# Is James Lindsay's description of Wokeness accurate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177 "2020-11-09T21:16:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/285 "2020-11-14T19:24:45Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > You are right of course, but as you might expect I am in favor of funding programs to support those people too Yes. Care in the Community turned out to be anything but. > [@Babale](#): > > For some, certainly, and our society can afford that. But the vast majority? I doubt it. They may do things you don’t consider very useful, like stream computer games or go all in on a minor sports league or put up skits and stand up routines on the internet, but they’ll be doing SOMETHING that creates value for other people, because affirmation is a human need. Or they’ll take care of an elderly relative, or a child. Or they’ll make art or music. Our society can’t afford it yet. Maybe in the future, I don’t know? But people who are on the dole or disability allowance now don’t seem especially motivated to create value. Some probably do have caring responsibilities, but that’s urgent in the same way as a job: you have to do it now and can’t just put it off until next week. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Right, that’s my point. And the quote that keeps being bandied about also does not say discrimination based on race. > > It does mention discrimination, though, and if we avoid that message, then when people point to a policy as being discriminatory, the question is, do we say, “Yes, it is, and this is what it is not a bad thing.” or do we try to claim that it is not discrimination? > > It sounds like the suggestion, as far as messaging goes, is to do that latter. That seems like just setting ourselves up into a trap. Sorry, which quote? There have been a few. As for whether to call it discrimination, depends what your program is, perhaps? Free school meals could be regarded as discrimination, but I’ve never heard it described as such, nor have I heard them ‘sold’ based on the racial impact. I do think people more easily accept programs based on poverty rather than race, though. The harm and how to remedy it is more obvious, and all people can imagine themselves or their families benefiting if they fell on hard times. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I agree. But I also think that arbitrary benchmarks are better than nothing. Evidence based criteria are not always available or useful. Harvard got 43,000 applicants last year, and they were accepting less than 2,000. You _need_ some sort of arbitrary benchmarks to process that sort of load. True. Where do the rejected applicants study? At my university it was a common icebreaker question to ask whether someone had applied to Oxford or Cambridge. With so many qualified applicants it’s always going to be somewhat arbitrary who is accepted. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > It was not _poorly_ administered. It was specifically administered to try to keep the common people out of government and academia. The idea was to choose the best candidates though, wasn’t it? It was created to do that but subverted by the people running it. Otherwise they just wouldn’t have let common people apply. It should be easier to avoid that situation now, though, when we have independent academics who can analyse tests and entry requirements and publish what they find. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > That’s a question that all of us will be facing in the next generation or so. The simple answer is that they still need consumers. The complex answer can fill volumes, and is really best suited for another thread. Will they, though? If they have robots that can manufacture what they need, why give money to consumers so they can spend it buying products and use up raw materials? Manufacture what they need and leave the rest of us to starve. Perhaps we should leave this for another thread, though. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’ve been unemployed too, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. It’s soul sapping when you spend your day getting out of bed only to face rejection and worry about how to pay your bills. It’s not so much when finances are good and you know you can get a job when you want, and are just taking a bit of a sabbatical. I think it’s okay when you have money and a defined end date. But long term happiness is not best served by spending your time on video games. It’s kind of proverbial that kids who grow up rich and never have to strive for anything don’t amount to much as adults (though not universal, some inexplicably manage to rise to high office). Anyway, I’m not at all convinced a UBI will ever happen. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/286 "2020-11-14T19:34:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 1. Are you saying that White people acknowledging their privilege is not a _necessary_ condition; or > 2. Are you saying that it is not a _sufficient_ condition? > Because I don’t quibble with 2, but 1 is not true - it certainly _is_ necessary that people acknowledge their privilege. Could you expand on why it’s a necessary condition, please? