That’s totally fair, and I agree with you. I probably shouldn’t have used the phrase “high form of humor”. I more meant “worthwhile form of humor”. Even that doesn’t really encapsulate what I mean.

I don’t know. It can be hard to separate brainrot from intelligent comedy, and I laugh at both, myself. I’m not the comedy police or anything, I just don’t want to end up here:

That’s me! Cringe and proud.

Shitposting is just pretending to be stupid/racist/shitty for laughs/attention, right? Pretty low form of humor, if you ask me (no one did), but I’m also guessing a lot of shitposters aren’t just pretending.

I like a laugh as much as the next person, but we can’t sit around going “Why are people in this country so fucking stupid/racist/shitty?” while simultaneously elevating “acting” stupid to some high form of humor. You see how that’s counterproductive, right?

“Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

“Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they’re in good company.” - Jason Garrett-Glaser

I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.

Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.

Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.

I’m not going to waste my time on this unless you can answer my very direct question, above.

I’ve been convinced through a great deal of reading over the course of many years. For me to compile it all for someone who by all indications is not receptive to having their opinion changed would be a fool’s errand.

Where did I claim that DEI is rational or irrational? DEI is an evidence-based practice.

Ed: Be sure to look at who you’re engaging with. I have not “changed my argument” as I have only just begun discussing this here.

Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.

Putting Rational Actors in Their Place: Economics and Phenomenology

Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that DEI programs have been a net positive for US businesses?