471–480 of 1001 posts
This article never takes up the cause of the minorities who are being harassed and killed on a daily basis, but spends a lot of time whining about having to show even a modicum of empathy by using more inclusive language. For this reason it reeks of self-centered willful ignorance.
Ahem! I think you mean People of the global majority? Please consider using more inclusive language in the future.
I sadly suspect we’re going to see some risk adverse hiring of boring white dudes in all positions of leadership. Regardless of competence. We’re already seeing DEI weaponized. Any non white male person in charge of an organization that makes a mistake will be labeled a “DEI Hire” accurately or not. Organizations will be risk adverse and only hire the most boring white dude they can find from central casting. Whateve…
Really disappointing article, full of disingenuousness and strawmen and a few interesting points as well. For the record, while I'm on the progressive side of things, I certainly do not agree with all of the various viewpoints and practices ascribed to "wokeism." He seems close to misunderstanding a pivotal thing, but glosses over it: [Priggish] was not the original meaning of woke, but it's rarely used in the origin…
(Sure, Paul, the physics department didn't come up with woke. They were too busy overlooking Richard Feynman hitting on every undergrad woman that came through his department).
FWIW, I also saw political correctness "rise." In my experience, it rose in the computer science department discovering that when they adjusted their approach to incoming undergrad students based on observations from the social sciences that systemic sexism was bending the nature of their pre-undergrad education, the women performed better in the computer science undergrad curriculum. There's Paul's missing evidence from the "hard sciences."
> Imagine having to explain to a well-meaning visitor from another planet why using the phrase "people of color" is considered particularly enlightened, but saying "colored people" gets you fired. [...] There are no underlying principles. To understand much of our language, Gnorts would have to already be aware that our words and symbols gain meaning from how they're used, and you couldn't, for instance, determine th…
they’re not negroes, they’re colored they’re not colored, they’re African-American they’re not African-American, they’re black they’re not black, they’re Black they’re not Black, they’re People of Color they’re not People of Color, they’re BIPOC I wonder what the next twist of the pretzel will look like
Also, for all his complaining about people being performative, he commits the sin himself. He is doing the dance conservative fascists want him to. Paul, do us all a favor, and just skip to the ending we all know you're heading for: fall in line with Trump, lock arms with your fellow oligarchs, and take obvious active measures to suppress any threats your wealth and power.
The article missed the biggest opportunity to be curious by avoiding the question: What if they're right?
[flagged]
That entire post has left reality a long time ago. Honestly, this level of resentment can't be healthy.
> angry, myopic, us-vs-them extreme thinking.
You've clearly become what you're (allegedly) so vehemently against.
There is nothing that better demonstrates how disconnected your average ivory tower silicon valley elite is than this sentence. You would have to exist in an entirely different reality to believe this is the case.
He is attacking a straw man, by defining "woke" in a far narrower sense than it is actually used. Any objection to any form of prejudice, or any indication that the speaker is aware that members of some groups are better off than others, will be labelled "woke" by many commenters. It's to the point where some bigots say "woke" in the exact same places that their grandparents would say "n***-lover". But instead Graham…
It’s utterly meaningless.