4 ms·

Are you implying that issues that don't affect the majority of the population aren't real issues?

throw1234651234 4y ago
I am outright stating that issues immediately affecting physical well being, e.g. starvation in France before the revolution are way more important than preferred pronouns. I am outright stating that issues affecting the majority are more important than issues not affecting the majority. If you disagree, check which production issue your PO/director prioritizes next.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The remarkable thing is how issues which are easy to address - just use the pronouns, it's active effort not to - are instead blown up into huge issues that take over the legislature, because this prevents discussion of anything more material-conditions based. Anti-woke hysteria is incredibly effective. People don't want to talk about boring issues affecting the majority, they want to pile in on a target minority instead.
  - throw1234651234 4y ago
    Again - it's a bit more nuanced than that - adults in same bathrooms with opposite gender children. Men in women's sports, etc. The other problem people have with the "woke" crowd is that they have made it a job. The same applies to anti-woke as well. These groups are no longer out to solve the problem, they are out to perpetuate the conflict to cash in on views / reads / controversy which they actively take too far. But again, I will try to reply in a very limited manner because this argument won't be solved here. The same applied to topics that were here before the work term - climate change, religion, violent video games, etc. They paved away for career crusaders, rather than ideological ones.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      Climate change is probably the ultimate example of a problem that's (a) real and (b) affects everyone but (c) on a long enough timescale that it's not this generation's problem.
    - ookdatnog 4y ago
      > adults in same bathrooms with opposite gender children Gender-neutral bathrooms aren't some theoretical possibility where we have no idea what would happen if we introduce them. They're already a thing in many places, at this point probably for long enough and in sufficient numbers that we can collect actual data on whether this conservative moral panic is justified. So far, I've seen zero hard evidence that this leads to an increase in sexual harassment or assault. And I want to emphasize the term "conservative moral panic": this really is just current year's iteration of the conservative moral panic over social progress. Moral panics are the standard reaction of conservatives to social change, and their favorite moral panics are those related to children. They pulled the exact same shit against gay people. First they suppressed them on religious grounds. When that stopped working they conjured a moral panic by constructing an unfounded association between homosexuality and pedophilia. When they lost that fight they had to begrudgingly tolerate gay people existing, but then the fight for gay marriage began. First they tried suppressing it on religious grounds again, which once more didn't work out. Their next move was, no points for guessing: constructing a moral panic about gay parenthood. If kids see two men kissing, they might catch the gay themselves! Etc etc. The strategy against trans people is startlingly similar. They've lost some ground already in that they have to begrudgingly tolerate trans people existing, so now they're in the "will someone think of the children" moral panic phase over how the trans people will trans your kids, or how drag queens are going to groom them, or whatever. All without any evidence to back it up. And also similarly to how they treated gay people, conservative pundits openly use language laden with disgust and open contempt. It's not just "a trans woman" sexually assaulting your kids, it's a balding sweaty overweight man in a dress and makeup sexually assaulting your kids.
      - figlett6 4y ago
        [flagged]
- ookdatnog 4y ago
  So you state that there are at least two axes -- severity of the problem and how widespread the problem is -- that influence whether a problem is worth addressing (or whether it is a "real" problem, as you put it). I agree so far. For instance, we can probably agree that slavery was an issue that, in the US, affected a small minority of the population, but that was extremely severe so worth addressing and a "real" problem. In the same vein, I would state that police brutality towards black people (typically categorized as a "woke" topic) in the US is a problem that affects a minority but that is very severe. Not as severe as slavery, but severe enough to be a "real" problem worth addressing. Not using preferred pronouns is perhaps another rung down on the severity ladder compared to police brutality, and affects fewer people. But I think it's still a topic worth talking about because it scores very highly on a third axis we've omitted so far: how easy it is to address the problem. Not using preferred pronouns is done exclusively out of callousness. It is similar to other forms of bullying: it only affects a fairly small subset of people and the damage is "only" psychological, but the solution is: just don't bully/misgender people.
  - throw1234651234 4y ago
    I agree with everything up to the last paragraph. Even there, I don't outright disagree, but would make some nuanced comments that have been covered a 1000 times in these types of discussions.
    - ookdatnog 4y ago
      The fact that you agree with the police brutality example directly contradicts your first post, which stated > Calling people fighting for REAL issues "woke" is incorrect.

