And note what I said about the way social analyses of the left become an accepted part of the conversation in the very resistance of the right. Something like lgbtq is now a fixity, or "rainbow coalition," even if it is prefaced with "so called" by the opposition. — Astrophel

This reminds me of Foucault’s research showing that the Victorian era, which many see as a time of the repression of sex , was also time of incessant talking about and interest in sex. The repression of sex and obsession with it went together. The sexual revolution, then, was not simply a liberation from an anti-sex position but a furthering of a sex-oriented culture established in Victorianism.

“Without even having to pronounce the word, modern prudishness was able to ensure that one did not speak
of sex, merely through the interplay of prohibitions that referred back to one another: instances of muteness which, by dint of saying nothing, imposed silence. Censorship. Yet when one looks back over these last three centuries with their continual transformations, things appear in a very different light: around and apropos of sex, one sees a veritable discursive explosion.”

So, the reason I find political categorical rigidity unable to express the fullness of complex ideas is because.....I was neglected as a child? — Astrophel

No. A person who invests themselves fully in the identity of Democrat or MAGA probably didn't experience neglect, whether they accept that categorization enlarges the pixels is a different matter.

This reminds me of Foucault’s research showing that the Victorian era, which many see as a time of the repression of sex , was also time of incessant talking about and interest in sex. The repression of sex and obsession with it went together. The sexual revolution, then, was not simply a liberation from an anti-sex position but a furthering of a sex-oriented culture established in Victorianism. — Joshs

I recall in Madness and Civilization how institutions create a vocabulary of pathology, and thereby create, to an extent, pathology itself; but also, as Zizek (loved and not so loved) put it, freedom seeks a new vocabulary to define what it is, and thereby becomes greater manifest freedom.

No. A person who invests themselves fully in the identity of Democrat or MAGA probably didn't experience neglect, whether they accept that categorization enlarges the pixels is a different matter. — frank

I don't follow this.

I don't follow this. — Astrophel

I thought of doing a thread on the philosophy and psychology of recognition, but then I realized that would be too much effort. :razz:

Err, not helpful.

Read this.

There will be an essay test after you finish.

Previously, folks commonly described themselves as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative".

No. A person who invests themselves fully in the identity of Democrat or MAGA probably didn't experience neglect, whether they accept that categorization enlarges the pixels is a different matter. — frank

I don't see it that way at all. There is a difference between being raised to think independently (either by accident or on purpose, depending on the type of parenting) and being neglected.

I think that those that either received too much attention as a child and those that received very little are the same ones that invest their time on social media for the sole purpose of receiving likes - confirmation of their beliefs, because they expect it (because they've always received it), or they need it (because they never had it).

Those that fully invest themselves into a political party have given up their freedom to think for themselves, probably because they haven't had to think for themselves most of their life.

I can see that. With recognition theory, we're just saying that if a person doesn't receive recognition, they end up with a frail sense of self. This doesn't mean they're wishy-washy, though. They may be very staunch in their rejection of any kind of identity.

The way this plays into identity politics is that a person who only sees negative images of people like themselves (say a black child only sees blackness depicted as being gang related, or enslavement), then that person is less likely to develop a clear sense of themselves, what they want, and what they advocate. If I'm inferior, or in some way wrong, then I shouldn't engage the world the way the right people do. All of this may be half-conscious.

Identity politics is saying that what the oppressed need is not more money. They usually aren't actually looking for that. What they want is recognition, which is a basic requirement of a psyche that can advocate for itself.

This is a yes or no question. My answer is no.
— David Hubbs

I’m not sure it is, unless I’m missing something. — Tom Storm

if one perceives them differently, the answer is "yes". If one does not perceive them differently, the answer is "no". What am I missing?

I don't know. Is a strong will and the range by which we need confirmation from others to define ourselves an inborn trait (natural) or something that is the result of one's upbringing (nurtured)? While I will agree that our upbringing has a large impact on the person we are today, there are some that appear to develop in stark contrast to their upbringing. Maybe they were raised in a home that did neglect them but found a true friend that encouraged and supported them, and it still is the nurturing, I just can't say. We would have to study the details of each case.

