4 ms·

It never was, however the mainstream media wanted you to think so

LtWorf 2y ago
It was. But in the posturing way, not in the help anyone way. edit: lol at the downvotes. Check the gini coefficient around the world and get back to me.
- api 2y ago
  The main criticism I’ve always had about it is this: that it’s fake. Take San Francisco as a prime example. It’s a place full of people who style themselves as progressive or “woke” or whatever but a starter home is unachievable to anyone without an exit event or a $400k salary. It has one of the widest rich/poor divisions of anywhere I’ve ever seen in the USA. Major industries include mass surveillance and addictive forms of media, and I have no idea how anyone who isn’t in a high six figure job can live well there let alone raise a family. SF is not progressive at all, except in rhetoric.
  - briandear 2y ago
    The greatest wealth inequality is always in the bluest of cities. See New Haven, CT for dramatic examples.
    - api 2y ago
      I think the arrow of causation goes both ways. Cities tend to be blue. Places with a lot of knowledge work or academia tend to be blue, have higher salaries, and thus have runaway housing costs due to the fact that America has chronically under built housing for over 30 years. Still I don’t think that lets them totally off the hook since they obviously don’t care that much, otherwise they would advocate for better housing and zoning policies to make housing more affordable. So I do think this issue points to a fundamental un-seriousness in the supposed commitment to equity. The right is not necessarily better, e.g. blaming housing costs on immigration instead of underbuilding. But they are not the ones posturing as deeply concerned about equity. Some red areas do accidentally have better housing policies because they tend to be pro development, but this isn’t because they care about the poor. It’s because they are okay with building and that has a side effect of controlling prices. Example: Texas. Summary: both sides suck, but blue areas are also hypocrites.
voidfunc 2y ago
This mostly. A handful of very specific liberal and coastal areas drive this narrative... which guess where most media is generated? You really only need to go about 30-40min inland from some of these places to see how normal/centrist most places are.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  And the 'Right'. I don't think I had ever heard of woke before the non-stop talking points from the 'Right'. It always seemed like a drummed up issue to rile up their, Christian/Holocaust Denier/Civil War Loving, base.
  - voidfunc 2y ago
    Yea definitely a little bit of that from a labeling and demonizing perspective. I rarely hear moderate or more traditionally Republican/Conservative types rant about wokeness. It's the ones doused in right-wing propaganda. I'm generally of the opinion most people are decent. We might have differences on things but most people can compromise and find a middle position. Our media and politicians thrive on polarization tho and it's utterly killing our ability to function as a democracy.
    - linotype 2y ago
      How many traditional Conservatives in the US remain? Maybe 10-20%?
      - ta1243 2y ago
        This is an increasing problem throughout the west. I was listening to a UK ex-politician (Phillip Hammond), who was the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary in the past. His view, which I broadly agree with, is that the membership of a party (Tory, Labour, etc) are further from the mainstream "centre ground" than the general population, and that's a bad thing. His solution was the leadership of the party should come from the elected representatives (the MPs) and not the 100,000 "enthusiastic" members -- in the past the parties (Tory and Labour specifically) had massive membership, but now it's just a small number. It's relatively easy for a specific group to actually take over a party. However I don't think that the small number of votes is the only problem -- the US doesn't have that problem for example, are driven by the views of millions and still come out with the less centrist options
poszlem 2y ago
[flagged]
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I doubt many buy into this at all but yes, it shows that there is someone in the pipeline demanding such changes, which are frankly ridiculous. Be it government or some activists doesn't really matter, it doesn't really reflect the opinion of the majority of western consumers. That liberal parties are being made fun of on topic like gender is a self inflicted fate, especially if such overreaching "education" is spread in completely unrelated products. So yes, companies should get flak for it until it is corrected.
BearOso 2y ago
It's a distraction to keep everybody in-fighting to make them so focused on inconsequential things that they ignore the glaring wealth inequality.
- swayvil 2y ago
  Ala Huxley

