21 ms·

I'm glad these shakeouts are happening I'm not a cis white male and I'm not internalizing oppression but obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiabl

I'm glad these shakeouts are happening I'm not a cis white male and I'm not internalizing oppression but obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own if anyone hasn't been exposed to this experience, the people that want corporations to "use their platform" for things unrelated to revenue are also believing that all aspects of life are political for people that aren't "cis white males" and if you're any combination of minority/woman/LGBT and disagree with that then you're "internalizing oppression" because to them we can't have independent thoughts. For me, these "allies" are worse than the silent apathetic people as well as the overtly prejudiced/racist people. Primarily because they're unpredictable and even more reactionary to having their world view challenged.

wolverine876 5y ago
The article says the primary reason people exited is that the memo was seen as shutting down unionization activity. > these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own How do statements like this fit HN's guidelines? Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. EDIT: Perhaps the thing to do is to write to the mods at hn@ycombinator.com.
- vmception 5y ago
  > However, several current and former employees told TechCrunch that they believe Medium’s mass exodus is tied more to Williams’ manifesto, dubbed “the culture memo,” A perspective. You chose one of several from the article. These are related controversies. The opposite of unrelated.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    >> However, several current and former employees told TechCrunch that they believe Medium’s mass exodus is tied more to Williams’ manifesto, dubbed “the culture memo,” I don't understand what that quote represents to you. Do you think the word "culture" necessarily refers to the 'culture war' kind? The word describes many other things, and corporate culture is a long-standing, well-known management concern. > A perspective. > You chose one of several from the article. The effect on union activity seems to me to be by far the predominant reason presented.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I don’t have an opinion on the word culture, the word they chose I find it congruent that some former/current employees find that memo to be the catalyst, as their perspective matches other catalysts in other companies
- tla112 5y ago
  At this stage that statement is not ideological battle but a cold rational observation, confirmed many times by events in 2020/2021.
sagichmal 5y ago
Nobody believes this; your comment is embarrassing.
- vmception 5y ago
  embarrassing to who if nobody believes it
chubbyish 5y ago
What’s missing from this whole cultural movement are articles about “why I became a radical leftist”. We need to see people go there and come back to the middle, to understand why this is happening. Just like how we have a few articles from Trump people going see and coming back out. My assumption is it’s an outlet for things going wrong in their own life that they cannot change.
kelnos 5y ago
I am a cis straight white male, but I do have colleagues who are gay, lesbian, trans, and/or non-white, and all of those who I've spoken to on this topic do not agree with your take here. It just goes to show you that everyone is different, and there's no such unified thing as "what gay people believe" or "what black people believe". Some like that their employers make business decisions based on the personal ethics of those in leadership positions, and some don't like that. That's just life, I guess.
- vmception 5y ago
  I appreciate your contribution to this thread I like your conclusion: it isn't unified. There is a lot of pressure to conform to certain buckets and it also still can be an absurdity to do so.
- aeoleonn 5y ago
  I just have to laugh when I see "cis" used. That's like using the term "Black Crow" to describe the vast majority of crows, simply because a "Blue Crow" [1] exists, yet consists of a very tiny fraction of all crows. Let's say 99% of crows are black. Then there's no need to call them "Black Crows" as there's a very low probability you'll need to point out the color of the crow. Just say "Crow". Or "male" / "female". No need to throw in "cis" unless you're simply trying to demonstrate your conformity to the new fad of wokeism. In which case, ya lost me as someone who will take you seriously. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Crow
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rupertius00 5y ago
    That's a bit silly, especially given the context. If I were talking about black crows, in a conversation referring to blue crows, it might be relevant to be specific and say "black crow". Regardless, why would you dismiss someone's entire opinion based on something so insignificant as that? "I want to buy a widescreen TV" "You idiot! 99% of TVs are widescreen, let's stop talking now as I can't take you seriously." Also your stats are wrong. According to the census, it's more like 8-9% of US citizens self-reporting as homosexual/queer [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_Unite...
specialist 5y ago
> but obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own In this narrative, the CEO is playing the role of far-left extremist? I'm confused, please clarify.
- vmception 5y ago
  no, the people that left the company over not being able to talk politics typically would be more sympathetic to far left extremist ideas, because politics at work is one.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Apologies, I still can't figure out which side you're on or why you're upset.
abandonliberty 5y ago
>Donald Glover is right — I’m sick of white people canceling things on my behalf >I’m tired of being told to change my views by white people who think they’d make better Black men than me https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-glover-cancel-culture-twitter-white-people-b1845888.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-glover-cancel-cu... I'm so tired of these smug oppressive clowns who claim to represent progressives, the left, minorities, and the oppressed.