The way this plays into identity politics is that a person who only sees negative images of people like themselves (say a black child only sees blackness depicted as being gang related, or enslavement) — frank

What black child today lives in such informational isolation?

Identity politics is saying that what the oppressed need is not more money. They usually aren't actually looking for that. What they want is recognition, which is a basic requirement of a psyche that can advocate for itself. — frank

I think that "recognition" isn't the right word here. It's "representation". To constantly be represented in a negative light can have a negative impact on one's sense of self. Some might say, that for a celebrity, any publicity is good publicity. That may be true for celebrities who make money by being in the spotlight, but not for the rest of us.

The question is do we bring down one group to raise another, or simply stop representing one group only in a negative light? And when are we representing a group in a negative light as opposed to merely pointing out facts? Is the answer that when talking about or showing images of gangs and slaves we show a majority of whites? Is the answer that we just stop talking about and showing images of gangs and slaves? If you know you are not in a gang and not a slave, isn't that clear evidence that the images do not define you as an individual?

Identity politics focuses on the characteristics of individuals that the individual, nor society, had no hand in making - genetics. People that criticize identity politics focus more on defining people by the characteristic of their actions, not their biology. One might say that a racist nation, like the U.S. in the later 18th and early 19th centuries, was a society based on identity politics - treating people differently based on the color of their skin and their sex. The U.S. has evolved since then, but it appears that there are some that want to take us backwards by pushing the pendulum back to the opposite extreme - where another group receives special treatment at the expense of others to make up for the way things were while ignoring how things are now.

Consider the phrase, "I am politically nonbinary.". Do you discern the speaker's intent differently if they are liberal or conservative? — David Hubbs

If your orientation toward a political form is defined, you know your position. There is, however, a spectrum between liberal and conservative.

I don't know. Is a strong will and the range by which we need confirmation from others to define ourselves an inborn trait (natural) or something that is the result of one's upbringing (nurtured)? While I will agree that our upbringing has a large impact on the person we are today, there are some that appear to develop in stark contrast to their upbringing. Maybe they were raised in a home that did neglect them but found a true friend that encouraged and supported them, and it still is the nurturing, I just can't say. We would have to study the details of each case. — Harry Hindu

I agree. But I would say that lacking a clear sense of identity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it poses an obstacle to self-advocation, but a person like that is basically what a Buddhist is trying to figure out.

The way this plays into identity politics is that a person who only sees negative images of people like themselves (say a black child only sees blackness depicted as being gang related, or enslavement)
— frank
What black child today lives in such informational isolation? — Harry Hindu

I was just giving an example to clarify it.

The question is do we bring down one group to raise another, or simply stop representing one group only in a negative light? — Harry Hindu

I don't know. I was just explaining what recognition has to do with identity politics. Just rambling, really.

The U.S. has evolved since then, but it appears that there are some that want to take us backwards by pushing the pendulum back to the opposite extreme - where another group receives special treatment at the expense of others to make up for the way things were while ignoring how things are now. — Harry Hindu

Again, I don't know. I would say an economic focus is more important that identity politics because to the extent that Hollywood panders to minorities, it's doing that because minorities buy tickets and merch. On the other hand, notice the next time you see a hospital advertisement. If they're depicting one of their awesome doctors, they'll be showing you an old white dude. Possibly Jewish. Why do you think they're doing that?

Identity politics focuses on the characteristics of individuals that the individual, nor society, had no hand in making - genetics. People that criticize identity politics focus more on defining people by the characteristic of their actions, not their biology. One might say that a racist nation, like the U.S. in the later 18th and early 19th centuries, was a society based on identity politics - treating people differently based on the color of their skin and their sex. The U.S. has evolved since then, but it appears that there are some that want to take us backwards by pushing the pendulum back to the opposite extreme - where another group receives special treatment at the expense of others to make up for the way things were while ignoring how things are now — Harry Hindu

I’m sure you’re aware of how the left might critique this view, but let me mention the main points. First, Identity politics isn’t just about biology but also about historical and systemic power imbalances based on culture-based differences in behavior.

