What is "woke" in 2024

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Give us a couple of examples of public policy solutions that attempt to achieve equity.

I support equal opportunity, I'm leery of pursuing equality of outcomes.

An example from my work: public consultation for a big infrastructure project.

The traditional way to consult with the community would be to hold an evening open house with 20 boards or a town hall meeting where people have to sit for 2 hours. These end up being inequitable because they're inaccessible to lots of people, e.g.:

- shift workers who are unavailable when the meeting is happening.
- people without cars, who might have trouble getting to the meeting location.
- people without support networks, who have no way to arrange child care for a 2-hour boring meeting.
- people whose first language is something other than English, who might be reluctant to ask an engineer questions at an open house or stand up at a microphone in a town hall meeting.

An equitable approach to public consultation means meeting people where they are and addressing their needs by doing things like:

- doing a quick pop-up at local community centres or other places where people are going to be anyway, and set up your material so that a 5-10 minute interaction is meaningful.
- translate materials into multiple languages and have translation services on hand to handle questions.
- provide child care at longer consultation events.
- make sure that consultation events are easily accessible by transit.

Yes, and I receive endless slurs for my troubles, but no actual debate.

If you had a problem with slurs, you wouldn't have posted the OP that you did. You're complaining about sowing what you reap.

How so?

Because the thing you're objecting to isn't any restriction on your freedom - you're free to speak your mind. The thing that you're objecting to is other people speaking their mind about what you say.

How on earth did you arrive at that?

Because that's most of what you've complained about: how people who disagree with you use their freedom of speech.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see this dishonest slur and strawman is quite popular. I think the poster and his supporters are all helping me make my point, sigh.

What's dishonest? If something isn't correct in what I said, tell me what it is specifically.

 

[Argentbear]

Yes, and I receive endless slurs for my troubles, but no actual debate.

Quote these slurs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are a collection of ideas (as enumerated in the OP), that the far/radical left tend to hold in common.

I'm not clear on what you mean by far or radical left. If you mean people who hold the views you enumerated, then in my experience, that's very few people.

I don't think one can be more liberal than I am. I am what you would call woke. I fully champion egalitarianism and the right for all law-abiding people to be treated with dignity and to enjoy the same opportunities as the white Christian patriarchy that has long denied them that and continues to resist that - the people who use the word woke in a derogatory sense.

Am I an example of who you mean? If so, why? If not, why not?

My problem with your position is that I'm not encountering those people in meat space or here on RF, where I have encountered uncounted numbers of people expressing opinions on a large variety of topics, many for several years, and I don't see what you see.

Are your opinions drawn from personal experience or from what you've read? If the former, where are you encountering these people and with what frequency?

And what exactly is your objection? What problem do you see being caused by these people that motivated you to start a thread about them?

I can't see why this matters to you at all mostly because it doesn't matter to me at all. I give transgender issues no thought except when I encounter discussion about them. I have no interest in what life choices they make as long as they are law abiding citizens. I hope that they don't make mistakes that they regret and can't undo, which might be what's on your mind - I just don't see you as a bigot, so I don't understand your interest in this - but I feel that way about most people. I don't want you making mistakes like that either, such as trusting the wrong person and having your life savings stolen, but it doesn't affect my thinking or posting, and if you wanted to do something I considered foolish, I would give you an opinion if asked, but it wouldn't be an issue for me the way this is for you.

as we see in this thread, mostly RFers are busy denying that these beliefs are widely held. So in this thread the idea is to establish that these ideas are widely held, that seems like the first step.

Do you think you've done that? What I see is a list of unsubstantiated assertions about what "woke" people do and a lot of RFers with whom I am familiar and who don't post as you've described reacting as I have. What it looks like you've done is share a description of people whom you seem to consider a problem, but which describes almost nobody in my interactions with people, and absent data, leads me to believe that you didn't make that list from experiencing these things but rather were told them and believed it.

I think the poster and his supporters are all helping me make my point

That was in response to, ""Woke" describes someone who is aware of systemic injustice and inequality, including the sorts of injustices that @icehorse doesn't mind so much." I don't see support for your position there. I haven't seen support for your position anywhere on this thread.

