US Politics: them's indictin words

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think you're going to find that people define wokeness in many different ways, but I'll tell you how I think of it. I define wokeness as an social-justice approach to politics that puts identity over consensus, tribalism over universality and purity over pragmatism. There's something almost religious about this point of view.

I don't consider myself a centrist in any way--for as long as I can remember, I've been in favor of Medicare-for-all and for abortion on demand and without apology--but I am deeply skeptical of wokeness.

Unless you are contending that systemic prejudice along ‘identity’ lines either does not exist or should not be opposed, it’s literally impossible to address it without ‘identifying’  the victim along those lines. So arguing against ‘wokeness’ as identified above is either saying:

 

1) systemic bigotry does not exist.

or

2) systemic bigotry exists but should not be opposed for w/e reason.

or

3) It is either incumbent upon society or the victims of systems prejudice to somehow oppose it without identifying it or how it works, historically or presently. 

It’s like having a discussion about how to address COVID while demanding no one trouble the public with any mention of germs or germ theory, because it makes the germs feel attacked FFS.

 

Myself, personally, I think everything has another edge, there is a downside to every good thing. Want increased airplane security? Welcome to longer, more complicated boarding procedures. Want integrated schools? Welcome to bussing. Want women to have an equal role in society? Welcome to schools/daycares/sitters etc. having a much increased role in your children’s welfare. All of these are good things. Expecting good things to come without any cost is childish in the extreme. 

 

When I hear people talking about ‘wokeness’ like it’s anywhere near the top issues confronting society, I know they are either just adopting their peers attitudes, or are coming from such a privileged life that it might even be true for them, or they are bigots or comedians. 
 

The latter is imo how this got so blown out of proportion, btw. Political correctness/wokeness IS a major issue in your life if/when you are a comedian, so comedians almost universally bitch about it. And they are funny doing it, and cross several political/idealogical lines, so it gets picked up, but that’s no different than contractors and builders constantly bitching about ‘over regulation’ or w/e, it’s an obstacle in their profession, so of course they would rather it wasn’t there. I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just bitching because they want social justice and equality so long as it has no adverse affects on anyone, including the bigots. It’s like how protests are in theory allowed so long as no one is remotely affected by them, at which point it’s ‘not this way, not now’. 
 

It’s an extraordinarily small price to pay for something much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more beneficial to society than it comes anywhere near to being detrimental. 

 

[TrackerNeil]

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Unless you are contending that systemic prejudice along ‘identity’ lines either does not exist or should not be opposed, it’s literally impossible to address it without ‘identifying’  the victim along those lines. So arguing against ‘wokeness’ as identified above is either saying:

1) systemic bigotry does not exist.

or

2) systemic bigotry exists but should not be opposed for w/e reason.

or

3) It is either incumbent upon society or the victims of systems prejudice to somehow oppose it without identifying it or how it works, historically or presently. 

I'm not saying any of those things.

[James Arryn]

https://news.gallup.com/vault/246167/protests-seen-harming-civil-rights-movement-60s.aspx
 

In an early Gallup question on the issue, Americans were asked whether tactics such as "sit-ins" and demonstrations by the civil rights movement had helped or hurt the chances of racial integration in the South. More than half, 57%, said such demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience had hurt chances of integration, while barely a quarter, 27%, said they had helped.

…

 

The 1963 march, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech, was an iconic moment for the civil rights movement, having brought 250,000 supporters to the mall in Washington, D.C., in support of racial equality and justice. Less than a year after the march, Americans were even more convinced that mass demonstrations harmed the cause, with 74% saying they felt these actions were detrimental to achieving racial equality and just 16% saying they were helping it.

 

The premise that ‘human rights are great, but not if it affects me negatively or makes me uncomfortable’ is a very old one in the US. I suppose we should not be surprised 

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm not saying any of those things.

Okay. How should a victim or observer of systemic prejudice oppose it without, in the minds of its critics at least, putting “identity over consensus, tribalism over universality and purity over pragmatism.” Like specifically, how should it be addressed? 
 

Bigotry: too big to fail?

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I disagree. There are lots of liberals who most definitely do not identify as woke

It’s not a matter of self-id it’s about how the word is used—social liberals, progressives don’t tend to call individuals stances woke all the time. Conservatives do.

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

and are highly critical of that way of thinking and arguing.

Do you think people wearing a pride flag around children is grooming?

If not—Congratulations you’ve been inducted into the woke dogma. 

3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I define wokeness as an social-justice approach to politics that puts identity over consensus

A social consensus can and often is wrong.

 

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s not a matter of self-id it’s about how the word is used—social liberals, progressives don’t tend to call individuals stances woke all the time. Conservatives do.

Do you think people wearing a pride flag around children is grooming?

If not—Congratulations you’ve been inducted into the woke dogma. 

A social consensus can and often is wrong.

 

I personally find that accusations/complaints about wokeness are more common than examples of it by a factor of like a kajillion. There are many environments where accusations of bigotry are a MUCH bigger, graver deal than demonstrations of same. 

[TrackerNeil]

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Okay. How should a victim or observer of systemic prejudice oppose it without, in the minds of its critics at least, putting “identity over consensus, tribalism over universality and purity over pragmatism.” Like specifically, how should it be addressed? 
 

Bigotry: too big to fail?

I'm not going to argue semantics--you can substitute social justice politics for wokeness if you prefer.

The questions you ask aren't easy, but I think it is indeed possible to address systemic injustice without reverting to tribalism and ideological purity. These are the tools of the right, and I refuse to adopt them.

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

you can substitute social justice politics for wokeness if you prefer.