You say people should be judged by actions, not biology (implying we live in a meritocracy, but if systemic biases exist (e.g., school funding disparities, hiring discrimination), then judging people purely on "actions" ignores **unequal starting points. For instance, a poor student who works hard may still have fewer opportunities than a wealthy legacy student at Harvard, and a blacknman with the same resume as a white man is 50% less likely* to get a callback (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023).

You argue that modern identity politics is a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme of historical racism/sexism, but most modern identity-based movements seek equity, not supremacy. Reparations or diversity initiatives aim to reduce disparities, not establish a new hierarchy.

It means they are considering political reassignment surgery. Does anyone have suggestions on how much to slice off?

Nature isn't equitable. The problem with these DEI initiatives is that they focus on limited intersectionalities in a world with countless intersectionalities. It creates resentment and prompts the excluded to ask, "Why aren't my intersectional identities being addressed?" And then there's the matter of weighing them up and comparing them - an impossible task.

Come to think of it, even if we were all the same race and all from the same class, I don't believe we'd have made any progress towards genuine equity.

↪Joshs

Nature isn't equitable. The problem with these DEI initiatives is that they focus on limited intersectionalities in a world with countless intersectionalities. It creates resentment and prompts the excluded to ask, "Why aren't my intersectional identities being addressed?" And then there's the matter of weighing them up and comparing them - an impossible task.

Come to think of it, even if we were all the same race and all from the same class, I don't believe we'd have made any progress towards genuine equity — BitconnectCarlos

What we want to keep , and will keep, from concepts like intersectionality and implicit bias, is that there is no such thing as a neutral playing field because we implicitly prefer what we are familiar with, and thus what is most intelligible to us. When one group dominates the other on the basis of numbers, wealth or political power, this preference will lead to stuctures which ingrain and perpetuate the biases. The best we can do is recognize that we are prone to such biases based on lack of contact and familiarity with other groups, and strive to increase opportunities for mutual contact and reciprocal interaction through policies that encourage inclusiveness. It looks like DEI in some form or other is here to stay, since even when the government attempts to ban it, companies re-establish it under different names because they find it strengthens competitiveness and innovation.

:up:

if one perceives them differently, the answer is "yes". If one does not perceive them differently, the answer is "no". What am I missing? — David Hubbs

What do you mean by 'perceives them differently'? There are people I know who I can't label politically, it's impossible to categorise them since they hold views from a range of political sources and vote differently each election.

Of course, it IS the left that creates these new conversations, because the left thinks, and generates analytical terminology, and it is the right (putting aside the issue of the binary nature of talk about left and right for now) that is forced to respond, albeit negatively and derisively, and in doing so, encourage their entrenchment. — Astrophel

The problem with forced linguistic change for political aims is at least two-fold: (1) it violates the typical organic way language evolves through use and instead prescribes what words are to mean, and (2) it ignores equivocation fallacies and tries to impose ontolological change that does not comport with correspondence theories of truth.

The first is simply annoying because it creates language police and demands compliance among the unwilling. The second presents absurd results. It's one thing to demand that cats be called dogs because "cat" might be now thought of as a derogatory term, but an entirely other matter to then suggest that the cats you now call dogs might be used to guard your home because we now call them dogs and that's what we all know dogs do.

Tying meaning to use is Wittgensteinian and tying it to truth Davidsonian, which means this position can't just be waved off as conservative reactionism just because it offers a result that isn't liberally conforming..

The problem with forced linguistic change for political aims is at least two-fold: (1) it violates the typical organic way language evolves through use and instead prescribes what words are to mean, and (2) it ignores equivocation fallacies and tries to impose ontolological change that does not comport with correspondence theories of truth. — Hanover

Not sure what forced linguistic change you have in mind. But it reminds me of Foucault's panopticon: the hope that in inserting a set of values in the conscience of all through education, the media, political debate, etc., the achievement of involuntary exposure eventually leads to a self correcting compliance. So instead of waiting for the long haul what you call "the organic way," deliberate steps are taken in school curricula, in the racial inclusiveness and gender alternatives in mass media, and so on. I see this as simply an inevitable part of a society's self conscious evolution: the more reflective we become, the more we see need for change, and in politics especially, this is all about language.