ynx 5y ago
> self-proclaimed far left extremists As someone who is far-left (and not cis-white), virtually none of us proclaim ourselves extremists. Progressives, yes, perhaps even militant around organizing around a cause, but I fail to see how this part of your comment can be read as anything other than political straw-man flamebait.
happytoexplain 5y ago
I agree. Except this: > these "allies" are worse than ... overtly prejudiced/racist people. I disagree. By my reckoning, there just isn't a comparison, by almost any metric of societal damage. Of course, it doesn't have to be a contest. That's not the important thing.
- makomk 5y ago
  The thing is, when the social justice left do things that are actively prejudiced against and intentionally hurt the minority groups they claim to be helping, you just don't hear about it because one of their core beliefs is that they're always helping by definition and they have enough power over the mainstream discussion that it's impossible to challenge. For example, one of the last things the Labour party, who're the more left-wing of our two main parties, did when they had power here in the UK was write a special exemption in anti-discrimination law to deny trans women access to rape and domestic violence services at the request of a feminist lobbying group. (As in this was literally the stated purpose according to the official guidance accompanying the law when it was proposed.) Any discussion of how this happened or the lobbying group behind it was explicitly forbidden in the left-wing and feminist publications and communities with any reach. The press only turned on the Labour-linked lobbying group in late 2019, over a decade after the original law, when they started lobbying the Conservatives over the same anti-trans cause. The discussion of this has been so warped that the established social justice left view on the whole thing is that it shows transphobia is a right-wing thing and proves any attempt to equate the left with them (not just over transphobia, but any attempt to claim they're comparably bad in general) is a dangerous false equivalence.
- darkerside 5y ago
  HN should be a place of justice and sharpening of ideas. Thank you for participating in that. Allies and racists both exist on a continuum, do they not? A single individual will take actions that are both helpful and harmful in different measures to other people and groups in society. Some racists are going to be net benefits to society. Their racist views may be limited, unintentional, unexpressed, or any combination of the above. While their works may be helping minority groups directly. That's just one example of the presented framework breaking, but there are many more permutations. Hopefully this is enough for us to agree that a blanket statement like > these "allies" are worse than ... overtly prejudiced/racist people. is, if not inaccurate, so imprecise as to be meaningless.
rayiner 5y ago
> I'm not a cis white male and I'm not internalizing oppression The “internalizing oppression” thing is such a disgusting accusation. It’s just a way for the activists to trade on the moral authority of pretending to speak for their group, even when they don’t represent the views of their identity group: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang
- lordnacho 5y ago
  Sounds like a modern version of "false consciousness" which some left wingers were using to explain why some people they thought to be natural allies didn't agree with them.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Heh. I misread that as "false conscientiousness". I've been calling presumptuously speaking for another "white knighting". Your take isn't so generous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness FWIW, I'm optimistic that it's a generational cohort thing. Plenty of boomer activists know what's best for other people and will selflessly nail themselves up on a cross for your benefit. Why aren't you grateful? Sure, others do it too, but it's somehow different. Feels more like oversteer than preaching.
- coffeefirst 5y ago
  It’s a spin on “false consciousness,” an old Marxist bit that they used to explain why anyone would dare to disagree with them. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be such an ideologue that you have to project on other people.
- specialist 5y ago
  Am very political. I've witnessed this many times. It's a recognized problem. The new hotness in activist circles is empowerment, helping people find their own voices, making the space for them to be heard. Change is painful, slow. But it's happening.
jb775 5y ago
- obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own The current state of social discourse is essentially landmines in the form of Kafkatraps[1]. Once there's any form of discussion on an unfalsifiable topic, it provides the leftist with a false sense of justification, simply because it was discussed...even if the leftist's reasoning made no sense and they lost the debate. Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified. This has led us into a race towards the bottom within society, catering to the loudest complainer in the room. Crabs in a bucket. Seems like the only real way to counter these unfalsifiable arguments is to call the person a fucking clown and tell them what a kafkatrap is. [1] https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/ https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-m...
- damagednoob 5y ago
  > Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified. I don't agree with this. Anyone who has been following politics has noticed the growth in the left's base, mainly from the college educated. A lot of these activists seem to be motivated by the (ironically) paternalistic notion that they know better than the groups they advocate for.
  - benrbray 5y ago
