4 ms·

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of meaning and "friendship" with anyone. It's the same crowd of people who just lost their very progressive DA in San Francisco during last night's recall election outcome. They keep doubling down on their policing strategy (see: no policing strategy) and being soft on crime and consequently crime has increased significantly. The same group of people that plugs their ears to reason and reality on why policing is necessary are the same group of people that are always trying to drag everyone down to their same floor level.

silicon2401 4y ago
> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?
- user_7832 4y ago
  > There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason? If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.
  - silicon2401 4y ago
    My comment applies to everybody from every political party/religion/etc who bases their decisions on dogma rather than reason.
  - tremon 4y ago
    Dogma is not synonymous with emotion.
- chmod600 4y ago
  First, recognize that "reason" is somewhat narrower than we'd like to believe. Our own reasoning is applied when convenient and suppressed when convenient. And many times there is simply too much complexity and you must rely on wisdom instead. The reason that "reason" often wins is because it often works. Of course, sometimes it either doesn't work, or takes a long time to work, and we can conveniently ignore it. Eventually reality catches up, but not always in a way that illustrates the cause. The best way to make reason work is to expose people making decisions to reality, such that they benefit or lose based on the quality of their reasoning. The most unreasonable people will all of a sudden become very reasonable. Alternatively stated, prevent people from hiding from reality. There are many places to hide, and these are often the most unreasonable places. National politics is one: your ideas probably won't happen (even if you're in Congress), and if they do, and something bad happens, there are enough other factors to make it easy to blame something else. Academia is another such place. So is extended adolescence.
- whatevenisthat 4y ago
  By responding with reason in writing as succintly as possible, and restating it as often as possible, and being unafraid to restate it when they respond with empty dogma. And in the workplace, by gutting the types of roles that are just about being "thought leaders" in this direction. Technical people are afraid of those thought leaders because they don't want to get in trouble or fired for speaking against the cult. It's understandable since people need to get paid so they can provide for their families. But if companies just start dropping the negative weight that just encumbers everything and doesn't contribute code or design, it'll improve the bottom line and also gradually resolve this problem in the corporate workplace. The silver lining of a tech correction is that it may actually help make this decision more simple since companies can just start shedding the weight that is not actively making the product better. So fire them, stop filling those types of roles, recall them in recall elections like San Francisco did last night with that terrible DA, vote in general, and let's stop associating with toxic people. It's effective if enough people do it.
- blindmute 4y ago
  You don't make progress. Unless you're in a position to gain power, what you do is you have six to ten children, raise them on the homestead, and hope that in a few generations they can begin to fix some things. That, or violent revolt, but revolt is a bit harder
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  You either engage in their dogma as a subversion, or you wait for them to get hit with reality a sufficient amount of times.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  What is your definition of progress? For all the flaws in reasoning that are being highlighted in this thread, progressive have very clear and concrete goals: Equity, removing discrimination, improving opportunities, raising the floor for the social safety net, closing the wealth gap, improving housing affordability, etc. You may disagree with their methods and have criticisms. That is valid. But are you opposed to their goals or their means? Do you have alternative goals? I ask you because most of the internet and media that criticizes "woke ideology" does not seem to have it's own perspective. I genuinely need to understand what is the alternative that people are proposing. Because certainly "Things were just fine before we started talking about racism, and the world was already a meritocracy that we shouldn't try to fix" doesn't resonate with me either. Many on this site complain about Woke SJWs and all their focus on ideology, but what do people seek here instead? Just pure free market libertarianism?
deanCommie 4y ago
> and consequently crime has increased significantly It has not. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Chesa-Boudin-London-Breed-16751930.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che... Consider why you think that it has, and whether you are also getting your information from an in-group that is primarily motivated by ideology and not reality. (Just a different one from the one you criticise)
- usrn 4y ago
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but if you are it's because you've set up a discourse that is unresolvable. If you're not going to believe statistics because they don't match your worldview, how can we possibly hope to come to a conclusion in any debate? And can you then not say absolutely anything you want if it "feels true"??
    - usrn 4y ago
      I'm totally ok with believing statistics that don't match my worldview. I've even adjusted my worldview because of some statistics I've seen but my understanding is that those statistics are flawed. A very important part of statistics is understanding how they're gathered and these are usually gathered from crimes reported to police. From what I've heard people haven given up reporting most crimes there. If you're going to blindly believe statistics without trying to interpret them then what about the ones showing the outsized homicide rate for Black people? Without interpretation all you can conclude from that is something extremely racist.

