DEI, Critical Race Theory language in sci-pubs increases by 4,200% between 2010 and 2021: study

originally posted by: Flatcoat
The most toxic, racist ideology on the planet. A normal person walks into a room and sees ten people. A "progressive" walks in and sees three black people, and seven white people....and then complains about it...

A "conservative" walks into a room where uninhibited yet polite dialogue is happening around a controversial topic... there's a punchline here, but I won't spoil it.

originally posted by: NormalGuyCrazyWorld

I don't deny that these principles have merit.

I love how you saved this insane sentence for last. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

DIE or CRT... whatever it's called now, is nothing more than a way to demonize and slander one breed of humans. It is, and I hate using this word, simply: 'racist'.

Have you been demonized and slandered for 40 years? CRT was introduced 40 years ago. DEI and conversations about equality in the workplace and schools has been around just as long.

What has significantly changed in the last couple of years is the fear mongering around these topics. In 2020 CRT was discussed on Fox news 132 for the entire year. In 2021 it was mentioned almost 2000 times in 6 months. In the first 24 days of June it was mentioned 737 times, with 48 of those in one single day. Throw in Tucker and his replacement theory, and telling the audience they are being "demonized" and "replaced" and children are being "indoctrinated" and you can plainly see that the outrage is manufactured to rile up those that watch,to then post, talk about, tweet and fear.

WP Gift article I included a gift link as I didn't make up the numbers.

a reply to: frogs453

Telling people "this subject of dialogue is restricted because my self esteem is fragile" is part of the hostility toward radical progressive culture who can't tolerate questions and dissection of LGBT ideology. There's a whole tiktok channel dedicated to it. Then they turn around and say critical race theory or gender conversion theory shouldn't be explored because it's offensive which is the same shoe on the other foot. Basically anyone who doesn't think like you do, shouldn't share their ideas in public, and certainly shouldn't assemble in large numbers to compare notes on ideas that make you insecure because that's how community is born and democracy is set in motion.

There's your punchline.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

Ughhh
Umm NO
Just because something doesn't jive with you doesn't discredit in any way the scientific nature.
You don't have to agree or like things. But you can't just go around and discredit things you don't like.
I don't like the studies that prove that combustion engines polluted and continue to this day.
But I don't discredit the researchers.
I know that example is apple to oranges but I made my point.

It's not because it "does not jive with me"

It's because it's not SCIENCE, e.g. reality, reproducible, fact-based

The founding principle of CRT, so called "white privilege" was created by Peggy McIntosh in 1987, NOT via economic study, social study, population study OR ANY STUDY AT ALL

McInstoh ONLY HAS AN ENGLISH DEGREE

I.E. She pulled "white privilege" out of her ass, NOT based on anything, as real as "Santa Claus" or "the Force" or any other device in FICTION



Grow up !!!

I am really glad that those with the mindset of CRT being white privilege do not teach.
You sound like Tucker Carlson who ranted for weeks about it being solely about "white privilege" then to on live TV admit he doesn't know what CRT is.
So....
Grow up

The gullible ignorant is you, sport.

You OWN your failures, you DON'T get to blame white people or anyone else.


Again, grow up

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Maxmars

I think your being a little paranoid.

Who told you to say that?

... Demographics are destiny and the future of the US isn't white.

Demographics are representations of current reality. Everything else is supposition. I was kind of hoping the future of the U.S. had little to do with the political ploy of segmentation driven by exploited data sets.

In fact, unless and until the Chicoms figure it out, the US will be a majority minority country with no single ethnic group in the majority.

I would like to understand the math behind that. And until sovereignty is utterly destroyed, people won't accept that the Chicoms, the Capitalists, the Socialists, and all the other flavors of ideologies are being used to disguise a cabal of entities that have nothing to do with social theories and ideological fads.

DEI language makes perfect sense in that if there is to be a US future in STEM, they must attract as many people as possible from all ethnic groups

Why the limitation, ... why the racism?

