9 ms·

Some, even most, of the goals of that movement are commendable, with the exception of the more idealistic goals such as equality of outcome. What I find worryin

Some, even most, of the goals of that movement are commendable, with the exception of the more idealistic goals such as equality of outcome. What I find worrying, however, are the tactics that are used to accomplish those goals. I find it hard to understand how people do not see how discriminating against other people because of their views is not the right approach to solve discrimination.

yawaworht1978 5y ago
The tactics were probably forged in the underground while it was not wise to speak openly about it, always with the law or society breathing down their necks, so I am not surprised the tactics aren't the cleanest or most innocent. Once this gets enough traction, it might get plenty of followers. If my kid would come home with half green, half pink hair, we would have to sit down and find the origin for that, I would not be very amused. But same applies if my kids would bully other kids for any reason.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  The article covers this, the ideology was forged inside elite academic departments with names ending in 'studies'. They weren't some persecuted underground, they were cushy academics who got given sinecures in the aftermath of the 60s protests.
jasonlotito 5y ago
What would you suggest that wasn’t tried before? Conversations, education, peaceful protests, etc. None worked as well as this. If someone is punching you in the face every single day, and nothing you try that’s non violent works, but suddenly you get results when you push back, wouldn’t you employ that method? Sure, it hurts the person punching you, but they were punching you.
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  I would agree with that. You only slip and evade so many punches before you strike back. Many of these things took a lot of effort. Examples were suffrage in Switzerland, only approved in 1971(by male voters). Sounds crazy, the UK suffragettes got their way between WW1 and WW2, it's pretty shameful that Some anti homosexuality laws have been passed after that. The same conservative outlets who point fingers at the Talibans for killing homosexuals have been on the anti gay train when it was convenient. The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law. We have a system that cannot accommodate all views and opinions, but if we gonna call it democracy, at least the minorities should not be discriminated on. But yeah, a bullies freedom of speech and someone with green hair crossing paths will cause some potential friction. If not right there on the spot, people will vent online. Case in point, there's this guy Nick Szabo , intelligent person, but damn his Twitter feed and contributions make you wonder if he dresses up as a klansman in the nights.
  - ptr2voidStar 5y ago
    > The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law. Would that happen to be the same Dutch that were heavily involved in the slave trade (about the same time you mention)?
    - yawaworht1978 5y ago
      Yes I agree, odd interpretation, might be even perverse to a degree, as it only applied to maritime law and was probably abused to engage in slave trade, they could always claim they never killed a slave. The statement is potentially nice, though.
  - klipt 5y ago
    Switzerland still has conscription for men only, so it's arguably still a sexist society (against men). What's interesting is that men's suffrage was often justified by conscription: that people shouldn't be sent to fight wars they didn't have a say in. But then women got suffrage without having to be conscripted on the basis of equality, while only men still got conscripted. Not a great deal for men!
- FiberBundle 5y ago
  Well a good first step would be to accept that societal changes take time to develop. We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. Asian immigrants, which were severely discriminated against in the past, have achieved tremendous upward mobility in our society. There are many other areas in which our society has progressed. All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    > We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".
    - FiberBundle 5y ago
      > And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage? > 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        The bombs in the mailboxes? Absolutely.
        refurb 5y ago
        Violence rarely works politically unless you’re talking about revolution.
        UncleMeat 5y ago
- luckylion 5y ago
  Ivy league kids from rich families are getting "punched in the face every single day"? What timeline is that?
karmelapple 5y ago
Do you have a few concrete examples of large groups strongly advocating for equality of outcomes? I’ve had discussions about “equality” with folks aligned across the political spectrum, and most everyone agrees they want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I’m confused about who or what group is speaking about people desiring equality of outcome. And discriminating against other people because of their views - what if their view is, “group A of people, who didn’t do anything to belong to group A, shouldn’t exist or have the same rights as group B?”
- angelzen 5y ago
  Ibram X. Kendi: Any disparity in group outcomes is proof of a deeply flawed and malicious system. The darling of American academia and corporate. You can either have equality of opportunity and accept that the outcomes will be disparate, or have equality of (group) outcome. You can't have both. Your friends have not thought through the consequences of the current dominant ideology. > 'When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.' https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader-questions-about-race-gender-and-mobility.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader...
  - jensensbutton 5y ago
    Ibram X. Kendi is one person. You can find individuals who espouse any view you want. The question is are there any large groups actually pushing for this. Though the parent didn't, I would s/large/mainstream/ because the internet makes it easy to find large groups of people talking about any old topic.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Ibram X. Kendi is one person. This is essentizlly false. Ibram X. Kendi is a Harvard professor, author, and widely published by the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc. He is literally a leader of a large group of people pushing for exactly the views he espouses.
      - 5y ago
stavros 5y ago
I was recently thinking about why I was so annoyed at wokism, and was trying to figure out what annoyed me about a movement that shares many of my values. I realized exactly what you mention, that equality of outcome leads to what is basically good old discrimination, except the group that's discriminated against is different now. At some level, I'm disappointed that we've progressed so much in the last few decades, but all the effort was in the direction of keeping discrimination going, instead of trying to end it completely. Yes, many people have a disadvantage due to centuries of discrimination, but I don't see equality of outcome as being the way forward towards an equal society in the long run.
- beerandt 5y ago
  They also value things, in practice, that are entirely contrary to what they claim to value.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