 

[Argentbear]

But as we see in this thread, mostly RFers are busy denying that these beliefs are widely held. So in this thread the idea is to establish that these ideas are widely held, that seems like the first step.

Bull. You announced that your list is what those on the left beleive and have rejected anyone disagreeing and refuse to actually discuss the points you put our

So as I've said, I'm happy to debate these ideas in other threads. If you want to debate equity vs. equality, start a thread and I respond

Bull again.

 

[Argentbear]

I see this dishonest slur and strawman is quite popular.

you just described the OP

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, we've probably all seen that picture, and it sounds lovely on the surface. But what are some public policies you think do a good job of providing equity?

I fully support policies that promote equal opportunities, but I'm suspicious of those that pursue equal outcomes.

Perhaps. In my view, it's not so much about equal outcomes as much as ensuring that people's basic needs are met and that they are not discriminated against. As long as there's a guarantee that everyone gets enough to eat and no one gets thrown out on the street, it doesn't matter what people call each other or whether anyone's feelings are hurt. The most important thing is to make sure that everyone is provided for. Once that's accomplished, then we can worry about some of the finer, more esoteric parts of equity.

 

[icehorse]

Well, 2 million out of 260 adult Americans is widely held, is that it???

A couple of points here:

1 - Do you understand the ideas of the overton window and of the often outsized influence extremists have?

2 - Do you understand the idea of extrapolating?

 

[icehorse]

An example from my work: public consultation for a big infrastructure project.

This seems like a good example of when equity works.

Now, do you want your surgeon or your pilot or your kid's teacher or your electrician (and so on), to be an equity hire, or do you want the folks fulfilling these roles to be the best?

If you had a problem with slurs, you wouldn't have posted the OP that you did. You're complaining about sowing what you reap.

I have been critical of ideas, but have I slurred anyone in this thread?

Because the thing you're objecting to isn't any restriction on your freedom - you're free to speak your mind. The thing that you're objecting to is other people speaking their mind about what you say.

Not true.

Because that's most of what you've complained about: how people who disagree with you use their freedom of speech.

I don't think so. Do you have an example?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This seems like a good example of when equity works.

Now, do you want your surgeon or your pilot or your kid's teacher or your electrician (and so on), to be an equity hire, or do you want the folks fulfilling these roles to be the best?

The fact that you think these things are opposed is part of the problem.

Take the example of pilot: it costs a ridiculous amount of money to do the flight training you need to do to get to the point that an airline will look at you. In most cases, it's out of reach except for people with quite a bit of generational wealth. Without intervention, you're drawing from a shallow pool, which typically means lower average quality: if you're picking 5 pilots from 10 candidates, odds are, you're going to have some mediocre pilots in the group you pick.

A program aimed at giving people with lower socio-economic status the opportunity to become pilots deepens the pool. If that lets you choose your 5 pilots from, say, 30 candidates instead of 10, you can choose only the best.

I have been critical of ideas, but have I slurred anyone in this thread?

The OP sure read like it.

Not true.

In this thread, have you complained about anything besides other people expressing themselves?

I don't think so. Do you have an example?

One of the more recent ones:

Yes, and I receive endless slurs for my troubles, but no actual debate.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not clear on what you mean by far or radical left. If you mean people who hold the views you enumerated, then in my experience, that's very few people.

I don't think one can be more liberal than I am. I am what you would call woke. I fully champion egalitarianism and the right for all law-abiding people to be treated with dignity and to enjoy the same opportunities as the white Christian patriarchy that has long denied them that and continues to resist that - the people who use the word woke in a derogatory sense.

Am I an example of who you mean? If so, why? If not, why not?

I fully agree with everything you said above. To me these are all common values held by everyone who isn't an extremist. (Although I think the phrase "white christian patriarchy" is probably problematic.)

My problem with your position is that I'm not encountering those people in meat space or here on RF, where I have encountered uncounted numbers of people expressing opinions on a large variety of topics, many for several years, and I don't see what you see.

