4 ms·

what do I find objectionable? > The first step to resist or undo Woke Invasion in your organization (or your psyche) is to thoroughly understand its creed Crit

by kiitos 1y ago

what do I find objectionable? > The first step to resist or undo Woke Invasion in your organization (or your psyche) is to thoroughly understand its creed Critical Race Theory, so as to uncover the fact that generally speaking woke disciples care less about the problems in the world than assuaging their self-centered ideological feelings. 1 The next step, obviously, is then to effectuate an elimination of the wannabe woke invaders from your organization by instituting a culture based on common sense values stripped of identity politics. this wildly pejorative definition of the central concept at play in the discussion, probably, is a good start to what i find objectionable, yeah? or maybe the author's own definition of "wokeism" > Wokeism is a secular religion that originated in the United States of America, based on the pseudoscienfic field Critical Race Theory. It presumably took roots around 2016 (see Woke Invasion) and has been withering away since around 2024. Bigoted ideologies like neoracism fall under wokeism. which is about on the same level as vaccines cause autism i'm sure there are lots of people who think otherwise and maybe you're one of them but frankly there is nothing useful to be gained by arguing the merits of this kind of stupidity

zahlman 1y ago
> which is about on the same level as vaccines cause autism... but frankly there is nothing useful to be gained by arguing the merits of this kind of stupidity I prefer to follow the HN guidelines and not use language like that, but the feeling is mutual. (And I can assure you that the ideas you're trying to dismiss as fringe are in fact quite widely supported.) Regardless, I'll try: Certainly srid's rhetoric there would not be appropriate in the HN comment section (and you can see a clear difference in style between that rhetoric and srid's actual HN comments). But it frankly comes across that you primarily object to the fact that someone else doesn't like your politics and seeks to prevent such politics from taking root in more places. And srid very clearly refers to documented and evidenced phenomena: many academics are quite open about their use of CRT, and there are clear connections between that theory and observable real-world policy (in particular, policies that attempt to effectively implement racial quotas while pretending they are not racial quotas), and abundant critiques of the pseudoscience involved. What is here called "neoracism" (not a term I've heard anywhere else) seems to simply mean racism that targets white people (and sometimes Asians; and where this happens, pointing out Asian victims often seems required in order to get anyone to care). This demonstrably exists (the people claiming it not to exist will commonly engage in it, and commonly seek to redefine terms to excuse themselves), is obviously bigoted (on basic principles of morality that children understand), and has clear real-world impact (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...). Your shallow dismissal of all of this, aside from not being how we do things here, is ignorant of the available evidence. Taking the so-called "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" efforts at face value is a mistake. We are talking here about people who believe that racism is inherent to being white (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22all+white+people+are+racist%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22all+white+people+are+racist%22), and invent terms like "whiteness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_theory) in order to perpetuate harmful stereotypes (leading to additional concepts like "white fragility", "white defensiveness", "white degeneracy", "white space" etc.). It is pseudoscientific because many of those terms are aimed at not only dismissing criticism without addressing it, but holding up the act of criticism itself as evidence. This is all definitionally racist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism especially sense 1), but works by seeking to change the definitions (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22privilege+plus+power%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22privilege+plus+power%22) as if reality itself could be controlled through language (it of course cannot, but seeking to shape thought through deliberate change to language was a central theme in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four). And it is not just theoretical. People such as (Hunter) Ashleigh Shackleford get paid to give presentations like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo and it ultimately leads to stories like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonTBkjLn3U?t=4m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonTBkjLn3U?t=4m10s .
- kiitos 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Only a super-minority of far-right-wing autocrats, largely from the US, is thinking about this anachronistic garbage, have fun In fact I am an NDP voter from Canada, but believe what you need to. There is nothing "anachronistic" about pointing out the clear, well-evidenced facts about the racism that is demonstrably being perpetuated today.
    - worik 1y ago
      > There is nothing "anachronistic" about pointing out the clear, well-evidenced facts about the racism that is demonstrably being perpetuated today. You were cherry picking I am a long way from the Americas (New Zealand), so I know little of the racism in the USA But here the realisation that our dominant paradigms were based on racist and sexist assumptions has lead to an enormous flowering of culture. Don't knock it, it has made social conditions much better especially for young people (as economic conditions got much worse) From this distance it looks to me that racism in particular and bigotry and prejudice in general in the USA are deeply entrenched and backed by violent fanatics on all sides. The reactionary bigots appear to have the upper hand for now, but it looks like it will not hold I hope the USA can avoid the sort of violent conflicts of the 1860s, not looking good
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > I am a long way from the Americas (New Zealand), so I know little of the racism in the USA Then how can you assert > You were cherry picking with any confidence? The ideology I refer to is all over the place. I am constantly finding new examples. > here the realisation that our dominant paradigms were based on racist and sexist assumptions I don't think they actually were. > The reactionary bigots appear to have the upper hand for now In my experience, the large majority of people accused of being "reactionary bigots" around here are quite simply nothing of the sort.

