D.I.E. - The Triad of the New Religion & Others in the Postmodern Pantheon (Part II: Inclusivity)
D.I.E., The Triad of the New Religion and Others in the Postmodern Pantheon
Part II: Inclusivity
July 12, 2022 (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
Inclusivity is a relatively recently coined word, the coin lately transformed into an intangible substance, that may have meant inclusiveness - inclusive itself originally and inversely ironically suggesting the sense of shutting in or confining, even imprisoning. While a contemporary common-sense definition of inclusive might suggest a broad orientation or scope within extremes or limits, the devotees of this divinised person have fashioned more character into its meaning and application.
The Cambridge dictionary (accessed on 7th July 2022 AD) defines “inclusivity” as “the fact of including all types of people, things or ideas and treating them all fairly and equally”. While the crocodiles may welcome inclusivity, it is questionable whether you would or should throw your cat into the lake; or include a cripple in the 4x100m relay team. That is, the definition provides for what inclusivity is to be understood to be, but its value and rationale is not specified. Moreover, to the unobservant, the hybrid nature of this definition may go unnoticed since it begins with what might be understood to be inclusiveness, and then to this it adds on the requirement of how the included are to be treated, presumably post-inclusion. Fair treatment prior to inclusion may indeed require non-inclusion for the sake of justice or love in some circumstances. Post-inclusion, fairness in itself is not objectionable when understood in its sense related to justice. However, in contradiction to such fairness the definition requires equal treatment - presupposing that it is fair to treat everyone, every thing and every idea equally.
Equal treatment of all types of ideas may not seem reasonable and one needs to discriminate between the good ideas and the bad, and one does not treat a Ravenscroft rummer in a way equal to a tennis ball. Concerning people, the logical implication is that the clerk would be renumerated on par with the CEO, or stated more impactfully that the CEO’s renumeration must be equal to the clerk’s - and that men are given flowers on Mothers’ Day. The presence of Equity, the third person who proceeds from Diversity and Inclusivity can be recognised here but the absurdity of its current manifestations will not presently be discussed extensively.
In the prevalent context of “harassment”, “bias” and virtue signaling, inclusivity has come to be understood to be a state or attitude and appearance or perception of welcoming and accepting all sorts that are covered by diversity, especially, according for example to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (accessed on 7th July 2022 AD) as “allowing and accommodating people who have historically been excluded” “because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability”. The categories and sub-categories of diversity for which inclusivity is to be exercised are pre-defined, and a propos other categories are not (sic) included, but this contradiction is not recognised or perhaps the recognition is not permitted. It is worth noting that what appears to be an overarching concept, when scrutinised, appears to apply exclusively (sic) to particularly privileged groups of people, privileged today and privileged as group, because their corresponding ancestors were allegedly persecuted.
Apart from the concept itself being flawed, the rationale for selection of those who are to benefit from it is also flawed, on top of which the categories themselves are not distinct. A frog may wonder how verdant its skin needs to be in order to be green, and would the greenest green be Green if there had been no gigging in the pond its antecedents spawned in? Would it be meaningful to reject a frog and embrace a grasshopper for an aquatic application? And who was it that decided that you need to be green in order to swim? Further you may identify with a privileged “gender” today, but the thing being fluid, you may change after your promotion, recruitment or appointment to the board.
Diversity demands quotas and parities for the privileged categories. It is driven, implemented and measured objectively, the biased measures originating with the originators of the drive and driven according to the ideology they promote. The embracing of Inclusivity, begotten of Diversity, goes beyond the embracing of diversity. It is more subjective since it mandates mindset, attitude, and feelings that are not as conveniently converted to heads or percentages. Inclusivity demands expressing acceptance, enabling comfort and generating, sustaining and ensuring the psychological gratification of the included. Provision of confidence to those being included need be executed, irrespective of the discomfort felt by the comforters who are compelled to comfort. Those who experience inclusivity are said to feel this non-exclusion and the variations of such feelings may determine whether inclusivity has been violated.
