They're free to offer a dissenting opinion, my comment was on the rhetorical flourishes around diversity advocates being "divisive", "dogmatic", uncivil are very reminiscent of that period.
I think it is very illuminating to read letters from that period, because they aren't just vitriolic racists like schools often teach. These are people trying to come off as "very reasonable", offering a civil, moderate path forward for the South, etc., etc. It's fascinating to see that rhetoric being deployed to defend what is an obvious evil and compare to who is using that rhetoric now.
I don't think that words become permanently unusable if they have been deployed once by a historical losing side... If that could happen, then pretty much every rhetorical technique would already have been burnt to the ground and salted forever by now.
But what is the conclusion we are meant to draw from the historical comparison? Accusations of belligerence have been thrown around many times in history - Soviets accusing NATO, the Allies accusing the Axis, the Axis accusing the Allies, North Korea accusing NATO, pretty much everyone accusing NATO... NATO accusing everyone else... ;) Virtually every pair of groups that don't get along exchange accusations of aggression.
In order for the comparison to be informative, it must also be accompanied by some argument about whether or not the accusations are accurate, which sort of takes us back to the original question.
Then it's a good thing I never made an argument about whether she deserved to be fired.
Top level comment said, paraphrased, "it's a shame people dismiss her as a Twitter personality when she has a highly respected body of work in the field."
My reply was to press that, in my view, she's not being dismissed as "just a Twitter personality", but rather her Twitter behavior is worthy of examination in itself.
Finally, I've never read civil rights era letters to the editor, so I'm not referencing or borrowing any specific rhetoric from there. I'm using bog standard English language words to describe the arguments and advocacies that I am seeing in the present.
I agree historical context on rhetoric can be absolutely eye opening, but your example was not a 1:1 comparison (neither the victims or actions being of equal consequence). It also reminds me of Goodwin's Law [1] where disagreements on the internet so often devolve into calling someone a Nazi (to me a '60s segregationist apologist is one or two steps removed from a Nazi).
I think I'm being pretty explicit that I'm not calling them a segregationist, but I think their rhetoric is illuminating. Not really sure how I can be more explicit on this point.
You are the one bringing up comparisons to Nazis, so it appears that you have now fallen prey to Godwin's law.
Nobody summoned you to "respond" to my comment. And you certainly didn't do that. You took a circuitous rhetorical tack that only hinted at arguments without making them. Other commenters did a fine job covering that. But you certainly felt comfortable declaring things to be "bad arguments" without having made any yourself yet.
So let me make some arguments for you to consider.
-To declare that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) have inherently privileged knowledge of boundary-less, undefined, fuzzy social dynamics is a divisive assertion. It seeks to divide authority along identity lines.
-To advocate that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) should actively be given privileged decision-making status over collective processes or structures is a divisive and dogmatic advocacy. It seeks to divide power along identity lines.
-To denounce as ethically compromised the people who disagree with you on complex open topics, such as the above two notions, is outright dogmatic. To assume one's perspective is so undeniably true that discussion can only be aggression is a dogmatic position.
I contend that all three of these dynamics are rampant in the preferred methods and among the prominent leadership of the currently en vogue Racial Justice and DEI movements (lots of crossover).
To tie it back to the start: I've observed Timnit engaging in these things, fanning these flames and boosting others who do so too.
But note that my comment implies there are other ways to advocate for diversity and justice. The broad BLM/Kendi/DiAngelo/Gebru style is not the only form and theory of diversity advocacy.
A simple alternative, for example, would be to call attention to the same problems without 1) preemptively attacking other people based on their own immutable identity characteristics, and 2) trying to draw new lines and hierarchies of privileged voice and power.
Lots of people (I suspect the majority of the sympathetic) practice this alternative. However, the louder, Timnit-aligned strain seems to enjoying social privilege in this area at this moment. How ironic.