So I am happy to "violate the typical organic way language evolves." Had this kind of patience prevailed in the sixties, the civil rights movement would never have happened.

"Impose ontological change that does not comport"...you sound like Heidegger, putting the "correspondence theories of truth" aside. True, Heidegger had a historical view of the self and one's culture and language, and this view suggests nationalistic pride and a fear of cultural debasement. I've read some of his letters, and yes, he did not approve of Jewish influence in Germany. Anyway, I think you are siding here with Heidegger, and Jordan Peterson (who read Heidegger), and others who fear change. But Heidegger did not belong to THIS culture we are in, which is inherently committed to social freedom. Had he been born in this culture, his views would have been very different, for the post modern intelligentsia (which he kind of founded, ironically), into which he would have been trained and conditioned, would have been theo-ontologically radically different.

The first is simply annoying because it creates language police and demands compliance among the unwilling. The second presents absurd results. It's one thing to demand that cats be called dogs because "cat" might be now thought of as a derogatory term, but an entirely other matter to then suggest that the cats you now call dogs might be used to guard your home because we now call them dogs and that's what we all know dogs do. — Hanover

I don't think anyone is explicitly policing language, but implicitly, yes. We all are policing ourselves. Are we not already policed by language? Prior to the neologism "policial correctness," was their not an established body of rules, subtle and connotative, social mores, etc., that came down hard upon you if you stepped out of line? Never referred to this as being "policed" then; indeed, "language police" is itself a neologism conceived by the right in an attempt to, as you say, "demand compliance among the unwilling." There is something to be annoyed with.

That about cats and dogs: I think you are talking about something like, say, the calling of firemen, fire fighters, because we want to be inclusive of women in the profession. And then, sending dainty women out to actually fight fires, and is absurd. Hmmm. Not so dainty, the ones wanting to do this. But there is something to this though, to me aligned with letting trans women compete in woman's sports. A terrible idea. How to deal with such a pressing issue?? I know: who *(&^^)(*! cares! This is NOT where the current calls for inclusion, equality and diversity take our affairs. This is rather the attempt on the right to pretend these are major issues, so they can talk about them for hours in derogatory ways on talks shows.

What do you mean by 'perceives them differently'? — Tom Storm

'Perceive' is one of the synonyms of the word 'discern', but i think I should not go down that rabbit hole. Use which ever one you choose. To me it is still a yes or no question. Do you perceive/discern the speaker's intent differently if you think of them (the speaker) as usually conservative or usually liberal?

While there is probably some wisdom in all the replies in this thread at best I expected to get a few replies that mostly consisted of yes or no. I was naive, I thought I was asking a simple question about other people's opinions. I see now that many consider the question as much more than that and in some cases inflammatory. I do not. I am trying to figure out how I should have asked it instead. I am searching for a way to make the question simpler/plainer. Even so, there may yet be some useful information about perception/discernment in the replies but I will have to study them.

Do you perceive/discern the speaker's intent differently if you think of them (the speaker) as usually conservative or usually liberal? — David Hubbs

Perhaps. I guess it would depend. Many of my leftist friends dislike woke culture just as much as my conservative friends do, so perhaps they would both be using the term ironically to describe their inability to fully commit to their former beliefs or to the political opposition.

