Hacker News Reader

Comment by kgwgk | Hacker News Reader

Following a link in the comments section to a blog post from Michael Shermer I discovered this jewel titled

"Why the Term ‘JEDI’ Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion"

Subtitle: "They’re meant to be heroes within the Star Wars universe, but the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi...

(A separate submission has been flagged but I hope this comment is allowed. It's a very funny/depressing piece that deserves to be better known.)

View on HN

I can't make my mind about which part of this is the most absurd. The fact that "real" (I suppose) academics are trying to attach themselves to Star Wars characters through an acronym, the crazy allegorical (and anachronic) argumentation of the authors of this article in order to diminish the Jedi themselves, or the fact that such a thing would be published in Scientific American of all places. To be honest I actually agree with them in their premise: people shouldn't be using the JEDI acronym, not because the Jedi are holding phallic swords or "gaslighting" with mind tricks, but simply because it is a childish and self-aggrandizing bull#%&@.

I haven't read the linked article, and I don't like Star Wars. But as for people using JEDI or other Star Wars, Harry Potter, LoTR, GoT acronyms, I'm OK with all that. This is just how culture adopts new mythology, new symbolisms and new customs. Quite a lot of ideas, words and phrases from Orwell's 1984 are an integral part of current English communication.

Of course, when it comes to adoption of Star Wars and Harry Potter expressions, Disney and WB are likely to throw all their might at preventing it.

You mentioned "gaslighting". That's from a movie too.

I don't mind the use of an acronym if it's harmless, like if JEDI was Java Embedded Device Implementation or something like that. But in this case it's Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, which means these people are trying to attach themselves to the image of fictional paragons of light. This means they have failed to understand their position in a political debate with different sides, instead implying a false dichotomy where those who oppose them are surely the dark side. This kills the debate and makes it a non-discussion; kinda like a scientific work with a non-falsifiable null hypothesis.

Edit: the "gaslighting" comes from their article, too.

That's about what I thought too. That SA devoted so many words to decry the use of a silly acronym seems equally absurd. As if intelligent minds are too apt to conflate a Hollywood creation with real-world scientific pursuits. Their opinion piece also employs a consistent "we vs. they" language which strikes me as a kind of "woke saviorism" in itself. [Mirror, mirror...]

Thanks for highlighting, personally blacklisting Scientific American as a phony pseudoscience magazine. Truly a shame

Reply on news.ycombinator.com