The tactics were probably forged in the underground while it was not wise to speak openly about it, always with the law or society breathing down their necks, so I am not surprised the tactics aren't the cleanest or most innocent. Once this gets enough traction, it might get plenty of followers. If my kid would come home with half green, half pink hair, we would have to sit down and find the origin for that, I would not be very amused. But same applies if my kids would bully other kids for any reason.

refenestrator 5y ago
The article covers this, the ideology was forged inside elite academic departments with names ending in 'studies'. They weren't some persecuted underground, they were cushy academics who got given sinecures in the aftermath of the 60s protests.

jasonlotito 5y ago

What would you suggest that wasn’t tried before? Conversations, education, peaceful protests, etc. None worked as well as this. If someone is punching you in the face every single day, and nothing you try that’s non violent works, but suddenly you get results when you push back, wouldn’t you employ that method? Sure, it hurts the person punching you, but they were punching you.

yawaworht1978 5y ago
I would agree with that. You only slip and evade so many punches before you strike back. Many of these things took a lot of effort. Examples were suffrage in Switzerland, only approved in 1971(by male voters). Sounds crazy, the UK suffragettes got their way between WW1 and WW2, it's pretty shameful that Some anti homosexuality laws have been passed after that. The same conservative outlets who point fingers at the Talibans for killing homosexuals have been on the anti gay train when it was convenient. The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law. We have a system that cannot accommodate all views and opinions, but if we gonna call it democracy, at least the minorities should not be discriminated on. But yeah, a bullies freedom of speech and someone with green hair crossing paths will cause some potential friction. If not right there on the spot, people will vent online. Case in point, there's this guy Nick Szabo , intelligent person, but damn his Twitter feed and contributions make you wonder if he dresses up as a klansman in the nights.
- ptr2voidStar 5y ago
  > The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law. Would that happen to be the same Dutch that were heavily involved in the slave trade (about the same time you mention)?
  - yawaworht1978 5y ago
    Yes I agree, odd interpretation, might be even perverse to a degree, as it only applied to maritime law and was probably abused to engage in slave trade, they could always claim they never killed a slave. The statement is potentially nice, though.
- klipt 5y ago
  Switzerland still has conscription for men only, so it's arguably still a sexist society (against men). What's interesting is that men's suffrage was often justified by conscription: that people shouldn't be sent to fight wars they didn't have a say in. But then women got suffrage without having to be conscripted on the basis of equality, while only men still got conscripted. Not a great deal for men!
FiberBundle 5y ago
Well a good first step would be to accept that societal changes take time to develop. We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. Asian immigrants, which were severely discriminated against in the past, have achieved tremendous upward mobility in our society. There are many other areas in which our society has progressed. All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".
  - FiberBundle 5y ago
    > And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage? > 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      The bombs in the mailboxes? Absolutely.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Violence rarely works politically unless you’re talking about revolution.
        UncleMeat 5y ago
luckylion 5y ago
Ivy league kids from rich families are getting "punched in the face every single day"? What timeline is that?

karmelapple 5y ago

Do you have a few concrete examples of large groups strongly advocating for equality of outcomes? I’ve had discussions about “equality” with folks aligned across the political spectrum, and most everyone agrees they want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I’m confused about who or what group is speaking about people desiring equality of outcome. And discriminating against other people because of their views - what if their view is, “group A of people, who didn’t do anything to belong to group A, shouldn’t exist or have the same rights as group B?”

angelzen 5y ago
Ibram X. Kendi: Any disparity in group outcomes is proof of a deeply flawed and malicious system. The darling of American academia and corporate. You can either have equality of opportunity and accept that the outcomes will be disparate, or have equality of (group) outcome. You can't have both. Your friends have not thought through the consequences of the current dominant ideology. > 'When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.' https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader-questions-about-race-gender-and-mobility.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/reader...
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  Ibram X. Kendi is one person. You can find individuals who espouse any view you want. The question is are there any large groups actually pushing for this. Though the parent didn't, I would s/large/mainstream/ because the internet makes it easy to find large groups of people talking about any old topic.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Ibram X. Kendi is one person. This is essentizlly false. Ibram X. Kendi is a Harvard professor, author, and widely published by the New York Times, the Atlantic, etc. He is literally a leader of a large group of people pushing for exactly the views he espouses.
    - 5y ago

stavros 5y ago

I was recently thinking about why I was so annoyed at wokism, and was trying to figure out what annoyed me about a movement that shares many of my values. I realized exactly what you mention, that equality of outcome leads to what is basically good old discrimination, except the group that's discriminated against is different now. At some level, I'm disappointed that we've progressed so much in the last few decades, but all the effort was in the direction of keeping discrimination going, instead of trying to end it completely. Yes, many people have a disadvantage due to centuries of discrimination, but I don't see equality of outcome as being the way forward towards an equal society in the long run.

beerandt 5y ago
They also value things, in practice, that are entirely contrary to what they claim to value.