Doug Holland@lemmy.worldM to AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 month agoA sweeping ban on 'DEI' roils the sciencesarchive.mdexternal-linkmessage-square5fedilinkarrow-up122arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up120arrow-down1external-linkA sweeping ban on 'DEI' roils the sciencesarchive.mdDoug Holland@lemmy.worldM to AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 month agomessage-square5fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareFundMECFS@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 month agoIt’s not DEI “language” it’s literally a ban on people. You can’t use the words “disability” or “disabled” anymore for example. That’s not banning DEI(A) language, just erasing a group of people.
minus-squarerickdg@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 month agoSo they’re just rolling back vocabulary to something more offensive?
minus-squareFundMECFS@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month agoI guess “handicapped” can be used. But they also banned the word “accessibility” so it’s basically impossible to do research on people with disabilities really.
minus-squarerickdg@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 month agoI have to read 1984 again to see how this goes.
minus-squareDoug Holland@lemmy.worldOPMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·1 month agoFixed my headline, thanks. Wish I could fix the New York Times.
It’s not DEI “language”
it’s literally a ban on people.
You can’t use the words “disability” or “disabled” anymore for example. That’s not banning DEI(A) language, just erasing a group of people.
So they’re just rolling back vocabulary to something more offensive?
I guess “handicapped” can be used.
But they also banned the word “accessibility” so it’s basically impossible to do research on people with disabilities really.
I have to read 1984 again to see how this goes.
Fixed my headline, thanks. Wish I could fix the New York Times.