5 ms·

Neither is it exclusive to the woke, or anyone else. What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's cu

by feurio 5y ago

Neither is it exclusive to the woke, or anyone else. What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims. "Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood" "I see, proceed with your evidence" "Meh, go find it for yourself."

lnxg33k1 5y ago
But the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers are all paid to give the judge stuff, we're here having a conversation, but I am not sure what kind of proof do you want and what should we do, like it's not that newspapers write article about wokes being wokes, just maybe go around on twitter or go on twitter and write something controversial like "#FuckBLM" and see what comes at you, not sure what do you want or I mean I know what do you want, but don't know how long do you want me to reply to you, or others, like I am very patient in conversations, but I feel like don quixote and as a non native speaker I feel like you're misunderstanding what I say, genuinely or not, I guess someone here thinks not, but I think I am done, its been a few hours, you've been told things, you've been given links, and now I think it's time for you to go to explore the world by yourself... fly free
- feurio 5y ago
  But why would I go onto Twitter and say that, unless I was a massive racist? And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly. Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions". You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples. Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy: https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/1493611118899695626 https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    Ok, I'll bite. Google "Grievance studies affair". It provides a chilling look into how wokes are corrupting science in order to advance their political agenda. Is this example sufficient for you?
    - feurio 5y ago
      There's no "bite" - it's just a genuine question. Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example. I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly. Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed. Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group. Is this the best example you have?
    - feurio 5y ago
      OK. So what better way to hightlight the corrupting of science than by citing an unethical experiment that ignores all the rules of science?! This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group. I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right? I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far. If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink. It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison. The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s. No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria. You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"? So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!
inglor_cz 5y ago
It is not exclusive to the woke, no. "I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice. But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but there is a wave of wokism now. In 2042, there will be something different, but people generally react to contemporary trends.
- feurio 5y ago
  Indeed. And alive immmediately before 9/11. And in the 90s, and the 80s. And the 70s. Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away. And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Compared to levels of 2001-2003, the jingoism knob was definitely turned down. Even the popularity of "America first" is an indication thereof: people are no longer interested in forcible export of democracy and American power abroad. The Zeitgeist of the Bush era was one of empire building. The Zeitgeist of the current era is one of de-globalization. This is a huge difference. The former one was certainly more bloody. As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?) Tell me how destroying an old man's career over a 33 years old article [1] can be labeled as an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding. Or running a Twitter death gauntlet on a random Mexican driver [2]. These incidents embody "wokeness" to me, not a nicely sounding definition that was constructed to make the movement look better than it actually is. You seem to put a lot of trust into nicely sounding definitions. Always look at practice: do those people practice what they preach? Anyone can put together nicely sounding definitions and theories. In theory (= the Constitution), the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where I grew up, had solid protections of personal freedoms and human rights. In practice, it didn't. It was a totalitarian state that just didn't want to state "we rule you and we will crush any dissent" in writing. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKBN24334J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKB... [2] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...

by feurio 5y ago

lnxg33k1 5y ago

But the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers are all paid to give the judge stuff, we're here having a conversation, but I am not sure what kind of proof do you want and what should we do, like it's not that newspapers write article about wokes being wokes, just maybe go around on twitter or go on twitter and write something controversial like "#FuckBLM" and see what comes at you, not sure what do you want or I mean I know what do you want, but don't know how long do you want me to reply to you, or others, like I am very patient in conversations, but I feel like don quixote and as a non native speaker I feel like you're misunderstanding what I say, genuinely or not, I guess someone here thinks not, but I think I am done, its been a few hours, you've been told things, you've been given links, and now I think it's time for you to go to explore the world by yourself... fly free

feurio 5y ago
But why would I go onto Twitter and say that, unless I was a massive racist? And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly. Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions". You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples. Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy: https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/1493611118899695626 https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  Ok, I'll bite. Google "Grievance studies affair". It provides a chilling look into how wokes are corrupting science in order to advance their political agenda. Is this example sufficient for you?
  - feurio 5y ago
    There's no "bite" - it's just a genuine question. Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example. I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly. Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed. Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group. Is this the best example you have?
  - feurio 5y ago
    OK. So what better way to hightlight the corrupting of science than by citing an unethical experiment that ignores all the rules of science?! This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group. I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right? I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far. If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink. It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison. The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s. No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria. You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"? So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!

inglor_cz 5y ago

It is not exclusive to the woke, no. "I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice. But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but there is a wave of wokism now. In 2042, there will be something different, but people generally react to contemporary trends.

feurio 5y ago
Indeed. And alive immmediately before 9/11. And in the 90s, and the 80s. And the 70s. Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away. And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Compared to levels of 2001-2003, the jingoism knob was definitely turned down. Even the popularity of "America first" is an indication thereof: people are no longer interested in forcible export of democracy and American power abroad. The Zeitgeist of the Bush era was one of empire building. The Zeitgeist of the current era is one of de-globalization. This is a huge difference. The former one was certainly more bloody. As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?) Tell me how destroying an old man's career over a 33 years old article [1] can be labeled as an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding. Or running a Twitter death gauntlet on a random Mexican driver [2]. These incidents embody "wokeness" to me, not a nicely sounding definition that was constructed to make the movement look better than it actually is. You seem to put a lot of trust into nicely sounding definitions. Always look at practice: do those people practice what they preach? Anyone can put together nicely sounding definitions and theories. In theory (= the Constitution), the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where I grew up, had solid protections of personal freedoms and human rights. In practice, it didn't. It was a totalitarian state that just didn't want to state "we rule you and we will crush any dissent" in writing. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKBN24334J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKB... [2] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...