[lolinder]

The convoluted framings come from people who want to actually persuade those who don't already agree with them. If you want someone to listen to you you have to first meet them where they are, not because you're worried about offense but because you want them to change their mind more than you want to state "bare, basic truth".

The people behind Gemini's "diversity" sincerely believe they're doing the right thing. Calling them racist doesn't help change their mind, it just gets you filed under "reactionary" and ignored. This piece takes a more effective approach by saying "I'm with you, I think you want to do the right thing, but here's why what you're doing is actually counterproductive".

It's an effective rhetorical strategy for the target audience, you're just not that audience because you already see the problem.

[xepriot]

This is certainly charitable to Noah Smith, but I think it's more likely he earnestly has the overcomplicated understanding of racism he appears to demonstrate in his article. And it does have the same effect as if he did: he advances the confused understanding of racism as something that only happens to non-whites.

Of course everyone has good intentions and likes to be flattered. It's possible to flatter with tone, and without dissembling.

[lolinder]

Yes, in order to convincingly say "I'm with you, I think you want to do the right thing" you do have to actually believe that America has a race problem that needs to be addressed and you have to believe that the people taking shortcuts sincerely believe they're doing the right thing. So yeah, Noah Smith does presumably hold that understanding of racism.

I wasn't trying to say that he was lying for the sake of the article, I was trying to say that he's framing it in a way that is intended to be persuasive to a particular group of people that you're not a part of. If you pressed him on it in a private conversation I wouldn't be surprised if he acknowledged that the behaviors involved here are racist (by some definition) even though the people are trying to be the opposite. But he knows better than to level that word at his audience.

[xepriot]

I disagree. You just have to be committed to doing the right thing. If some ideological complex or other is opposed to this, you can compassionately tell people the truth, writing under the assumption - which you may emphasise as much as you like - that they are Good People who also want to do the right thing.

I would tell him that however he justifies concealing or dressing up his beliefs, such dissembling really does have the effect of increasing confusion and rancor - he is, of course, also a Good Person, but this is not a good tactic.

[raxxorraxor]

His problem isn't that he overcomplicated a theory, his problem is personal and he expresses it with racism.

> diverse [...] which the AI interpreted as meaning “nonwhite”

While an AI isn't objective in any way, it is the result of the dataset. This is also an accusation against the DEI groups that grant themselves the title of being less biased or just self-reflective enough. Problem is that they simply are not, on the contrary.