by kiitos 1y ago

zahlman 1y ago

> which is about on the same level as vaccines cause autism... but frankly there is nothing useful to be gained by arguing the merits of this kind of stupidity I prefer to follow the HN guidelines and not use language like that, but the feeling is mutual. (And I can assure you that the ideas you're trying to dismiss as fringe are in fact quite widely supported.) Regardless, I'll try: Certainly srid's rhetoric there would not be appropriate in the HN comment section (and you can see a clear difference in style between that rhetoric and srid's actual HN comments). But it frankly comes across that you primarily object to the fact that someone else doesn't like your politics and seeks to prevent such politics from taking root in more places. And srid very clearly refers to documented and evidenced phenomena: many academics are quite open about their use of CRT, and there are clear connections between that theory and observable real-world policy (in particular, policies that attempt to effectively implement racial quotas while pretending they are not racial quotas), and abundant critiques of the pseudoscience involved. What is here called "neoracism" (not a term I've heard anywhere else) seems to simply mean racism that targets white people (and sometimes Asians; and where this happens, pointing out Asian victims often seems required in order to get anyone to care). This demonstrably exists (the people claiming it not to exist will commonly engage in it, and commonly seek to redefine terms to excuse themselves), is obviously bigoted (on basic principles of morality that children understand), and has clear real-world impact (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...). Your shallow dismissal of all of this, aside from not being how we do things here, is ignorant of the available evidence. Taking the so-called "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" efforts at face value is a mistake. We are talking here about people who believe that racism is inherent to being white (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22all+white+people+are+racist%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22all+white+people+are+racist%22), and invent terms like "whiteness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_theory) in order to perpetuate harmful stereotypes (leading to additional concepts like "white fragility", "white defensiveness", "white degeneracy", "white space" etc.). It is pseudoscientific because many of those terms are aimed at not only dismissing criticism without addressing it, but holding up the act of criticism itself as evidence. This is all definitionally racist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism especially sense 1), but works by seeking to change the definitions (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22privilege+plus+power%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22privilege+plus+power%22) as if reality itself could be controlled through language (it of course cannot, but seeking to shape thought through deliberate change to language was a central theme in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four). And it is not just theoretical. People such as (Hunter) Ashleigh Shackleford get paid to give presentations like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo and it ultimately leads to stories like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonTBkjLn3U?t=4m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonTBkjLn3U?t=4m10s .

kiitos 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Only a super-minority of far-right-wing autocrats, largely from the US, is thinking about this anachronistic garbage, have fun In fact I am an NDP voter from Canada, but believe what you need to. There is nothing "anachronistic" about pointing out the clear, well-evidenced facts about the racism that is demonstrably being perpetuated today.
  - worik 1y ago
    > There is nothing "anachronistic" about pointing out the clear, well-evidenced facts about the racism that is demonstrably being perpetuated today. You were cherry picking I am a long way from the Americas (New Zealand), so I know little of the racism in the USA But here the realisation that our dominant paradigms were based on racist and sexist assumptions has lead to an enormous flowering of culture. Don't knock it, it has made social conditions much better especially for young people (as economic conditions got much worse) From this distance it looks to me that racism in particular and bigotry and prejudice in general in the USA are deeply entrenched and backed by violent fanatics on all sides. The reactionary bigots appear to have the upper hand for now, but it looks like it will not hold I hope the USA can avoid the sort of violent conflicts of the 1860s, not looking good
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > I am a long way from the Americas (New Zealand), so I know little of the racism in the USA Then how can you assert > You were cherry picking with any confidence? The ideology I refer to is all over the place. I am constantly finding new examples. > here the realisation that our dominant paradigms were based on racist and sexist assumptions I don't think they actually were. > The reactionary bigots appear to have the upper hand for now In my experience, the large majority of people accused of being "reactionary bigots" around here are quite simply nothing of the sort.