MasterJaguar01
Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thursdays
quote:
I find the claim that "Most people" view the term "Woke" as meaning "decent" to be dubious. Where I find terms to be over used and over politicized (Ron Desantis is a poster child for using woke as a political troll tool), I have observed via gender and race ideology, the left has created "hierarchies of oppression" (Bethany Mandel's definition, even though she may have stolen it from someone else), and has reduced individual merit and worth and turned people into "communities". Call it "Woke", or "spiced salami" for all I care)The word "community" also seems to be hijacked by the left.
Well, to start with, most of the accepted dictionary definitions are closer to the sense of "decent" than "maoist insurgent" - Check it out on google. But it's true that there has been a pretty systematic attempt to weaponise the term to use it as a kind of catch-all for everything that a certain - typically right-wing - constituency fears. Merriam Webster has "Woke" as - "is aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."
I appreciate that the right has sought to co-opt the term, but that is what it means to me (and to wikipedia, merriam, collins, OED, Cambridge etc etc etc)
I will take your word for it that you are correct, but I am skeptical of how most people define the word. I find Bethany Mandel's definition to accurately describe a societal problem.
quote:
When you say
quote:
Example. People are black, brown, white, red, and many combinations. Instead of recognizing a non-white person for who he/she is, he/she has to be identified as a person of color, and therefore oppressed, and therefore more deserving of a prominent position in the name of "diversity".
I think that is an insult to all legitimately qualified non-white people for these positions. Instead they get labelled as the "diversity" candidate.
This point is a little bit strawmannish - Very few people who self describe as woke would assert that people from disadvantaged groups are more deserving of a prominent position. It may be a position held by some people, but it is very far from mainstream.
You miss my point here. I am not concerned with what people who self describe as woke assert or do not assert. *I* observe people whom *I* define as woke assert that people from disadvantaged groups are more deserving of a prominent position.
quote:
But the right wants people to believe that that is the "woke" position - Whereas, it's far more accurate to say the "woke" position is that people from disadvantaged groups are equally deserving of the same opportunity to achieve prominent positions. The "I think it is an insult to legitimately qualified non-white people" is somewhat disingenuous - I'd say that a stronger case can be made for the argument that it's an insult to these legitimately qualified folk that they are prevented from achieving their potential as a result of conscious and unconscious system bias.
A distinction without a difference here.legitimately qulified non-white people are indeed legitimately qualified "folk". The cases are equal and neither presents a stronger case. I was using non-white people as an example, because their being offered promininet positions is tainted by a perceived bias toward the fact that they have more pghiment in their skin than white people. Legitiemate;ly qualified white people are harmed from being prevented from not being offered prominent positions. Both groups are harmed. Neither point is disingenuous.
quote:
I'm not sure how your other example relates to the first, but I would say that one of the mistakes many individualists make is to believe that you cannot be an individual of you're a member of or aligned with a group - I don't see the logic of this at all. When people talk about a "community" in the context of being a member of a community, there's no implicit suggestion that they are "the same" - Simply that they share some common experiences or characteristics, or that they face some common challenges. It is entirely possible to be an Ayn Rand acolyte while also being a member of a community of folk with a certain sexuality, who believe in a particular deity, or who have a preference for a particular passtime. One can be a member of several communities at once and still be an individual.
Again, you miss my point here. I am indicating an observation that there is a tendency, when a member of the identified "oppressed" groups accepts a promininant position or earns a prestigious award, that person is discussed in terms of the "oppressed" group, rather than the individual's qualifications and accomplishments.
quote:
Your point about quotas for leadership boards or councils is well made, and I don't have a satisfactory response - I think that quotas can be a positive force, but I think that they must be applied very carefully. I don't dispute your statement that " A purely white Christian Anglo-Saxon protestant CAPABLE Leadership council is capable of governing a population of lesbian and trans women." but I would assert that a diverse leadership council would do a far better job - Indeed, there's a growing body of evidence in the domains of management and the tech industry that diverse teams can perform considerably better (It's not simply a case of "build a diverse team and hey-presto" (which is why quotas don't necessarily achieve their hoped for results) but there is a goodly raft of evidence that diversity, when embraced properly, does bring better outcomes). So, while I have some misgivings, I believe that there are some domains (and tech recruitment is one of them) where quotas have the potential to deliver far more capable leaders. There are way too many studies to cite here - I've no doubt it will take you seconds to google them.