Isn't this approach as illogical as them being all of one race? Why can't there being more of one color, gender, ethnicity, age, etc. simply be because that's how the individuals measured aggregated naturally - based upon their personal choices, their personal abilities, their personal gifts, and ultimately what they personally achieve?

The most likely result of this 'homogenized' equity approach will be that there will be valuable contribution lost to "optical metrics." As if the human condition was supposed to be subject to 'marketing.' Someone capable and willing will be rejected because there are too many in one of the 'categories' du jour? Or even worse, someone will be literally 'driven' (practically forced) to be in a position they never really wanted to be in.

But this is all beside the point. The human condition is not homogeneously distributed for good reason; we are not machines.

.......and fast as due to low birthrate and emigration, (leaving the US), the white population is dwindling very quickly.

Did you really just propose that low birth rates and emigration are the causes of "white" population decline? Perhaps you were being ironic, and I'm just too dense to get it.

I have to ask, do you believe that populations should be measured by color? How about by left-handedness, or shoe size... maybe IQ? Favorite color... that's good too, right?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Maxmars

How long have you been around? I recall in the '80s and '90s when, even in Safety meetings, every sentence had to end in the terms, multiculturalism and diversity. They are called "buzz words" used to polish the speakers PC credentials. No one pays any attention to the use of PC buzz words, especially those who are not multicultural or diverse.

I disagree with you here, "political correctness" was the camels' nose, "IDE/CRT" is the rest of the camel.

You might want to rethink the assertion "especially those who are not multicultural or diverse." Exactly how can a person be 'multicultural' or 'diverse?' It appears you think that "groups" are the "fine print" of reality. That the social order is about the way it spreads out in a tabulation of 'virtue' metrics. I will respect that you think it should, but that doesn't extend to surrendering to the concept as sound.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, but this exchange is teaching me a lot. Truly, many thanks.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars

I've read that because of the COVID lockdown what started festering on social media was anti-mandate, anti-gov't and the rise of radicalism and hate speech. Is this not true? Is it any wonder people opposed to - at the very least - radicalism and hate speech are rising up to protest it?
You know at every anti-whatever protesters there will be the pro-whatever protesters there too.
...
There certainly is no lack of proof that people on online social media platforms will stand up for what they believe in - either way.

I hope to avoid appearing flippant with you. Since we have exchanged comments before, I think you'll know that I am not trying to be mean or irritating.

I hesitate to accept that anything bad that exists today, can be reduced to: COVID.

I understand the fixation on it, it has been reinforced with social engineering conditioning we have all witnessed first-hand. I think we will find that all those things you cite ("rise" of radicalism, hate speech, anti-gov't) weren't newly risen, they were newly reported. It is how public opinion is managed.

Is it that more people are racist? Or that they are reporting more on racist people? Hard to really say, since they manage the reports opaquely when a decision is made on the framework of the presented information. Examples abound of how that has happened over and over, yesterday and today... and as long as it continues unabated "new" numbers will always be rendered into a 'currency' to draw your attention.

What people do, is nearly always colored by what they feel. "Standing up" is a reflection of moral courage. I wish everyone could do it. Some do, some won't, others can't. Sides don't matter. Only the discussion has value, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Do you imagine a society without gender inclusion in education, hiring practices and services as being more forward than one that doesn't?

DEI sounds good until you realize it's repackaged racism. And as you eluded to, it has no place in a scientific setting.

So diversity, equity and inclusion are equal to racism now too? Do you imagine a society that segregates students, employees and services based on their race as being more forward as a society than on that doesn't?

I don't get you guys, at all!

I fully understand you don't get "us". We are the old guard who thinks normal is more than just a setting on the dryer. Normal is what society accepts. Now the current push is to normalize the abnormal. If you noticed, for years and years, everyone got along ok. Gay people were happy being gay, and straight folks the same. Now everyone needs to celebrate gay, bisexual, trans folk. I'm not seeing rednecks parading around gay neighborhoods forcing all the poofters to embrace the rebel flag and Pledge allegiance to the Hag. We keep to ourselves, and would prefer everyone do the same.

