7 ms·

Being "woke" goes beyond just being a decent person though, because most people's metric for decency is interpersonal decency. My understanding is that the soci

Being "woke" goes beyond just being a decent person though, because most people's metric for decency is interpersonal decency. My understanding is that the sociological concepts that go into "wokeness" include intersectional analysis, microaggression theory, critical theory, 3rd wave feminism, gender theory etc. I think these ideas are mostly good (with the exception of microaggression theory), but they go way beyond "just be decent to other people" and into the territory of deep academic and systemic mindsets that are far from the default in the individualist West (and especially the US). I mean damn, half these ideas are French, and France is pretty culturally different from the US, French academia even moreso. For example: not being racist on an individual level is pretty intuitive and obvious to most people, and mostly comes down to being a decent human being. Being institutionally anti-racist is a totally different thing, and way more involving, because you're not just not being a dick to people of a different race; you're trying to counteract systemic disadvantages.

_3u10 5y ago
It also presupposes such systemic disadvantages exist. Not sure why so many people from other countries immigrate to places that are so obviously systemically biased against them. Or why when institutions such as Harvard actually do systemically discriminate against Asians it’s routinely ignored by the woke crowd. Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination?
- judge2020 5y ago
  > It also presupposes such systemic disadvantages exist. But it would be incorrect to presuppose that absolutely none exist, which is why they have a culture of reviewing and examining such a possibility.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Of course. I think the vast vast majority of people abhor racism and discrimination in the US and Canada yet our countries are described by the woke as bastions of this kind of thought when the vast majority of the evidence points to it being two of the most welcoming and accepting of differences.
    - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
      Even if true, that's definitionally unrelated to whether or not systemix racism exists or not. It just means that you've personally defined some ambiguous bar of entry for whether or not you think marginalized voices require honest thought.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- eru 5y ago
  > Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? You mean they have some of the lowest rates of admission when corrected for GPA? Or lowest rates in some absolute sense? > Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTargets https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTarget...
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Basically, the GPA / exam scores required for Asians to be accepted is far higher than any other group. To exclude them Harvard gives Asians low personality scores. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
- zapita 5y ago
  > Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? Because of legacy admissions, also known as “rich white kids skipping the line in spite of low GPAs”. There’s nothing “woke” about Ivy Leagues… https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-school...
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination? I've tried multiple time the argument "if we have quotas in top positions like board of directors, high-prestige public institutions, we should also have them in bottom positions. Where are the inclusivity programs for prisons?". The answer that I've always received was "these are totally different", as in you end up in a board of directors due to chance and privilege, but you end up in prison due to your own actions. While this argument is a bit stupid and not really constructive, I find it surprising how easily it reveals that people apply very different standards to different social issues. It seem that for most people, the mechanism which makes men dominate society is totally different from the mechanism which makes men be at the bottom of society. My explanation for that is that the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor. I personally haven't found other people talking about things this way, but that may be me not researching enough. I also find it unfair that some people would be in this "glass box" just because of how they were born. But I'll admit that I find it troubling when I hear people talking about "breaking the glass ceiling" all the time, which seem to benefit mostly people already well-off in society that want event more (at least for positions like board of directors), while leaving people to rot in prison because they're male.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Men likely just commit more crimes. I do think there is huge bias in sentencing though. You have to know how to interact with police tho, I think many men's intuition on how to do this is lacking. Lawrence Summers got in a lot of trouble discussing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
    - Zababa 5y ago
      > Men likely just commit more crimes. I think the thing that makes men commit more crimes is the same that makes them be at the "top". Thank you for that link about the variability hypothesis, that seem to be what I'm thinking about.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Your arguments betray that you don't actually understand what systemic disadvantages are. It's not used to mean intentional discrimination; it means that the way our society is set up results in discriminatory outcomes even if nobody is actively being discriminatory. To address your gender disparity in incarceration example: yes, that is a systemic problem. Men commit more crime than women, and if you dig into the reasons why, it's going to relate to things like lack of opportunity to compete and succeed through legitimate means. People in poverty stricken areas have much less of a chance to succeed through legitimate economic means so the ambitious turn to crime. That's a systemic problem.