I am outright stating that issues immediately affecting physical well being, e.g. starvation in France before the revolution are way more important than preferred pronouns. I am outright stating that issues affecting the majority are more important than issues not affecting the majority. If you disagree, check which production issue your PO/director prioritizes next.

pjc50 4y ago
The remarkable thing is how issues which are easy to address - just use the pronouns, it's active effort not to - are instead blown up into huge issues that take over the legislature, because this prevents discussion of anything more material-conditions based. Anti-woke hysteria is incredibly effective. People don't want to talk about boring issues affecting the majority, they want to pile in on a target minority instead.
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  Again - it's a bit more nuanced than that - adults in same bathrooms with opposite gender children. Men in women's sports, etc. The other problem people have with the "woke" crowd is that they have made it a job. The same applies to anti-woke as well. These groups are no longer out to solve the problem, they are out to perpetuate the conflict to cash in on views / reads / controversy which they actively take too far. But again, I will try to reply in a very limited manner because this argument won't be solved here. The same applied to topics that were here before the work term - climate change, religion, violent video games, etc. They paved away for career crusaders, rather than ideological ones.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Climate change is probably the ultimate example of a problem that's (a) real and (b) affects everyone but (c) on a long enough timescale that it's not this generation's problem.
  - ookdatnog 4y ago
    > adults in same bathrooms with opposite gender children Gender-neutral bathrooms aren't some theoretical possibility where we have no idea what would happen if we introduce them. They're already a thing in many places, at this point probably for long enough and in sufficient numbers that we can collect actual data on whether this conservative moral panic is justified. So far, I've seen zero hard evidence that this leads to an increase in sexual harassment or assault. And I want to emphasize the term "conservative moral panic": this really is just current year's iteration of the conservative moral panic over social progress. Moral panics are the standard reaction of conservatives to social change, and their favorite moral panics are those related to children. They pulled the exact same shit against gay people. First they suppressed them on religious grounds. When that stopped working they conjured a moral panic by constructing an unfounded association between homosexuality and pedophilia. When they lost that fight they had to begrudgingly tolerate gay people existing, but then the fight for gay marriage began. First they tried suppressing it on religious grounds again, which once more didn't work out. Their next move was, no points for guessing: constructing a moral panic about gay parenthood. If kids see two men kissing, they might catch the gay themselves! Etc etc. The strategy against trans people is startlingly similar. They've lost some ground already in that they have to begrudgingly tolerate trans people existing, so now they're in the "will someone think of the children" moral panic phase over how the trans people will trans your kids, or how drag queens are going to groom them, or whatever. All without any evidence to back it up. And also similarly to how they treated gay people, conservative pundits openly use language laden with disgust and open contempt. It's not just "a trans woman" sexually assaulting your kids, it's a balding sweaty overweight man in a dress and makeup sexually assaulting your kids.
    - figlett6 4y ago
      [flagged]
ookdatnog 4y ago
So you state that there are at least two axes -- severity of the problem and how widespread the problem is -- that influence whether a problem is worth addressing (or whether it is a "real" problem, as you put it). I agree so far. For instance, we can probably agree that slavery was an issue that, in the US, affected a small minority of the population, but that was extremely severe so worth addressing and a "real" problem. In the same vein, I would state that police brutality towards black people (typically categorized as a "woke" topic) in the US is a problem that affects a minority but that is very severe. Not as severe as slavery, but severe enough to be a "real" problem worth addressing. Not using preferred pronouns is perhaps another rung down on the severity ladder compared to police brutality, and affects fewer people. But I think it's still a topic worth talking about because it scores very highly on a third axis we've omitted so far: how easy it is to address the problem. Not using preferred pronouns is done exclusively out of callousness. It is similar to other forms of bullying: it only affects a fairly small subset of people and the damage is "only" psychological, but the solution is: just don't bully/misgender people.
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  I agree with everything up to the last paragraph. Even there, I don't outright disagree, but would make some nuanced comments that have been covered a 1000 times in these types of discussions.
  - ookdatnog 4y ago
    The fact that you agree with the police brutality example directly contradicts your first post, which stated > Calling people fighting for REAL issues "woke" is incorrect.