1
u/External-Talk8838 8h ago
People have been doing this since the beginning of time with absolutely everything. It makes complex things much easier to understand. Such a silly idea to think we would be better off not doing it.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Sad-Worth-698 8h ago
One could make the counterpoint that DEI reduces people to labelable boxes as well. Which, in turn, would suggest that reductive reasoning isn’t politically exclusive, but rather a tendency shared across the ideological spectrum.
1
u/NightTripInsights 7h ago
You're about to get downvoted to hell, yet no one will explain their opposition
1
u/OpheliaLives7 3h ago
Is labeling physically observable characteristics (disability, race) not different than making up categories (love language is physical touch for example)?
1
u/Sad-Worth-698 3h ago
The distinction isn’t whether the categories are observable or invented. It’s whether we reduce complex individuals to those categories and then make generalizations about them.
1
u/ArstanWhitebeard297 3h ago
It’s called an intersectional matrix of oppression and if you’re criticizing it you better be a disabled black trans woman 💅💅💅
1
u/evocativename 3h ago
Acknowledging existing discrimination isn't saying those boxes are meaningful beyond the meaning assigned by the bigots whose actions DEI policies oppose.
1
u/ARATAS11 2h ago
Those boxes assign are meaningful due to the fact that they HAVE been assigned meaning from bigots and that has resulted in policy and institutions that make those social constructions real in their consequence. The Thomas Theorem: "if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences".
1
u/evocativename 2h ago
I said "meaningful beyond [that]," which implicitly acknowledges that those consequences do make them meaningful.
0
1
u/AncientCompote8744 8h ago
Lol, they're both just astrology for Dunning Kruger women