I agree. But I would say that lacking a clear sense of identity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it poses an obstacle to self-advocation, but a person like that is basically what a Buddhist is trying to figure out. — frank

What does one mean by, "identity"? If you already see your genetics as a defining characteristic - something that you did nothing to acquire - then you are simply being lazy with your identity, or see it as something that will get you benefits in certain societies. If you live in a society that shits on certain groups based on skin color, I could see you trying to hide your skin color. In a society that favors certain skin colors, you would want to flaunt your skin color. It seems that today's climate favors one being black (or any minority) and disfavors being white (the majority). If you are publicly proud of being a certain skin color then you don't live in a society that discriminates negatively upon that skin color, but positively. I want to live in a society where no one is proud or reluctant to be a certain skin color. They should be proud or shameful of their actions.

Again, I don't know. I would say an economic focus is more important that identity politics because to the extent that Hollywood panders to minorities, it's doing that because minorities buy tickets and merch. On the other hand, notice the next time you see a hospital advertisement. If they're depicting one of their awesome doctors, they'll be showing you an old white dude. Possibly Jewish. Why do you think they're doing that? — frank

But I thought you said it wasn't about money:

Identity politics is saying that what the oppressed need is not more money. — frank

If minorities are able to afford celebrity merchandise then they must not be doing to bad economically.

I don't know - is the doctor they are showing a doctor that actually works at that hospital, or did they find a Jewish person - maybe a family member of the producer - to act as a doctor? This is why I was asking about how much of what we show is reality vs. theatre? This is not to say that images of reality can't be shown out of context, though.

For instance, a poor student who works hard may still have fewer opportunities than a wealthy legacy student at Harvard, and a blacknman with the same resume as a white man is 50% less likely* to get a callback (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023). — Joshs

How was that percentage determined? Don't whites outnumber blacks more than 2-1? Speaking of percentages - what percentage of black should be represented on TV and in movies? They are only 15% of the population but some seem to think that every other person on TV and in movies should be a black person. What about other minorities? What about the disproportionate representation of whites? It seems that being black gives you a leg up in this industry.

As for school funding disparities, my wife is an elementary school teacher in a hispanic neighborhood. The neighborhood is middle class. Prior principals have failed the school where the school grade was a C for years. After a new principal took over the school has now been an A school for the past three years. It's not just money - administration has a lot to do with it.

You argue that modern identity politics is a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme of historical racism/sexism, but most modern identity-based movements seek equity, not supremacy. Reparations or diversity initiatives aim to reduce disparities, not establish a new hierarchy. — Joshs

We already live in a country with laws against discrimination. If you feel you were discriminated against, then you have paths you can take - there is even financial legal aid available for those that qualify.

To me it is still a yes or no question. Do you perceive/discern the speaker's intent differently if you think of them (the speaker) as usually conservative or usually liberal? — David Hubbs

There is a book, The Myth of the Left and the Right, by Hyrum Lewis, that claim those opposing ideologies are really tribal loyalties, and that really, there is no identifiable thinking that defines what they are. Part of the case made deals with studies that have shown people's agreement or disagreement with ideas politically active depend on who said it, one of their own, or the opposition. I thought the argument specious: True for some, but among liberals, not as many, because liberals are more analytic, and their affiliation with a party sustains even in disagreement because of, not tribal devotion, but basic principles. It is the conservatives, you know, the Christians with bible in hand and flags as big as houses, who believe aimlessly, thoughtlessly, and love their kings.

So instead of waiting for the long haul what you call "the organic way," deliberate steps are taken in school curricula, in the racial inclusiveness and gender alternatives in mass media, and so on. I see this as simply an inevitable part of a society's self conscious evolution: the more reflective we become, the more we see need for change, and in politics especially, this is all about language. — Astrophel

The distinction is between discriptive language and prescriptive, where we consider it pedantic to require, for example, that no sentence end in a preposition. We also consider it inappropriate to condemn forms of speech that don't comport to standardizations, as in holding African American or Appalachian American dialects in lower regard because of their variations. The liberal tradition applied in those situations demands descriptive language methods for language evolution.

But then you want to suggest that prescriptive language rules apply for ethical and sociological purposes when it comes to the application of ethical propositions you agree with. That is, to demand Victorian era preposition rules isn't worth maintaining because it no longer meets any sociological goal, but to demand pronoun use meet certain sociological criteria is perfectly acceptable because it does meet sociological goals.