    I see quite a few unsubstantiated claims like this being thrown around in this thread. Can you help by clarifying 1) which activists? 2) which groups to which they do not belong are they speaking on behalf of? 3) in what way do they think they know better? 4) who among these groups has spoken out against what activists say? and 5) what gives you the impression that the activists have not consulted with the groups they represent (if they are not themselves members of the group)?
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      1) the woke ones. 2) see the comment up thread about the disabled person expected to to fall in line because they’re part of a minority group. 3) see kafkatrap. 4) unsure what you’re asking. 5) see latinx conversation up thread.
spinach 5y ago
Basically no one is "cis", because people are just born the sex they are and don't "identify" with it, or agree with all the outdated stereotypes placed on their sex. Men and women aren't a subset of their sex.
- vmception 5y ago
  so the reason I use that adjective is because it only has upside. It is effortless, harmless, actually briefly conveys a much longer abstract message which is the purpose of language, and helps otherwise marginalized people feel included and stay productive. it doesn’t matter to me that 99% of people already match that adjective which wasn't previously known or necessary
- wccrawford 5y ago
  I don't "identify" as "cis". I think of myself as normal, pretty much like everyone else. But when I need a word to describe myself as "not trans"... There isn't one, until "cis" came along. So yes, I'm "cis". I don't like the word, and I probably would not have managed to come up with it on my own. But "straight" doesn't describe the situation and "not trans" is inherently negative, where no negativity is desired. I'll fully agree that I don't follow a lot of the stereotypes for my gender, but there are a lot I do follow, too. Nobody is 100% stereotypical. And Cis- and trans-gender isn't even about that. It's about how you feel and who you feel you are, not about following stereotypes.
narrator 5y ago
They are trying to realize the politicization of all institutions in service of political revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins... Also see this article from 1999 when all this was getting started: https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war
- vmception 5y ago
  Somehow I went all of the aughts and half of the 2010s without noticing That makes me feel a lot better about the viability of any of this Can I ignore it if I stop noticing and caring about politics and modern inclusitivity pushes? I have my doubts but I’m willing to try! Its just other people shoving it in my face that I don't get to inherit American dreams because I’m not a cis white male and keep reminding me, not that I would want to be. Any accomplishment I have must be broadcast! Any setback must be broadcast as well! Doesn't feel like privilege. I dont want to be a role model I just want to blend in and make money and enjoy the same vices as everyone else.
  - avereveard 5y ago
    It started even before, I remember most of these discussion being around in the mid nineties. They're not at all ineffective, they took hold in school and accademia and produced a generation of person deeply sensible to the topic of equity and social issues, which outrage quite easily and can be brought to bear to a wide range of causes from truly important battles to cancelling people for a shirt a friend gifted them. The delay you see is not because of the technique not being viable, it is because in culture wars you need quite literally to grow your army, as people get entrenched in their ways after a while.
- oblio 5y ago
  I have to point out that your second source is a conservative think tank, and if you're conservative it generally means that the status quo is in your favor ("you like/are happy with the status quo") and any challenge to it looks like the start of a revolution. Interesting article, though.
KingOfCoders 5y ago
This is for every framework (left, right, economical, ecological, etc.) If the framework gives you direct power over other people, you want the framework applied everywhere: work, private life, politics, etc. The people at the forefront of these frameworks use the rest of the group as a stepping stone to their personal power and the framework to enhance their importance (any other positive and negative effects of the framework aside, those I don't want to judge).
devwastaken 5y ago
There's significant funding and political force at the local, state and federal levels that, if allowed, would "ban" LGBT existence and put Christianity as the U.S. official religion. Along with every other crazy idea you can think of. Luckily, there's funding and work in opposition. People can be very comfortable sitting on an unbalanced rock, until it tips.
- refurb 5y ago
  Something like 80%+ of Americans support LGBT rights and people who identify as religious (in general) is rapidly dropping. Your religious right may have been a real national force in 1980, but not now. It’s just a boogie man.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Repeated - and, sadly, successful - attempts to deny the right to abortion shows the religious wackos are at least a state-level force that can’t be ignored.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Abortion is not an LGBT issue and anti-abortion types are not exclusively religious. The split between anti-abortion and pro-abortion is almost 50/50 in the US and 50% of America are not fundamentalist Christians.
      - trasz 5y ago
        There are no arguments against early abortion that wouldn’t be either religiously motivated, or based on non- religious logical fallacy. From what I’ve seen on American media, almost all of it is religiously motivated. It doesn’t matter that fundamentalists don’t identify themselves as fundamentalist.
        refurb 5y ago
        Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s a logical fallacy or religiously motivated. Get out of your bubble and talk to people and you’ll learn things!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 5y ago

