5 ms·

Yeah, when you're doing something that is politically/ideologically unpopular or in the minority you tend to need to have bulletproof justification if you want

Yeah, when you're doing something that is politically/ideologically unpopular or in the minority you tend to need to have bulletproof justification if you want to get away with it. Then again, with these sorts of things you can never be sure how much the tail wags the dog.

0des 5y ago
I think I get where you are going with this, can you expand a little bit on the wagging the dog part? I am not familiar with that term. I get what it means, having looked it up, but being new to the concept I want to make sure I understand the context of that segment of the comment correctly.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The actions of big prestigious institutions like MIT have an effect on opinion. So if MIT starts doing something tons of people will just knee jerk take their side on whatever the thing is. So another few institutions might follow suit and it might snowball and standard testing could become back in fashion as fast as it went out of fashion.
  - 0des 5y ago
    Ah ok thank you for taking a moment to help me understand that. Having looked up the term and re-read the comment, I see what was meant.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    That's a great point. However, you're using the idiom of the tail wagging the dog incorrectly. The tail wagging the dog usually means something important or influential being controlled by something less so. In other words, the tail would be wagging the dog if I wrote a blog post that made people change their opinions on the SAT.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The movement to shit-can standardized tests was far bigger than MIT or any one institution and was part of a broader political trend whereby these sorts of institutions have been adopting particular positions. Hence MIT is the tail in this case.
nemo44x 5y ago
> Yeah, when you're doing something that is politically/ideologically unpopular or in the minority I don't think they are though. I think there would be massively popular and wide support for this. You're seeing it in SF right now as the school board is being overthrown for trying to ruin the school system in the name of "equity" or some other garbage reason. The people finally found out and organized. All this woke stuff today is actually very unpopular and it's why you see Democrats trying to separate themselves from it and make progressives own it. It's even unpopular with the arbitrary groups it claims it helps. Most people want to be good people and treat others with respect and woke ideology sounds good on the surface ("anti-racist", sure sounds great!) until you get past the formal meaning and into the actual meaning. Sort of like how Democratic Republic of Korea sounds great until you actually read into it.
- fatjokes 5y ago
  The problem is that the wokes tend to be loud. A small, vocal group can really ruin your day on Twitter (unavoidable for a leader these days). The only ones willing to speak against them are the hard-right Fox-News Q-anon types. The folks who may be against them but are otherwise reasonable tend to stay quiet until they reach the anonymous safety of the voting booth lest they be similarly targeted. Then again the MIT Dean of Admissions hasn't been cancelled yet so maybe we're strawmanning.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    It's not so much that they are loud but that they are well organized. A small but well organized group will always have an outsized voice compared to the unorganized majority. It's why there's always a minority of elites in just about every type of social situation from a classroom to a country. Of course, the Woke's aren't just a subculture but embedded deep into our elite universities and prestigious media organizations. But even there, they are a small but well organized group that can be rooted out and disposed of. It just takes organization and a bit of bravery and soon the masses will outwardly support the reaction to Wokeness.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

0des 5y ago

I think I get where you are going with this, can you expand a little bit on the wagging the dog part? I am not familiar with that term. I get what it means, having looked it up, but being new to the concept I want to make sure I understand the context of that segment of the comment correctly.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The actions of big prestigious institutions like MIT have an effect on opinion. So if MIT starts doing something tons of people will just knee jerk take their side on whatever the thing is. So another few institutions might follow suit and it might snowball and standard testing could become back in fashion as fast as it went out of fashion.
- 0des 5y ago
  Ah ok thank you for taking a moment to help me understand that. Having looked up the term and re-read the comment, I see what was meant.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  That's a great point. However, you're using the idiom of the tail wagging the dog incorrectly. The tail wagging the dog usually means something important or influential being controlled by something less so. In other words, the tail would be wagging the dog if I wrote a blog post that made people change their opinions on the SAT.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The movement to shit-can standardized tests was far bigger than MIT or any one institution and was part of a broader political trend whereby these sorts of institutions have been adopting particular positions. Hence MIT is the tail in this case.

nemo44x 5y ago

> Yeah, when you're doing something that is politically/ideologically unpopular or in the minority I don't think they are though. I think there would be massively popular and wide support for this. You're seeing it in SF right now as the school board is being overthrown for trying to ruin the school system in the name of "equity" or some other garbage reason. The people finally found out and organized. All this woke stuff today is actually very unpopular and it's why you see Democrats trying to separate themselves from it and make progressives own it. It's even unpopular with the arbitrary groups it claims it helps. Most people want to be good people and treat others with respect and woke ideology sounds good on the surface ("anti-racist", sure sounds great!) until you get past the formal meaning and into the actual meaning. Sort of like how Democratic Republic of Korea sounds great until you actually read into it.

fatjokes 5y ago
The problem is that the wokes tend to be loud. A small, vocal group can really ruin your day on Twitter (unavoidable for a leader these days). The only ones willing to speak against them are the hard-right Fox-News Q-anon types. The folks who may be against them but are otherwise reasonable tend to stay quiet until they reach the anonymous safety of the voting booth lest they be similarly targeted. Then again the MIT Dean of Admissions hasn't been cancelled yet so maybe we're strawmanning.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  It's not so much that they are loud but that they are well organized. A small but well organized group will always have an outsized voice compared to the unorganized majority. It's why there's always a minority of elites in just about every type of social situation from a classroom to a country. Of course, the Woke's aren't just a subculture but embedded deep into our elite universities and prestigious media organizations. But even there, they are a small but well organized group that can be rooted out and disposed of. It just takes organization and a bit of bravery and soon the masses will outwardly support the reaction to Wokeness.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]