Read on Twitter
I can't work out if the most remarkable thing about this is the nakedly authoritarian tone, the background assumption that it will be accepted as totally normal by the left, the Orwellian use of language, or the basic lack of understanding about why group inequality might arise.
"The amendment would make unconstitutional... racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined)"
Yes, it was the inability to clearly define "public official" that had me anxious about the suggested creation of a literal thought police.
Yes, it was the inability to clearly define "public official" that had me anxious about the suggested creation of a literal thought police.
Although if you can read that and think "racist ideas" would be clearly defined in such a way as to limit the application of such a law rather than give it the furthest possible reach and interpretation, I have a bridge to sell you.
The whole thing is so utterly strange. Some part of me is still clearly living prior to July 2020, when the idea that you could suggest this sort of thing would be so far outside the Overton window as to be laughable.
"Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy" is probably the most toxic part of this. If your group ever underperforms in a field, remember: it's because someone was out to get you. Any cultural differences that might seem to you to matter are a figment of your imagination.
It's a belief that is from simple observation obviously wrong; of course groups are different, they wouldn't be culturally distinct if they weren't. And of course these differences have the ability to feed into performance in a vast range of fields!
I mean, look at this. "... establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees."
So there'd be no "political appointees", merely members of an unaccountable guild chosen for their loyalty to political values. But this is supposed to be comforting and instil trust?
"The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."
Voluntarily, eh? I am genuinely unsure whether he can see the contradiction here. Terminal brainworms.
Voluntarily, eh? I am genuinely unsure whether he can see the contradiction here. Terminal brainworms.
