Lol, yet another exceedingly creative and imaginative interpretation. Nowhere did I say I was opposed to the zealot’s exercise of speech. You don’t see me banning, deplatforming, silencing, or physically assaulting others based on hypocritical or contrived standards of wokeful purity. The woke on the other hand are. If they had more real power then they currently do LHOD’s attempt at satire would be a reality.
There’s a real contradiction here. The folks I know whom you’d accuse of “wokeness” aren’t at all convinced they’re always right. They think there’s a lot of internalized bullshit that we’re all subject to, that our culture has a lot of problems, and you can’t escape your culture. There’s constant attempts at self-improvement, constant efforts to root out stereotypes and unfounded assumptions.
On a broader level, are “woke” people convinced they’re right? That is, are they convinced that it’s a good idea to fight systemic injustice? Well, yeah. In the same way that a lot of folks in the military are convinced that it’s a good idea to fight for their country, in the same way that a lot of Christians are convinced that it’s a good idea to follow Jesus’s teachings, in the same way that a lot of scientists are convinced that it’s a good idea to treat the cosmos as an objective reality that’s somewhat knowable through our senses. Folks everywhere have starting assumptions and core values, and the attempt to sneer at folks on the left, not for the specific core values they have, but for the sheer existence of those values, is very stupid.
This is one of the more ridiculous statements ever made on this board. I do give you points for an “exceedingly creative and imaginative” view of the left, and you may have a career ahead of you as a fantasist.
Which type? He banned all of it.
As any social science, there is quite a bit of disagreement on not only the effectiveness of pretty much anything social related, but even how to measure that effectiveness.
I could find (and have) 5 or more cites that have studies and meta studies that show it works, and you, (or I) could find another 5 or more cites that have studies and meta studies that says that it isn’t effective.
I’d say that this one is probably the most useful, but there are dozens of pages on both sides of the issue.
Basically, we could go back and forth on it, but in the end, they pretty much say that much diversity training as implemented is not all that effective, because the effective ones are ones that have a comprehensive and integrated program, and many employers prefer to just have a lecture to cross that requirement off the list.
And yeah, there are some people that get nothing out of it, but there are some who do. If you go in as a rampant racist, then it’s quite likely that you will simply refuse to incorporate any of the information and ideas that are presented to you. I don’t see it being useful in making racists non-racist.
However, there are those who do not even realize their internal prejudices and subconscious bias. They may not realize the things that they do that are offensive or harmful to others, and can benefit if they haven’t already written it off as useless before they even start.
Sure, a once a year 1 hour session where you cram 30 people into a room and lecture them about some issue or whatever is not going to be a useful program. It does need to be something that is actually implemented on a consistent and integrated basis.
So, if for some reason, your diversity training isn’t working, that’s not a reason to give up on it, it is a reason to review it and see what’s not working.
The alternative is to not educate your workforce or student body or community about diversity.
Basically, it’s like saying that, because there are different ways to teach math, and some of them are not as effective as others, that we just shouldn’t teach math anymore.
In the end, it’s not about the content of the programs that is objected to, but the very goal, of creating a more tolerant and understanding community, that is what is being objected to.
Like what? You are the one that is saying that there are things that are being believed dogmatically, evidence free, and you want me to provide you with examples?
I don’t think that this is how it works.
Let’s take AA. Does it work? Yes, it does. It means that a minority that would not have gotten a job or a spot in a school did get a job or a spot in a school.
People can and will argue over what the best practices are, and how best to implement it, and whether or not it should be implemented, but in the end, yeah, it provided an opportunity that otherwise would not have been available.
So, I really don’t get what you are getting at here. If you only look at the caricature provided by the opponents of a program, then obviously it is going to look bad, as that is the entire point of their reason.
People who are for police reform, affirmative action, diversity training and such want to find the best ways of implementing these, and spend a fair amount of time in getting feedback as to their results and adjusting their recommendations based on these results. Still a bit of a soft science, as you cannot reliable repeat experiments on people and expect identical results, as you can in chemistry or physics, but it is still a science. It takes more time to see how different programs and efforts affect people and their community, and what works for one may not work for another.