Are your opinions drawn from personal experience or from what you've read? If the former, where are you encountering these people and with what frequency?

Again, I think we need to be wary of drawing conclusions from personal experience. For example, I do not encounter neo-nazis or members of the KKK in my daily life, but I know they exist.

And I'll reiterate what I just said: we ought to consider the overton window, the extremists outsized influence in society, and the power of extrapolation.

And what exactly is your objection? What problem do you see being caused by these people that motivated you to start a thread about them?

I have many objections, some of which I've been debating on RF for the last year or two. I'll list a couple of examples here, and I'd be happy to debate these in other threads:

- DEI has evolved to being quite authoritarian, un-diverse, equality-adverse, and not inclusive
- DEI has become a $9 billion dollar, definitely-for-profit industry

- Because of the influence of "intersectionality", many of the "solutions" demanded by trans activists are needlessly zero-sum and misgoynistic towards women and girls. For example, I've heard several times on this forum that women who don't want to share women-only spaces with intact trans women need to just learn to suck it up.

- the idea that western society is systemically racist and must be dismantled is false and destructive.

- the idea that "hate speech" should be illegal is an assault on free speech.

And so on...

Do you think you've done that? What I see is a list of unsubstantiated assertions about what "woke" people do and a lot of RFers with whom I am familiar and who don't post as you've described reacting as I have. What it looks like you've done is share a description of people whom you seem to consider a problem, but which describes almost nobody in my interactions with people, and absent data, leads me to believe that you didn't make that list from experiencing these things but rather were told them and believed it.

No, because no one is willing do perform extrapolation. Do you believe extrapolation is a useful, valid tool? If so, why doesn't it apply in this discussion?

That was in response to, ""Woke" describes someone who is aware of systemic injustice and inequality, including the sorts of injustices that @icehorse doesn't mind so much." I don't see support for your position there. I haven't seen support for your position anywhere on this thread.

Saying that I don't mind injustices is false and a slur. Notice that the people debating me on this thread all seem to make the assumption that they know the only correct way to solve a problem. Are there injustices in the world? Of course, and I'm pretty sure that if you made a list of them I would overwhelmingly agree with you.

Where we seem to differ is on the solutions, or on the openness to criticize and perhaps improve on existing solutions.

 

[icehorse]

Take the example of pilot: it costs a ridiculous amount of money to do the flight training you need to do to get to the point that an airline will look at you. In most cases, it's out of reach except for people with quite a bit of generational wealth. Without intervention, you're drawing from a shallow pool, which typically means lower average quality: if you're picking 5 pilots from 10 candidates, odds are, you're going to have some mediocre pilots in the group you pick.

A program aimed at giving people with lower socio-economic status the opportunity to become pilots deepens the pool. If that lets you choose your 5 pilots from, say, 30 candidates instead of 10, you can choose only the best.

40 years ago 2/3 of commercial pilots learned to fly in the military. Now it's down to 1/3. Don't you think that on this point we were better off 40 years ago?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

40 years ago 2/3 of commercial pilots learned to fly in the military. Now it's down to 1/3. Don't you think that on this point we were better off 40 years ago?

Sorry - can you tell me how this relates to equity?

 

[icehorse]

Sorry - can you tell me how this relates to equity?

Most everyone has equal opportunity to join the military and learn to fly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most everyone has equal opportunity to join the military and learn to fly.

The opportunity isn't equal, but it's improving thanks to DEI initiatives.

 

[icehorse]

The opportunity isn't equal, but it's improving thanks to DEI initiatives.

it seems to be headed in the wrong direction.

In addition, I'm totally in support of equal opportunity, I'm just dubious about pursuing equal outcomes. So yes, we should give as many people as possible the opportunity to become pilots

 

[Argentbear]

This seems like a good example of when equity works.

Now, do you want your surgeon or your pilot or your kid's teacher or your electrician (and so on), to be an equity hire, or do you want the folks fulfilling these roles to be the best?

If you were to ask that question in a job interview you sure wouldn't get the job. What employer would want someone who doesn't understand the basic premise of equity in employment? Equity in employment allow for all qualified candidates to be considered for employment.

