Glossary of Diverse Diversity Terms

Distinction, Distinguishing or Discrimination
The process of recognising differences and avoiding confusion or conflation. In Diverse Diversity, Discrimination is always between two categories and never for or against. As such, it is not necessarily a negative action although unfair Discrimination on irrelevant grounds would be negative. This differs from the sense in which the term would be understood by Pseudo Liberals and has found its way into both popular usage and law.
Diverse or True Diversity
Diversity which seeks to enable all groups to conform to their own internal beliefs and practices inasmuch as these do not prevent the conformance of other groups to their own principles. Diverse Diversity therefore opposes any view of diversity which seeks to impose a universal perspective across all groups, as if there were only one correct way of viewing the world to which all others must conform. That is not to deny the right of any group to believe its principles are absolute, but it does prevent any group being subjected to principles it considers alien by another group which considers itself superior in some way.
Narrow Diversity or Pseudo-Liberal
These expressions describe a perverse interpretation of liberalism which seeks to impose a single viewpoint on all. Narrow Diversity claims to prize diversity and even to insist on it but, in practice, only recognises as legitimate those who share the same attitude to diversity. As such, it is not really diverse at all as it only accepts those who share its own view. Similarly, Pseudo-Liberalism claims to be tolerant, but only tolerates those who place tolerance above any other value. As such, it only tolerates those who share its own definition of tolerance. Anyone who has a different perspective on tolerance or has absolute values which might limit what can be tolerated will be deemed intolerant or illiberal and therefore rejected. In this way, Pseudo-Liberals use the language of diversity to suppress diversity by repressing all groups which hold a specific position other than their own. They often fail to distinguish between ideas and people and can therefore portray disagreement as a personal attack, and call for legal protection against such ‘attack’ as a means of Repression (qv).
Political Correctness
Although not specifically a Diverse Diversity term, having been used for over 20 years before the Campaign began, this term has been widely used, sometimes approvingly and sometimes pejoratively to describe a tactic by which Pseudo-Liberals and others seek to censor or control public discourse. It is therefore appropriate to make some mention of it here and discuss its negative effect on public debate. This takes two forms: Repressing opposition by denying opponents the language in which to express their concerns and altering the categories of debate in order to manipulate the available conclusions. An example of the former would be deeming certain words to be inherently offensive regardless of context, failing to recognise that although some words are always used to demean, many more are merely descriptive, but can be negative in certain contexts. Redefining words or banning them can deny opponents the precision they need to express themselves, forcing them to use more convoluted expressions which might lack clarity or sound ridiculously contrived. Opponents are thus put at a disadvantage before any debate can begin. An example of the latter would be to define new categories to make an extreme position look central compared with a newly-defined further extreme, to create a fallacious opposition between two concepts which are merely different, or to group together diverse categories into a more apparently homogenous single one. Although the term Political Correctness is often subject to ridicule, its aims are widely implemented by companies and public authorities (including academic institutions) and can be enforced rigorously in some circumstances.
The Principles of Diverse Diversity.
Imposing principles or procedures on any group which prevent it operating in accordance with its own position, whether by requiring conformance to an external standard or by intimidation or harming of those who hold or otherwise find themselves in a different position, opinion or category. Repression might be enforced through legislation, or through fear or shame or any other physical or psychological means to prevent people expressing their opinions, beliefs or identity. Repressive techniques would include any vilification, mockery, aggression or misrepresentation apparently intended to frighten, shame or malign a person or a group of people with a view to preventing them expressing their opinions, beliefs or identity. However it is not Repression merely to express disagreement or disapproval of a position or action, and claims of Repression must never be abused to Repress those who disagree (see Pseudo-Repressive Repression). Both sides of an argument must be heard. Those who merely disagree are not thereby inciting violence, and it is itself Repressive to accuse them of doing so in the hope of frightening them into silence. Such Repression could itself provoke violence by frustrating more moderate attempts to express opposition. Repression is dangerous to the stability of society and is likely to harm rather than secure the cause of peace. It can result from those wishing to silence or provoke their opponents for political gain failing to discriminate between expression and Repression, either through insufficient consideration of the issues or by intent.
Safe for Truth
Safety for Truth depends on free and fair discussion because full consideration of all arguments is necessary to achieve the balance in which any judgement as to truth can be made. Without that balance, any judgement is likely to be skewed and therefore unreliable, leading to truth being obscured or distorted. Truth is an important concept, not just for individuals but for public safety, because it is the basis of both the judicial and legislative processes. False claims are likely to lead to injustice, both at individual and social policy levels, so it is important for public safety that the truth is not impeded. Circumstances which are unsafe for truth are unsafe for all.
Wokeism or Wokism
A totalitarian ideology akin to Communism and Fascism which seeks to control people’s lives and thoughts by imposing Pseudo-Liberal and Politically Correct values on society as a whole. As Communism defines classes within society and promotes the idea of a class struggle leading to violent revolution, and Fascism similarly defines struggles in nationalistic or ethnic terms, so Wokeism defines arbitrary groups of people as “privileged” and seeks to deny such people a voice in political discourse, privileging in their place members of alternative groups. Like Communists and Fascists, Wokeists also regard life as a struggle between groups, and define identity groups to fit their agenda. Because they see politics as an essentially violent area of life wokeists are likely to be aggressive to those they perceive as opponents, justifying this by real or imagined violence from their opponents. They argue that those who oppose their values “give succour” to violent groups and that therefore all opposition must be suppressed to create a “safe space”. The real reason for their aggression might possibly originate, as with other totalitarian approaches, in a lack of firm evidence for their position, which thus can only be maintained by vehement insistence.