[ajkjk]

A responder to this wrote "Sometimes fairness requires stepping in and lending a helping hand to right an imbalance.", which is definitely the answer that lots of people would give. Obviously this is an ideological stance, and it sounds like you probably disagree with it. But I think it's also pretty obvious, even before asking, that the only answer is going to be an ideological stance. It's one person or group's perspective of what is decent and right to do, and it happens not to be yours. So the answer to why they included that part is, of course, "because they wanted to".

My point is: on the one hand, if you disagree with the ideology, then... that's just that. You disagree about what is most decent to do. But I don't believe that you are confused about what other people's ideologies are -- you know perfectly well why they are doing the things they do, what value system informs their actions. So what's the point of protesting it here like you're bewildered about it? The only result is people shouting their stances at each other -- not a debate, or even an argument, at all.

I mention this, and risk making things worse, because I think it is important to recognize this thread as one of those pointlessly destructive ones, which changes nothing except to make people more annoyed at each other. It just amounts to people saying what they think and trying to make it sound abundantly reasonable so the other side sounds wrong. It's a fake argument; what's the point of starting it?

[Mirioron]

I guess the reason I initially made the post was to challenge the ideology. It feels unfair, but I realized only a few minutes later that the discussion wasn't going to be useful. By that time I couldn't delete the post anymore though.

[bovermyer]

Regardless of whether you agree with the author's position on diversity, perhaps it would be better to focus on the crimes being committed against the author (the point of the article) instead?

I mean, I could write a comment critiquing the grammar of the article, but that's decidedly asocial behavior, and unhelpful besides.

[Mirioron]

I meant to do that, but then a significant chunk of the article was dedicated to exactly the topic I commented on. I completely agree that what was done against the author was terrible.

[weberc2]

> you know perfectly well why they are doing the things they do, what value system informs their actions. So what's the point of protesting it here like you're bewildered about it?

For me, it's fascinating how people can adhere to an ideology that is so overtly inconsistent. I like to hear the ways people try to reconcile such obvious inconsistencies. And one person's "bewilderment" is another person's "giving the benefit of the doubt that the ideologue is not so stupid as to espouse obviously self-defeating beliefs" which is necessary if the conversation is to have any hope of being productive.

[leereeves]

The author's ideology perplexes me.

He focuses a lot on the allegation that the disinvitee makes women (specifically) feel unsafe, but it's clear from his story that the alleged behavior isn't gender specific.

Is what they allegedly did to him more acceptable because he's a man? Should future organizers ignore his story, even if conclusively proven true, because it's not about a woman feeling unsafe?

[ajkjk]

But you're doing it too! You're trying to make it sound abundantly reasonable that the OP's ideology is inconsistent, when lots of people would completely disagree with that, and then you're pretending like it's obvious and not up for debate. More fanning the flames. Why?

[weberc2]

> You're trying to make it sound abundantly reasonable that the OP's ideology is inconsistent

No, I'm asserting that it's inconsistent (based on studying these sorts of purportedly "egalitarian" racial/gender ideologies). Anyone is welcome to make a counterargument.

> lots of people would completely disagree with that

I know. And I find their justifications fascinating, as previously mentioned.

> then you're pretending like it's obvious and not up for debate.

In many ways it is obvious. "Racism isn't racism if it targets $RACE people" is one variation of a popular slogan. In any case, as mentioned several times now, my position is "yes, more debate", yours is "debate is pointless".

> More fanning the flames. Why?

I'm not "fanning flames", I'm inviting debate. And as previously mentioned, I find the debate interesting. Incidentally it also tends to publicize the inconsistencies in the ideology, which is a nice side effect.