But even the slow kids can look at DEI and see it as blatant racism. The message is 180 degrees from Dr. King's message. One that I firmly believe in. We are all the same, some have more melanin than others. Some trace their heritage to different parts of the world. But your skin color doesn't have anything to do with your intelligence. We have put in place so many opportunities for minorities to get more help than non minorities, which were all meant to be hand up's and not hand out's. So if you wish for me to change my thinking and now believe that because a person is born black, they are less intelligent, less able, less motivated to become anything they want, I'll not only refuse the idea, I'll vehemently tell you so.

This entire movement is rooted in the destruction of our nation, division of the people, and the removal of future generations. It's not organic or localized in design. It IS effective as long as a base of Americans proliferate the lies and stupidity that surrounds it.

I don't care what makes you happy, if it does, do it. Just don't force me to like it, I'm doing what makes me happy.

a reply to: network dude

Oh! I get that you're scared that your CIS White Male Privilege might not carry you through. I know that you're furious that women couldn't even get the ERA ratified, but they're sneaking in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion agendas into private and public sectors without your approval. How dare they!?

I get that you're a snowflake disguising your vulnerability of melting down with a veneer of blame and self-righteousness. I just don't get how you think your position is sustainable, in this day and age.

In science, sometimes things that are producing detectable phenomena are not visible directly, but they can cast a "shadow" of sorts that allows you to work a hypothesis on what you are dealing with. This world situation we are seeing is no different. By asking a couple questions you can infer the source of what is happening. The two major situations we are seeing in the west right now are a social revolution of sorts, or rapid social change if you like, and secondly, we are in a dangerous situation with the semi standoff between Russia and NATO over Ukraine. In short if you want to know the entity that might be behind what we are seeing, ask yourself the following question: who benefits from a state of social chaos in the west, and a potential war between NATO and Russia. One possible answer: China (the CCP, not the Chinese people who are victims of the CCP). Having the west in a state of chaos socially accomplishes two things for the Chinese; one, it allows the Chinese regime to cast a negative light on the western democracies as decadent and in a state of decline to deter its people from seeking the west as a model. Second, it allows China to focus on catching up technologically and academically with the west bogged down with the issues pointed out. With respect to the situation with Russia and NATO, it facilitates China's two biggest adversaries the potential for a devastating war which would severely damage if not outright destroy both Russia and NATO members, and in any such Conflict, China could possibly remain intact enough to be the "winner" in such a war. The social ideological events transpiring mesh well with Maoist strategy, create a victim class, make those in power the enemy for a new regime to sweep in and rescue the "victims". Again, a war fought between NATO and Russia will be nothing but good for the CCP if enough of the world manages to survive for them to dominate what's intact.

This is a scene from the movie "The sum of all fears" Substitute China for right wing fascists in this scenario and this is exactly the premise for what may be going on.

a reply to: Maxmars

Maybe it's just coincidence, But the old adage "who benefits" still applies.

a reply to: Maxmars

With social media/forums people of like-minded ideologies are finding each other more and more and therefore, IMO, the numbers are indeed rising. With any significant risings comes more attention with more attention comes more reporting. With the COVID lockdowns and it's subsequent social negative impacts - this IMO is where the dam breaks; division.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Maxmars

With social media/forums people of like-minded ideologies are finding each other more and more and therefore, IMO, the numbers are indeed rising. With any significant risings comes more attention with more attention comes more reporting. With the COVID lockdowns and it's subsequent social negative impacts - this IMO is where the dam breaks; division.

I apologize for not responding sooner. I missed this one somehow... blame it on my being 'old.'

Your reasoning is sound, I think. Clearly the amplification value of social media works both to the benefit of those with an agenda, as well as those who resist agendas being imposed upon them. However, I am a bit resistant to accepting that what we see "reported" in the media is not actually "produced" by editorial control and decision. Nevertheless, you have a valid point and it got me thinking...