  - evancox100 5y ago
    > Men commit more crime than women, and if you dig into the reasons why, it's going to relate to things like lack of opportunity to compete and succeed through legitimate means. Pretty sure that the main driver here comes down to testosterone and men’s overall higher levels of impulsivity.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      yeah sorry I should've said explicitly that men are also more likely to be aggressive and competitive, so given the constraints of poverty, are more likely to go into crime to fulfil those needs.
    - orand 5y ago
      Bingo. Read the recent book T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us by Carole Hooven. It covers this and related issues in great scientific detail. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250236061/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250236061/
wpietri 5y ago
I agree that at one point maybe being oblivious to systemic problems could go along with being decent. But these days I don't see how being a decent human is compatible with either, "I don't want to learn whether you're getting the short end of the stick" or "I know you're getting the short end of the stick but I'll never do anything about it": neither seem decent to me. I'll also note that although those particular theoretical frameworks were originally popular ways to understand certain problems, there are plenty of other ways to understanding. As an example, let's take the microagression where white people want to touch black hair. This is a common problem [1][2][3], and one certainly can situate it within a whole host of racist microaggressions and a broader theoretical framework. But one can also just say, "Dude, black people are not pets. Keep your hands to yourself." Or in the middle, the handsy person can listen to black voices on this and get a personal understanding of why it's a demeaning thing to ask/do. That doesn't require any theory, just the sort of empathy and respect that is at the core of human decency. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2020/01/08/stop-asking-black-people-if-you-can-touch-their-hair/?sh=6a7cb82350a7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2020/01/08/stop-as... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/b5c3fa4e-e6c0-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc https://www.ft.com/content/b5c3fa4e-e6c0-11e9-9743-db5a37048... [3] http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/07/25/touching.natural.black.hair/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/07/25/touching.natural.black....
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > But these days I don't see how being a decent human is compatible with either, "I don't want to learn whether you're getting the short end of the stick" or "I know you're getting the short end of the stick but I'll never do anything about it": neither seem decent to me. The novel part isn't the interpersonal part like "don't try to touch black people's hair" - that's just basic common sense, and it's extremely cringey that there are people who do that and think it's OK. The novel part is the systemic aspects of progressive thinking; my primary academic (hobby) interest is in systems theory and cybernetics, so through experience I can say for a fact that most people find systems thinking to be unnatural or alien. It's a different way of looking at the world to thinking in terms of intent and individual actions, which is the norm in the West.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
> For example: not being racist on an individual level is pretty intuitive and obvious to most people, and mostly comes down to being a decent human being. Being institutionally anti-racist is a totally different thing, and way more involving, because you're not just not being a dick to people of a different race; you're trying to counteract systemic disadvantages. Sincerely acknowledging this may be confusing: it’s the equivalent of recognizing that you’re being graded or compensated fairly while you see someone else not being treated that fairly… and then not shrugging it off. It’s not a deep philosophical concept. It’s living in a society with responsibility to everyone else in your society.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
skyde 5y ago
how do you “counteract systemic disadvantages” without simply disadvantaging all white peoples ( that would be racist against white people) Or by doing simply giving extra benefit (affirmative action) to one group ? As we have seen with affirmative action it put people from china India and japan in the same bucket and give them less preferential treatment compared to African Americans. So it just seem that the minority which speak louder about injustice is the one that get the most benefit. I agree that systemic racism is a thing but I have never seen a single proposed solution which is not simply “reverse racism” or positive racism. We should be able to give equal opportunity to all group without explicitly helping one group or disadvantaging one group!
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Let me frame this up in terms of white/black disparity in the US, as it's the clearest case: black people have for a long time been explicitly discriminated against at an institutional level, and even when you remove this, they will collectively remain at a disadvantage until corrective action is taken. Traditionally the suggested solution is reparations, but organisations have decided that to do their part they should engage in affirmative action. Of course affirmative action slightly disadvantages white people on an individual level, but the argument is that black people are disadvantaged on a societal level from said discriminatory history, so it balances out. Affirmative action isn't actually a systemic solution though, it's an individualistic solution. A systemic solution would be something like creating a government fund to invest in infrastructure and enterprises in historically redlined areas and help to bootstrap the economic uplifting of poorer black communities. Do bear in mind though that I'm from the UK so this is just my understanding of an issue I'm not personally familiar with.

