Hacker News Reader

Not to mention, the amount of violence committed by members of these outrage groups against whoever stands in their way - primarily towards the "offending" group or class they're prejudiced against, particularly whites, males, and straight sexual orientation.

Worse, this violence often goes unaccounted for with impunity, without penalty, because people are terrified of the consequences of criticizing these groups, whether that's losing friends, family, or jobs that are too closely attached to these justice movements, while quite blatantly refusing to acknowledge that these movements have grifted the crap out of our world, as we find that their leaders and spokespeople are everything from: disingenuous scammers using donation money entirely for self-serving purposes that do not advance their cause, all the way to being convicted child sex traffickers (Fox: BLM, reports from 2020).

But to condemn these movements for these reasons is nearly suicide in a society obsessed with staying in line with the "current thing", without scrutiny.

I don't think it makes sense to argue against the logic of identity politics by actively identifying as a victim, that only reproduces the very logic you are critiquing, since it is they who also view themselves as victims and who seek retribution for perceived violence against them as an identity group. This is the logic of Nazism at its core, and when you use it to defend traditional values it becomes even more blatantly obvious.

The horror (for you) is realizing that now this very same logic has been adopted by neo-liberal forces who seek to use radical politics not for freedom but to impose an even stricter, more terrible form of security, where it's not that people aren't allowed to speak their minds but rather that they police themselves first, they are unconsciously compelled to limit the range of acceptable discourse. Anybody who criticizes this regime is prevented by Corporate America from finding employment, effectively starving and killing them. Its fortunate that we have protected freedom of speech (at least in the US), but freedom of speech is not in the interest of our corporate masters and this regime of power limits it to the utmost degree for nobody in particular (since nobody benefits from this, in truth), but simply to serve a vast architecture of domination that most individuals in power are not even aware of, or aware they are being subjected too.

What most people fail to see is how neoliberal politics are WORSE than fascism--its almost like an advanced form of fascism, where the organized chaos of the market is utilized to rapidly generate victimhood and individual identities which rapidly alienate and atomize each and every person in society, who then believes their struggles are theirs alone, that resistance to power is futile because everyone fights their own battles, and that its not worth it to talk to anyone who isn't a member of your "identity", the numbers of which are so vast that it becomes impossible for anyone to talk to anyone else who has a difference of opinion, staying inside their little social bubbles which only interact through the means the very same technology and infrastructure employed in that domination.

It sounds like you're saying, "At least with fascism people are united against a common enemy," but I must be reading that wrong.

I guess you could say that, it leaves room for resistance. And its become so intolerable to the vast majority of people that almost nobody seriously considers adopting it as a political system. Meanwhile, childhood suicide rates might be sky-rocketing, there might be vast sexual dissatisfaction and income inequality, not to mention the degradation of the natural world itself, but people will still say its the "best system we have", sounding like a prisoner who has given up on getting out. I don't think the future is some authoritarian system that they have in China, its basically the same over there (if not worse), but why have we given up on building a better society? The spread of Nihlism disgusts me.

I will admit aging population might be contributing to these problems, but at least the US is not projected to lose any population in the next 30 years because of immigration. For the nation states in the world, however...well, there isn't going to be much "nation" left in them if they want to survive the next few decades.

This sounds like fascism apologia. But it can't be, right?

As I said, I don't think fascism is really even possible today, what people call "fascist" doesn't at all resemble the regimes of the 30s and 40s. Its as if people think that the far-right is perpetuating violence at a scale different from the center. It doesn't matter who is "in charge", the state has become invested primarily in creating a vast architecture of surveillance and control which cannot be legally challenged because the state, whether or not they claim it, acts with sovereign immunity, since we only ever got rid of the king, not the apparatus which supports him.

It would be better to say that our current form of government (around the world) is a like a more advanced form of fascism, its worse than fascism and its a more severe form of domination that is so subtle that most people can't see it, and if they were shown how they were being kept under control, they would try to forget as soon as possible. The fact that so many on the far-right are coming to power is predictable: one form of identity politics begets another. But it does not actually indicate a change to the status quo to me. Remember, the capitol rioters only wanted to keep things the same.

So a return to the fascism of the 30's would actually be an improvement compared to our current social order?

Can you share some examples of this violence?

Unfortunately I don't spend my days bookmarking videos on Twitter to share with people who are interested just enough to criticize these claims with strawmen / other fallacies, but too disinterested to seek the evidence readily available to them from news sources they've written off entirely.

I can't help you there. Now, I don't mean to assume you fall within the category I described above, but that's usually the case when people ask for examples, when they already know where to look, but don't wish to.

So no evidence - gotcha.

Not every online discussion has to be a formal debate with months of preparation. Sorry I didn't "have my papers" handy.

If you're interested, you'll go looking on Twitter, Telegram, etc. on your own accord. If you're not, you'll resort to gaslighting and smug nonsense. Simple.

I'm just asking for a simple link of things you've seen. Nothing more. Not a paper, or anything else, or research. Just a simple news article to prove you didn't just make it up. But I guess that's too much to ask.

I keep up to date on the news and don't see this violence you speak of, I've done my due diligence.

>Similarly, universities are under pressure to appear "on the right side of >history" by aggressive student activists, fueled by the flames of BLM, MeToo, >whichever other social justice outrage.

Oh is Turning Point USA not a social justice group

> why they can even exist in the first place

They're legally required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its consequences. Let me explain:

The act prohibits discrimination on several protected characteristics, and the Supreme Court has expanded that to cover even things that merely correlate with those characteristics, unless an employer can convincingly show those characteristics are required [1].

But how can employers shield themselves from the legal risk of a discrimination lawsuit, when "discriminating" is so vaguely defined? By showing they engaged in "best effort" not to discriminate, which means mouthing all the right platitudes, employing ever-evolving "best practices", and having departments devoted to the cause (first HR, now DEI).

