| We seem to have an inherent disagreement on how critical social justice (CSJ) activists use the Motte-and-Bailey tactic. I think we need to resolve that first, so that we are standing on solid ground. I'll restate what I believe is your position: The moderate Motte of DEI, let's make sure everyone gets along and are treated equally, is compatible with the equity-based Bailey of the more radical DEI activists. It is just a matter of level of moderation. How do you reconcile the liberal individualistic Motte with the CSJ radical group-based equity-model Bailey? This is the problem I see with your position: My opinion is that the CSJ adherents withdraw to the symmetric enforcement mechanism of a liberal individual Motte to defend the asymmetric radically group equity-based model of the Bailey. Because the asymmetric model is incompatible with the symmetric model this makes it effectively a lie covering up for their true radical position, a lie that provide cover until high resistance has abated. Once the Motte lie has served its purpose to weather the high resistance, the true position of the Bailey is used to affect change. --- examples in context -- Here are this claim put into context, annotated with the enforcement mechanism. DEI: - (group asymmetric enforcement) Radical Bailey of DEI is to seek Diversity (hiring activists of all identities - a black conservative is not diverse), inclusion (censorship of people resisting CSJ DEI initiatives), and Equity (redistribution of outcomes based upon identities and adherence to CSJ). - (individual symmetric enforcement) The Motte lie is to claim it is just trying to "make sure everyone gets along and are treated equally". Whistleblower claim: - (group asymmetric enforcement) radical Bailey of whistleblower censoring "hate speech" not compliant with CSJ using a ministry of truth - (individual symmetric enforcement) Motte lie is to claim it is just trying to "make sure we all get along and behave well" . |