_3u10 5y ago

It also presupposes such systemic disadvantages exist. Not sure why so many people from other countries immigrate to places that are so obviously systemically biased against them. Or why when institutions such as Harvard actually do systemically discriminate against Asians it’s routinely ignored by the woke crowd. Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination?

judge2020 5y ago
> It also presupposes such systemic disadvantages exist. But it would be incorrect to presuppose that absolutely none exist, which is why they have a culture of reviewing and examining such a possibility.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Of course. I think the vast vast majority of people abhor racism and discrimination in the US and Canada yet our countries are described by the woke as bastions of this kind of thought when the vast majority of the evidence points to it being two of the most welcoming and accepting of differences.
  - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
    Even if true, that's definitionally unrelated to whether or not systemix racism exists or not. It just means that you've personally defined some ambiguous bar of entry for whether or not you think marginalized voices require honest thought.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
eru 5y ago
> Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? You mean they have some of the lowest rates of admission when corrected for GPA? Or lowest rates in some absolute sense? > Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTargets https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTarget...
- _3u10 5y ago
  Basically, the GPA / exam scores required for Asians to be accepted is far higher than any other group. To exclude them Harvard gives Asians low personality scores. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...
zapita 5y ago
> Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? Because of legacy admissions, also known as “rich white kids skipping the line in spite of low GPAs”. There’s nothing “woke” about Ivy Leagues… https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-schools-ivy-league-legacy-admissions-harvard-wealthier-whiter https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-school...
Zababa 5y ago
> Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination? I've tried multiple time the argument "if we have quotas in top positions like board of directors, high-prestige public institutions, we should also have them in bottom positions. Where are the inclusivity programs for prisons?". The answer that I've always received was "these are totally different", as in you end up in a board of directors due to chance and privilege, but you end up in prison due to your own actions. While this argument is a bit stupid and not really constructive, I find it surprising how easily it reveals that people apply very different standards to different social issues. It seem that for most people, the mechanism which makes men dominate society is totally different from the mechanism which makes men be at the bottom of society. My explanation for that is that the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor. I personally haven't found other people talking about things this way, but that may be me not researching enough. I also find it unfair that some people would be in this "glass box" just because of how they were born. But I'll admit that I find it troubling when I hear people talking about "breaking the glass ceiling" all the time, which seem to benefit mostly people already well-off in society that want event more (at least for positions like board of directors), while leaving people to rot in prison because they're male.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _3u10 5y ago
  Men likely just commit more crimes. I do think there is huge bias in sentencing though. You have to know how to interact with police tho, I think many men's intuition on how to do this is lacking. Lawrence Summers got in a lot of trouble discussing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_b... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Men likely just commit more crimes. I think the thing that makes men commit more crimes is the same that makes them be at the "top". Thank you for that link about the variability hypothesis, that seem to be what I'm thinking about.
beaconstudios 5y ago
Your arguments betray that you don't actually understand what systemic disadvantages are. It's not used to mean intentional discrimination; it means that the way our society is set up results in discriminatory outcomes even if nobody is actively being discriminatory. To address your gender disparity in incarceration example: yes, that is a systemic problem. Men commit more crime than women, and if you dig into the reasons why, it's going to relate to things like lack of opportunity to compete and succeed through legitimate means. People in poverty stricken areas have much less of a chance to succeed through legitimate economic means so the ambitious turn to crime. That's a systemic problem.
- evancox100 5y ago
  > Men commit more crime than women, and if you dig into the reasons why, it's going to relate to things like lack of opportunity to compete and succeed through legitimate means. Pretty sure that the main driver here comes down to testosterone and men’s overall higher levels of impulsivity.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    yeah sorry I should've said explicitly that men are also more likely to be aggressive and competitive, so given the constraints of poverty, are more likely to go into crime to fulfil those needs.
  - orand 5y ago
    Bingo. Read the recent book T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us by Carole Hooven. It covers this and related issues in great scientific detail. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250236061/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250236061/

