Inclusion
A word 40% of Americans use to mean they are tolerant and accepting of others in the same 40%.
Example: We moved to Seattle to live in a neighborhood of inclusion.
Example: We moved to Seattle to live in a neighborhood of inclusion.
inclusive or
1) Being accepting of people with different characteristics.2) In reference to inter-sectional feminism, the showing of preference to members of "marginalized" or "persecuted" groups - generally LGBT, minority ethnicities, and Islam - while showing complete disdain for and demonizing of all others.3) Showing complete disdain for and demonizing any disagreeing position.Inclusive
The idiotic idea forced upon us by higher leaning that we should include everyone in everything regardless if they deserve it or not. Furthermore, they want everyone to be included as long as your not white. Especially, if your white.
inclusivity
Example:
We need to have more inclusivity here, all of you white men get out to make more space for the wamen.
We need to have more inclusivity here, all of you white men get out to make more space for the wamen.
Inclusive
The name of a campus-wide campaign for the University of Illinois Urbana, Champaign that is grounded on the assumption that a university learning environment functions best when one accepts and respects others' view, identity, sexual orientation, race, etc.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
Inclusive Or
inclusion rider
Example:
"What if those A-listers simply added an equity clause or an inclusion rider into their contract? Now, what does that mean? Well, you probably don't know but the typical feature film has about 40 to 45 speaking characters in it. I would argue that only 8 to 10 of those characters are actually relevant to the story. ( . . . ) The remaining 30 or so roles, there's no reason why those minor roles can't match or reflect the demography of where the story is taking place. An equity rider by an A-lister in their contract can stipulate that those roles reflect the world in which we actually live." - Stacy Smith at TEDWomen 2016
"What if those A-listers simply added an equity clause or an inclusion rider into their contract? Now, what does that mean? Well, you probably don't know but the typical feature film has about 40 to 45 speaking characters in it. I would argue that only 8 to 10 of those characters are actually relevant to the story. ( . . . ) The remaining 30 or so roles, there's no reason why those minor roles can't match or reflect the demography of where the story is taking place. An equity rider by an A-lister in their contract can stipulate that those roles reflect the world in which we actually live." - Stacy Smith at TEDWomen 2016
All inclusive
When a hobbyist requests a provider that will do everything on the menu option. In other words Anything goes all 3 holes.
Example:
John 1:This girl say she gonna fuck for a buck anything goes all 3 holes.
John2: wow you got yourself an all inclusive bitch
John 1:This girl say she gonna fuck for a buck anything goes all 3 holes.
John2: wow you got yourself an all inclusive bitch
Inclusivity Bias
A special occurrence in place of media, celebrities and/or activist acts if he/she/they is inclusive, when in reality, said individual is biased toward a specific group of people, when writing the scenario for said media. They also tend to side with social justice and woke bloggers mainly to hide their controversy.
Example:
One of the writer of High Guardian Spice used her inclusivity to push her bias views against man. Saying that she wants to "kill all man" on Twitter. If she is a man then she would be called out for this for "kill all woman" tweet. Thus she is a example of a Inclusivity Bias as she is part of the group that hides any forms of controversy.
One of the writer of High Guardian Spice used her inclusivity to push her bias views against man. Saying that she wants to "kill all man" on Twitter. If she is a man then she would be called out for this for "kill all woman" tweet. Thus she is a example of a Inclusivity Bias as she is part of the group that hides any forms of controversy.
Inclusivity bias
A term coined by black light Jack on YouTube, this term means when someone will try and seem inclusive while isolating or being harsh towards other groups