My definition of woke

[DemonTree]

@DocCathode

Are you saying that for example Jeff Has Two Mommies , a book designed for children, is comparable to Playboy- a magazine that you legally have to be 18 or older to purchase? How is a school shooter’s manifesto in any way comparable to a children’s book?

No. I don’t know what sort of books LHoD would have a problem with, so I picked examples anyone would object to. More realistic ones might be old children’s books with ethnic stereotypes, like that Dr Suess one they ‘banned’ by not allowing reprints, or for older kids, books promoting purity culture (that thing where they compare someone who’s lost their virginity with a licked Mars bar that no one wants anymore) or being a subservient ‘tradwife’.

I used to agree with LHoD, but I read a great essay on this a while ago that really made me see the other side. Unfortunately I can’t find it again. Basically, imagine schools were mostly staffed with conservatives, and they chose books promoting ideas you didn’t think were age appropriate, or were potentially harmful to kids. Would you still believe school staff should have sole say over which books are available, or should parents or elected school boards have a voice?

Perhaps instead of being able to ban books, parents and school boards should be able to add books of their choice to school libraries?

@DocCathode

I have my own reservations on sex work. I’ve known many girls/women who were molested by family members or other people close to them over many years. They often ran away from home, and found themselves with no support system and no job. In order to make money, many turned to sex work- they already viewed sex as a horrible thing they endured. Why not get paid for it?

Yeah, I think there are a small number of women who genuinely prefer it, and a much larger number who have suffered abuse, feel forced into it, are trafficked etc. And it’s hard to know how best to help them, but I’m really not convinced promoting sex as work just like any other job is the best way.

@DocCathode

Divorce is only shameful in a Christian context. In Judaism, for example, a religious marriage certificate is called a ketubah. Ketubahs are generally framed and proudly displayed in a house. A religious certificate of divorce is called a get. There are a long list of circumstances in which a divorce must be granted. Staying together no matter how miserable you make each other or what has happened is definitely not a Jewish thing.

At first I misread this as people framing their divorce certificate and displaying it in their house, lol. Displaying the marriage certificate makes way more sense. But how common were divorces among Jewish people say 100 years ago? Was this really a normal thing where people would get married, become dissatisfied with their partner, and they’d get divorced? I don’t think people should stay together no matter how bad things are, but I do believe there’s a societal downside with common divorce in that people are less invested in their relationships. It also means a lot of single parents and step-parent families, which statistically are much worse for children.

@DocCathode

I personally, obviously, support promiscuity. As long as everybody involved is an adult who freely and enthusiastically gives their informed consent and safe sex is practiced, let the good times roll. I do not believe in ‘slut shaming’. If somebody wants to wait until marriage to have sex, that is their choice and I am fine with it. If somebody wants to engage in group sex on a regular basis, as long as the conditions I listed above are met that is their choice and I am fine with it. In general, I agree with the attitude of Dr Ruth, who was of course Jewish.

Why obviously?

I don’t care personally what people do, and only got legally married to my partner because we had a child. But, I can’t really deny that in aggregate, every person’s action affects others. If most people are not waiting (for marriage, long term relationship, or even the third date) it becomes much more difficult to find partners who will wait for you. And young people especially feel pressured to fit in and do things they aren’t ready for because ‘everyone is doing it’. Modern hook-up culture seems to especially be doing a disservice to young women, by making sex before any relationship the standard. Young people even invented a new sexuality (demi-sexual) to have something other than personal preference to point to as the reason they wouldn’t do it. There are a lot of other things contributing to the horrifically dysfunctional modern dating scene, but this does seem to be one of the issues.

[DocCathode]

@DemonTree

Why obviously?

Huh. It’s apparently not as obvious that I am (Or was now that I have found Mrs Right) a giant slut. I don’t know whether I should be happy or sad.

@DemonTree

Young people even invented a new sexuality (demi-sexual) to have something other than personal preference to point to as the reason they wouldn’t do it.

I disagree quite strongly that demi-sexual was invented. I would argue, that like many things, it always existed in humanity. It was not recognized as a distinct thing. It had no name.

[puzzlegal]

@DemonTree

I don’t see how anyone can look into the issue of police killings and think it’s primarily a racism problem.

You are not an American. But honestly, Americans joke about “driving while Black” being a crime. We all know that Black parents need to give their children, “the talk” about how not to be shot. These are things that White Americans don’t have to worry about. White people who are minding their own business don’t get shot by an anxious cop who mistakes their keys for a gun.

The white people mistakenly shot by cops are mostly people who have psychological disorders of one sort of another and behave outside the norm. And yes, that’s a problem, too. But we have an enormous racism problem in policing.