wpietri 5y ago

I agree that at one point maybe being oblivious to systemic problems could go along with being decent. But these days I don't see how being a decent human is compatible with either, "I don't want to learn whether you're getting the short end of the stick" or "I know you're getting the short end of the stick but I'll never do anything about it": neither seem decent to me. I'll also note that although those particular theoretical frameworks were originally popular ways to understand certain problems, there are plenty of other ways to understanding. As an example, let's take the microagression where white people want to touch black hair. This is a common problem [1][2][3], and one certainly can situate it within a whole host of racist microaggressions and a broader theoretical framework. But one can also just say, "Dude, black people are not pets. Keep your hands to yourself." Or in the middle, the handsy person can listen to black voices on this and get a personal understanding of why it's a demeaning thing to ask/do. That doesn't require any theory, just the sort of empathy and respect that is at the core of human decency. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2020/01/08/stop-asking-black-people-if-you-can-touch-their-hair/?sh=6a7cb82350a7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2020/01/08/stop-as... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/b5c3fa4e-e6c0-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc https://www.ft.com/content/b5c3fa4e-e6c0-11e9-9743-db5a37048... [3] http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/07/25/touching.natural.black.hair/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/07/25/touching.natural.black....

beaconstudios 5y ago
> But these days I don't see how being a decent human is compatible with either, "I don't want to learn whether you're getting the short end of the stick" or "I know you're getting the short end of the stick but I'll never do anything about it": neither seem decent to me. The novel part isn't the interpersonal part like "don't try to touch black people's hair" - that's just basic common sense, and it's extremely cringey that there are people who do that and think it's OK. The novel part is the systemic aspects of progressive thinking; my primary academic (hobby) interest is in systems theory and cybernetics, so through experience I can say for a fact that most people find systems thinking to be unnatural or alien. It's a different way of looking at the world to thinking in terms of intent and individual actions, which is the norm in the West.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

> For example: not being racist on an individual level is pretty intuitive and obvious to most people, and mostly comes down to being a decent human being. Being institutionally anti-racist is a totally different thing, and way more involving, because you're not just not being a dick to people of a different race; you're trying to counteract systemic disadvantages. Sincerely acknowledging this may be confusing: it’s the equivalent of recognizing that you’re being graded or compensated fairly while you see someone else not being treated that fairly… and then not shrugging it off. It’s not a deep philosophical concept. It’s living in a society with responsibility to everyone else in your society.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

skyde 5y ago

how do you “counteract systemic disadvantages” without simply disadvantaging all white peoples ( that would be racist against white people) Or by doing simply giving extra benefit (affirmative action) to one group ? As we have seen with affirmative action it put people from china India and japan in the same bucket and give them less preferential treatment compared to African Americans. So it just seem that the minority which speak louder about injustice is the one that get the most benefit. I agree that systemic racism is a thing but I have never seen a single proposed solution which is not simply “reverse racism” or positive racism. We should be able to give equal opportunity to all group without explicitly helping one group or disadvantaging one group!

beaconstudios 5y ago
Let me frame this up in terms of white/black disparity in the US, as it's the clearest case: black people have for a long time been explicitly discriminated against at an institutional level, and even when you remove this, they will collectively remain at a disadvantage until corrective action is taken. Traditionally the suggested solution is reparations, but organisations have decided that to do their part they should engage in affirmative action. Of course affirmative action slightly disadvantages white people on an individual level, but the argument is that black people are disadvantaged on a societal level from said discriminatory history, so it balances out. Affirmative action isn't actually a systemic solution though, it's an individualistic solution. A systemic solution would be something like creating a government fund to invest in infrastructure and enterprises in historically redlined areas and help to bootstrap the economic uplifting of poorer black communities. Do bear in mind though that I'm from the UK so this is just my understanding of an issue I'm not personally familiar with.