Texas-based writer and hol.ogra.ph co-admin

Feel free to follow me at @gil@hol.ogra.ph

(he/they)

  • 28 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle








  • Liberals, including some POC, white allies, and white “allies,” are quite keen on representation as diversity. At the end of the day, representation can be superficial and only partially satisfies the goals of social justice. Yes, we — ‘we’ being people of color, women, queer people, and other marginalized people — should receive the same opportunities as our privileged counterparts. That’s representation.

    But putting us at the helm of oppressive systems doesn’t end those systems. The point isn’t to have a Black police chief, or a woman CEO, or a queer head of state, etc… I liken this to putting a Pride flag on a nuclear warhead. It’s a symbolic action which, alone, isn’t entirely subversive of the system’s destructive nature. Such representation allows oppressive systems to flourish. We can’t obtain freedom by becoming oppressors ourselves. Justice shouldn’t be the cession of oppressive power to marginalized hands, but the cessation of such power.

    When people see such simple representation as the means to an end, they show their reverence for oppressive power, that:

    • they still have some measure of respect for it and its legitimacy,
    • dismantling power isn’t that important of a mission for them, and
    • they’re fine living with an oppressive system as long as they can go on living their life, have their sensibilities appeased, and still benefit from it

    I’ve gotten a lot of guidance from this quote by Audre Lorde:

    “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.”

    — Audre Lorde

    These are just my personal feelings, so others may have conflicting thoughts or may want to provide their own insights. I’m not an authority on this or anything, but the main point for me is that I’m against how DEI as a framework is being appropriated to, as Angela Davis said, “guarantee a more efficient operation of oppressive systems.” I see this happening in academia as well as in Hollywood, US politics, and so on, where DEI is being deployed as a smokescreen to give new life to oppression and make it look less harmful.





  • Gil (he/they)@beehaw.orgtoChat@beehaw.orghow's your week going, Beehaw
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    i give my week a 4/5, been busy the past few days trying to set up a Firefish instance with my partner which has been just awesome and i’m super excited to open it up and get people on it! rly inspired by beehaw’s community-building style.

    in less awesome news i’m moving back home at the end of the week and i’m not looking forward to it. moving is so stressful and i don’t want to be back home with my dad either lol.







  • This is pretty much the position we took when clearing that comment thread — I didn’t scrutinize between ideologies, I removed a variety of comments just for not being nice or for being potentially inciting/inflammatory. I had to remove several comments in that thread by liberals as well for being unproductive or even toxic.

    Only nit I have about your comment is that “sanitized space” is a term we came up with for the mod philosophy. We explicitly meant it in the context of removing “not nice” comments. It expresses the fact that we can’t perfectly clear the space of anything which an individual user might find offensive or harmful. The standards for gauging safety/harm in a space vary from user to user; our moderation has to consider our users collectively rather than just one of them. This is part of why Beehaw is not a sanitized space and aims, rather, to be what one might describe as a safe space, a brave space, an accountable space, or other similar term.

    Really just putting this out there for the benefit of others, as it seems some are mistaken about the word “sanitized” and what we really meant by it.



  • Not to mention that thread about Affirmative Action, in which the comments seemed to espouse a purely Black point of view, not taking into account how it may have a positive effect on Asian admissions, and completely ignoring the discussion of how admissions should be merit-based no matter what

    Honestly, there was no shortage of people arguing the type of position you’re discussing, but if you see a lack of it, you’re more than welcome to post/comment.

    I don’t have high hopes for any sort of meaningful discussion happening here.

    Then have discussion elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to post or participate here. You already said yourself that you have an account on another instance because you feel that way. There’s no need to come here and wax poetic about how you don’t see any “real discussion” happening, and doing so isn’t going to dramatically alter moderation policy. If you disagree with a discussion, again, feel free to post or comment. If you don’t think any real discussion will come of that or you disagree with moderation policy, you’re welcome to find community elsewhere.


    As an aside:

    Asian students […] historically place a much higher importance on education than the rest of the world

    This isn’t really historical so much as it is stereotyping. Asian people aren’t a monolith. We don’t all align culturally, and we don’t all have the same attitudes. We aren’t all treated the same as other Asian people, nor do people in Asian diasporas all have the same socioeconomic outcomes.