Forbes complained about Netflix's CEO and his "non-apology apology" around Dave Chappelle. Some of the comments in the story are enlightening. Let's take a look.
"Inclusion," writer Davia Temin said, "means that you really have to listen and be sensitive to diverse voices." Sure. But "inclusion" also means "inclusion," and the point of what is termed the "culture wars" is that inclusion now includes exclusion. Temin went on to say that Ted Sarandos's decision to run Chappelle's special "put Netflix smack between artistic freedom/freedom of speech and progressive values around inclusion and sensitivity to previously marginalized groups." So now values that oppose "artistic freedom/freedom of speech" are considered "progressive." We're movin' on. No more of that "free speech" stuff around here.
You can clearly see what's at stake here. In order to be "inclusive," it is necessary to exclude people who say what we, the powers that be, deem "offensive" in a very specific way. It's okay to offend those who don't agree with us. It's "progressive" to exclude those who don't agree with our "inclusiveness." And if you try to defend such things as genuine inclusiveness or free speech or artistic freedom, you are, in Temin's words, a bully. Standing for freedoms like that is now "a controversial stance."
Temin urged Sarandos to lead with "humanity, empathy, and compassion" and not to "reduce them to buzz words" as she reduced inclusion, tolerance, and freedom to buzz words. Currently "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is god. It even has its own acronym: DEI. A kind of "DEIty," I suppose. I can only dream that the DEI people could learn to be more diverse, equal, and inclusive in their efforts. While those are good things to pursue, doing so at the cost of the very things they are pursuing makes no sense. And what will they do when they find themselves no longer in power, excluded, marginalized, and no longer free to speak?
1 comment:
The defense of the "marginalized" requires that those who oppose their agenda must now be marginalized. I'm proud to be a part of the new marginalized group...the few, the proud, the God-abiding.
The defense of the "marginalized" ignores that their choices are what results in their "marginalization". They are not akin to people of other colors, sexes or ethnicity who thus have no control over the reasons they may be marginalized. One can adjust one's choices and behaviors, regardless of what motivates or compels them, but the "marginalized" demand we accept what we don't wish to accept for reasons of truth and reason.
While some might find it less than Christian to do so, I'm coming to believe the best plan of response is to be quite open in my opposition to "the Agenda" regardless of the whiny response about "marginalized" people who chose to be marginalized. I will NOT refer to Bruce Jenner as a woman, because that's lying. That's not to say that I will take up arms (figuratively speaking) against any and all disordered people with whom I may encounter. But it does mean that I will not indulge their delusional self-image, and certainly not their demands that I do. If they can assert their beliefs, so can I and I believe it serves my fellow man far better that I do than not...at least until my point of view can be proved wrong for society. Good luck with that.
Post a Comment