The article says the primary reason people exited is that the memo was seen as shutting down unionization activity. > these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own How do statements like this fit HN's guidelines? Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. EDIT: Perhaps the thing to do is to write to the mods at hn@ycombinator.com.

vmception 5y ago
> However, several current and former employees told TechCrunch that they believe Medium’s mass exodus is tied more to Williams’ manifesto, dubbed “the culture memo,” A perspective. You chose one of several from the article. These are related controversies. The opposite of unrelated.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  >> However, several current and former employees told TechCrunch that they believe Medium’s mass exodus is tied more to Williams’ manifesto, dubbed “the culture memo,” I don't understand what that quote represents to you. Do you think the word "culture" necessarily refers to the 'culture war' kind? The word describes many other things, and corporate culture is a long-standing, well-known management concern. > A perspective. > You chose one of several from the article. The effect on union activity seems to me to be by far the predominant reason presented.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I don’t have an opinion on the word culture, the word they chose I find it congruent that some former/current employees find that memo to be the catalyst, as their perspective matches other catalysts in other companies
tla112 5y ago
At this stage that statement is not ideological battle but a cold rational observation, confirmed many times by events in 2020/2021.

sagichmal 5y ago

Nobody believes this; your comment is embarrassing.

vmception 5y ago
embarrassing to who if nobody believes it

chubbyish 5y ago

What’s missing from this whole cultural movement are articles about “why I became a radical leftist”. We need to see people go there and come back to the middle, to understand why this is happening. Just like how we have a few articles from Trump people going see and coming back out. My assumption is it’s an outlet for things going wrong in their own life that they cannot change.

kelnos 5y ago

I am a cis straight white male, but I do have colleagues who are gay, lesbian, trans, and/or non-white, and all of those who I've spoken to on this topic do not agree with your take here. It just goes to show you that everyone is different, and there's no such unified thing as "what gay people believe" or "what black people believe". Some like that their employers make business decisions based on the personal ethics of those in leadership positions, and some don't like that. That's just life, I guess.

vmception 5y ago
I appreciate your contribution to this thread I like your conclusion: it isn't unified. There is a lot of pressure to conform to certain buckets and it also still can be an absurdity to do so.
aeoleonn 5y ago
I just have to laugh when I see "cis" used. That's like using the term "Black Crow" to describe the vast majority of crows, simply because a "Blue Crow" [1] exists, yet consists of a very tiny fraction of all crows. Let's say 99% of crows are black. Then there's no need to call them "Black Crows" as there's a very low probability you'll need to point out the color of the crow. Just say "Crow". Or "male" / "female". No need to throw in "cis" unless you're simply trying to demonstrate your conformity to the new fad of wokeism. In which case, ya lost me as someone who will take you seriously. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Crow
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rupertius00 5y ago
  That's a bit silly, especially given the context. If I were talking about black crows, in a conversation referring to blue crows, it might be relevant to be specific and say "black crow". Regardless, why would you dismiss someone's entire opinion based on something so insignificant as that? "I want to buy a widescreen TV" "You idiot! 99% of TVs are widescreen, let's stop talking now as I can't take you seriously." Also your stats are wrong. According to the census, it's more like 8-9% of US citizens self-reporting as homosexual/queer [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_Unite...

specialist 5y ago

> but obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own In this narrative, the CEO is playing the role of far-left extremist? I'm confused, please clarify.

vmception 5y ago
no, the people that left the company over not being able to talk politics typically would be more sympathetic to far left extremist ideas, because politics at work is one.
- specialist 5y ago
  Apologies, I still can't figure out which side you're on or why you're upset.

abandonliberty 5y ago

>Donald Glover is right — I’m sick of white people canceling things on my behalf >I’m tired of being told to change my views by white people who think they’d make better Black men than me https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-glover-cancel-culture-twitter-white-people-b1845888.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-glover-cancel-cu... I'm so tired of these smug oppressive clowns who claim to represent progressives, the left, minorities, and the oppressed.

ynx 5y ago

> self-proclaimed far left extremists As someone who is far-left (and not cis-white), virtually none of us proclaim ourselves extremists. Progressives, yes, perhaps even militant around organizing around a cause, but I fail to see how this part of your comment can be read as anything other than political straw-man flamebait.