The global viral emergency project which decimated the global economy, not a least part of it was ours, did rely on the power of the press and social media to "amplify" its effects. That being the case, as the tale unravels, the 'breaking point,' to paraphrase you, could be attributed to the project itself. Might they not have 'expected' such a break? If not, they are stupider still than I gave them credit for, if they did, ... shouldn't we worry about what's the next step in the project? Just a thought...

a reply to: Maxmars

A dangerous trend. If it carries on our science will be the worse for it, just like Soviet science suffered during the reign of Lysenko. But it seems to be unstoppable, driven by a popular movement. How popular it really is could be debated, but I doubt that Puritans were in the majority in England either, in their time; for all that, they managed to impose their strict police-state morality on all England for quite a while. They, too, did a lot of damage in their time. Successful fundamentalist movements generally do.

a reply to: Astyanax

There are two factors that come into my mind.

One, that this trend has been progressing ever since higher academia began to "proselytize" their ideology to the corporate (and thus governmental) cabals that began to give weight and focus on "public optics" in earnest. Think-tanks became engaged to map out 'ways forward' to create perceptions of "new" sensitivities that until that point had never been "important" to mass communications.

Two, like any religion, suppressing it only deepens the grip it has on its' proponents. It is almost as if they are pushing the limits of tolerance for the express purpose of hardening their zeal and creating a 'struggle' environment where they virtue is all theirs by virtue of their 'victimhood.'

"Give them all the rope they need with which to strangle themselves" I had heard postulated; but the damage they are doing to young science enthusiasts is almost evil. Sadly, there is no attempt in academia to foster a questioning approach to their bias... further proof that balance and learning is not on their agenda, only proselytizing bias.

a reply to: Maxmars

Your two points seem to contradict each other. The first suggests that the trend we are speaking of was created in an elite conspiracy and is being imposed on the public from above; the second, that it is the outcome of a popular movement or grassroots tendency. But it has to be one or the other, don't you see, because the two premises are mutually redundant -- unless, of course, the elite and the people are on the same side and you are really the one out of step, the unhappy camper, the odd man out.

To me, the new Puritanism looks like one -- of the many -- effects of a large, naturally occurring social and political process. If that is true, then there's no point fighting it. The fever will cause all kinds of damage while it lasts, but eventually it will run its course and vanish, leaving the world, perhaps, a little wiser.

Sadly, there is no attempt in academia to foster a questioning approach to their bias.

On the contrary, the New Puritans are encountering plenty of resistance to their campaign from the scientific establishment. You posted a typical rebuttal yourself in anothrr recent thread. Far more potent than the media crossfire, though, is the power of the scientific establishment to repel such threats to itself.

It is in the so-called liberal arts and soft social sciences that the New Puritans are dominant. Thatt is, after all, where the whole thing began, in literary criticism of all places. But in these nonscientific disciplines, where there are no final conclusions to be gained but only a constant turnover of competing 'theories' supported mainly by arguments (a bit like ATS) such upheavals do little harm and may even end up doing some good.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Maxmars

Your two points seem to contradict each other. The first suggests that the trend we are speaking of was created in an elite conspiracy and is being imposed on the public from above; the second, that it is the outcome of a popular movement or grassroots tendency. But it has to be one or the other, don't you see, because the two premises are mutually redundant -- unless, of course, the elite and the people are on the same side and you are really the one out of step, the unhappy camper, the odd man out.

Truly, I am no stranger to considering the likelihood that it is I who am 'out of synch.'

The 'agenda' I appeared to have implied is not one from above at all. But the above echelon is willing to embrace its' utility towards maintaining heightened social conflicts which are removed from their own activities. Woke-ism is not grass-roots by any means - it appears to have roots in neo Marxism and deserves scrutiny as a 'trend' within higher academia. If I muddled that in the telling it was unintentional.

To me, the new Puritanism looks like one -- of the many -- effects of a large, naturally occurring social and political process. If that is true, then there's no point fighting it. The fever will cause all kinds of damage while it lasts, but eventually it will run its course and vanish, leaving the world, perhaps, a little wiser.