silicon2401 4y ago

> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?

user_7832 4y ago
> There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason? If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.
- silicon2401 4y ago
  My comment applies to everybody from every political party/religion/etc who bases their decisions on dogma rather than reason.
- tremon 4y ago
  Dogma is not synonymous with emotion.
chmod600 4y ago
First, recognize that "reason" is somewhat narrower than we'd like to believe. Our own reasoning is applied when convenient and suppressed when convenient. And many times there is simply too much complexity and you must rely on wisdom instead. The reason that "reason" often wins is because it often works. Of course, sometimes it either doesn't work, or takes a long time to work, and we can conveniently ignore it. Eventually reality catches up, but not always in a way that illustrates the cause. The best way to make reason work is to expose people making decisions to reality, such that they benefit or lose based on the quality of their reasoning. The most unreasonable people will all of a sudden become very reasonable. Alternatively stated, prevent people from hiding from reality. There are many places to hide, and these are often the most unreasonable places. National politics is one: your ideas probably won't happen (even if you're in Congress), and if they do, and something bad happens, there are enough other factors to make it easy to blame something else. Academia is another such place. So is extended adolescence.
whatevenisthat 4y ago
By responding with reason in writing as succintly as possible, and restating it as often as possible, and being unafraid to restate it when they respond with empty dogma. And in the workplace, by gutting the types of roles that are just about being "thought leaders" in this direction. Technical people are afraid of those thought leaders because they don't want to get in trouble or fired for speaking against the cult. It's understandable since people need to get paid so they can provide for their families. But if companies just start dropping the negative weight that just encumbers everything and doesn't contribute code or design, it'll improve the bottom line and also gradually resolve this problem in the corporate workplace. The silver lining of a tech correction is that it may actually help make this decision more simple since companies can just start shedding the weight that is not actively making the product better. So fire them, stop filling those types of roles, recall them in recall elections like San Francisco did last night with that terrible DA, vote in general, and let's stop associating with toxic people. It's effective if enough people do it.
blindmute 4y ago
You don't make progress. Unless you're in a position to gain power, what you do is you have six to ten children, raise them on the homestead, and hope that in a few generations they can begin to fix some things. That, or violent revolt, but revolt is a bit harder
vorpalhex 4y ago
You either engage in their dogma as a subversion, or you wait for them to get hit with reality a sufficient amount of times.
deanCommie 4y ago
What is your definition of progress? For all the flaws in reasoning that are being highlighted in this thread, progressive have very clear and concrete goals: Equity, removing discrimination, improving opportunities, raising the floor for the social safety net, closing the wealth gap, improving housing affordability, etc. You may disagree with their methods and have criticisms. That is valid. But are you opposed to their goals or their means? Do you have alternative goals? I ask you because most of the internet and media that criticizes "woke ideology" does not seem to have it's own perspective. I genuinely need to understand what is the alternative that people are proposing. Because certainly "Things were just fine before we started talking about racism, and the world was already a meritocracy that we shouldn't try to fix" doesn't resonate with me either. Many on this site complain about Woke SJWs and all their focus on ideology, but what do people seek here instead? Just pure free market libertarianism?

deanCommie 4y ago

> and consequently crime has increased significantly It has not. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Chesa-Boudin-London-Breed-16751930.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che... Consider why you think that it has, and whether you are also getting your information from an in-group that is primarily motivated by ideology and not reality. (Just a different one from the one you criticise)

usrn 4y ago
- deanCommie 4y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but if you are it's because you've set up a discourse that is unresolvable. If you're not going to believe statistics because they don't match your worldview, how can we possibly hope to come to a conclusion in any debate? And can you then not say absolutely anything you want if it "feels true"??
  - usrn 4y ago
    I'm totally ok with believing statistics that don't match my worldview. I've even adjusted my worldview because of some statistics I've seen but my understanding is that those statistics are flawed. A very important part of statistics is understanding how they're gathered and these are usually gathered from crimes reported to police. From what I've heard people haven given up reporting most crimes there. If you're going to blindly believe statistics without trying to interpret them then what about the ones showing the outsized homicide rate for Black people? Without interpretation all you can conclude from that is something extremely racist.