It's a red queen's race to be the most progressive and anti-racist, plus positive-reinforcement as the alumni of these institutions take up influential positions in society, and these are the results after 60 years of it. Any corporation, school, or university that goes against it, that merely tries to stay neutral, will fall behind and be made a legal and PR example of [2].

[1] To see how harsh a test this is, requiring an IQ test for management positions is prohibited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

[2] https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...

Very few companies have DEI programs. DEI isn't a trend because it's a defense against specious discrimination suits. It's a trend because it's fashionable. The argument in your last paragraph is thus easily falsified.

A message board strategic tip: if you're going to try to make an argument about how antiracism is overreaching in our society --- which should be a layup! --- try to do it without citing an overt racist to support your argument.

> Very few companies have DEI programs.

Please don't lie to me:

"I have surveyed the programming of every Fortune 100 company and have confirmed that all of them have now adopted so-called DEI programs." - https://www.city-journal.org/the-diversity-equity-and-inclus...

Though I'm sure if you look at all companies, including every corner store, hair salon, and taco shop, the proportion of DEI initiatives and HR departments falls.

> It's a trend because it's fashionable.

And it's fashionable in part because any company where it's not encouraged is in legal peril.

That's obviously false. There are over 1.7MM corporations in the US and over 7MM partnerships and sole proprietorships, and you've attempted to characterize all of them by a sample of the 100 hugest of them. There are all sorts of things the F100 has that the median company doesn't, almost none of them owing to legal peril.

Hold on, that sample is a sample of the biggest ones! That’s a fair sample! Amazon having a DEI program and mom and pop hardware store not having one do not weigh equally on the scale!

Cite an example of any company being sued for not having a DEI program.

Why do I need to do that to defend the specific, factual point that DEI efforts are common in American workplaces? It’s not a value judgement, it’s just a fact.

Well, for starters, that's not what we're debating. We're debating the idea that companies have DEI programs out of legal necessity.

I never said anything about whether "companies have DEI programs out of legal necessity". The parent poster made a claim about "every Fortune 100 company" and you said that claim was unrepresentative.

That is not true, and that is what I said and all I am saying now.

They're not sued for not having a DEI program, but for vaguely and broadly defined "discrimination". Having a DEI program is a defense against such accusations.

That's a conveniently non-falsifiable argument, isn't it?

It's highly likely. Much likelier than the idea that having anti-discrimination so broadly enforced that a mere IQ test is illegal would not cause corporations to take steps to reduce legal risks.

But you are correct, my evidence is circumstantial, and if you really want to disbelieve such basic inference, you can. I'm sure you apply this degree of skepticism evenly.

Your argument is that every single company with a DEI program is doing so out of concern for a legal threat so amorphous that we can't come up with a single instance of it happening --- or, for that matter, even circumstantial evidence, such as a correlation between the deployment of DEI programs and the number of discrimination lawsuits. By implication, you are also arguing that all the companies running these programs don't believe the things they're saying, but rather have been coerced into saying them. These are extraordinary claims, for which you have offered no evidence.

IQ tests, for what it's worth, are not in fact illegal in employment situations. I can name large software companies that were using them as recently as a few years ago. Of course, they're a cringeworthy affectation and a strong signal of a shop you'd never want to work in, but being off-putting isn't illegal, as over 10 years of my own activity on Hacker News should amply establish.

For my part: I am not a fan of institutional DEI programs. But I'm even less a fan of the rhetorical frame that suggests that literally everything and everybody involved in them is operating in bad faith.

> By implication, you are also arguing that all the companies running these programs don't believe the things they're saying, but rather have been coerced into saying them

I'm arguing no such thing. Hiring of people that espouse and practice DEI has been legally incentivized. Whether they believe in them or not doesn't matter, and after the law got the ball rolling (and made sure it stays rolling even in companies that otherwise wouldn't cooperate), it's perfectly likely lots of true believers would also join.

In fact, I implied the opposite in my root comment ("plus positive-reinforcement as the alumni of these institutions take up influential positions in society"), which you would have known if you weren't busy coming up with the most bad-faith interpretation of my words that you could find.

> a legal threat so amorphous that we can't come up with a single instance of it happening

I literally linked to a legal case of it happening in my root comment. Unless you want a lawsuit specifically about a missing DEI program, something which I never claimed, and already explained so.

> a correlation between the deployment of DEI programs and the number of discrimination lawsuits.

Here's the number of discrimination lawsuits - you'll notice the upward trend, though it's only for '78-'06: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/total-number-of-civil-ca...

And you'll find a graph of HR departments in https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j... - you probably missed it in your hurry to dismiss the author as an overt racist (a claim for which you presented no evidence).

Notice how both trend upwards, therefore are correlated. Unfortunately I don't think there's a graph like that specifically for DEI programs, as "equity" itself is a word that only recently became fashionable. And I couldn't find a graph showing the proportion of companies with generic diversity programs either. A crucial weakness in my argument, that will allow a motivated reader such as yourself to dismiss it entirely.

If discrimination suits are increasing after the widespread adoption of DEI programs, you've rebutted your own argument.

As for Hanania, here's a starting point:

https://twitter.com/bernybelvedere/status/148562348106054041...

He's not subtle about it.

> discrimination suits are increasing

DEI programs don't help guard vs. litigation, therefore that can't ever have been a cause for their or their antecedents' inception!

> discrimination suits are decreasing

If the problem DEI programs are intended to address was shrinking, then DEI programs would have shrunk with it! No different than how you shrink police forces after crime significantly drops.

Neutral, in your case, would be discriminatory and systemically racist. As in, that good old time for white folks before the Civil Rights Act.