Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Anti-woke Civil Servants Called "Nazis". Radicalised Civil Service is Thwarting Democracy" video.

  1. It might look like an ontological and epistemological question "What is the "Civil Service Diversity Network"?". I guess since its from Social Justice "it" is not an ontological or primarily an epistemological question. The clue "is" "in" the title "it's" a Network: a structure as opposed to an ontology and a historical question of where and under what unjust origin it came from as opposed to its context of justification. So maybe we can ask what is it not. its about lateral relations of meaning not ontology as objects in themselves, and its about correcting historical difference imbedded in its origins as opposed to questions of legitimacy now. This suggests a cleavage between its context of genesis or emergence in unjust difference and the present context of its legitimacy now. This has an analogue in the epistemic question of the context of discovery and the context of justification. One thing is clear a non ontological field of relations has no non empirical non relational origin de jure, only de facto construction and so no author only measures of inequality and difference "now" that are used as abstract Criteria to cite people from the past and systems of the past as unjust. its as if they imagine the field of structural relations now was also the field of structural relations then wrt to say race and gender, when event he idea of a structural field did not exist back then. What becomes existent in the past then is the construction and abduction of certain people as causes in the past and the system in play or set up. In turn what is made inexistent now by the field of relations is anyone responsible. ie they refer to organisations and systems not people. We might then think we just apply (they would say appropriate) the lefts method of same deconstruction and achieve genealogy Critique of power to left organisations and show they too are not without origins in injustice and difference. But key concepts ort categories of person and responsibility do not exist in this Critique indeed the critic aims at destruction of such concepts. ie "appropriating the left method of de-personalisation will not allow inequality and power to reconstruct responsibility. They at once use relations to abduct ad hominon people in the past out of context for blame and they use relations now to exculpate all people "in" the network of responsibility. I've yet to read Rorty on this in his "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity".
    1