Seeing news like this makes me sad initially because it feels like every "decent" tech company out there (Mozilla, Wikipedia come to mind) keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions.
Take a step back, and you realize that it's actually a very very positive thing to see this kind of news. We're seeing it because Wikipedians are not OK with this behavior, and they're trying to signal that to the folks running the show. I hope they listen more than Mozilla's management.
It's not just furthering the culture war; they've even funded an organization (SeRCH) that's all about peddling unscientific, unencyclopedic woo-woo (about their "intersectional scientific method" and "hyperspace") to vulnerable minority folks who are trying to get involved with real, actual science. An outrageous betrayal of Wikipedia's core mission.
That's part of the culture war, "intersectional" in this context is an academic term rooted in the postmodern philosophy at the center of far left ideology. Intersectionality in the sense of Foucault posits that ways of knowing, like science, are socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative. Since cultures are all equal in value under the ideology of intersectionality, traditional ways of knowing are considered equal to those held up by Western society, like science.
You see, science is actually eurocentric, so supporting other ways of knowing is choosing the side in the culture wars that says we trust science because it's white and society is racist, therefore we must find a new "intersectional" scientific method
I'm so sorry I explained this. I don't have the energy to find citations since my posts on HN always get flagged but I assure you that funding choice is absolutely part of furthering the culture war lol
That's a pretty severe mischaracterization of intersectionality in general. Intersectionality refers to the fact that you can't analyze human experiences as linear terms (being black, being a woman) and that you must consider the effects of being some combination of categories. As an example, intersectionality claims that being both black and a woman brings separate challenges than the additive combination of being black and being a woman.
That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".
That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.
To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/ clarifies how the notion of intersectionality is generally interpreted in a Foucaldian way by most people who engage with it. This "interpretation" is not just parent post's but widespread enough to call it a consensus.
You're going to quote James Lindsay, the guy who refers to critical theory as 'race marxism'? This source is so biased Ma'at's feather never had a chance.
Lindsay is an academic and his arguments are out there for you to rebut if you wish. Attacking his character doesn't dismiss his ideas even though the left wishes as much.
Don’t play coy. Intersectionality is a framework for dismantling the status quo. From wikipedia:
> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.
It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.
Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.
Lots of businesses have a front of the house (customer-facing roles) and a back of the house (warehouse, etc.). In the South, many businesses only hired white people in the front of the house, and only hired men in the back. You argue that it's "just common sense," but it was widely accepted that these practices were neither neither racist nor sexist because the business does hire some women (in the front) and some black guys (in the back). But if you were a black woman, you were shit out of luck.
It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
> It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.
It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.
Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.
That's false I fear. Intersectionality hasn't much to do with Foucault. It's a framework for analyzing multiple levels of discrimination occuring at the same time (say for someone having both a physical disability and mental illness). You could have just linked to wikipedia ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
IMO there's quite a bit to criticize in that approach, but calling it postmodernist relativism doesn't really fit.
Foucault is often considered the father of the ideas that underpin intersectionality, at least in the academic sense.
Check out his wikipedia and read the section Influence and reception, specifically Critiques and engagements > Social constructionism and human nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
This [intersectional] approach requires both student and mentor to acknowledge that true professional development, incorporating belonging, requires affirmation, not assimilation.
(The other striking example of affirmation, not assimilation I’ve seen in a textbook for future school teachers enrolled in SFSU credential program. There was a chapter in the textbook on how to recognize signs of a student belonging to a youth band culture - and how to respect and affirm it. No, I am not kidding.)
> socially constructed (along with other norms you may have heard about, like gender identity) and since they are socially constructed they are culturally relative.
This post checks out. Roughly. The problem isn’t with the idea that there can be other ways of knowing out there to explore, it’s with the total rejection of science because it’s somehow innately white and thus undeniably racist. Even if you believe knowledge is entirely socially constructed, to dismiss one construct simply because of the perceived social identity (remember race is a construct, too) of it’s progenitors is where it leaves the realm of academia and becomes part of the culture war zeitgeist.
Rather ironically, it would imply that Muslims in the medieval age weren't doing "science", and therefore the Wikipedia article on it[1] is inaccurate and should be removed.
Can you provide links to any of this? I'm also unable to find any org called SeRCH, perhaps I mis-spelt it.
edit: I repeat my request more strongly. I've looked more and even "intersectional scientific method" gets almost nothing except a couple of posts on twitter claiming the same and a website https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wikipedia-is-a-source-of-... which doesn't back anything up - are you affiliated with either of these?