Your argument and reference to the studies leaves out a key point. The diverse leadership councils need to be capable of strong leadership skills and sound judgment. Strong leadership skills and sound judgment beat diveristy every time.
quote:
As an aside I'd note that, going back to Merriam Webster - the term "actively attentive" is important - I believe that to be actively attentive to an issue or topic you have to actively look at it from different angles - including those that might jar with your personal political lens (The "you" here is the general you - and not a jab at you personally, I would add) so I do try to research arguments both for and against a proposition or idea before I dig my fox hole.
Not sure of relevance here?
quote:
Your last point again, I feel, conflates a couple of issues - You make the principled point that "no one should be the victim of discrimination" - Which, at the risk of making your eyes roll (And someone else on this thread shit their pants) is a pretty "woke" point of view - You then mix in "However, the discussion of sexuality in early years of childhood can be damaging IMO and is inappropriate." and then we segue into a strong (and doubtless sincerely held) expression of opinion on Drag shows. These are three fairly distinct questions - each of which could be debated, and I suspect that while we may not conclude a debate on them in firm agreement, I also suspect that you could - if offered a prize - make a pretty decent case for the opposite point of view to your own.
I don't think the question of how sex ed should be taught is necessarily a question of "woke" - It's an important, thorny question, and one where my strong personal inclination is to allow parents to decide. but if you believe sincerely (as I have no doubt that you do) that no one should be the victim of discrimination then can you have a strong objection to a general policy in education that youngsters should be taught that it's not right to make people victims of discrimination? In the UK we're in the midst of a "sex ed scandal" - in which a small number cases of apparently highly inappropriate curriculum content (I say "apparently" because I suspect that the content may well have been taken somewhat out of context for - shock! - political reasons) have been spun into a national furore. My response to your statement that the discussion of sexuality in early years of childhood can be damaging is to say "Yep - It really can be". But I would also say that the statement "The discussion of sexiality in early years of childhood can be hugely beneficial" - How old should a young person be before we talk about consent (particularly in the context of saying "no")? But, again, I'm not sure this is about "wokeness" - It's about a serious question of how do we protect young folk and provide them with the tools and understanding they need to navigate their world in safety.
The drag shows question is something of a litmus test - I mean what the fuck is the drama about? No-one is being forced to go to drag shows, I personally have no idea where the notion that drag shows are evil came from, but nor would I have taken my children to see one. But would I have banned them from watching the TV Show (the name of which I can't recall so small is my interest)? Nope - So there are people who like to dress up... that's fine by me. There are people who seek to express themselves in a different way? That's fine by me. There are people who want to experiment with their gender expression? Not bothered. People who want to exist as and in a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth? I'm all for them being allowed to exist as the people they are.
It is definitely you are conflating many issues here. And it is partially my fault. I was not as clear as I should have been. I will break them down for you.
1. Stating that no one should be the victim of discrimination is not "woke" by my definition, and it os only of my own definition to which I refer
2. There are a group of teachers and school boards who are in favir of discussing sexuality (especially homosexuality and transexuality) with children under 6 years of age. I find that inappropriate. (Sorry I should have made my point more clearly)
3. Drage shows and drag events, IMO are an adult art form and should ne performed in venues which are open to people over the age of 21
4. There are educators who promote drage sotry time, where drag queens read books to very young children. Again, not appropriate
All of these are woke by my definition
As for your indifference to people's sexual choices, I share that indifference and like you, I do not seek to control any adult's interactions with other adults.
None of this is relevant to my point.
quote:
I mean - We're on a flipping kink site - If you like to spank people (of whatever gender) then you do you! If you like to be spanked by people of whatever gender - then you do you... There are a few kinks out there that give me the fucking creeps - They're not my cup of tea, but it's beholden on me - Within some clear parameters (SSC / RACK <- pick your preferred acronym - mine is RACK) - not to judge them for their preferences, just as I'm likely to get a bit snippy if they judged me for mine.
Again not relevant
|
RE: The Woke Mind Virus - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread