> It's not radical any longer, and it's nowhere near a revolution that is being asked for.
How is the DEI agenda not radial? What has turned it from radical to non-radical?
For context what I mean by DEI is: 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) agenda.
> This is a straw man.
How is it a straw man to argue that trying to change how every aspect of a society is organized is radical? How is it not radical to change it from a liberal individualistic republic into a collectivist identity-based society run on critical social justice? Seems pretty obviously radical to me.
If you are arguing that it is not as radical yet as the October revolution, you are correct. However, that is just a matter of revolutionary stage and degree of radicality.
> Millions are in the streets for basic human rights. This isn't a fringe position ("radical") and it's not an unreasonable demand ("revolution").
The ones fighting for human rights against critical social justice activists measures are a vastly larger number of people. These are in the school board meetings fighting against critical social justice, in the streets and political venues fighting vaccine mandates, etc etc
It is not human rights to force something into somebody elses body, indoctrinate kids into critical social justice, locking down a country and world for over 1.5 years, printing vast amounts of money to pay for your political measures forcing someone else to pay for it through massive inflation and taxes. These are means of population control and cultural revolution.
How is the DEI agenda not radial? What has turned it from radical to non-radical?
For context what I mean by DEI is: 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) agenda.
> This is a straw man.
How is it a straw man to argue that trying to change how every aspect of a society is organized is radical? How is it not radical to change it from a liberal individualistic republic into a collectivist identity-based society run on critical social justice? Seems pretty obviously radical to me.
If you are arguing that it is not as radical yet as the October revolution, you are correct. However, that is just a matter of revolutionary stage and degree of radicality.
> Millions are in the streets for basic human rights. This isn't a fringe position ("radical") and it's not an unreasonable demand ("revolution").
The ones fighting for human rights against critical social justice activists measures are a vastly larger number of people. These are in the school board meetings fighting against critical social justice, in the streets and political venues fighting vaccine mandates, etc etc
It is not human rights to force something into somebody elses body, indoctrinate kids into critical social justice, locking down a country and world for over 1.5 years, printing vast amounts of money to pay for your political measures forcing someone else to pay for it through massive inflation and taxes. These are means of population control and cultural revolution.