„Woke Culture“ is a child of Neo-liberal capitalism

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/8/2021 at 9:19 AM, DanteGabriel said:

Besides, no one was even talking about Jordan Peterson here. We are talking about the unchallenged spread of harmful lies --

 I have to say Peterson’s launch to stardom does exemplify the problem with relying on a good debate to win the way.

What he said about the Canadian bill that would have made gender identity a protected class was wrong.

This should be demonstrably obvious to anyone whose read the bill Peterson was fearmongering about or at least cognizant of the fact Peterson hasn’t suffered any legal reprisal. 
In the end the facts, didn’t matter. A calm professor was getting yelled at by the evil sjw college soys. For many people the basic aesthetic of the interaction was enough for them to side with Peterson.

33 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Too bad they don't define "political correctness".  Would you care to?  I think it's one of those phrases that most people dislike.  What does it mean though?  As far as I know it just means you shouldn't say racial, sexual, or gendered slurs.

 

The term has been bastardized by too many conservatives to mark anything they dislike. It originally just meant inoffensive to groups of the public.

This isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.

It can mean having a US text book which gives a very milk toast description of the founding fathers of America and no talk about slavery to make them more palpable to modern sensibilities.

Something being politically correct is intrinsically no more good or bad than something politically incorrect.

 

[Week]

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The term has been bastardized by too many conservatives to mark anything they dislike. It originally just meant inoffensive to groups of the public.

This isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.

It can mean having a US text book which gives a very milk toast description of the founding fathers of America and no talk slavery to make them more palpable to modern sensibilities.

Which is the point that larry was making to address the persistently confused and memory-deficient trolling.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Just like the pipeline discussion in the politics thread, nobody wants to discuss the impacts to indigenous people, only to businesses and future generations and Canadians and Michigan voters. Out of sight, out of mind.

What's there to discuss? It should be a simple single statement saying government and industry have no business building pipelines on sovereign indigenous territories if the people don't want them built.

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Too bad they don't define "political correctness".  Would you care to?  I think it's one of those phrases that most people dislike.  What does it mean though?  As far as I know it just means you shouldn't say racial, sexual, or gendered slurs.

 

I’d be very surprised if over 80% of Asians and Hispanics thought that it was a genuine problem that they couldn’t use racial, sexual or gendered slurs. 

[DaveSumm]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

At this point it’s really morphed

Quite. It’s amazing how often arguments get sidetracked by an attempt to match someone’s intended meaning to a dictionary definition. We mean to say things, and we put the best label on those meanings that we have to hand. If I were talking to you about how much I love apples, and you agreed, then it turned out that’s actually what you called pears, then what good is continuing to use the word? We obviously don’t agree on what it means, and we’d need to find a new word. “Woke” has clearly become an insult in many circles, as much as we might appeal to any original meaning. So it seems useless to talk about without qualifying what we mean.

Relevant Dawkins quote: “Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use. The mere presence in the dictionary of a word (...) does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world.”

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’d be very surprised if over 80% of Asians and Hispanics thought that it was a genuine problem that they couldn’t use racial, sexual or gendered slurs. 

Yeah, that's my point.  It's a nebulous term and I'd question pretty much any conclusion you're trying to make from that Atlantic article.  

Which is why I asked you what "political correctness" means to you.

edit: for example, my mom uses the word in a very bizarre sense.  For her, it means an overly technical description.  She thinks that if you say "sanitation technician" instead of garbage collector that you're being "politically correct".  A bunch of her friends use it the same way.  

[mormont]

53 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Quite. It’s amazing how often arguments get sidetracked by an attempt to match someone’s intended meaning to a dictionary definition. We mean to say things, and we put the best label on those meanings that we have to hand. If I were talking to you about how much I love apples, and you agreed, then it turned out that’s actually what you called pears, then what good is continuing to use the word? We obviously don’t agree on what it means, and we’d need to find a new word. “Woke” has clearly become an insult in many circles, as much as we might appeal to any original meaning. So it seems useless to talk about without qualifying what we mean.

Relevant Dawkins quote: “Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use. The mere presence in the dictionary of a word (...) does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world.”

This argument is about the use of words in good faith. Meaning changes, yes: that's quite different from meanings being deliberately corrupted for political ends. The word 'woke', after all, didn't originally have anything to do with systemic power: it came to have that meaning. We're now in a process where there's a conscious, concerted attempt to immediately turn that new meaning into a derogatory term, to pour scorn on the concept. We can recognise the value of the first and still resist the second, without being vulnerable to a prescriptivist label.