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/287 "2020-11-14T19:37:07Z")
No, but I also think that it doesn’t have to be. Two reasons. First, there are fewer wealthy people than there are poor. If the 1% are getting the same thing that the 99% are getting, they may not need it, but it’s still only 1% of the cost of your UBI. Trying to exclude them will easily eat up more than 1% of the program cost in overhead alone. Second, I think that a significant amount should come in the form of vouchers. You have a housing voucher, and that pays your rent for a specific level of accommodation. You want a different accommodation, and you pay your own way. It doesn’t pay towards, it pays _for_. Similarly to how a public school doesn’t have a sliding scale for who can attend, but also doesn’t give vouchers to pay towards a private education. And the other part, cash payments that are meant to be considered disposable income, should be small enough that giving that check to everyone is a small cost. Though, and we are way off topic and getting into the weeds here, but the cash part of the UBI should be done on a credit card. Give everyone in the country a credit card with a 20,000 limit, 0% interest (or the same interest that a bank pays to borrow from the fed), and the amount of the cash UBI is paid off every month. If you don’t use it, then there is nothing to be paid off. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/288 "2020-11-14T19:52:06Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Our society can’t afford it yet. Maybe in the future, I don’t know? But people who are on the dole or disability allowance now don’t seem especially motivated to create value. That’s because they usually are not allowed to. If you are on disability, then if you make more than a mere pittance, you are taken off. Removing the cliffs removes the disincentive to be productive. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Sorry, which quote? > [@](#): > > **The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.** > [@DemonTree](#): > > As for whether to call it discrimination, depends what your program is, perhaps? To allocate finite resources in such a way that gives them preferentially to the disadvantaged. I don’t know that school meals is a finite resource, from a practical standpoint, we _can_ give that to everyone. Seats in a classroom or positions in employment are the types of finite resources that I am speaking of. In order to give preference to a disadvantaged class, you have to discriminate against those who are less disadvantaged. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Where do the rejected applicants study? State schools, community colleges, maybe they really slum it and go to Yale. > [@DemonTree](#): > > The idea was to choose the best candidates though, wasn’t it? It was created to do that but subverted by the people running it. Right, but my entire point there was to show how a “neutral” test could still be discriminatory. We still have to trust the administrators to have criteria that selects for the best candidates, not for the candidates they prefer. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Perhaps we should leave this for another thread, though. Like I said, it’s complex. > [@DemonTree](#): > > I think it’s okay when you have money and a defined end date. Retirees generally don’t like having a defined end date, but they seem to be happy enough. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/289 "2020-11-14T21:07:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I am a little uncertain what you’re saying here, given you use of “solved by” and “if only” : > > 1. Are you saying that White people acknowledging their privilege is not a _necessary_ condition; or > 2. Are you saying that it is not a _sufficient_ condition? > Because I don’t quibble with 2, but 1 is not true - it certainly _is_ necessary that people acknowledge their privilege. I’m saying it’s not a sufficient condition, perhaps not even the most important one. It’s not so much what is acknowledged, it’s what policies are put in place to improve things. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/290 "2020-11-14T21:16:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Two reasons. First, there are fewer wealthy people than there are poor. If the 1% are getting the same thing that the 99% are getting, they may not need it, but it’s still only 1% of the cost of your UBI. Trying to exclude them will easily eat up more than 1% of the program cost in overhead alone. I was thinking we’d exclude the top 10%. Or at least something greater than the top 1%. I also think that Social Security payments should be means tested as well. Yeah… I’m a bastard like that. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Second, I think that a significant amount should come in the form of vouchers. I agree that this would be the most fair way to distribute this money for maximal benefit to the recipient. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/291 "2020-11-14T21:30:46Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Could you expand on why it’s a necessary condition, please? You can’t dismantle a structure that you don’t even acknowledge exists. And you can’t right the wrongs of White supremacy without dismantling White privilege. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m saying it’s not a sufficient condition, perhaps not even the most important one. I agree with that. But it is a pre-condition for the more important ones. You can’t put those policies in place without acknowledging that there’s something to improve. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177/292 "2020-11-14T21:34:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I agree with that. But it is a pre-condition for the more important ones. You can’t put those policies in place without acknowledging that there’s something to improve. No doubt. Nothing changes without the will & commitment for it to change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-james-lindsays-description-of-wokeness-accurate/925177.md?page=14)