DemonTree I am still waiting for a definition of “woke” and a cite backing up your claim that ‘woke people’ value beliefs over actions.
Given that not considering equity has led to bad, discriminatory policies, I’m not sure how you’re reaching this conclusion. Note that the closest you’ve come to citing it is a preliminary recommendation that was quickly overturned before being enacted, from four years ago.
Conversely, I’d be happy to cite bad, discriminatory policies enacted when equity wasn’t considered, if you don’t believe me.
That said, we’re inching closer to an actual definition: “Woke” apparently involves considering equity issues when designing policies. Should this be toned down? Oh hell no.
untrue
How in your view would healthcare considering equity differ from healthcare based on treating people equally and working to include everyone as I described above?
Try asking nicely. I’m f****** tired of getting multiple hostile responses and demands every time I post, and you’re asking me to do a lot of work here just to get more of the same. I’m not getting paid for this.
Treating people equally doesn’t always make sense. I once worked for a lead researcher in sickle cell anemia. When he was looking for volunteers for an experimental treatment, he specifically engaged in outreach to African American communities. More than 90% of the disease’s sufferers in the US are Black. Why would he not prioritize outreach to Black communities?
Of course, he didn’t turn away White sufferers of the disease–that would be the right-wing caricature, not reality. But when a particular suffering falls disproportionately on a particular community, “equality” calls for ignoring that disproportionality; “equity” calls for recognizing it and devising solutions that take it into account.
Two things
#1 I did ask nicely. Here are cites proving I asked nicely. I even used the word please. You still have not provided a definition of “woke” or a cite for your claim.
#2 I am under no requirement to ask politely (though, as my cites show, I did). I am required to follow the board and forum rules. Those roles don’t say a thing about ‘politenes’. Last I checked, GD rules did require claims to be backed by cites.
It may be time to stop flogging a dead horse?
As I said upthread, the word means very different things to different people.
I doubt there is any definition that everyone would agree on?
I am not asking, and never have been, for a definition every one can agree on. I am asking DemonTree to give a definition of what she means when she uses the word.
Fair enough. I am not going to get involved in a dispute between two other posters.
In fact, I am done with this thread altogether.
This is not a dispute. DemonTree used a word that
So, I asked her to define it.
DemonTree made a claim. I asked her to back it up with a cite.
That is not a dispute. It is how Great Debates works.
Yeah, been down that “I would answer but you just aren’t asking in that very special way (which I will not reveal) so forget it!” road many times before. I think that if there were a simple answer that actually benefitted your argument you would have revealed it by now because, if it existed, it could only help your argument.
Then I doubt there is any reason to use the word at all, especially as a vague attack phrase.
Without definitions the thread itself becomes pointless.
Significant red shift? I’m not sure how significant it was. It looks likely the Democrats flipped three House seats (albeit by the skin of their teeth) to make the total 43-9 vs the the previous 40-12. CA state senate looks like it will be 31-9, state assembly 62-18, both continuing to be solid super-majorities. Schiff cruised to an easy victory in the Senate. Trump scored a higher percentage of the vote than in 2020 because the Dem vote tailed off a bit, but saw very little gain in absolute numbers - he had about six million in both 2020 and 2024.
Some wee bit of a red shift in some subtle ways might be arguable. But significant in electoral terms? No. Not yet, anyway.
Basking in hatred and lies like that is both very unpleasant and dangerous. People aren’t immune to propaganda. And since they are liars you won’t learn anything meaningful, anyway.
…the New Zealand definition of equity in healthcare:
This isn’t “woke.”
The differences in healthcare outcomes are avoidable. They often happen because of institutional racism. This is backed up with peer reviewed science. It isn’t based on your “feelings.”
“Considering equity in healthcare” doesn’t lead to bad, discriminatory policies. This is all measurable. What it leads to is equity. The unfair and unjust and avoidable differences in healthcare being reduced.
Why would you imagine if the evidence conclusively showed that more people would die overall, that the healthcare strategy wouldn’t pivot to address that?
This isn’t correct. The healthcare system as is privileges the majority: study after study after study confirms that. Trying to address that imbalance is what equity is all about. Its about “health services aiming to give them equal treatment”, the very thing that you say that you want.
And none of this is about “woke.”
Yeah, but here’s the thing: they’ve done this. We’ve got the studies. It isn’t a new thing. Equity isn’t a thing the wokesters decided that they wanted in healthcare. It is an evidence based approach to achieve the things that you said you want the healthcare system to do.
In presidential election in 2020 the democratic lead in California was 29.16 percent vs a lead of 20.2 percent in 2024 with 99 percent votes in.
A near 9 percent shift statewide is significant imo.
In NY the red shift is even more significant.
I hope and pray the democratic leadership addresses this very significant movement away from blue to red rather than ignore/deny.
Exit polls show this shift in varying degrees towards the republicans among young voters (18-29 year olds especially all young men…latinos, white, black, asian), latinos, black men, asian americans.
This NY Times article gives a better picture of where the red shift occured.
Quite scary looking at the picture…
It really isn’t. In 2020 Trump won 6,006,518 votes. So far in 2024 he has 6,065,209. The bulk of the difference is fewer people bothering to vote Democrat (in a state where the result was a foregone conclusion), not a lot more people voting Republican.
The Republicans did make small gains in the state senate and assembly, but only enough to raise their proportion in each to a staggering 25%. In the House they lost ground (by either two or three). CA may be getting redder and may get redder yet in the future, we’ll see. It also might just be the pretty normal ebbing and flowing of a few competitive seats. But significantly redder THIS election? I stand by no.
If CA is getting redder it is doing so like some people claim Texas is getting bluer. By inches.