It was. But in the posturing way, not in the help anyone way. edit: lol at the downvotes. Check the gini coefficient around the world and get back to me.

api 2y ago
The main criticism I’ve always had about it is this: that it’s fake. Take San Francisco as a prime example. It’s a place full of people who style themselves as progressive or “woke” or whatever but a starter home is unachievable to anyone without an exit event or a $400k salary. It has one of the widest rich/poor divisions of anywhere I’ve ever seen in the USA. Major industries include mass surveillance and addictive forms of media, and I have no idea how anyone who isn’t in a high six figure job can live well there let alone raise a family. SF is not progressive at all, except in rhetoric.
- briandear 2y ago
  The greatest wealth inequality is always in the bluest of cities. See New Haven, CT for dramatic examples.
  - api 2y ago
    I think the arrow of causation goes both ways. Cities tend to be blue. Places with a lot of knowledge work or academia tend to be blue, have higher salaries, and thus have runaway housing costs due to the fact that America has chronically under built housing for over 30 years. Still I don’t think that lets them totally off the hook since they obviously don’t care that much, otherwise they would advocate for better housing and zoning policies to make housing more affordable. So I do think this issue points to a fundamental un-seriousness in the supposed commitment to equity. The right is not necessarily better, e.g. blaming housing costs on immigration instead of underbuilding. But they are not the ones posturing as deeply concerned about equity. Some red areas do accidentally have better housing policies because they tend to be pro development, but this isn’t because they care about the poor. It’s because they are okay with building and that has a side effect of controlling prices. Example: Texas. Summary: both sides suck, but blue areas are also hypocrites.

voidfunc 2y ago

This mostly. A handful of very specific liberal and coastal areas drive this narrative... which guess where most media is generated? You really only need to go about 30-40min inland from some of these places to see how normal/centrist most places are.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
And the 'Right'. I don't think I had ever heard of woke before the non-stop talking points from the 'Right'. It always seemed like a drummed up issue to rile up their, Christian/Holocaust Denier/Civil War Loving, base.
- voidfunc 2y ago
  Yea definitely a little bit of that from a labeling and demonizing perspective. I rarely hear moderate or more traditionally Republican/Conservative types rant about wokeness. It's the ones doused in right-wing propaganda. I'm generally of the opinion most people are decent. We might have differences on things but most people can compromise and find a middle position. Our media and politicians thrive on polarization tho and it's utterly killing our ability to function as a democracy.
  - linotype 2y ago
    How many traditional Conservatives in the US remain? Maybe 10-20%?
    - ta1243 2y ago
      This is an increasing problem throughout the west. I was listening to a UK ex-politician (Phillip Hammond), who was the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary in the past. His view, which I broadly agree with, is that the membership of a party (Tory, Labour, etc) are further from the mainstream "centre ground" than the general population, and that's a bad thing. His solution was the leadership of the party should come from the elected representatives (the MPs) and not the 100,000 "enthusiastic" members -- in the past the parties (Tory and Labour specifically) had massive membership, but now it's just a small number. It's relatively easy for a specific group to actually take over a party. However I don't think that the small number of votes is the only problem -- the US doesn't have that problem for example, are driven by the views of millions and still come out with the less centrist options

poszlem 2y ago

[flagged]

raxxorraxor 2y ago
I doubt many buy into this at all but yes, it shows that there is someone in the pipeline demanding such changes, which are frankly ridiculous. Be it government or some activists doesn't really matter, it doesn't really reflect the opinion of the majority of western consumers. That liberal parties are being made fun of on topic like gender is a self inflicted fate, especially if such overreaching "education" is spread in completely unrelated products. So yes, companies should get flak for it until it is corrected.

BearOso 2y ago

It's a distraction to keep everybody in-fighting to make them so focused on inconsequential things that they ignore the glaring wealth inequality.

swayvil 2y ago
Ala Huxley