Diversity Update

Remember my hypothesis that in common use, at least on campus, the word "diversity" does not actually refer to ending out-groups, but is  just is a code word for shifting the out-group tag from one set of people to another?

Here is a great example.  And more here, from a man in an interracial marriage who was labelled a white supremacist by Entertainment Weekly.

Moderates, libertarians, and Conservatives on campus would have done well to have fought back like this 20 years ago.

Update:  I love Sarah Hoyt.  "We haven’t yet reached the point when “banned by the New York Publishing establishment” is a badge of honor, but unless I mistake my gut we’re not very far off."


  1. herdgadfly:

    Sorry Sarah, but being banned by the NY Fishwrap will never be as famous as the famous and not-so-famous who were summarily blocked from accessing LGF by PJ Media co-founder and head Lizard Charles (do not call me Charley) Johnson for daring to disagree with him after he went bizarro against conservatives. To this day, I am proud to have been included among the banished.

  2. MacBeachBum:

    Since the early nineties I have, at every opportunity, pointed out that when someone uses the word 'inclusive' it means they are about to exclude someone. Somebody needs to publish a dictionary of terms that leftists have redefined over the years starting with 'liberal' and 'rights'. Guess I should get busy.

  3. Chris Smith:

    I hate to admit I started following the Sad Puppies thing through Vox Day's blog. I didn't think it would that big of a thing, but after reading Larry Correia's and Brad Torgersen's comments on the normally small number of voters involved in the Hugo process, I can see how it can easily be manipulated. I don't think what the Sad Puppies group did was wrong, all things considered. Their public block-voting campaign simply mirrored the secret campaigns of the past. The main difference between their campaign and the secret ones, besides not being secret, is that they are advocating for books and authors based on the quality of work, not the politics.

  4. bigmaq1980:

    A backlash on liberal over-reach / bullying seems to be gathering steam, as they make their own victims in their zealotry.


  5. Morven:

    Vox Day, however, is a vile stain and, I think, way too invested in playing the villain. I think it was unwise of e.g. Correia or Torgersen to associate with him (and I note this year they're not officially doing so).

  6. Another_Brian:

    For someone that really only reads sci-fi/fantasy for the story and doesn't care a whit about the politics of the publishing world, when did the Hugo Awards go from books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Dune to this mess?

  7. Curtis:

    Morven, not to put a fine point on it but I think you failed to read the blog post. It was about people being maligned for things that they were innocent of doing or thinking or believing.
    Go and read voxday's post at his blog today and then wonder at whether or not he too was maligned until he had enough and went on the attack. I notice that nobody I know has never read a word he said but they all "know him." I get that, but we have to consider that the name callers started out by calling the ones they don't like everything from racists, sexists, bigots, haters, misogynist and then act coy and hurt when their own words are used in reply.
    Read vox's post from today where he laid it all out for those who would like to see him debate George R.R. Martin who feels about vox as you do.