But it is all very science and evidence based. The opposite of the dogma that is claimed here.
OTOH, resistance to such efforts is unchanging, and relies entirely on an evidence free belief that how we are doing things is the best way, and that change based on new data should be resisted. It is those who are against police reform or diversity training or affirmative action in any way who are relying on dogmatic belief.
Do I agree that there are people who object to the goals of AA, but also agree with the goals of other measures? Probably not.
There are certainly those who may object to certain implementations of AA, and how that may cause potential unintended consequences, but I do not think that they object on the reason that such a program is desired.
The problem here is that this is a very nuanced subject, and you are taking these giant swaths across it, and then demanding that everything caught in your swath must be of equal value and utility, or the whole thing is worthless.
Well, that is because you made the claim that it is a form of religious zealotry, based on your claim that wokeness and wokism are the same thing, along with your reference to the climate change denier Crichton as your source for your position. I will agree that it is a pretty stupid conversation, but I will not agree that you should be surprised that your claims are questioned.
So, you feel that a desire for police reform, when we can clearly see police brutalizing and terrorizing the neighborhoods they are supposed to be protecting is a form of religious zealotry?
I think that the claim that trans-activists are redefining the meaning of “woman” and introduce “cis” as a part of daily speech is a form of unsubstantiated zealotry on the part of those who oppose the existence of transgendered individuals.
How about when people uncritically oppose any effort to reduce police violence and discrimination?
I doubt very much that the latter group would agree with your caricature of them.
You didn’t present any evidence, just pointed at caricatures that you made and then complained that you didn’t like what you saw.
See, @quicksilver, this is what evidence free zealotry looks like.
Thank you @octopus, for providing an example.
[quote]
What exactly is it that you are trying to dissuade them from?
[\quote]
Here’s an example:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(oops, folks, can of worms just got opened…let’s try to keep this civil, okay?)
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is incredibly complicated, but people who are woke( and so proud of it) refuse to even discuss the issues. According to the woke mindset, it is a closed case, with only simplistic, black-and-white issues, no grey.
They despise the Israeli side, screaming “racists!”, and always support “the poor oppressed brown people” on the Palestinian side. No further discussion is allowed.
The woke warriors believe with religious fanaticism that their view is just and correct; It is a sacred revelation, and is not open to discussion. They are as bad as the actual religious fanatics (both Jews and Muslims), who also refuse to discuss things rationally.
The difference is that the woke left still pretends that they are logical and rational.
(note to fellow Dopers and moderators: we all agree NOT to hijack this thread and turn it into yet another Israeli-Palestinian thread. Okay?? I simply mentioned the conflict as an example of how wokeness often goes too far, and actually becomes hypocritical–letting fanaticism replace logical discussion…
You and I have been on this marry-go-round once too often for me to believe that you still don’t understand why I object to the phrase “abolish the police” and where I stand on police reform. I think you just like to argue for it’s sake and it’s no longer interesting or fruitful for me to engage with you on this topic.
False dilemma. I can believe (and I do) that that is in fact what some trans-activists are doing while also (myself) being against those who oppose the existence or equal treatment of transgender individuals. If you continue to engage in black and white thinking about my positions then I’m not sure there is any room for us to continue to engage in conversations about topics we probably agree more than disagree. Which is fucking weird, frankly speaking, because I fully expect to have these arguments with people on the opposite socio-political and ideological spectrum.
And thank you for providing an example of what I mean as well.
Once again, this is simply a caricature.
The feelings of “woke” people on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are incredibly complicated.
But those who paint everyone with the same straw brush say it’s a closed case, and refuse to even discuss the issue.
Do you not see that you have just done exactly what it is that you accuse the “woke” of doing?
But, once again, thank you for your example to help to convince @quicksilver that it is those who oppose the goals of the “woke” who rely on unsubstantiated zealotry in forming their dogmas.
