Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (73206)	8/25/2003 12:31:32 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

A while back I suggested that you consider the possibility that “inclusion” has become a code word. Jewel, I responded to that post. I have not been using it as a code word and am unfamiliar with that usage. You dropped the subject so I figured you'd thought better of your point. When I talk about inclusion and exclusion, I'm talking about making that 12 year old med student, a fish out of water if there ever was one, feel comfortable or not. As a social phenomenon, I think of exclusion as a domesticated version of the systematic "othering" of classes of people, aka bigotry. From which I suppose could follow that "inclusion" is a domesticated version of affirmative action. As a milder variant, I could see "inclusion" used as a euphemism for affirmative action, but since they're synonyms, it wouldn't be a code word. A code word is a word with a different meaning used to mask an agenda. If you think the word has some other usage I'm not getting, you're going to have to educate me. (And I'm sorry if you found my earlier reply dismissive. <g>)

To: one_less who wrote (73206)	8/25/2003 12:34:44 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

You make excellent points, though I think they will fall on deaf ears. Exclusion is essential for the functioning of any society or organization. Colleges exclude students all the time in their application processes. I'm sure Karen's swim club excludes lots and lots of people. If it didn't, the pool would be overfilled and she would have no chance to swim her laps. Retirement communities exclude people. Of course, people will say that these exclusions are based on reasonable grounds. The colleges only have so many spaces, and try to pick those students who will best contribute to the college. (But if you have sat on admissions committees, as I have, you know that exclusion is strong -- depending on the institution they may exclude at the get-go up to 75% of their applicants with just a glance at their application. And as was done a century ago, at least some of those are excluded because of their race. But then they were excluded because they were black; now they're excluded because they're NOT black.) Karen't swim club excludes those who can't afford to pay the dues, as well as those who could afford them but don't think they're worth it. Economically based exclusion doesn't seem to bother her, or at least not enough that she gives up her swim club membership. Retirement communities exclude people on a variety of bases, both economic and ageism and often family status -- no kids allowed even if the child is a grandchild who is permanently living with a grandparent because the parents are dead. If Karen has ever invited anybody over to dinner, she has excluded everybody she didn't invite, including you and me. How can she justify being so exclusionary? And maybe she's excluding you because of your ethnicity? Horrors! There is, in short, nothing wrong with exclusion. We all do it. We all have to do it. Our lives would be impossible without it. Why is it that, at least on this thread, apparently only men are able to understand this, or are able to face reality?