re-defining key terms such as nation, citizen, fairness, representation.
Under these conditions, a highly diverse council will either not be able to decide or will need to decide in favor of maximum leniency.
By the way, Adam Curtis made this point in his documentary "HyperNormalisation", where he argued that Trump had hijacked "fair and balanced" reporting.
I'm a big admirer of Adam Curtis's films!
“Now, it’s true that populists, when in opposition, criticize sitting governments (and, usually, also other parties). But, above all, they do something else, and that is crucial: in one way or another, they claim that they, and only they, represent what they often refer to as the “real people” or also the “silent majority.” At first sight, this might not look particularly nefarious; it does not immediately amount to, let’s say, racism or a fanatical hatred of the European Union or, for that matter, the declaring of judges and particular media “enemies of the people.” And yet this claim to a distinctly moral monopoly of representation has two detrimental consequences for democracy. Rather obviously, once populists assert that only they represent the people, they also charge that all other contenders for office are fundamentally illegitimate. This is never just a matter of disputes about policy, or even about values; such disagreements, after all, are completely normal and, ideally, even productive in a democratic polity. Rather, populists assert that their rivals are corrupt and simply fail to serve the interests of the people on account of their bad, or indeed “crooked,” character. ”