happytoexplain 5y ago

I agree. Except this: > these "allies" are worse than ... overtly prejudiced/racist people. I disagree. By my reckoning, there just isn't a comparison, by almost any metric of societal damage. Of course, it doesn't have to be a contest. That's not the important thing.

makomk 5y ago
The thing is, when the social justice left do things that are actively prejudiced against and intentionally hurt the minority groups they claim to be helping, you just don't hear about it because one of their core beliefs is that they're always helping by definition and they have enough power over the mainstream discussion that it's impossible to challenge. For example, one of the last things the Labour party, who're the more left-wing of our two main parties, did when they had power here in the UK was write a special exemption in anti-discrimination law to deny trans women access to rape and domestic violence services at the request of a feminist lobbying group. (As in this was literally the stated purpose according to the official guidance accompanying the law when it was proposed.) Any discussion of how this happened or the lobbying group behind it was explicitly forbidden in the left-wing and feminist publications and communities with any reach. The press only turned on the Labour-linked lobbying group in late 2019, over a decade after the original law, when they started lobbying the Conservatives over the same anti-trans cause. The discussion of this has been so warped that the established social justice left view on the whole thing is that it shows transphobia is a right-wing thing and proves any attempt to equate the left with them (not just over transphobia, but any attempt to claim they're comparably bad in general) is a dangerous false equivalence.
darkerside 5y ago
HN should be a place of justice and sharpening of ideas. Thank you for participating in that. Allies and racists both exist on a continuum, do they not? A single individual will take actions that are both helpful and harmful in different measures to other people and groups in society. Some racists are going to be net benefits to society. Their racist views may be limited, unintentional, unexpressed, or any combination of the above. While their works may be helping minority groups directly. That's just one example of the presented framework breaking, but there are many more permutations. Hopefully this is enough for us to agree that a blanket statement like > these "allies" are worse than ... overtly prejudiced/racist people. is, if not inaccurate, so imprecise as to be meaningless.

rayiner 5y ago

> I'm not a cis white male and I'm not internalizing oppression The “internalizing oppression” thing is such a disgusting accusation. It’s just a way for the activists to trade on the moral authority of pretending to speak for their group, even when they don’t represent the views of their identity group: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang

lordnacho 5y ago
Sounds like a modern version of "false consciousness" which some left wingers were using to explain why some people they thought to be natural allies didn't agree with them.
- specialist 5y ago
  Heh. I misread that as "false conscientiousness". I've been calling presumptuously speaking for another "white knighting". Your take isn't so generous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness FWIW, I'm optimistic that it's a generational cohort thing. Plenty of boomer activists know what's best for other people and will selflessly nail themselves up on a cross for your benefit. Why aren't you grateful? Sure, others do it too, but it's somehow different. Feels more like oversteer than preaching.
coffeefirst 5y ago
It’s a spin on “false consciousness,” an old Marxist bit that they used to explain why anyone would dare to disagree with them. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be such an ideologue that you have to project on other people.
specialist 5y ago
Am very political. I've witnessed this many times. It's a recognized problem. The new hotness in activist circles is empowerment, helping people find their own voices, making the space for them to be heard. Change is painful, slow. But it's happening.

jb775 5y ago

- obviously (to almost everyone) these are unfalsifiable standards that self-proclaimed far left extremists have created to invalidate everyone's thoughts but their own The current state of social discourse is essentially landmines in the form of Kafkatraps[1]. Once there's any form of discussion on an unfalsifiable topic, it provides the leftist with a false sense of justification, simply because it was discussed...even if the leftist's reasoning made no sense and they lost the debate. Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified. This has led us into a race towards the bottom within society, catering to the loudest complainer in the room. Crabs in a bucket. Seems like the only real way to counter these unfalsifiable arguments is to call the person a fucking clown and tell them what a kafkatrap is. [1] https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/ https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-m...

damagednoob 5y ago
> Then they use the false justification to trick low-intelligence people into believing it's actually justified. I don't agree with this. Anyone who has been following politics has noticed the growth in the left's base, mainly from the college educated. A lot of these activists seem to be motivated by the (ironically) paternalistic notion that they know better than the groups they advocate for.
- benrbray 5y ago
  I see quite a few unsubstantiated claims like this being thrown around in this thread. Can you help by clarifying 1) which activists? 2) which groups to which they do not belong are they speaking on behalf of? 3) in what way do they think they know better? 4) who among these groups has spoken out against what activists say? and 5) what gives you the impression that the activists have not consulted with the groups they represent (if they are not themselves members of the group)?
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    1) the woke ones. 2) see the comment up thread about the disabled person expected to to fall in line because they’re part of a minority group. 3) see kafkatrap. 4) unsure what you’re asking. 5) see latinx conversation up thread.