@DemonTree

Whereas better training of police in deescalating dangerous situations, and hiring more police officers to try and reduce crime, could save lives, including a lot of black ones.

I agree that this is much more likely to address the racism problem than lecturing police officers on how they are bad people or something.

[crowmanyclouds]

@DemonTree

like that Dr Suess one they ‘banned’ by not allowing reprints

Shoulda been,
like that Dr Suess one ‘’‘’‘they’‘’‘’ ‘’‘banned’‘’ by not allowing reprints

[puzzlegal]

@DemonTree

I actually think affirmative action is the closest to disagreeing on ends rather than means.

I think we are using “affirmative action” to mean different things. In most cases that I’m aware of, affirmative action doesn’t mean “hire the less qualified Black guy”. That’s rarely productive, and there are extremely few circumstances where anyone advocates it. If you think that’s what it means, we are talking past each other.

But affirmative action can be making sure you get some candidates from underrepresented groups, perhaps by advertising in new places. It can mean that when you have a bunch of candidates that you can’t rank (which, quite honestly, is USUALLY how choices play out) you consider which of those candidates will add a different perspective to the group (which can be due to race, or due to other aspects of their background) rather than just going with the one who looks like you.

[puzzlegal]

You mean the copy right holders who decided not to reprint some of his works so as to improve his image and sell more of his other works?

[crowmanyclouds]

Yes, apparently capitalism is woke too.

[kenobi_65]

@puzzlegal

You mean the copy right holders who decided not to reprint some of his works so as to improve his image and sell more of his other works?

Exactly. The books weren’t “banned” by parents or activists; they were withdrawn from further publication or reprints by the company which holds the publishing rights.

[Der_Trihs]

@DemonTree

To use @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s example, it would be like thinking people want to fund charter schools in order to harm kids whose parents have fewer resources, rather than because they think it’s a good solution to problems with public education. Most people aren’t actually sadists.

Charter schools are promoted in the interest of furthering bigotry and ignorance. The goal is to impoverish or destroy the public school system, prevent the teaching of non-right-wing beliefs and ensure the children of right wingers won’t be exposed to anyone or anything that makes them question their hatred of their dogma.

And the right wing is about sadism. “The cruelty is the point”.

[Cmyers1980]

It’s just political correctness or identity politics that you personally disagree with. That’s it. It would be orders of magnitude better and more productive if we discussed specific policies, beliefs and behaviors rather than getting bogged down in yet another tiresome, bad faith debate about whether or not “woke” even exists. Here’s a relevant article by Freddie deBoer about the subject.

[MrDibble]

@DemonTree

Historically the principle of free speech has benefited powerless groups far more than powerful ones - that’s why the left has traditionally supported it.

Again with telling us leftists what we traditionally support - no, all the leftists I know have never been in favour of allowing fascists free rein of the media.

You might be confusing left for liberal again.

@DemonTree

It’s pretty wild to think hate speech laws wouldn’t be just as likely to be used against minorities as to protect them

Have you ever lived in a country that was run by fascists, where whole classes of anti-fascist speech were criminal? I have. So don’t try and tell me about police using censorship laws against Black people - I’ve lived it. And I still think our crimen injuria laws are a great thing. Because some speech is violence. And no amount of scaremongering is going to change that.

[GIGObuster]

@DemonTree

it would be like thinking people want to fund charter schools in order to harm kids whose parents have fewer resources, rather than because they think it’s a good solution to problems with public education. Most people aren’t actually sadists.

The current process (propaganda, talking points, framework) is to get more people to ignore the harm that takes place. Many are not sadists, but ignorant enablers.

[DemonTree]

@Der_Trihs

The Right isn’t half of humanity, it’s a minority. The majority of humanity is what the Right wants to kill and torment and enslave.

Didn’t you say normie Democrats are actually conservative? Which is it?

@Cmyers1980

Here’s a relevant article by Freddie deBoer about the subject.

I did consider linking this article. Not sure why you are doing so, when it clearly agrees that there is a phenomenon here that is very much worthy of a name?

@MrDibble

Have you ever lived in a country that was run by fascists, where whole classes of anti-fascist speech were criminal? I have. So don’t try and tell me about police using censorship laws against Black people - I’ve lived it. And I still think our crimen injuria laws are a great thing. Because some speech is violence. And no amount of scaremongering is going to change that.

Dude, you live in a country where a major political party sings songs about killing white farmers, and your supreme court decided this isn’t hate speech. Such laws protect who the government wants to protect, and no one else.

[DemonTree]

Godamnit, Discourse keeps eating most of my replies. Now I have to rewrite everything from scratch and it’s the middle of the night.