[Zorral]

In undergrad academia, at least around here, 'woke' began to be used in tandem with 'ally; meaning white kids, who were woke to the seeing the systemic racism in action all around us, were speaking out about it when they witnessed it, as a white ally of those who are the overt objects of racist treatment in everything from white people just grabbing a handful of a black person's hair and saying, "What is this?", to cops stopping people for living while black. to white people making fun of African American names, to white people insisting slavery doesn't matter (and for that matter there are a lot of first generation Asian immigrant kids who don't get this either -- they really need the history lessons!), to the understanding that systemically and systematically a whole lot of federal and other public benefit programs from G.I.Loans, and free tuition and the rest were denied to African Americans.

IOW. woke as it was used where I function and exist meant, "We know what has happened historically, legally, politically, socially and culturally, and what is happening, in this country to and with our African American friends and brothers and sisters, and we wish to 'ally' ourselves to make things better, in whatever way that sits OK with African Americans.  A lot of the time it just means listening and paying attention to African Americans, and not talking.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Being an anarchist comrade in Oklahoma must really suck. 

[Fury Resurrected]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's there to discuss? It should be a simple single statement saying government and industry have no business building pipelines on sovereign indigenous territories if the people don't want them built.

The people with gripes against the pipelines aren’t listing it, and the people who are stanning for the pipelines don’t address it. You would think the poisoning of indigenous children who OFTEN have worse water than flint and sometimes don’t have reliable access to things like plumbing and electricity for the sake of oil company profits would invite tons of discussion. Yet it does not.

[polishgenius]

51 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The people with gripes against the pipelines aren’t listing it, and the people who are stanning for the pipelines don’t address it. You would think the poisoning of indigenous children who OFTEN have worse water than flint and sometimes don’t have reliable access to things like plumbing and electricity for the sake of oil company profits would invite tons of discussion. Yet it does not.

 

 

Yeah I was gonna say my bad I was one defending FB's rage- and I stand by it, she's got a right to be furious- but in my subsequent unrelated tiff with Zorral I failed to get back and address a point someone made to me that when I say alternatives need to be in play before this line is forced closed I don't mean more pipes/concrete cladding as someone inferred, I meant alternatives that mean no more pipes/oil.

 

eta: I know that's a dreamer's answer but it's no more unrealistic than the idea that closing this pipe will be better for everyone, but in any case the point I should have made is I understand FB's anger but the answers should be looking to less Enbridge not more.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

You ain’t shitting. But there is some mutual aid stuff and I’m getting involved with a group looking to fix our county jail and police department (deadliest jail and 2nd deadliest PD in the nation). Our governor just signed a bill letting wing nuts run us over when we protest. And I’m an anarchist that works in commercial real estate - and I’m really good at my job. Shit’s a trip, yo.

And for the international readers of this thread they need to apply this to the context of living in an absolute wasteland.

Get that tornado insurance! 

40 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The people with gripes against the pipelines aren’t listing it, and the people who are stanning for the pipelines don’t address it. You would think the poisoning of indigenous children who OFTEN have worse water than flint and sometimes don’t have reliable access to things like plumbing and electricity for the sake of oil company profits would invite tons of discussion. Yet it does not.

Well my post was a macro, not micro comment, but in this context I think a lot of people bring up environmental concerns and think they're including the concerns of indigenous people without really taking into account the numerous other issues at play, most of which are not things people outside of said communities really have to grapple with. And not to sound patronizing but it must be frustrating for you because you have so much more information on these issues than most people and yet a majority of people in our country don't care, hence like you get that piece of shit Santorum saying indigenous people didn't contribute anything to our current society and he's so far still kept his job. 

[Heartofice]

11 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah, that's my point.  It's a nebulous term and I'd question pretty much any conclusion you're trying to make from that Atlantic article.  

Which is why I asked you what "political correctness" means to you.

edit: for example, my mom uses the word in a very bizarre sense.  For her, it means an overly technical description.  She thinks that if you say "sanitation technician" instead of garbage collector that you're being "politically correct".  A bunch of her friends use it the same way.  

People might have slightly different interpretations of the meaning of political correctness, but in terms of this discussion it is actually not important. The article showed that a majority of people thought that political correctness was a problem, whatever exact example of it they were thinking of, though you could use the example quotes from the arcticle to get some idea

 

Quote

As one 40-year-old American  in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:

It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.

Quote

 As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don’t term it right you discriminate them. It’s like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don’t know. But if you don’t know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

So as described in the article, from the focus groups the term would describe something like: "In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them."

But again, this is really not important, because the real take away here is that most people from almost all groups thought it was a real problem. All except one group. The very small group who identify as Social Progressives (or the Woke). For some reason they don't seem to think political correctness is a problem to the same extent. I'd say there is probably a few reasons for that, one being that their definition of political correctness is that people cannot use derogatory language for minorities.

But then that raises the question as to why are social progressives so detached from everyone else on this issue, why do they see things so differently to the rest of society? 

