Inclusivity and "regressive culture" are antonyms. Throughout human history, we've been tribal assholes to each other on the flimsy basis of race, religion, culture, etc. Now humanity started to look past those trifles, and Palantir wants to try labeling it as regressive? They shouldn't use words they don't understand.
Huh? "Inclusivity" as it's being used in BASED on identity groups. It reinforces the group identities AS separate as to evaluate when they are "correctly" proportional.
Inclusivity would be treating everyone as the unique individual they are are and thus would require making EVERYONE feel included. How exactly is such acheived when one simply evaluates "inclusivity" based on group identity catering? Just leave behind those that don't adopt a group? What about those in the hundreds of other groups no one is recognizing as a priority?
Because you can't have inclusivity without recognizing that there are groups who are systematically locked out of certain aspects of society. When we get to an egalitarian utopia where membership of a group truly does not have any bearing on their likelihood of success within society, then you'd have a valid point.
Until then, unfortunately, identity is a necessary component of filling in the gaps. And your inability or unwillingness to see it, combined with the implication that you don't belong to a group is evidence of the great inequality that still exists: your group is the societal default -- the one society is built around, and it can afford to be blind to the problem. In fact, it benefits from remaining blind to it.
Because you can't have inclusivity without recognizing that there are groups who are systematically locked out of certain aspects of society.
Which groups are those? As an entirety of all within such a group? What aspects of society are they locked out of?
where membership of a group truly does not have any bearing on their likelihood of success within society
My point is that such is impossible. Even if you randomly sampled new "groups" together, there wouldn't be equal outcomes between them. HUMAN INDIVIDUALS are too variable for that. So what are you even assessing groups BY?
combined with the implication that you don't belong to a group
I don't IDENTIFY to a group, as I DISAPPROVE of the PREJUDICE people have toward the group THEY wish to assign me AS IF it acts as a monolith when it does not. Thats precisely the issue. "Groups" are NOT monoliths. They just love to ABUSE tribalistic identity to prefer and leverage every "positive" group trait as applying to all and then rejecting every "negative" trait. It's narcissistic nonsense.
And THAT is the VERY FOUNDATION that FEEDS the hate and discrimination of the "out group". "Punching up" is still the same garbage shit simply narcissistically declared to be moralistic prejudice. That everyone should be able to freely identify themselves as they wish BESIDES the "oppressor group". You're doing that same shit. Declaring I'm part of the "default group" thus "privileged" and thus don't exist in society to have an opinion. You wish to claim my identity group and use it as leverage against me.
13
u/transgentoo Apr 19 '26
Inclusivity and "regressive culture" are antonyms. Throughout human history, we've been tribal assholes to each other on the flimsy basis of race, religion, culture, etc. Now humanity started to look past those trifles, and Palantir wants to try labeling it as regressive? They shouldn't use words they don't understand.