3 ms·

Disingenuous appeal to the rigor of science followed by several token anecdotes and thick sarcasm. Reactionary reverse cancel culture hit piece, from the usual

by r0s 5y ago

Disingenuous appeal to the rigor of science followed by several token anecdotes and thick sarcasm. Reactionary reverse cancel culture hit piece, from the usual tabloid.

peytn 5y ago
This piece is slanted but if you click through to the local news story [1], I dunno, it gets pretty weird… > The white affinity group was eventually named the "Whiteness Accountability" group and was intended for "staff who hold privilege via white identity and who want to explore how the advantages of whiteness interact with their identities, with their work and in the world," the complaint quotes from the program's announcement. > The announcement also identified the white affinity group as being for staff who are "white identified, may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white." [1]: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/16/federal-complaint-by-jewish-employees-alleges-antisemitism-at-stanford-racial-sensitivity-program https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/16/federal-complaint...
- elliekelly 5y ago
  The whole “article” is like meta-reactionary though. From what I’ve read I agree that Stanford training sounds ridiculous. But this entire post is just the author doing the very thing she’s accusing others of doing: > Building on the now-popular term “woke,” I have come to call this ideology, wokecraft. I use the metaphor of a spell because among believers are people in fields that rely on logic, reason, and science but who nonetheless appear unable to see that many of wokecraft's definitions — including new definitions of racism and antiracism — are tautological, and many of its foundational concepts (such as white fragility, white privilege, and microaggressions) are unfalsifiable. Is “wokecraft” not tautological and unfalsifiable? And all of her examples seem intended to speak to ideology over science - “toxic” masculinity, Israel’s “right to exist”, etc. There are lots of deliberately chosen and emotionally-loaded phrases in this writing. That’s the hallmark of ideology over science.

by r0s 5y ago

Disingenuous appeal to the rigor of science followed by several token anecdotes and thick sarcasm. Reactionary reverse cancel culture hit piece, from the usual tabloid.

peytn 5y ago

This piece is slanted but if you click through to the local news story [1], I dunno, it gets pretty weird… > The white affinity group was eventually named the "Whiteness Accountability" group and was intended for "staff who hold privilege via white identity and who want to explore how the advantages of whiteness interact with their identities, with their work and in the world," the complaint quotes from the program's announcement. > The announcement also identified the white affinity group as being for staff who are "white identified, may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white." [1]: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/16/federal-complaint-by-jewish-employees-alleges-antisemitism-at-stanford-racial-sensitivity-program https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/16/federal-complaint...

elliekelly 5y ago
The whole “article” is like meta-reactionary though. From what I’ve read I agree that Stanford training sounds ridiculous. But this entire post is just the author doing the very thing she’s accusing others of doing: > Building on the now-popular term “woke,” I have come to call this ideology, wokecraft. I use the metaphor of a spell because among believers are people in fields that rely on logic, reason, and science but who nonetheless appear unable to see that many of wokecraft's definitions — including new definitions of racism and antiracism — are tautological, and many of its foundational concepts (such as white fragility, white privilege, and microaggressions) are unfalsifiable. Is “wokecraft” not tautological and unfalsifiable? And all of her examples seem intended to speak to ideology over science - “toxic” masculinity, Israel’s “right to exist”, etc. There are lots of deliberately chosen and emotionally-loaded phrases in this writing. That’s the hallmark of ideology over science.