On the contrary, the New Puritans are encountering plenty of resistance to their campaign from the scientific establishment. You posted a typical rebuttal yourself in anothrr recent thread. Far more potent than the media crossfire, though, is the power of the scientific establishment to repel such threats to itself.

I find "new Puritanism" to be a telling turn of phrase. While I try to maintain a 'closer to center' style of analysis, I don't see the moniker being especially meaningful unless I accept a strictly conservative label.

It is in the so-called liberal arts and soft social sciences that the New Puritans are dominant. Thatt is, after all, where the whole thing began, in literary criticism of all places. But in these nonscientific disciplines, where there are no final conclusions to be gained but only a constant turnover of competing 'theories' supported mainly by arguments (a bit like ATS) such upheavals do little harm and may even end up doing some good.

That's a hopeful idea I am willing to work with. However, the scientific community is sporting 'a new attitude' ... as we can see plainly from the sudden massive surge in these concepts embedded within scientific literature, despite the discipline or subject.

Had science maintained even a small level of the processes we grew accustomed to relying on, the push back would have been immediate and plainly self-evident... I suspect that this dilution of effort is engendered from the apparatus of academia, and all those sectors which simply 'follow suit' so as not to hamper their funding or the continuation of their own work.

But I recognize that this is a discussion that operates mostly on the presumption of like definitions, and clarifications will be the norm... my language skill not being all that I wish it were.

Thanks for the post!

a reply to: Maxmars

Truly, I am no stranger to considering the likelihood that it is I who am 'out of synch.'

That was not a personal imputation, just the hypothetical result of a hypothetical -- and unlikely -- harmony of interest between the elite and the masses. Think nothing of it.

The 'agenda' I appeared to have implied...

I would have been disappointed if you didn't have a conspiracy-related angle to present. But if, as you say, what you call Wokeism isn't really coming either from the apex or the base of society but from a third place altogether, where exactly is that source? It must be very powerful to take on those two.

You mention neo-Marxism. I don't think I've ever heard the term before. What you call Wokeism is certainly associated with the Left and so with Marxism, but are you referring to some other, hidden political force? I don't think there's anything on that scale in the USA. If there was, that really would be a mass movement!

I find "new Puritanism" to be a telling turn of phrase... I don't see the moniker being especially meaningful unless I accept a strictly conservative label

I accept responsibility for the usage -- and I am certainly no conservative. I read history; it doesn't repeat itself but, as they say, it rhymes. Down the ages there have been episodes whose events seem to run in parallel. To explain more carefully would be to ramble but, put simply, I see the Puritans and your Wokeists as playing out a common historical psychodrama, though with the characters, the circumstances and some plot elements differing in accord with the times. It makes no difference that the characters who earlier were on the political right are now on the left and vice versa; that's just an accident of circumstances. The real engines powering this drama are human inner drives, individual as well as collective.

the scientific community is sporting 'a new attitude'

Well, yes and no. The 'scientific community' is not the same as it used to be. For one thing, it's a lot bigger -- there's an ongoing boom in tertiary education, as you must have noticed, and all those grad students have to research something for their M.Sc's and Ph.D's. Big business, too, is still throwing bags of gold at scientific research, hoping for the next big bankable breakthrough (and then the next, and then the next...).

All these new fields opening up, too. Some, like the traditional hard scienes and research-based biology, are pretty well policed for empirical soundness,. But there are all these much dodgier new areas within linguistics, psychology, sociology and the other social sciences. A good rule of thumb is to suspect any field whose name includes the word 'studies' in it of being more political than empirical in its objectives.

However, the core scientific establishment is still pretty solid, I think. Maybe it won't always be.

Sorry about all the nine-dollar words. These ideas come with a lot of baggage, and when transferring it one has to tag it all correctly. Otherwise a few parcels tend to go astray. The words help corral them.

