Born This Way Foundation

According to its Web site:

Led by Lady Gaga and her mother Cynthia Germanotta, the Born This Way Foundation was founded in 2011 to foster a more accepting society, where differences are embraced and individuality is celebrated. The Foundation is dedicated to creating a safe community that helps connect young people with the skills and opportunities they need to build a kinder, braver world.

We believe that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be empowered and to make a difference in the world. Together, we will move towards acceptance, bravery and love.

This sounds all fine and well. Does anyone know more? I am always suspicious of "feel good" organizations like these with nebulous mission statements.

Post 1

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 5:46pm

I sincerely hope this isn't an organization that lobbies the government in the attempt to force businesses to hire people who are "different". Do I hope for too much? It's likely.

Also, those "positive" rights at the end are troubling.

Post 2

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 7:33pm

Luke:

There is the 'feel good' justification for diversity, which makes many folk's eyes roll.

But there is also this; it is emblematic of a fundamental principle of resilient systems.

(This is borrowed from a recent talk I listened to by a Dr. Armstrong on the subject of 'neurodiversity.')

Consider the Irish potato famine; what enabled it was the fact that there was largely only a single variety of potato grown in Ireland at the time. The potato universe in Ireland got it all wrong at once, single point of failure.

In the South Pacific, tiny island nations dispersed among many islands separated by open water led to a tribal circumstance where spatial/navigational skills were highly valued, and tended to shape tribal leadership roles, as a kind of locally selective filter. In DC, folks who can't find their BMW in the parking lot are yet trying to run the largest economies in the world. Our local tribal bias is political, and so the selective filter that fills our tribal roles is the ability to convincingly lie to people.

New research into autism(the DSM is exploding with new forms all the time)has observed that there are some aspects of autism which are required to do some tasks well; there are some forms of autism with the characteristic ability to focus with intensity on complex details, and so, an asset when developing very complex systems, such as complex computer programs. I've often run into programmers who have shown some signs of autism, and they were excellent programmers. The point of this is, by perseverating too intensely on what the current local 'normal' is, we run the risk of normalizing ourselves into an inbred cul de sac.

Is it really a good idea to encourage an inbred pool of talent in any human endeavor? Are we, either as a tribe or as individuals, really that smart to know what the absolute best single type of anything is best for the entire nation, as a whole, sufficient to implement an Irish potato solution?

In that light, 'diversity' is simply a representation of a fundamental system design principle: non-single point of failure, not having all our eggs in one basket, massively parallel and redundant and thus resilient system design.

A concept far from Totalitarianism...

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 10:36am

We believe that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be empowered and to make a difference in the world.
The "right"?

Excuse me?

Post 4

Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 12:39pm

If they mean "moral" right as opposed to "political" entitlement then I sympathize as a radical individualist.

I am wary of the risk of conflation of the two.

Post 5

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 2:13am

We believe that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be empowered and to make a difference in the world.

Just nonsense. The right to FEEL safe. The key word is feel. You can feel what you can feel. It neither effects the outside world in any meaningful way, nor does it give any guarantee about actually being safe.

And how would a government or any group grant or instill feelings as a right? Does the department of social security form an agency that grants these feelings? Maybe in the form of feel-good medications? As to feeling "empowered" - the same argument holds. People who hallucinate that they can fly and jump off a tall building "feel" empowered till gravity brings them to the pavement.

As for "make a difference in the world" - how to even try to cudgel that into a meanful remark is beyond me. Difference to who, by what standard, and again, how does government install that feeling that a person makes a difference to whoever in whatever way?!?!?!

If you decide that word "feel" was just sloppy writing the author meant "be" then it is just as much a steaming pile of nonsense. What is the person to be made safe from? Bacteria, virus, the effects of nuclear radiation, random muggings, hurt feelings, effects of ignorance or sloth? And how is a person empowered? I've always understood empowerment as internal - as a degree of self-esteem when talking in general, and confidence when talking about a specific context. How does the government plan to get those injected into the masses? (Rhetorical question since the answers I can imagine are bad enough!)

Here is what I can say about this that is positive. There are small-minded bullies that attack any difference as long as their small subculture or group 'feel safe' doing so. With a rational set of values, people only attack what is anti-human, and don't attack what is of value. Moving towards that, and away from the multitude of bully positions would make many people "feel safer," and with that would come an easier time building "feelings of empowerment." But notice that is about being more rational, and not about "rights."
----------------------

I'm not as critical of that last sentence:

Together, we will move towards acceptance, bravery and love.

I'm not sure of who the "we" refers to, and I'd want to know how they plan to achieve this goal of 'moving towards..." but I like the idea of consciously, explicity holding the goals of self-acceptance (which generates increased levels of acceptance towards others), bravery and love (passionate attachment to one's higher values as well as romantic love).

Post 6

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 4:23am

I suspect this has its motivations as part of the wider "anti-bullying" campaign I have seen growing lately. I can support the idea of opposing bullying in principle. The devil is in the details. If we are just talking general attitudes in civil society, then of course I support letting people be themselves and not trying to mind their business by intimidating them into molding themselves into ideals at odds with their natures, e.g. homosexuals, "nerds," etc. If we are talking about laws that curb free speech to stifle stinging criticisms with such laws enforced via draconian penalties, then I oppose that. The problem with campaigns like these reflect a deeper problem today, namely the conflation of civil society with government. Most people have become conditioned not to see a difference.

I first learned of this campaign earlier this week in Office Depot where I saw a poster with the title and a blurb and Web address. So evidently it has made substantial headway. I just wish it had more precise language rather than a fog that would make Ellsworth Toohey proud.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/14, 4:26am)

Post 7

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 6:53am

Is there a big problem with bullying at Office Depot?

I never noticed.

Post 8

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 9:15am

Evidently there was some kind of advertising agreement between the two organizations.

Post 9

Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 9:31am