Philosophy Now Forum

Exclusive Inclusion
As may have been mentioned before, there is a tendency to adopt or coin words, as values with fashionable meanings, and then parade them as a list which people are asked to agree to one at a time. There is an intrinsic binary ethic implied by this, of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Inclusion, is a fashionable term today, and it is immediately set against the term ‘exclusion’ as its opposite. It is virtually impossible for anyone not to pay lip-service to it. It is so designed that nobody with any human feelings can demur. Anyone who does so is automatically removed from moral society.
It is conveniently ignored that the term Inclusion, has itself to be constructed in a logically moral way. Therefore a moral template is required that is prior to any and all particularist values. Such a template may not be binary and is more likely to be a multiple choice, or definition of what people are already.
There is a vast difference between self indulgent values, imposed values, and shared values – and against all of them, chaotic values. There is a vast difference between global society as an aggregate of individuals, as a single organism or machine, or a global fraternity of local cultures.
With the computer age in full swing, it is possible to imagine cultures that exist across the world but only unified in digital space. But people do not exist digitally. Directly they leave their bedrooms they are in real society, and if they bring their digital society with them, the result is likely to be chaos.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:33 am Exclusive Inclusion
It is conveniently ignored that the term Inclusion, has itself to be constructed in a logically moral way. Therefore a moral template is required that is prior to any and all particularist values. Such a template may not be binary and is more likely to be a multiple choice, or definition of what people are already.

Right.

So any people holding "exclusivist" values, such as conservatives, traditionalists and so on, are arbitrarily excluded from inclusion -- with the exception of those exclusive beliefs, like Islam, that are pet projects of the current "inclusionist" regime. For such, a special exception is made.

Thus the "inclusionist" ideological regime primarily includes those ideologies that bow already to its core ideology -- with the noted exceptions, of course. For others, it's no more inclusive than the exclusionary ideologies against which is proposes to arrange itself.

There is a vast difference between self indulgent values, imposed values, and shared values – and against all of them, chaotic values. There is a vast difference between global society as an aggregate of individuals, as a single organism or machine, or a global fraternity of local cultures.

Well, and there's an incredible naivete about "diversity." "Diversity" is presumed by the inclusionists, to be automatically enriching, positive and morally correct. But once again, diversity is to exclude those who take any issue with the idea that diversity -- unspecified further -- is an unqualified good.

But is a diversity that includes criminals, Nazis, or other such antisocial persons an improvement over one that does not? So the diversity advocates are meaning that whatever diverse spectrum THEY PERSONALLY prefer is the right one, not that anyone else's estimation of what constitutes diversity counts. And again, this is may be a broader spectrum (or it may not) but they defend it no less autocratically and tyrannically than an ordinary exclusionary group might defend it...and, I would suggest, with less real thought invested.

With the computer age in full swing, it is possible to imagine cultures that exist across the world but only unified in digital space. But people do not exist digitally. Directly they leave their bedrooms they are in real society, and if they bring their digital society with them, the result is likely to be chaos.

It's likely that they will confuse digital "presence" with real presence. And this is the phenomenon of the Facebook "friend," the online self-declared "style leader" and the fat nerd who lives more through his avatar, the mighty ninja warrior, than through the sad and pudgy physical figure crouched in his mother's basement.

Should an American beauty pageant exclude physical beauty only because the joy of judging beauty isn't inclusive?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 696772001/

For the second year in a row, there will be no swimsuit or evening gown competitions, with organizers stressing that participants are not judged on outward physical appearance. Those events were replaced by onstage interviews and opportunities for the women to discuss their personal achievements, life goals, talents and a planned “social impact initiative” as the 2020 Miss America.

The decision to drop the swimsuit competition created controversy and criticism. Former board chair and former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson was a proponent of the change, announcing in 2018 that Miss America would represent “a new generation of female leaders focused on scholarship, social impact, talent and empowerment.” Carlson stepped down in 2019 but noted she was "extremely proud of the work" she and her fellow volunteers had accomplished.

The men of the future will be gathered around the TV as a group of feminists argue about global warming with the hope of being crowned Miss America.The men will be saying "how lovely." There is no physical beauty to be noticed. All the women will be considered the same. The men will be conditioned by education so unable to tell the difference. The elimination of the experience of female physical beauty will be assured by the PC emphasis on inclusion.

Yeah I know; how long will that last? Some artist of the future will paint a beautiful nude provoking some imagination and then all hell will break loose.

Will the contestants still be required to say world peace?