821–830 of 1001 posts
More weird is that Merican Wokeness is replacing *ness in other countries. Finnish has only one personal pronoun for all sexes, but Woke Finns add American Pronouns to their twitter pages.
I am calling for a Finnish dictatorship until we have abolished gendered pronouns.
It's just a shift from older, less flexible values like family, church etc to the more open minded approach, "do as you like". Nothing wrong with people having tattoos everywhere, green or violet hair, non conformist clothing and views. Let them be, let them express and find themselves. I am the shave every day suit kinda guy and will remain so, but if someone chooses to be different or wants to complain about new wo…
So you, as an individual, have a vested interest in participating in social trends/resisting social normalization of beliefs that harm your way of life.
Say you enjoy the pub, it is in your interest to resist a social movement banning alcohol (or immigration from countries where these views are common).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not really a conspiracy as it doesn’t need to be centralized. Class resentment articles don’t get traction with upper class media gatekeepers but white guilt does. So the market produces what the gatekeepers want.
It's especially ironic since "upper class media" are far whiter than many other industries. Yet somehow, they're never expected to undergo the Maoist self-criticism and struggle sessions they demand from others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK The core is freedom, i.e. a lack of coercion of any kind. If, to be yourself, you need to claim someone else property, then Libertrarians would say it goes against the core principles of liberty, because to execute this claim you exercise coertion. But as long as you do not exert coercion on no one else, you're free to be yourself anyway you like.
There nothing "freedom" about some sole family owning the only water supply generation after generation or whatever dystopian scenario that libertarianism likely would bring about. In practice it's just a dismantling of democracy in favour of feudalistic power through wealth and property.
As a christian I believe in mercy and grace. And yes, many of us 'believers' have not practised what we preached. Many of us do try however not to be hypocrites. Here's my question. Where is mercy and grace in the midst of wokeness? I want you to believe my christian message but I will not force you to do so. I don't want to introduce laws to force you to believe what I believe. I don't want you to lose your job beca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct with the caveat that there's no "they" there. Or like people say, there's identity politics and then there's actual politics. Or yet another way of putting it is that class differences trump fake differences in the real world but academia and the media focus on fake differences. Hierarchies and social strata exist and persist over centuries. The problem of economic inequality is a tough nut to crack.…
The main problem is wokeness gives some people political leverage they wouldn't otherwise have, and it's hard to fire them even if they are shitty at work. That's a real problem.
Not to mention it's a prolific and constant distraction from real topics of interest, and is at best superficial, and identity issues can be drummed up infinitely. But it generates user interaction, and inundates them, and dissolves community. These are all big wins for those at the top, whether they're aware of it or not. Personally I like to assume that it's automatic, user interaction whether sympathetic or indignant is sells, inundation is the nature of the medium, the dissolution of community is just an aside.
I think people are over-analysing this issue here at HN. It is far better for upper class to ensure that people discuss and focus on issues like gender and skin colour than the class differences. Hence, they ensured that this is the issue plebs would hear all over on the media and shift their attention from class divides to gender and skin colour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your response to a person with brown skin say that their experience doesn't matter? Why doesn't it matter because you read that they where lucky or that you experienced something different?
> … or that you experienced something different? Surely that makes it 1:1 ? A tie, a dead-heat. Unless once person's anecdotes count more? Is that what you want?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gendered nouns are kind of silly and antiquated when you think about it though, and many languages have a neuter gender too (e.g. German). The "X" suffix is an attempt by younger Spanish speakers to introduce a neuter gender to their native language. English doesn't have gendered nouns, but we do have gendered pronouns, which not all languages have. Chinese doesn't have gendered pronouns, which is why you'll often he…
> Today, young English speakers are trying to popularize "they" as an English neuter pronoun, and it's not too absurd: we already use "they" this way when the gender of the person is unknown. I can understand why 'they' is chosen as a way to introduce neutrality of gender but it pains me that this also introduces of ambiguity of plurality. We _really_ need a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. We're lucky t…
Wikipedia's summary is fine here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
What exactly is the goal of the 'woke' as it pertains to race or gender? If success to them looks like an equal number of white/black/asian/women it's an unreachable goal. According to the 2020 census: 57.8% of Americans are white, 16.3% are hispanic, 12.2% are black, and 5.9% are asian. It seems as plain as day that even if we could remove racism from the equation, it's more likely that whites will make up more shar…
The problem with a blind "merit-based" approach is that it doesn't make any attempt to understand why what we'd expect in a perfectly egalitarian world isn't what we see in reality. Studies on biological differences between race and gender show no or very small differences that can't fully explain these gaps. Other factors, such as a family's wealth, do show significant changes to the opportunities provided to a person during their lives. As it so happens, we can also see (from the US Census data you bring up) that there are wealth and income disparities between race.
And now we're hiring/accepting college students/etc. Of course we want to only hire qualified people, but a disproportionate number of people of certain races were not given the opportunity to get those skills already. So we're stuck in a cycle where the people most likely to succeed are the ones who are already in this cycle of success, often due to their parents having been given those opportunities as well. So in order to actually _meet_ the expectations of racial composition (because as mentioned earlier, perfectly egalitarian expectations would be close to the proportions in the general population), we simply can't turn a colorblind eye to people's race. Breaking the cycle requires attention to be paid to people's race. Merit ignores context.
The hard part about this is that it comes off as saying that you should treat people differently because of their race. And that's pretty much what it is. It would require some level of sacrifice by the privileged, at least temporarily, in order to bring everybody back to equal footing. And humans are not good with things that don't seem fair.
On a different note regarding gender, there is not particularly strong evidence backing the argument that women simply "naturally gravitate towards other kind of work". Studies have shown some psychological differences in preferences of the kind of work, but it doesn't not explain the disparity we see in STEM as a whole. Of course, there are not the same multi-generational explanatory powers behind gender as there are for race, but there are other factors, largely rooted in the ideas that there are both explicit and implicit societal expectations for women that lead them towards other kinds of careers.