This is to say we either admit that prescriptive linguistics is proper and we stop condemning it as a practice wholesale, or we just say the purpose of language is political and proper speak should be the goal of those who can bring about such change. If that is the position you take, then you can't complain when the left or the right attempts to use schools and media to engage in culture wars, or even to condemn certain forms of speech not mainstream, but you just accept that as the proper course of events. That is, you position would be that language ought be designated by decree and not by use as long as that decree advances whatever the writer of the decree desires.

Had this kind of patience prevailed in the sixties, the civil rights movement would never have happened. — Astrophel

We're talking about linguistics, not about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was obviously much needed change. That I balk at a particular language use theory your advancing doesn't suggest I think the end of discrimination was not warranted. I'd also say that the law changed as the result of social evolution, not through some sudden decree, and it did require great patience. That law was passed 100 years after the Civil War.

"Impose ontological change that does not comport"...you sound like Heidegger, putting the "correspondence theories of truth" aside. True, Heidegger had a historical view of the self and one's culture and language, and this view suggests nationalistic pride and a fear of cultural debasement. — Astrophel

No, the reference was specific to Davidson, requiring truth as an anchor to meaning in language, as opposed to Wittgenstein.

Anyway, I think you are siding here with Heidegger, and Jordan Peterson (who read Heidegger), and others who fear change. — Astrophel

That's not at all what I'm getting at. It has nothing to do with fear of change. It has to do with how we use language. You're using it here as a tool for social change, which could I suppose be the language game you're wanting to play, but it's not one I'd subscribe to. But on the other account, I take the approach that meaning has to be tied to some degree to reality, which isn't a particularly conservative or liberal view and it's one I'm attributing to Davidson. It's just a view taken to make sense out of how we speak.

I don't think anyone is explicitly policing language, but implicitly, yes. We all are policing ourselves. Are we not already policed by language? Prior to the neologism "policial correctness," was their not an established body of rules, subtle and connotative, social mores, etc., that came down hard upon you if you stepped out of line? Never referred to this as being "policed" then; indeed, "language police" is itself a neologism conceived by the right in an attempt to, as you say, "demand compliance among the unwilling." There is something to be annoyed with. — Astrophel

As I've noted above, the policing of language from a pedantic point of view has existed for a long time, but certainly not from the beginnings of language. If you're blurring the distinction between the policing of prepositions at the end of sentences and policing for social change, then you're buying into my objection above, which is that we can't priortize a descriptive linguistic theory over prescriptive ones just when it suit our purposes. This is the controversial part of my post by the way, not the other stuff.

That about cats and dogs: I think you are talking about something like, say, the calling of firemen, fire fighters, because we want to be inclusive of women in the profession. And then, sending dainty women out to actually fight fires, and is absurd. Hmmm. Not so dainty, the ones wanting to do this. — Astrophel

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you call a cat a dog it doesn't undergo ontological change. It just changes the name. For that reason, you don't start treating the cat like a dog just because it has now assumed that name.

This is rather the attempt on the right to pretend these are major issues, so they can talk about them for hours in derogatory ways on talks shows. — Astrophel

This comment is an aside, trying to turn this conversation into what you think are bad faith dealings on the right. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

But I thought you said it wasn't about money: — Harry Hindu

Are you not able to explore an issue without judging it? An disenfranchised person could be white if they live in Kentucky and their community has been decimated by drug abuse. Just think about the generic struggling person. The issue is: which does more to help:

1. Alter their environment so that they are receiving positive recognition.
2. Alter their environment so they can get their share of the economic pie.

An advocate of identity politics would say that focusing entirely on economic realities fails to account for the fact that some people won't take advantage of the opportunities they have if they have a negative sense of identity. They won't excel in school, they won't go to college, they won't start small businesses.

My personal opinion, based on things I've seen, is that a capitalist society bestows recognition on anyone who has money. Make the money available, and they'll get recognition.