Right? In case folks aren’t following the back-and-forth, octopus claimed that “The zealots and inquisitors of today are actually just as dangerous as their historical counterparts.” I mocked that by contrasting the horrific tortures and genocidal wars conducted by historical zealots and inquisitors with the absurdity of suggesting modern woke folks would do anything like that. octopus, instead of recognizing how OTT ridiculous he’s being, doubles down, saying that if the left “had more real power” then they would actually be doing things like torturing JK Rowling to death, or launching invasions of Idaho and killing the babies of Republicans.
He doesn’t see that as an exagerration. He genuinely and for real thinks that the left wants to kill Idaho babies and is only being stopped from doing so by lack of power.
Let that sink in.
Serious question: Do you think that you and I would have anything to argue about before the concept of wokeness and whatever ideological positions it entails made it’s appearance? Because it seems to me that we and people ideologically similar to us have become divided by a common set of beliefs whose differences around the margins became far more important than the common core beliefs. And if I am correct, then the caricatures of wokeness lie in the marginal positions, where they rightly belong, and not with those at the liberal ideological core who point them out as being absurd.
Yes, we have, and it is interesting that you would still bring up abolish the police as though it were any part of any serious platform or movement.
You can object to the phrase, I object to the phrase. But that doesn’t mean that I object to the goals that those who say it are trying to achieve. That doesn’t mean that I focus entirely on that phrase and my objection to it, and use that as a reason to object to the goals.
Like you said, it’s hard for me to believe you don’t understand why I object to using the phrase to paint and dismiss those who are for police reform.
Yes, some. That’s called nutpicking, and is pretty useless when actually trying to be productive in a conversation, and is only useful in trying to score points.
You make assertions as to the intent of a group or people, and try to find the greatest outlier from the mainstream of thought in order to back your position.
There are those out there that think that the only woman is a trans-woman, I’m sure. There are probably some out there that insist on using cis and trans in daily conversation. But these are not the mainstream, these are not the leaders. they have no voice, other than what those who are against the movement pick out and amplify, wit the specific intent of using those misguided and inarticulate points of view to discredit the entirety of the movement.
And you play right into it.
I am not doing so. I am pointing out that your black and white caricatures of other movements is simplistic and wrong.
Honestly, I never pin you down for any side of the political spectrum. You seem very careful to never actually say what you are for, only to point out and criticize things that you seem to be against.
When I defend those things from your criticisms, you get upset that I would contradict your assertions.
I have no idea what that means. Are you agreeing with @octupus here on his rather evidence free assertions?
No. I’m pointing out that ideologically speaking, we have a common enemy in @octopus.
I honestly do not know most of your positions on many things.
I just see that there is criticism of something that I do not think is founded, and respond to that criticism.
The idea of being woke, of being aware of how the actions of yourself and those around you affect others, of being aware that we all have some subconscious biases and cultural indoctrinations that may cause us to harm others unintentionally, that we do need to explore and expand our knowledge and empathy in order to help to create a more functional and peaceful society is something that I agree with completely.
The other definitions of “woke” that are made by those who are against those principles, I mainly disagree with, but I also disagree that those are appropriate definitions.
Some the folks I know do have the kind of arrogance that @Velocity is talking about.
I mentioned this in another thread just yesterday, and I think it illustrates my problem with “wokeness/ally cullture”.
My agency held a training course on facilitated negotiation last year. That’s a fancy term for “getting stakeholders to behave themselves so that decisions can be made and plans can be implemented successfully”.
The instructor was a college professor who seemed to know her stuff. But about an hour into the training, when we got to the topic of diversity, she did something that I’m sure she very much regrets. She said something like, “Since all of us–except for monstro–is white, we all need to be mindful that we are bringing a potentially biased perspective with us when we convene stakeholder groups.”
There were a couple of woke folks in the room who flipped out on her for this.
Now, I felt like she shouldn’t have said this because she had no idea if I was the only POC in the room. She didn’t know any of us. For all she knew, there was a whole bunch of white-passing black and Hispanics in the room, not to mention white-passing European-heritaged folks who identify as non-white (like Jews). I also didn’t think it was smart for her to assume that I don’t have my own biases. Being a POC doesn’t make someone immune to their own bullshit.