Yeah it works just as well because they are most prominently used by the same people to complain about the same things. 

46 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

personally find that accusations/complaints about wokeness are more common than examples of it by a factor of like a kajillion.

Eh.

Idk this seems to be viewing it prescriptively— here’s how the word ought be used so the use of it here is wrong or right—rather than descriptively—how it used and understood.

A person using the word “woke” to complain about gay people appearing in a movie is just as valid as a person complaining about a female character being a girlboss, which would be just as valid as person using it to describe liking democracy.

 

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah it works just as well because they are most prominently used by the same people to complain about the same things. 

Eh.

Idk this seems to be viewing it prescriptively— here’s how the word ought be used so the use of it here is wrong or right—rather than descriptively—how it used and understood.

A person using the word “woke” to complain about gay people appearing in a movie is just as valid as a person complaining about a female character being a girlboss, which would be just as valid as person using it to describe liking democracy.

 

It’s funny you connect these two points, considering the word ‘gay’ was used descriptively to mean something wrong, bad, to be avoided, bankrupt for quite a while. Wokeness has thankfully made that less common. Good or bad development?

 

Iow, IF you are not a victim, it’s just about people feeling offended. If you are a victim, the ‘descriptive’ use of your ‘identity’ as a synonym for bad probably did a lot more than offend you. And we as a society have, or at least pretend to have different priorities. So it can be annoying, oh no, how sad for the snowflakes. If I was going to write a distopian novel, I might start with the ‘r word’.

[Varysblackfyre321]

A catch 22 to attack the existence of trans people.

 

[Ran]

Is it really the case that most trans adults are autistic and/or lack a history of dysphoria? That sounds improbable to me.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Is it really the case that most trans adults are autistic and/or lack a history of dysphoria? That sounds improbable to me.

Even if not the case it’s still a violation of people with autism’s medical autonomy—they’re not all fucking children.

And the bigger thing is the qualification of not having depression and gender dysphoria—most trans people transition because their gender dysphoria is making them depressed.

[James Arryn]

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Even if not the case it’s still a violation of people with autism’s medical autonomy—they’re not all fucking children.

And the bigger thing is the qualification of not having depression and gender dysphoria—most trans people transition because their gender dysphoria is making them depressed.

I’m oversimplifying, but it’s a bit like saying ‘yes, we will allow you to completely change your life, provided you are pretty happy with it as things stand’. Catch 22.

 

Didn’t read the fine print, is it just diagnosed chemical depression? Not that that would be a whole lot better, just trying to get a grip on it. 

[Kalbear]

Given that living with the wrong assigned gender is a massive cause of depression I'll go out on a limb and say that this basically bans it.

And to be clear, this bill bans anyone from transitioning if they have ANY mental health comorbidities. Which, again, is one of the primary things trans people are transitioning TO DEAL WITH. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Given that living with the wrong assigned gender is a massive cause of depression I'll go out on a limb and say that this basically bans it.

True. I didn’t even see the usual professions of being confused on how this isn’t bigoted like some people do other blatant attacks on trans rights.

[mcbigski]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:24 AM, DMC said:

....Er, what the fuck are you talking about?  I mean, sure, he didn't "directly" attack Jesus, but George Carlin DIRECTLY attacked Christianity and religion in general.  It was a major part of his set for...the entirely of his career.  Like, how fucking ignorant are you?

 

 

[mcbigski]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:24 AM, DMC said:

....Er, what the fuck are you talking about?  I mean, sure, he didn't "directly" attack Jesus, but George Carlin DIRECTLY attacked Christianity and religion in general.  It was a major part of his set for...the entirely of his career.  Like, how fucking ignorant are you?

 

I've certainly seen that before.  Nothing in those ten minutes were against the teachings of Jesus as a moral philosopher, though George did say that crucifixion was bad in general.   Did George Carlin disagree with the golden rule?  Would Carlin have gone along with the Pharisees? 

Is an organization that's been taking in billions, or even trillions, and saying they need more sound more like "My Kingdom is not of this Earth" or "We are the change we've been waiting for"? 

I was making the point that organized religion can be venal and corrupt and far removed from first principals.  You could construe that as a second hand attack I suppose, but whatever one thinks about the divinity of Jesus (personally don't believe in it), Douglas Adams probably summed it up as well as anyone with the bit about nailing someone to a tree for saying we should be nice to one another.  

[Darzin]

I concede the NPR thing I was under the impression a majority of their funding came from government sources. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

I concede the NPR thing I was under the impression a majority of their funding came from government sources. 

Not that that would be relevant anyway. Just because media is govt funded doesn't mean it is "state affiliated" with the connotations that come with that term. It all depends on the legislation and administrative arrangements. State funded media is certainly exposed to potential govt capture, but then again private media is just as equally exposed to ideological capture. Both presenting themselves as objective when they are just propaganda machines for whomever has captured them.

Not that it applies to the US, but many smaller countries actually need public media funding as there is not enough profit in fully commercial private media for local news and entertainment content to be produced to a decent quality. We'd probably have no local media content on TV if there wasn't govt funding and all TV content had to be strictly subscriber or advertiser funded.

[mormont]

12 hours ago, Ran said:

Is it really the case that most trans adults are autistic and/or lack a history of dysphoria? That sounds improbable to me.

Read a little further. The bill requires that you be 'screened' for 'social media addiction' and 'social contagion' before treatment. Now, since the former is a very ill-defined condition whose diagnosis is not agreed and the latter has never been shown even to exist, it's not at all clear how a medical professional can in fact prove they've 'screened' for these things. In effect, then, that rules out treatment for most trans adults.