top | item 35006138

(no title)

sirmarksalot | 3 years ago

I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response, it makes it extremely clear that you're not taking issue with awkward terminology, but with the entire concept of equity itself.

discuss

order

remarkEon|3 years ago

>but with the entire concept of equity itself.

A lot of people do take issue with the concept of equity itself. Because it's unattainable, a fantasy to keep the "movement" going. No amount of language puritanism will ever be enough for the kinds of people that write these guides, because no human society will ever exist - or has ever existed - where everyone is some sterile, "equitable" copy of each other.

simple-thoughts|3 years ago

It’s an exercise of power by a wealthy ($30k/yr is rich in most world), western, educated, native English speaking elite over the unprivileged. Someone who studied English in high school in rural India does not have access to the latest equity terminology nor the western cultural context to understand it.

Changing language is a great tool to privilege the non working academic class with access and time to study the latest fad over the global working class who build the consumer products these elites type their screeds on.

bcrosby95|3 years ago

Hell, most of it originates in the US, where we practice our cultural imperialism and force everyone else to bow to our ever evolving norms and sensibilities based upon our own country's fucked up history.

goatlover|3 years ago

> but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are

Does that mean they are bad, immoral people? I think equity is faulty concept. Seems like an attempt to create equality of outcome by policing language. But I'll defer to arguments made by the likes of Sam Harris, Julia Galef and Coleman Hughes. Or the Atlantic author of this article.