We already live in a country with laws against discrimination. If you feel you were discriminated against, then you have paths you can take - there is even financial legal aid available for those that qualify. — Harry Hindu

That doesn’t seem to be enough for ceo’s of many corporations. Even while Trump is actively dismantling dei , many ceo’s are maintaining or even strengthening their DEI commitments. Let’s see what their reasons may be.

While the United States has comprehensive anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these legal frameworks have significant limitations that make them inadequate for creating truly inclusive workplaces:

Anti-discrimination laws primarily address overt discrimination after it occurs, rather than preventing systemic biases or creating equitable systems . The current enforcement system places the primary responsibility for enforcing anti-discrimination laws on individual workers, who must file complaints with their employer or a government agency. The complaint-driven system creates insurmountable hurdles for workers due to vast information and resource asymmetries between employers and employees .

Workers often fear retaliation or lack the resources to pursue legal action. Anti-discrimination laws also struggle to address subtle, often unintentional discriminatory behaviors that create hostile work environments but may not meet the legal threshold for discrimination. Many vulnerable workers are excluded from protections due to employer size exemptions in anti-discrimination laws . And the law focuses on proving discrete acts of discrimination rather than addressing systemic inequities in hiring, promotion, and compensation practices.

Many studies and corporate leaders cite DEI as a driver of business success. Companies in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean .Costco's board emphasized that their DEI efforts "enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed" . Delta Air Lines maintains that DEI "is about talent, and that's been our focus... critical to our business" . Microsoft's chief diversity officer highlighted that "a workforce strengthened by many perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds is critical to our innovation" .

Gen Z workers prioritize DEI - with one in two refusing to work at companies without diverse leadership - so maintaining these programs is crucial for talent pipelines. Ben & Jerry's warned that companies bowing to political pressure "will become increasingly uncompetitive in the marketplace and will ultimately be judged as having been on the wrong side of history" .

Apple's board argued that abolishing DEI would "restrict Apple's ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies". Corporate Knights notes that "DEI isn't about optics - it's about survival," with resilient companies embedding inclusion deeply into their cultures.
.

Are you not able to explore an issue without judging it? — frank

Of course. I was trying to explore your apparent contradiction.

Are you not able to explore an issue without judging it? An disenfranchised person could be white if they live in Kentucky and their community has been decimated by drug abuse. Just think about the generic struggling person. The issue is: which does more to help:

1. Alter their environment so that they are receiving positive recognition.
2. Alter their environment so they can get their share of the economic pie. — frank

Neither. It would seem to me that a person dealing with drug abuse is dealing with other issues - neither of which is recognition (most drug addicts won't admit they have a problem when others offer help), or economics (they can afford the their habit, it's just they have different priorities on what they spend their money on, including the case of minorities buying celebrity merchandise). There is already access to free rehabilitation and assistance for drug addicts. They just have to want to recover. It can be very difficult to do so, which is why I see it more as a mental disorder than a criminal act.

An advocate of identity politics would say that focusing entirely on economic realities fails to account for the fact that some people won't take advantage of the opportunities they have if they have a negative sense of identity. They won't excel in school, they won't go to college, they won't start small businesses. — frank

It seems to me that if you are offered an opportunity - that is a type of recognition. It is up to you whether you take advantage of it or keep blaming others for not giving you an opportunity.

My personal opinion, based on things I've seen, is that a capitalist society bestows recognition on anyone who has money. Make the money available, and they'll get recognition. — frank

Sure, especially those that came from a lower income upbringing to invent something awesome for the rest of society to use. We don't typically recognize lottery winners.

As I've noted above, the policing of language from a pedantic point of view has existed for a long time, but certainly not from the beginnings of language. If you're blurring the distinction between the policing of prepositions at the end of sentences and policing for social change, then you're buying into my objection above, which is that we can't priortize a descriptive linguistic theory over prescriptive ones just when it suit our purposes. This is the controversial part of my post by the way, not the other stuff. — Hanover

Prioritizing a descriptive linguistic theory OVER prescriptive ones? But I can't imagine anything I said that could be remotely associated with this.