The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

No, not at all. What I'm saying, is that one's ability to speak on ones experiences with some subject should not be gaited by credentials. One should also not create a rank structure based off of credentials. Is it not apparent to you yet that one can be an expert without any formal credentials?

> the probablem as you are responding to, is how cheap messaging is and how effortless it is to both produce information and entrain the body politik in its recitation. > these can be over come by what you deride, credentialling and weighting sources. because in the exam0le od the cown, theres no people interested in giving wrong answers or mani0ulating responders to effecr a skew on the answers.

What are you fighting to hard to protect here? You want more people to take the COVID vaccine? What exactly, as there's many more solutions than just listening to your closets high ranking technocrat.

No I did not, unless you choose to interpret my words in the most uncharitable way possible.

Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false " will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power.

The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false.

Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.

chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

In terms of concrete examples, going back over the thread so far all I can find (if I missed any please correct me):

) SDG&E driver.

) Boeing comms director.

*) Grievance studies affair

For the SDG&E driver, if he was performing some kind of white power salute in clearly marked company vehicle (and, let's be honest, nobody really knows if he did or not except him) then some kind of disciplinary action at work would be appropriate - it's pretty dispicable (unless you're a keen racist) and it brings the company into disrepute. A final written warning or something. But because we don't know if he did or not, a less severe meeting with HR, being reminded of the need not to bring any bad publicity to the company, we believe you are acting in good faith, but please don't do this knuckle cracking thing again - it looks bad.

What amazes me about it is that the labour laws are so lax that people can be summarily sacked without any due process. I understand that this is common practice in the US and happens all of the time. Seems to me that solution to this is to campaign for stronger employee rights. You can't uninvent smartphone cameras, and you can't stop people from posting things on twitter, but you can strengthen labour laws. This isn't a problem with woke, it's a problem with lax regulations.

As for the comms director, he resigned. That's just what comms directors do if they become the story. He wasn't sacked. If behind the scenes he was forced to resign then see previous point about labour laws and he should take them to an employment tribunal.

I find the Grievance studies thing hilarious. Clearly it is a wonderful hoax, and calls into question the quality of the review process at the journals and maybe the utility of social science (I've alwayss been a bit sceptical of calling it science, tbh). But seeing as it was a hoax and not really not a controlled experiment you can't really take away many conlcusions from it.

How anyone can read a title like "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" or "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use" without pissing themselves laughing is beyond me. I would certainly resign if I'd have waved that through without going back to the submitter and saying WTF is this.

If these are your "concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society", I just don't see it. An example of how lax labour laws are a bad thing, certainly. An example of calling (some) social sciences a science being a bit silly, yes.

But just look at the people crying woke all of the time, the likes of Fox and talk radio. The same people who want lax labour laws. The same people who undermine the science about vaccinations and have lead to tens (possibly hundreds?) of thousands of uneccessary deaths of people who would have survived had they got vaccinated. That is very real and raw destruction of human lives and society.

There is a whole section called "Woke as a pejorative term", also an earlier section states: "there is no single agreed-upon definition of woke".

The point is instead of interacting with the thread to find out the contextual meaning, you decided to settle one a definition simplistic enough to conclude "op is for racism/discrimination".

First, formal logical analysis of complex semantics (which that Wikipedia page implies is the case for the word "woke") doesn't work.

Even if it did, "anti-" can refer to any aspect of something; and since there is often no distinction between a- and anti-, this further illustrates why trying to guess the meaning of a word doesn't work.

> If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.

Given by wccrawford in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30349172

Which also calls into question your disingenuity:

> I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing

wccrawford pretty clearly explained it, but here you are reverting back to ignorance.