No, because to them, biased and evidence free strategies to combat racism are a bad thing and actually likely to make the problem worse. Come on, you know taking the literal meaning isn’t how language works. If it was, then ‘colored people’ and ‘people of color’ would be interchangeable.
That’s not at all what I want to do, and @QuickSilver has said the same. I want to promote a society that allows people to have different opinions and lets ideas compete on their merits.
Is that really all you got from their article? I think you missed the point.
Funny how they never make arguments to this effect, huh? About the closest they come to this is arguing that strategies to combat racism are a bad thing in general, because the “problem” that is being made worse is that white dominance is being threatened.
Sorry, no, I choose to believe that words still do have meanings, and that that fact doesn’t entirely disappear just because conservatives have stopped pretending and are now openly admitting that non-racists and anti-facists are their enemies.
Seriously, conservatives have started deriding “woke” people without bothering to redefine it. To them, people who are concerned about the status of black people are weak and bad because they’re concerned about black people. It’s not policies that are being derided, it’s the sentiment.
People often use the word “religion” when they mean a kind of uncritical commitment to an ideology that has some resemblance to a zealous fervor. It’s really just a form or criticism. Something we both just agreed no-one and no-thing is above.
Without consequences, you mean? Like, I can express the opinion that my boss is an awful person, and the company sucks, and that nobody should buy our products, while being the advertising director?
Feel free to provide a cite where an author makes criticizes the actual effects of policies in a manner that won’t make me laugh aloud about how transparently racist they are.
The meaning of “colored person” is “completely off-topic for this thread, obviously”, of course. And the meaning of “person of color” is “if you think that there’s some credible reason to use some weird definition of ‘woke’ rather than the real one, provide a cite maybe”.
I bet you didn’t know that’s what those terms mean. The english language has many subtleties, after all.
Where do you want to start? Do you not believe that there are racists?
Say for instance, someone that is for police reform, and what that means has been talked about exhaustively, and then someone comes by and claims that they want to “defund the police”? If I could show someone who did that, would that be evidence for you that there are those who are against evidence based strategies?
Do you really think that was the kind of opinion I was talking about, or do you think I may have meant something more general, like supporting environmentalism, or nuclear power stations, or nuclear disarmament for that matter? Could you please drop the straw men and take this seriously?
That is most certainly not what we’re talking about. A financial contract obligates you to certain loyalty to the company. If you quit, you can then say anything you like.
Right, which is why Crichton being invoked with his accusation that environmentalism is a religion, and that being used as a comparison to “woke” culture, it was a baseless and evidence free accusation.
to assume that anyone who is aware of, and cares about the situation that others face is some sort of zealotry is simply a way to dismiss them without bothering to actually understand their position.
Sure, it’s criticism, just as if I were to say that “Mr. Generic” is a poopoo head is criticism. It’s just that it is actually just an evidence free insult.
(nice attempt at a gotcha, though, too bad it missed by a few parsecs)
You are specifically talking about how you want people to be able to be racists and sexists without their employers being able to respond to these behaviors. You want their employers to be forced to put up with this, in an environment where, if the company doesn’t “cancel” the miscreant, the public is pretty likely to “cancel” the company.
That’s what you’re talking about, specifically.
(And I find the notion that people have been canceled for liberal positions laughable. Unless you’re complaining about people being canceled from Fox news, maybe?)
There are still some who seem to say that the complaint is that people will criticize their speech.
That was the entirety of the point of that article that seems to be being used as “evidence” here, is that the writer is worried that people may respond to what she says negatively.
Why is the responsibility on the public to avoid criticism, and the employers to allow embarrassment, but none on the actual speaker to not say stupid shit?
Duh, of course I do. I’ve even met some. But what on earth do my beliefs have to do with it? I couldn’t parse your second paragraph, but I want you to show some examples of people objecting to a particular strategy for combating racism, for example affirmative action, defunding the police, or the kind of diversity training that involves everyone confessing their privilege, and show they object not to the particular method but to trying to combat it at all.