Indicative measures for non-compliance on inclusivity are framed in KPI’s such as the number of complaints forwarded to panels of culture committees regarding perceived discomfort which may constitute “harassment”, “bias” and “discrimination”, or what is even termed “violence”. Potential perpetrators whether or not they realise the relevance of suitability and competence in members of an association who strive together towards a united purpose, and whether or not they understand the moral considerations of the natural law, need to live in fear - particularly if they are rational and realistic in matters pertaining to justice and truth, of the threat of penal procedures for being allegedly uninclusive.
Let us consider for instance the criterion of ability and the requirement of fair treatment, although this diversity category is arguably a distraction pickapacking on the woke ride. To comply with diversity in ability – physical, mental, sensory and behavioural, it would be necessary for example to recruit a less competent surgeon to a hospital. Apart from the reality that patients may be less inclined to admit themselves for surgeries, the hospital would also need to pay the less competent as much as the more competent in order to comply with inclusivity.
Considering other criteria, a male chimpanzee who has no deviant sexual inclinations would not be selected to study engineering which is a subject he wants to study, because a university’s KPI’s will only be achieved by including and welcoming perhaps a female blue whale who actually wanted to become a nurse. Budgetary allowance would also be necessary for an aquarium (fair and inclusive treatment in terms of preferred operating environment) and acknowledgement of piscine pride (fairness in recognition of the diverse element to enable a sense of acceptance and belonging). The entrance test will be dispelled with to avoid allegations of harassment, since the whale cannot hold a pen, nor sit on the tripos.
The subscribers to the doctrine of inclusivity requires you not only accept and include the person – whether satanists, nudists, communists or anti-obesity lobbyists in a cream biscuit factory, but also to accept and include their corresponding expressions of personality, irrespective of whether these coincide with the aim of your society, or whether these are aligned to the vision of your company or supports its line of its business. The nudist, the cross-dresser and the lesbian would then be allowed to express their identities as such at office, and all employees would need to make them feel comfortable and accept and even celebrate the diversity they bring to the organization, perhaps numbing their consciences in the process. Satanists would logically require a day or month in corporate and social calendars for the celebration of evil, to supplement the women’s day established for the privileged sex - and every “gender” conceptualised, whether static or fluid, will feel harassed unless the entire company celebrates pride and parades with polychromatic banners.
As part of gender expression, a man may desire to use the women’s washroom and inclusivity would demand that he be welcomed and made to feel comfortable. Any woman who does not will be guilty of violating the code of inclusivity of such diversity. If the man perceives any discomfort on account of any woman who finds his presence in the women’s washroom objectionable, she may be liable for penalties consequent to the reporting or whistle-blowing that is encouraged. Apart from the women in the washroom, the competing teams at the company’s netball tournament will live in fear of even raising an eyebrow concerning his participation, let alone about forgetting his desired pronouns or incorrectly pronouncing them.
Inclusivity, apart from irrationally mandating group-based inclusions, is also unconcerned as to whether certain privileged attributive domains includable are good or evil. Apart from the irrational, and the self-defeating elements, the questioning, limitation or non-inclusion of even explicitly evil expressions would be construed as harassment according to the infrastructure pre-established for penalisation of those with common sense or common decency. The instrument known innocently as the Anti-Harassment Policy, which enables this culture of fear, may also form the basis for consequent suing of an organisation haplessly committed to the ESG.
The vulnerable may be inclined to accept the concept of inclusivity as propagated by the neo-Marxist social constructionists, because sympathy is drawn towards its apparent of decrying of unjust exclusion, unaware of being duped into proffering their sympathy towards unjust inclusion. For example, it would be unjust if a man was refused a job as a chauffeur, on the basis of his sex or because he was married to a wife, even though he was suited, qualified, competent for the role, liked to drive and was aligned with the mission of his potential employer. This scenario may be contrasted with the same man being rejected when he applied for a nursemaid’s job since he didn’t know how to change a nappy as well as the other candidate. Both are situations of non-inclusion, but the second one was justified. Distinction is needed between unfair rejection which could legitimately be described as bias or discrimination, and fair acceptance.