I have been critical of ideas, but have I slurred anyone in this thread?

Well there was your attack on trans people in post #15

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

it seems to be headed in the wrong direction.

Too much equality for your tastes?

In addition, I'm totally in support of equal opportunity,

Your posts here suggest otherwise.

I'm just dubious about pursuing equal outcomes.

So how do you measure whether opportunities were in fact equal?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think we need to be wary of drawing conclusions from personal experience.

Is that you telling me that your opinions on how the "woke" think don't come from person experience of such people? If so, why do you consider those opinions correct?

What about your experience in this thread and elsewhere on RF? Are you seeing lot of liberals doing the things you enumerated as defining wokeism.

I'd like you to address that idea in particular. Why do you think you know what typifies so-called woke people? Do you agree with me when I say that I am "woke," by which I mean that I DO support diversity, equity, and inclusion as you should know from my earlier words, but I don't use the abbreviation DEI.

the extremists outsized influence in society

That's the claim. I think you need to make the case. You still haven't defined extremist (do I qualify?) nor justified your assumption that their influence is "outsized."

- DEI has evolved to being quite authoritarian, un-diverse, equality-adverse, and not inclusive
- DEI has become a $9 billion dollar, definitely-for-profit industry

I don't which parts of that are accurate or whether some aren't, but I don't believe that DEI advocates aren't inclusive, though they're certainly going to object to (exclude) MAGA bigots.

The tolerant who advocate for societal tolerance don't need to be and should not be tolerant of the intolerant, something called Popper's Paradox of Intolerance, which acknowledges that, "if everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people."

the idea that western society is systemically racist and must be dismantled is false and destructive.

I don't know about Western society overall, but I do know that a large swathe of Americans are bigots - hence Trump's competitiveness.

the idea that "hate speech" should be illegal is an assault on free speech.

If you call that an assault on free speech, then I'm for assaulting free speech. For far, far too many, free speech has evolved into "I want to say whatever I want when and wherever I want." Like all rights, free speech is limited by responsibilities to others.

No, because no one is willing do perform extrapolation.

That was in response to,

"What I see is a list of unsubstantiated assertions about what "woke" people do and a lot of RFers with whom I am familiar and who don't post as you've described reacting as I have. What it looks like you've done is share a description of people whom you seem to consider a problem, but which describes almost nobody in my interactions with people, and absent data, leads me to believe that you didn't make that list from experiencing these things but rather were told them and believed it."

I know the word extrapolation, but don't see its relevance here. What does it have to do with my comment or your opinions? Are you saying that you are extrapolating conclusions about the "woke" from something else?

Do you believe extrapolation is a useful, valid tool? If so, why doesn't it apply in this discussion?

Sure. Extrapolation is a useful tool. The past often predicts the future, but you'll need to be clearer on what you have extrapolated from what for me to answer that.

 

[Argentbear]

- Because of the influence of "intersectionality", many of the "solutions" demanded by trans activists are needlessly zero-sum and misgoynistic towards women and girls.

and more slurs from you.

For example, I've heard several times on this forum that women who don't want to share women-only spaces with intact trans women need to just learn to suck it up.

Quote them.


not that i think you will. We are still waiting for you to quote all the times posters here have called you names

- the idea that western society is systemically racist and must be dismantled is false and destructive.

and who is saying that?

The only time i hear anything like this is from right wing extremists trying to vilify the left.

- the idea that "hate speech" should be illegal is an assault on free speech.

Speech has consequences. And rights have limitations.

A person who e-mails his Jewish co-workers pictures of victims of the holocaust with the so worker's face photoshopped in is faces the consequences of loosing his job and possibly getting sued by the people he is harassing.

No, because no one is willing do perform extrapolation. Do you believe extrapolation is a useful, valid tool? If so, why doesn't it apply in this discussion?

To extrapolate one first has to start with a something based on actual fact.

Saying that I don't mind injustices is false and a slur. Notice that the people debating me on this thread all seem to make the assumption that they know the only correct way to solve a problem.

Who is saying that?