spinach 5y ago

Basically no one is "cis", because people are just born the sex they are and don't "identify" with it, or agree with all the outdated stereotypes placed on their sex. Men and women aren't a subset of their sex.

vmception 5y ago
so the reason I use that adjective is because it only has upside. It is effortless, harmless, actually briefly conveys a much longer abstract message which is the purpose of language, and helps otherwise marginalized people feel included and stay productive. it doesn’t matter to me that 99% of people already match that adjective which wasn't previously known or necessary
wccrawford 5y ago
I don't "identify" as "cis". I think of myself as normal, pretty much like everyone else. But when I need a word to describe myself as "not trans"... There isn't one, until "cis" came along. So yes, I'm "cis". I don't like the word, and I probably would not have managed to come up with it on my own. But "straight" doesn't describe the situation and "not trans" is inherently negative, where no negativity is desired. I'll fully agree that I don't follow a lot of the stereotypes for my gender, but there are a lot I do follow, too. Nobody is 100% stereotypical. And Cis- and trans-gender isn't even about that. It's about how you feel and who you feel you are, not about following stereotypes.

narrator 5y ago

They are trying to realize the politicization of all institutions in service of political revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins... Also see this article from 1999 when all this was getting started: https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war

vmception 5y ago
Somehow I went all of the aughts and half of the 2010s without noticing That makes me feel a lot better about the viability of any of this Can I ignore it if I stop noticing and caring about politics and modern inclusitivity pushes? I have my doubts but I’m willing to try! Its just other people shoving it in my face that I don't get to inherit American dreams because I’m not a cis white male and keep reminding me, not that I would want to be. Any accomplishment I have must be broadcast! Any setback must be broadcast as well! Doesn't feel like privilege. I dont want to be a role model I just want to blend in and make money and enjoy the same vices as everyone else.
- avereveard 5y ago
  It started even before, I remember most of these discussion being around in the mid nineties. They're not at all ineffective, they took hold in school and accademia and produced a generation of person deeply sensible to the topic of equity and social issues, which outrage quite easily and can be brought to bear to a wide range of causes from truly important battles to cancelling people for a shirt a friend gifted them. The delay you see is not because of the technique not being viable, it is because in culture wars you need quite literally to grow your army, as people get entrenched in their ways after a while.
oblio 5y ago
I have to point out that your second source is a conservative think tank, and if you're conservative it generally means that the status quo is in your favor ("you like/are happy with the status quo") and any challenge to it looks like the start of a revolution. Interesting article, though.

KingOfCoders 5y ago

This is for every framework (left, right, economical, ecological, etc.) If the framework gives you direct power over other people, you want the framework applied everywhere: work, private life, politics, etc. The people at the forefront of these frameworks use the rest of the group as a stepping stone to their personal power and the framework to enhance their importance (any other positive and negative effects of the framework aside, those I don't want to judge).

devwastaken 5y ago

There's significant funding and political force at the local, state and federal levels that, if allowed, would "ban" LGBT existence and put Christianity as the U.S. official religion. Along with every other crazy idea you can think of. Luckily, there's funding and work in opposition. People can be very comfortable sitting on an unbalanced rock, until it tips.

refurb 5y ago
Something like 80%+ of Americans support LGBT rights and people who identify as religious (in general) is rapidly dropping. Your religious right may have been a real national force in 1980, but not now. It’s just a boogie man.
- trasz 5y ago
  Repeated - and, sadly, successful - attempts to deny the right to abortion shows the religious wackos are at least a state-level force that can’t be ignored.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Abortion is not an LGBT issue and anti-abortion types are not exclusively religious. The split between anti-abortion and pro-abortion is almost 50/50 in the US and 50% of America are not fundamentalist Christians.
    - trasz 5y ago
      There are no arguments against early abortion that wouldn’t be either religiously motivated, or based on non- religious logical fallacy. From what I’ve seen on American media, almost all of it is religiously motivated. It doesn’t matter that fundamentalists don’t identify themselves as fundamentalist.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s a logical fallacy or religiously motivated. Get out of your bubble and talk to people and you’ll learn things!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]