Different treatment based on valid criteria need to be contrasted with unjustified and irrational different treatment. A better performer gets a better raise and that’s fair in a corporation. Giving everyone the same raise discourages performance and declining performance leads to failure to attain objective of the association. Providing comfort in terms of fair treatment is one, comfort via unmerited equal treatment is another, and believing that better treatment is due, by reason of a criteria unrelated to the treatment expected is unreasonable.
Supposing our man actually had the job, but the other drivers in the garage reviled him because he had six children and mocked him when they found out that he occasionally bent his knees before a disc of cereal. This would make him uncomfortable and “unincluded”. However, if one of the scorners identified himself as a horse and wanted hay on the lunch menu which request the management denied causing some loss of his equine confidence, this would also be uninclusive. It might be evident that it is not “inclusivity” as such that is determinant, but the biased diversity it caters to and the values that underlie the selection and the selective application.
Distinction needs to be made between not associating with someone in your team and imparting onerous treatment on them because they are naturally or intentionally different from the majority - and endorsing injustice by providing preferential treatment to someone who does not merit it, based on a category they belong to or identity with. “Inclusion” has value, when the girl with a scar across her face is made unwelcome at the canteen table by the company’s cosmetic beauties and the boss gives her a smaller raise on account of the deficiency in her attractiveness to him - and such exclusion is challenged and remedied. The term is abused when the one who prepares tea for the boss and musically stresses the last syllable of his name when addressing him, gets a higher raise on account of her ethnicity.
Corruption, favouration and aversion based on the values of an individual in an influential or decisive position, has diffused, permeated and superseded individual entities, and now prevail as the pervasive and pandemic values of the new religion of the masses. However, the privileged one is now supposed to be the victim, and the actual victims are in the class of oppressors. Harassment within a community due to jealousy, spite, arrogance has been replaced by the same vices, but now these are enshrined in policy, where the harassed are portrayed as the harassers and those that benefit from unfair inclusion are the allegedly potentially harassed snowflakes everyone needs to be wary of melting. Further the contradiction in the reality of the exclusivity felt by the categories excluded from the inclusivity bandwagon is disregarded.
The distinction between the objective of serving, supporting, sponsoring, and strengthening persons with inferior abilities, limited opportunities, or even those who have been unfairly excluded from education, employment and the exercise of fundamental human liberties, and that of composing a team that needs to be optimised towards other objectives, needs to be recognised. A charity that supports people with learning difficulties should certainly welcome and help such individuals to become competent in the targeted activities, and to help build up their confidence and independence. The same inclusion criteria would not apply in forming a team for a chess competition nor would a requirement for welcoming blind people into an archery team help that team to achieve its objective, win in a competitive marketplace or reap in desired profits – particularly if its competitors for the trophy have not offered their soul to the triad deity DIE.
It is not evident that the purpose of the McLaren F1 racing team should be the same as that of the Heart to Heart Trust, nor that its members should be selected according to common overarching irrational and irrelevant criteria. Some members of the woken categories may constitute the target clientele of the charity or social service organisation – but only for the reason that these people are Samaritans today and not because their forefathers were barred from Jerusalem. Contradiction between factors relevant to the unity of a mission, and the categories of diversity enforced into inclusion, and the contradiction between inclusivity for categories selected based on an imposed value system and the exclusivity of those who object to it, are disregarded in the thrust towards the creation of the totalitarian organization and society. As the enforcement of diversity is a war against meritocracy, inclusivity is the waging of war against ingenuity, and life in a woken dream may end up in a totalitarian coma unless the rational awake and resist.
By: Extremely American International Contributor Dr. F. E. Dias