I don't believe any phrase has become its opposite here. Language is complicated, and some words have multiple meanings, and some of those meanings are subtle; the idea that every term should be crystalized down to a single unambiguous meaning is, ironically, quintessentially Orwellian.
(I'm not saying Orwell would approve of institutional DEI, which suffers from many similar rhetorical flaws).
> the idea that every term should be crystalized down to a single unambiguous meaning is, ironically, quintessentially Orwellian.
Sure, but no one is advocating for a single unambiguous meaning of the term, the parent seems to be noting that concern should be paid when a word/phrase develops an opposite (or at least very contradictory) meaning, presumably in the context of a charged political environment. You may not believe that's what's happening here, which is fine, but that doesn't imply an argument in favor of singular meanings.
Oh, this blog post is sure advocating for a single unambiguous meaning of the term "diversity"; the whole argument falls apart without that definition.
Do you disagree that many advocates for institutionalized DEI have a shallow definition of diversity? That is my experience.
You are correct that if the author's definition does not match the one in the wild, their argument falls apart, but by and large, I don't think that's going on here.
For what its worth, though I think we might disagree at some core level about this topic, I do appreciate your way of reasoning through your criticism. It's amazing how many disagreements start at the level of definitions without the disagreeing parties ever reconciling, or even acknowledging, the problem of messy definitions.