@DocCathode

I disagree quite strongly that demi-sexual was invented. I would argue, that like many things, it always existed in humanity. It was not recognized as a distinct thing. It had no name.

It didn’t need a name before because it was congruent with how most people dated. Only when there was a social expectation that they have sex with near-strangers did a large number of women and a smaller number of men realise that they were uncomfortable with this, and want a label for their feelings.

@puzzlegal

You are not an American. But honestly, Americans joke about “driving while Black” being a crime. We all know that Black parents need to give their children, “the talk” about how not to be shot. These are things that White Americans don’t have to worry about. White people who are minding their own business don’t get shot by an anxious cop who mistakes their keys for a gun.

According to the Washington Post, between 10 and 20 unarmed black people are killed by the police every year in America, out of how many millions? Does this seem like a problem parents need to warn their kids about? Meanwhile, 9,289 black people were murdered last year, mostly by other black people. Better policing could reduce this number, by deterrence, and by providing an assurance of justice that would prevent friends and relatives taking private revenge for earlier crimes.

As for profiling, I think Matt Yglesias makes a convincing argument that it’s unfair on innocent people, even in cases where it’s effective. He favours stopping people for minor crimes and checking them for arrest warrants and illegal weapons, which at least only inconveniences those already guilty of something.

@puzzlegal

I agree that this is much more likely to address the racism problem than lecturing police officers on how they are bad people or something.

Now you just need to convince one party to actually do it, and I just need to convince the UK government to spend money on policing rather than doing endless austerity.

@puzzlegal

I think we are using “affirmative action” to mean different things. In most cases that I’m aware of, affirmative action doesn’t mean “hire the less qualified Black guy”. That’s rarely productive, and there are extremely few circumstances where anyone advocates it. If you think that’s what it means, we are talking past each other.

Don’t you work at Harvard, where they recently had to reveal in court large disparities in qualifications between different groups admitted, and how they used low ‘personality scores’ to reduce the rankings of Asian American students? I think there’s a lot of denial on the left about what affirmative action looks like in practice. If you create a target and push people hard to meet it, they aren’t going to confine themselves to the methods in your second paragraph.

@kenobi_65

Exactly. The books weren’t “banned” by parents or activists; they were withdrawn from further publication or reprints by the company which holds the publishing rights.

Nor are books removed from a school library banned. No one thinks school libraries could or should contain every book ever published, and kids can still borrow the book from a public library or buy it on Amazon. In neither case is the government stopping anyone from reading the book, so it’s not a true ban.

[Czarcasm]

@DemonTree

Nor are books removed from a school library banned. No one thinks school libraries could or should contain every book ever published, and kids can still borrow the book from a public library or buy it on Amazon.

These particular books weren’t banned, and that is proof that no particular books have been banned?
Try harder.

[puzzlegal]

@DemonTree

@puzzlegal

I think we are using “affirmative action” to mean different things. In most cases that I’m aware of, affirmative action doesn’t mean “hire the less qualified Black guy”. That’s rarely productive, and there are extremely few circumstances where anyone advocates it. If you think that’s what it means, we are talking past each other.

Don’t you work at Harvard, where they recently had to reveal in court large disparities in qualifications between different groups admitted, and how they used low ‘personality scores’ to reduce the rankings of Asian American students? I think there’s a lot of denial on the left about what affirmative action looks like in practice. If you create a target and push people hard to meet it, they aren’t going to confine themselves to the methods in your second paragraph.

No, i don’t work at Harvard. I went to Harvard and i do (volunteer) alumni interviews for students applying to be Harvard undergrads.

No one revealed large “disparities in qualifications” between groups of applicants. They highlighted disparities in test scores, which is very much a different thing. Something like 60% percent, maybe more, of everyone who applies to Harvard is fully qualified to attend. But they only have space for a couple percent of the applicants. Their number one goal is to accept people who are likely to become “leaders” (politically, financially, scientifically, etc.) which is not especially correlated with test scores, beyond a floor of “qualified”.

What was revealed, which Harvard denied and which was extremely embarrassing, is that their paid staff were giving Asian candidates lower scores for “personality” than their alumni interviewers were. And i don’t think they did that to help under-represented minorities, i think they did it because they were afraid Harvard would look “too Asian”. That was plain old racial discrimination, not affirmative action. There’s no way to prove that, but I’m really certain that’s what was going on. And the law suit tried to get Asian students and applicants to sign on, but it was driven by white men from traditional “privileged” backgrounds, and frankly, that’s who it’s going to help, not those Asians who i bet still will be less likely to be admitted.

But it’s hard to tell, because Harvard is doing their best to obfuscate whatever changes they might have made.