Thanks for the post!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Maxmars

The 'agenda' I appeared to have implied...

I would have been disappointed if you didn't have a conspiracy-related angle to present. But if, as you say, what you call Wokeism isn't really coming either from the apex or the base of society but from a third place altogether, where exactly is that source? It must be very powerful.

You mention neo-Marxism. I don't think I've ever heard the term before. What you call Wokeism is certainly associated with the Left and so with Marxism, but are you referring to some other, hidden political force? I don't think there's anything on that scale in the USA. If there was, that really would be a mass movement!

[below find unqualified thoughts and perceptions mixed together; I am not making what any could call authoritative projections or statements of academic certainty... which is to say I am open to as much dialogue as anyone could muster on the topic - and I especially emphasize I may be wrong (hopefully you can accept that any error is innocent and not trying to convince or sell any ideas here)]

Perhaps the source which eludes identification is more of an 'incidentally harmonious reaction' to resistance. The introduction of Marxism as an ideology to the US was not natural, in my opinion. It was deliberately inflamed by an overall anti-communist social engineering effort - and that kind of reinforced public relations phenomenon engenders natural push-back by people the many who firmly believe that no one other than themselves can make the final judgement on knowledge or thought - authority be damned. With the proper external motivations that kind of reaction can be elevated to the level of passionate obsession.

I think neo Marxism bears study; but it is admittedly a reengineered delivery mechanism for modelling social utopia objectives common in collectivism. Like Marxism it is about the body of citizens, but now reoriented on group identities. Several analyses and speakers are worth considering - I refrain from pointing to it, because many would find any particular choice of to be indicative of bias, and most are biased... so I can't agree with all of them, nor all of what they might say on the topic.

I read history; it doesn't repeat itself but, as they say, it rhymes.

That statement is beautiful.

There definitely is a psychodrama between ideological proponents, and it clearly offers recognizable patterns of engagement... that might make a great thesis. I am a firm believer that we as a community of observers often forget the underpinning of what I call "human baggage" present in our estimations of 'causes.'

I also have to thank you for bringing up something that I may have overlooked in my initial considerations... the aggregate size of the scientific community. It is MUCH larger now. It will be more complex because one, of the increased availability of contributing scientists of increasingly distinct perceptions and two, by the natural tendency to become tribalized within larger groups creating new and often unexpected juxtaposing of previously unconnected schools of thought.

However, the core scientific establishment is still pretty solid, I think. Maybe it won't always be.

I am hesitantly hopeful, but I have seen demoralizing trends which concern me; one being the displacement of hard science by what I feel are non-scientific areas in which to dump research funds, which happen to mostly represent political theater.

Sorry about all the nine-dollar words. These ideas come with a lot of baggage, and when transferring it one has to tag it all correctly. Otherwise a few parcels tend to go astray. The words help corral them.

No apology necessary, you'll find few more verbose than I, and I appreciate efforts to make clear what doesn't easily lend itself to simplicity.

Sigh, what a joy... Sincerely - thank you.

a reply to: Maxmars

Perhaps the source which eludes identification is more of an 'incidentally harmonious reaction' to resistance...

Bingo! But isn’t that very much the same as my 'human inner drives, individual as well as collective'?

Where we differ, probably, is on the relative importance we ascribe to the will of the actors. You, I think, see individual will as a key factor in history. I see it as fairly incidental; individuals are carried along on what Brutus called the 'tide in the affairs of men.' There are very few Caesars, or Brutuses for that matter; and even they are caught up in the tide. 'Man of Destiny' is an ambiguous honour.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Maxmars

... 'Man of Destiny' is an ambiguous honour.

Or perhaps an ambiguous curse.

I admit that I may never be wise enough to fully unravel the intersection (or perhaps harmonic feedback) of effect and cause when it comes to this superimposition of identity-driven ideology over the existing less constrictive institutional model. Having seen the former in application, I choose the latter ... (and the conspiracy theorist in me is enticed to understand how this newer model could ever be considered "an improvement," and by whom.)