1 Comment

The Kulkarni clause doesn't illustrate progressivism, it merely signals it, and does so in a sanctimonious PBS manner. And while the signal may attract some participants, it's going to repel others. There are genuine trade-offs here, but I don't think my world is capable of an honest discussion of the trade-offs, or what it wants to achieve. In the meantime, it tells people how to vote and tells some people they're not welcome.

Which isn't to say that, were I to create a challenge, that *I* would know how to achieve diversity, or even be sure what I meant by the word. If we got a more genuinely diverse *electorate*, we'd probably get a *less* diverse result, as the broader public is going to choose more of the same ol' same ol' than Arron's friends will. And *my* rules might say something like "You can only choose artists who've never been listed by Acclaimed and who haven't made the last two Rolling Stone all-time singles lists" - this would be a good way of driving off people who aren't like me. Still, we've just *got* to avoid rules that welcome votes for the black underclass but restrict votes for the white underclass. I don't think someone who doesn't understand that this as a problem is capable of a genuine discussion of diversity. And this is a relevant point even though neither the black nor the white underclass is going to get much attention from us anyway, or pay the least attention to us.

Expand full comment