Experts Are Confused by Harvard’s Race Data. Here’s Why. | News | The Harvard Crimson.

[GIGObuster]

@DemonTree

According to the Washington Post, between 10 and 20 unarmed black people are killed by the police every year in America, out of how many millions? Does this seem like a problem parents need to warn their kids about?

Police shootings: rate by ethnicity U.S. 2024 | Statista.

The rate of fatal police shootings in the United States shows large differences based on ethnicity. Among Black Americans, the rate of fatal police shootings between 2015 and November 2024 stood at 6.2 per million of the population per year, while for white Americans, the rate stood at 2.4 fatal police shootings per million of the population per year.

@DemonTree

Nor are books removed from a school library banned. No one thinks school libraries could or should contain every book ever published, and kids can still borrow the book from a public library or buy it on Amazon. In neither case is the government stopping anyone from reading the book, so it’s not a true ban.

No, Timmy, I will not buy you the Frederick Douglass’ autobiography on Amazon, your little white mind could become “woke”.

How do schools in Oklahoma justify banning Frederick Douglass' autobiography?

[MrDibble]

@DemonTree

Dude, you live in a country where a major political party sings songs about killing white farmers,

That’s not actually what that song means in its original language, but yeah, I do.

@DemonTree

your supreme court decided this isn’t hate speech

Because it isn’t.

@DemonTree

Such laws protect who the government wants to protect, and no one else.

Sure - hence why I act to ensure my government protects the right people. And when they don’t (as throughout my childhood) we ignore them.

Laws don’t make right. It’s nice when they do align, though.

[Der_Trihs]

@DemonTree

Didn’t you say normie Democrats are actually conservative? Which is it?

They are small “c” conservative, the Republicans/Right are radical reactionaries.

[DemonTree]

@puzzlegal

No one revealed large “disparities in qualifications” between groups of applicants. They highlighted disparities in test scores, which is very much a different thing. Something like 60% percent, maybe more, of everyone who applies to Harvard is fully qualified to attend. But they only have space for a couple percent of the applicants.

They found huge disparities in admittance rate by academic ranking, which I can’t find a definition of, but would assume includes grades as well as SAT scores.

And ‘fully qualified to attend’ can mean whatever Harvard wants it to mean. There’s no cut-off in intelligence where it doesn’t matter any more. Harvard chooses where to set the bar academically, and they have chosen to set it far lower than they could because they want to pick students based on other characteristics like leadership and sporting ability, likelihood of giving donations in future - and race.

@puzzlegal

No, i don’t work at Harvard. I went to Harvard and i do (volunteer) alumni interviews for students applying to be Harvard undergrads.

@puzzlegal

What was revealed, which Harvard denied and which was extremely embarrassing, is that their paid staff were giving Asian candidates lower scores for “personality” than their alumni interviewers were. And i don’t think they did that to help under-represented minorities, i think they did it because they were afraid Harvard would look “too Asian”.

So your own honest interviews helped demonstrate Harvard was using these personality scores to put a finger on the scale. They were also giving higher scores to black and Hispanic candidates than white, by the way. All in pursuit of racially balancing their classes.

@puzzlegal

That was plain old racial discrimination, not affirmative action.

In this case it’s the same thing. Harvard admissions are zero sum. If you help one group, you necessarily discriminate against others. Or do you mean the motive was different? I don’t believe Harvard is full of specifically anti-Asian (but pro-black and Hispanic!) racists. They wanted their classes to ‘look like America’, and the logic of that requires limiting ‘overachieving’ Asians as much as boosting ‘underachieving’ black and Latino students. Looked at another way, they are in the business of creating elites, and if the people feel elites don’t represent them, that can cause serious problems for a country. (A large portion of Americans currently do feel this way, to disastrous effect - but Harvard definitionally cannot fix education polarisation.)

What it all comes down to, is that affirmative action in practice frequently does mean “hire (or admit) the less qualified black guy” (and Hispanic guy, and sometimes women of various races). And progressives will both deny that it’s happening, and say it’s good when forced to admit that it is - because “it’s just compensating for poverty/underfunded schools/racially biased tests/systemic racism”.

Before this case reached the supreme court, a federal judge found that “​​At least 10% of Harvard’s admitted class, including more than one third of the admitted Hispanics and more than half of the admitted African Americans, would most likely not be admitted in the absence of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process.”

That’s what affirmative action does - admit or hire people who would not otherwise be admitted or hired on their merits.

@puzzlegal

But it’s hard to tell, because Harvard is doing their best to obfuscate whatever changes they might have made.

Clearly they are now making a good faith effort to comply with the law.