I think this board often gives a good hint of where things are going wrong. For example a couple of people have connected the idea that not being 'woke' means that you are for all manner of abuse and hateful speech and action. It's a very binary, insular way of thinking which doesn't really seem to chime with the way a lot of other people see the world. It's not surprising also that the more 'woke' board members of the board decided to spend time trying to reclaim the word and claim that it's original meaning is the one that we should all be using. It all just feels like people existing inside a bubble, and it's not surprising when you get these big disagreements because people are just talking in an entirely different language sometimes, and there are numerous examples of that.




 

[Fury Resurrected]

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

People might have slightly different interpretations of the meaning of political correctness, but in terms of this discussion it is actually not important. The article showed that a majority of people thought that political correctness was a problem, whatever exact example of it they were thinking of, though you could use the example quotes from the arcticle to get some idea

 

So as described in the article, from the focus groups the term would describe something like: "In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them."

But again, this is really not important, because the real take away here is that most people from almost all groups thought it was a real problem. All except one group. The very small group who identify as Social Progressives (or the Woke). For some reason they don't seem to think political correctness is a problem to the same extent. I'd say there is probably a few reasons for that, one being that their definition of political correctness is that people cannot use derogatory language for minorities.

But then that raises the question as to why are social progressives so detached from everyone else on this issue, why do they see things so differently to the rest of society? 

I think this board often gives a good hint of where things are going wrong. For example a couple of people have connected the idea that not being 'woke' means that you are for all manner of abuse and hateful speech and action. It's a very binary, insular way of thinking which doesn't really seem to chime with the way a lot of other people see the world. It's not surprising also that the more 'woke' board members of the board decided to spend time trying to reclaim the word and claim that it's original meaning is the one that we should all be using. It all just feels like people existing inside a bubble, and it's not surprising when you get these big disagreements because people are just talking in an entirely different language sometimes, and there are numerous examples of that.




 

Having a token indigenous women agree with a point does NOT prove your point. Here’s an example for you-

 

As one 37 year old “American Indian” (this is an offensive term, btw) from Minneapolis said on this message board- “using the statements of the one person of a minority group to silence the majority of that group is a time honored practice of fucking bigots to give themselves license to deny recognition and rights to minority groups. Therefore Heart of Ice is full of shit on this topic because apparently all you need is ONE opinion per minority”

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And for the international readers of this thread they need to apply this to the context of living in an absolute wasteland.

Get that tornado insurance! 

Well my post was a macro, not micro comment, but in this context I think a lot of people bring up environmental concerns and think they're including the concerns of indigenous people without really taking into account the numerous other issues at play, most of which are not things people outside of said communities really have to grapple with. And not to sound patronizing but it must be frustrating for you because you have so much more information on these issues than most people and yet a majority of people in our country don't care, hence like you get that piece of shit Santorum saying indigenous people didn't contribute anything to our current society and he's so far still kept his job. 

I mean, the last president said plenty of shit like that too, and a democratic contender for president pretended to be one of us so that’s entirely par for the course. I can’t prioritize the verbal diarrhea from Rick Santorum that will come out someplace whether he’s on CNN or not, I gotta worry about White Earth and Line 3 and further legal erosion of the few paltry tribal rights we got in exchange for millions of lives and our homelands lost.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You are doing a terrible job of checking your sources for bias. Any study that would refer to an indigenous American as an “American Indian” has an explicit agenda against any sort of racial sensitivity because that is the equivalent to calling African Americans “n*gro”. It may once have been the acceptable nomenclature but that’s many decades past and now well into slur territory.

[Heartofice]

Honestly this is a fantastic example of what I was talking about.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly this is a fantastic example of what I was talking about.

You disagree that is a shitty term? You think you’d know more than a member of the group you are referring to? And how on earth is it such a mammoth task to ask of you not to use it and check your sources for that sort of shown bias? You are expecting a ton of accommodation for your intellectual laziness here. It’s a word tied to genocide and you are being flippant about its use in the source material you say proves you correct. You have absolutely zero interest in listening to people outside of your demographic about how your behavior and attitudes are harmful, and thus they will never stop being harmful. That’s not the fault of the people asking for change, it’s the fault of the people who would rather be archaic and harmful than undergo the minor inconvenience of common courtesy. 
 

So, I am asking you personally- would you mind not using that term? Would you mind not citing it in your sources? I’d appreciate that because it’s highly rude to me specifically.

[Heartofice]

I have now edited the post to save any further distress caused.

However I do think your response to the post illustrates very well the point the article was trying to make. 

[Fury Resurrected]

Just now, Heartofice said:

I have now edited the post to save any further distress caused.

However I do think your response to the post illustrates very well the point the article was trying to make. 

So you dispute that the use of a word regarded by the community it refers to as a slur is evidence of bias? If so, back that up with some evidence. If not, it’s an article with an agenda to present only data that agrees with the writer’s agenda.