Re: Inclusive must mean that we only include things that we like...
>> There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept everyone, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept racists, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept slavers, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept misogynists, regardless of their opinions
Your statement is a paradox, because I think you're arguing that inclusivity means accepting someone who isn't inclusive.
As much as you got upvotes, I really don't think that is true.
Inclusivity is about accepting others regardless of
* things that are not their choice or decision (skin colour, gender, race, handicap etc)
* choices or decisions made but does not affect others who do not have a choice (i.e. not accepting a "privileged" gender making choices that affect an "unprivileged" gender, a "privileged" race affecting an "unprivileged" race, and so on)
The latter is where consequence-free free speech ends. The "privilege" I mean can be a cultivated construct (race for eg) or from nature (for eg male physical strength being used to disadvantage a female)
You're arguing that including a boneheaded chauvinist is "necessary", a person whose best justification is that they aren't the worst. This isn't what inclusivity is about.
Particularly so when he is and was consciously aware of what he was doing (so it isn't even a question of awareness or education, just arrogance and the privilege enjoyed of knowing they can get away with it). He recognizes it enough to use it to conscious effect to sell his book.
The privilege of protection he had has run out now, and there are consequences without such privilege.
The privilege in this case that comes as a rich male. Possibly being white and American helped, I cannot say if that's needed to get the book published. But being rich and male most certainly did.
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept racists, regardless of their other merits
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept slavers, regardless of their other merits
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept misogynists, regardless of their other merits
They can think and do whatever they want that affect only themselves. But there is a consequence that it is a career limiter.
Not ever getting a job or prison no, but senior exec of a billion dollar corporation? He can be the asshole non-line employee slumming it .
There are better out there. And we should strive to get better.
For all the "nostalgia", I'm for one am perfectly happy that "inclusivity" no longer includes the racist, the slaver, the misogynist, and so on. Them "good old days when I could slap a woman's bottom" can stay right there in history.