But this isn’t why the woke folk in the room flipped out. They flipped out because they thought she was humiliating me by pointing out my race. They made such a big noise over that–leaving her all flustered and awkward for the rest of the day–that I didn’t see the point of chiming in with my criticisms.
After the class, the woke folk would not fucking shut up about what happened! One of them marched to the training office and informed them that the instructor should never be hired again. Another tried to tell me I should be more more pissed off, because apparently what happened was the worst thing ever. I finally let out an exasperated sigh and told her that I know how to do angry black girl just fine. I save my anger for shit that matters to me, thankyouverymuch.
I like that they cared. That’s better than not caring at all. But it felt way too recreational outragey for my liking. They can get worked up about stuff and not have to worry about being perceived as a walking stereotype. Their outrage can be a badge of honor for them. But for me, outrage is an impediment. It is a cause for discrimination. If I get outraged over someone simply pointing out my race, then I’m going really lose my mind when actual aggressions occur. To her credit, the woman who was goading me into a reaction listened to me when I broke it down like this and seemed to get it. So did the friend who was with her. But I think the guy who filed the complaint was absolutely certain that he was right. He didn’t see any problem with “canceling” someone for committing an offense that the supposed victim–me–didn’t even see as an offense. He never once asked me how I felt. In my experience, there are a lot of people like this guy floating around. They work a sista’'s nerves.
Now, we’ll talk just a bit of “evidence free” or dogmatic positions.
We here on the dope like to get into things, deep into things. We want to get to the nuance, the nitty gritty, and sometimes spend hours researching and writing thesis papers on what we have found and on our opinions.
Most people aren’t like that. They don’t have the time or the interest to go as deep, to have as great an understanding of the nuance of their own position.
So, they do end up taking some things on faith. They agree with the idea of a movement, and say, “Yeah, be woke!”, and don’t know all that that means and entails. If you called them on the carpet, and demanded to know what that means, what policies it supports, what evidence is behind it, they wouldn’t know. They are not as informed or as articulate.
And that doesn’t mean that they sometimes don’t try to respond. That they do not explain what they think. And when they make a misstep, when they don’t understand or explain something well, then they are held up as everything that is wrong with the entire movement or idea.
One of the segments I always hated on late night talk shows was the “man on the street” segments that show just how stupid the people are. What they don’t show is the clips of the other people that did know the proper answer to their simple question, and instead nutpick out the ones who for some reason struggled with what he think of as a simple inquiry.
I see the same exact effect being used, but instead of a comedy show segment being used to make us laugh, it is instead used as a serious example to discredit a movement.
And it works, sadly. It wouldn’t frustrate me nearly so much if it didn’t.
Great post, monstro.
It’s a common error to look at someone else’s behavior and explain it using your own personal experience and values.
To wit, there’s nothing about being kind, or polite, or aware of history, that requires anybody to “get religion” or anything similar about it. Here’s that error on display:
Right-wingers and their apologists looooooove to paint all opposing viewpoints as quasi-religious in nature. It gets them off the hook of engaging with the issues, it makes them feel better about their own decisions being dictated by a bronze-age shepherd book. It carries the added bonus of mobilizing religious people who are ready to eliminate any threatening rival religions.
This is why we see so many herpyderpy takes about “aktually the left is no different from a religion.”
You see it as an attempt (by me) to discredit a movement. I see it as an attempt to keep a movement from discrediting (embarrassing?) itself through wrong messaging and insufficient understanding of ideas that unexamined can often lead down the wrong path of unintended consequences. If we can’t look at ourselves critically and jettison bad ideological positions, then we’re only a little better than those we ideologically oppose (on the right). I want us (progressives) to be on more sound footing in our thinking and policy making, not just ‘nicer’ or more well intentioned.
We recently had an anti - racism training at my job, and one of the skills they wish to impart (to white people) is how to interrupt and call out micro aggressions when they happen. I can’t help but wonder how it would feel as a POC to have someone intervene on their behalf, say breaking up the flow of a meeting to lecture someone for a micro aggression. Maybe they would feel more supported, I don’t know. But nobody was really asking POCs whether that’s what they wanted.