Hard to believe Wifred Laurier University would allow this. Wilfred Laurier is famous for sacking graduate teaching assistant Lindsey Chamberlain, because she showed a Jordan Peterson tv interview to students. Jordan settled out of court for $1.5m in a defamation suit in 2018.

@WarrenSenkowski

17 күн бұрын

Lindsay Shepherd

@FourOf92000

16 күн бұрын

if you punish them for improving, they stop improving

@elproject3343

16 күн бұрын

Interesting but for a researcher he should be more unbiased, it seems he already has an objective opinion about DEI. It gives the impression that his research are nothing but ‘findings’ that confirm his worldview.

Great talk. Thanks so much for posting this.

They concluded that it does exactly what it needs to do. Got it

This is a great presentation. My only push back is related to what he's saying around the 57/58 minute mark. The true believers of DEI never doubt or question whether someone of the acceptable minority group got a position because of merit or affirmative action. They always believe the chosen person was truly the best person for the job and it would have been systemic oppression if another person had been accepted. It's only the groups it;s ok to discriminate toward that have those doubts and questions.

They are trying this on in Australia too mate. Most people don`t know about it and those they do around my age hate the shit. Thanks for the chat

ohh I wonder why this popped up in my feed

The first answer in the Q&A is disappointing, and it shows we need better teaching on polemics. They don't care about not having evidence supporting DEI. Evidence to them is a socially constructed tool of white culture, used to marginalize, so the fact that their position is rationally unjustified doesn't move them. The DEI movement is a moral philosophy, it's rooted first and foremost in a view of morality. Therefore if you want to undermine a true believer of DEI, you need to undermine the moral foundation of their beliefs. That's what polemics is about, and DEI (and Marxism in general) is especially vulnerable to it because of the inherent mismatch between what it proclaims to value, and what it prescribes for right behaviour. It claims to value the marginalized, but its prescription hurts the marginalized. So a good response to the first question would be something like, "DEI hurts marginalized individuals instead of helping them, and that's true whether I'm white or brown or black or a woman or queer or trans. Furthermore, because DEI doesn't work and makes workplaces more racist and more harmful for marginalized groups, it's real purpose must be something else. And that ulterior purpose is to entrench power structures in institutions by weeding out those who could challenge them. DEI reinforces stereotypes and weeds out anyone that isn't loyal to the institution that's demanding their participation in DEI. The people that remain are loyal to the cause, but also emotionally damaged and resentful making it easy to manipulate them into attacking whatever their corporate masters want them to. Occupy Wallstreet is a good example of this, where DEI activists were used by powerful institutions to infiltrate the movement and destroy the anti-bank protests from within by turning them into anti-White Supremacy protests. By shifting the blame away from themselves for the 2008 economic collapse to a vague category of, 'white supremacy culture,' Wallstreet and the Banks successfully avoided any serious accountability for their actions. This is the true reason why government and corporations fund DEI training."

All this woke crap originated in academia.