Inclusivity as an Ideal
Thoughts on inclusivity as a primary ideal.
The opposite of inclusion as an ideal is not exclusion, but it is exclusive. Which means that the alternative to "inclusion of every possible classification of a person" is not an ideal which is defined by exclusivity. For example, the superiority of a certain race.
Inclusion as an ideal is a non sequitur. It's an illusion. A linguistic trick - a spell even.
Inclusivity carries with it a positive connotation. It is like the name pro-choice, or pro-life. Are those against abortion against choice? This is an absurdity. Only one, dreadful choice. Are those for it against life? Of course not entirely. Only the value of a particular life. Neither it exactly correct, or incorrect. The point is that the names serve a rhetorical purpose - a propagandistic one.
Just as in the example, the average person that is defined as "conservative" will gladly include the vast majority of people. The average "progressive" naturally has a line that they would draw. We will look at examples of this later, but it is a self-evident fact that a line would be drawn. This line would naturally vary from person to person to person, ad infinitum, which is the exact reason that inclusivity is not a valid primary ideal.
It may help to consider the extremes. Should everything be legal? This begs the questions of what exactly "legal" means? Who aught to govern and decide the laws? This is outside the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say that governments exist, and those in the West are stable and old enough to have merit.
"Conservatives merely refuse to include groups of people that they don't want to." Fair enough, this is the case. the things that conservatives refuse to accept* are considered by them to be disgusting or abhorrent.
*Recall that the mantra was once "tolerance" and when it became evident that conservatives are already extraordinarily tolerant, it became "acceptance and inclusion," and went from a plea to forced compliance.
The problem is that "progress" never ends.
The things that most liberals consider to be abhorrent will eventually be the next thing to be argued for by still more inclusive people. It will be fine so with the same rhetorical sleight of hand, labeling the people practicing this behavior as "marginalized" people.
Liberals should appreciate the conservative of today, considering that they will one day be the ones whose values are considered to be "bigoted" by a vocal, litigious minority. This argument will of course be dismissed as a "slippery slope fallacy". The error in doing so is that it is not a fallacy to suggest that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal and opposite force.
Examples of this can be found in people such as Bill Maher, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, etc. who have typically held liberal views but now can only be defined as "classically liberal". It should be obvious that we have seen not only massive change, but an acceleration in the rate of change, with moderates being left in the dust. The kinds of issues which have become center-stage are increasingly obscure and strange.
Anyone reading this will either change their opinions or be labeled a conservative, eventually.
If the previous sentence does not ring true, it may help to realize that it is in fact only half true. That is because they are currently considered less progressive than some of their fellows and therefore are conserving some aspect of society. Again, this will be shown below.
What is called "progress" can be more accurately described as meaningless change. The specifics of the kind of change are, in this regard, pointless. That is because the change servers a larger, stated goal. Also, it probably doesn't need to be said, but the current cultural background of "progressives" are the ones that exist nearest the periphery of society, or the next most likely to be accepted. In this way, the particular battles of the social justice crowd serve another more hidden goal outside of any particular individual, group, or generation.
This will, of course, be dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory. The error in this is labeling it a conspiracy or a theory. It would more accurately described as a demonstrable fact, or at least an "open secret". What is the "secret" purpose of the change occurring in our culture? To dismantle the current order - i.e. the so called Judeo Christian, cys gender, Anglo-centric, colonialist, capitalist patriarchy.
It is secret, because the masses of people on the "front lines" care only about the issues most relevant to them. However, the most observant and powerful in terms of wealth, prestige, and authority are well aware of the full end of such matters. It is an open secret because many of these leaders of "progress" and even many of the useful less-observant masses have this as, as I mentioned, a stated goal.
Another great absurdity to the "inclusion" mantra is that it necessarily excludes anyone that could fit into one of those categories of the current order, which, ironically, happens to be the majority. This has to be the case in order to set things right, they say. Ironically, this makes them the least inclusive of all groups. This is a mathematical fact. If every marginal group must be represented in order to obtain Diversity, Inclusion, Equity, then it is no longer proportional to the actual population, and the majority are proportionately excluded.
We will now get into the details.
Improper as it is to make inclusion and acceptable a primary ideal, it would be equally improper to assume that conservative, capitalistic, Judeo-Christian, and male-dominated society is without fault. In fact, it is the error of this half of society that led to the problems they have today. For example, the LGBTQIA+ "community" piggy-backs on the civil rights movement that took place decades ago. Whether or not it was liberals that championed the movement is beside the point. It was and is seen as a movement of the progressive camp. Why was it even necessary? The equality of human beings as image bearers of God and indifference to race fall squarely within the Judeo-Christian ethic. The Church has throughout history been the ones to feed, clothe, and house the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger. Today, these are supported mostly by the State. And which side are the champions of the social programs which support them? Grave error. Consider the failure to uphold the Sabbath and it's principles of mandatory rest and proper treatment of the laborer and the environment.
Thus, conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for allowing the party of ceaseless revolution and bitter usurpation to highjack the values they cannot rightly contradict. They contradict then anyway because they fail to differentiate the values they aught to cherish from the twisted versions promoted by the left or dangerous and absurd methods used by them.
#todo
*Beyond the volume of issues. The next and more nebulous problem is how to prioritize these issues. This is also the inevitable downfall of the movement itself.
*keep in mind that these are only the categories that currently exist. there is no end to the potential categories and sub categories which could demand representation
*Trans race or trans species. The argument against this is that those don't exist, they are a rhetorical tool used to confuse and straw man the argument. But does this answer the fundamental question being raised? The claim is that biology does not dictate gender because gender is a social construct, separate from sex. Does this answer the question as to why a person cannot identify as another race, considering that race is also a social construct? "Species" is an arbitrary delineation made by biologists.
*chart comparing proportion of population vs available space for representation.
The slippery slope of LGBTQIA+*
*beastiality.
Consent as an argument. What about when we can communicate with animals? This is feasible if not already achieved with AI and neural links.
*incest
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zBrC7nO2Il0
*pedophilia
Prof says let's ditch the term pedophile for 'minor-attracted person'
A Review of Academic Use of the Term “Minor Attracted Persons”