I am wondering if you are deliberately spreading FUD
Maybe I'm ignorant but I still don't really understand it. There is a picture of some protest with someone wielding an actual Nazi flag... Which is pretty fucked up, but it's also sort of hilarious to see it next to someone wearing a hippie straw hat, another person wearing a bicycle helmet and then, what I am assuming is another ultra right wing idiot with a viking shield.
I'm Danish, I wonder what that those people would do if they knew that the viking culture they are appropriating was actually pretty "liberal". Homosexuality wasn't an issue, neither were mixing races or religions. They just recently discovered an Islamic Viking lord in Sweden.
Anyway. If one side of the "culture war" is Nazis, then why is it a war?
Don't get me wrong. It's not like we didn't have our share of village idiots who thought Bill Gates put Microchips in the Covid vaccines and thought the Face Masks were the end of democracy here in Denmark, but the vast majority of people who thought that Face Masks were stupid still wore them with the reasoning that they wouldn't hurt, even if they didn't help, and basically everyone above 18 got vaccinated.
On a side note, I do wish our own village idiots would come up with their own conspiracies though. I mean, why couldn't our Queen be behind the Microchips instead of Bill Gates?
Wait, I didn't see anything in the thread about this at all?
EDIT: I've really really searched, where is the culture war topics everyone in this thread is talking about? This sounds like editors being upset about fundraising banners since WMF is financially well off.
This is not linked immediately in the twitter thread or in the rfc that I see when I click the link on twitter. The rfc understandably is long, so there's a lot to read and this equity fund is not one of the key focuses of the OP, so I still don't understand why it is being discussed here.
No, the Knowledge Equity Fund was the topic of another recent viral Twitter thread by @echetus that someone mentioned here in this discussion a few hours ago:
well... it seems mathematically inevitable: they have to constantly avoid corruption, so if there's a (say) 2% chance per year then over 30 years then there's a 45% chance of going to the dark side.
the society solution is similar to how the body fights diseased cells: sure, try to avoid the corruption but also setup systems to replace corrupted companies/institutions.
> Seeing news like this makes me sad initially because it feels like every "decent" tech company out there (Mozilla, Wikipedia come to mind) keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions.
Do you know if there is a good write-up anywhere of exactly why these organisations keep getting captured by this ideology?
It feels like it just came out of nowhere and took over, and we are all expected to agree with the whole thing, otherwise we are labelled as bigoted, evil, etc.
I know it's associated with being politically on the left, but personally, as a left-winger in a more traditional (class-based, economic) sense, I am baffled as to how it's been quietly switched to all this woke gibberish. I certainly didn't see it coming.
>I know it's associated with being politically on the left, but personally, as a left-winger in a more traditional (class-based, economic) sense, I am baffled as to how it's been quietly switched to all this woke gibberish. I certainly didn't see it coming.
The word on the street is that this has been pushed by the people who control Wall Street and mainstream media to subvert the Occupy Wall Street movement and the class war momentum it was gaining before and in 2011.
Any movement that believes they can immanentize the eschaton[1] is going to use any and all means at its disposal to do so. If all truth is relative [2] and competing lenses bring different goods (<aside>but from what absolute perspective do we call them goods?</aside>) then having more of them is IMPORTANT, right?
>"keeps getting sucked into culture wars that distract from their core missions."
I am conflicted because I believe in the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". Yet, from a 'culture war' standpoint the winning strategy appears to be intersectionality and saturating the movement's messaging in as many organizations and institutions as possible.
The dynamic here is fairly straightforward. When you have new growth industries like tech, there are a lot of badly-protected resources available. There is a class of people (often called the "professional managerial class", or "PMCs") who specialize in moving in and consuming these badly-protected resources. The most successful tactics for this kind of strategy come from leftist thinkers in the mid-to-late 20th century, so most of these people come from leftist backgrounds. That's why mozilla, wikimedia, etc. always have their resources parasitized towards hard left-leaning causes - because those people have the best institutional capture tactics.
Wikimedia has also grown its headcount exponentially over the past few years. They have almost 1000 staff per linkedin, including a large HR/recruiting team. They're obviously setting up for growth. Which leads me to believe they'll abandon their mission and invest heavily into the culture wars.
Take a step back, and you realize that it's actually a very very positive thing to see this kind of news. We're seeing it because Wikipedians are not OK with this behavior, and they're trying to signal that to the folks running the show. I hope they listen more than Mozilla's management.