What is "woke" in 2024

[icehorse]

Too much equality for your tastes?

Your posts here suggest otherwise.

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

Do you think you could steelman my definitions of equality vs equity?

 

[icehorse]

and more slurs from you.

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

and who is saying that?

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

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.

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

Who is saying that?

you're not the boss. from my perspective you're not holding up your end of this debate, have a fine day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think you could steelman my definitions of equality vs equity?

You'll need to tell me what you mean by equity. You keep on repeating "equality of outcomes," but I don't know if this is your actual definition.

You also talk about "equality of opportunities," but it's not at all clear how you'd gauge whether opportunities are in fact equal when we have unequal outcomes.

 

[icehorse]

You'll need to tell me what you mean by equity. You keep on repeating "equality of outcomes," but I don't know if this is your actual definition.

You also talk about "equality of opportunities," but it's not at all clear how you'd gauge whether opportunities are in fact equal when we have unequal outcomes.

Yes, very roughly put: equity means equality of outcomes and equality means equality of opportunities. That's how people who discuss / debate DEI usually define those terms.

I support policies that try to make opportunities available to everyone. But I'm suspicious of many (not all, but many), policies that try to make outcomes equal for everyone.

Remember, the E in DEI does NOT mean "equality" it means "equity". I'd be far less critical of DEI if the E stood for equality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, very roughly put: equity means equality of outcomes and equality means equality of opportunities. That's how people who discuss / debate DEI usually define those terms.

I support policies that try to make opportunities available to everyone. But I'm suspicious of many (not all, but many), policies that try to make outcomes equal for everyone.

Remember, the E in DEI does NOT mean "equality" it means "equity". I'd be far less critical of DEI if the E stood for equality.

Here's the thing: for the most part, the way we verify that we provided equal opportunity is by seeing equality of outcomes. When you don't see equality of outcomes, this is a sign that there are factors at play that you didn't consider.

It's all fine and good to say "everyone was equally welcome at our public meeting for this project," but if you didn't get anyone showing up at the meeting from the underserved community that's right in line with the proposed highway, this is a strong sign that those residents didn't really have an equal opportunity to participate.

So when you say that you're suspicious of "policies that try to make outcomes equal for everyone," I question whether you support real equality of opportunity, since equality of opportunity is a policy that tries to make outcomes equal for everyone.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I have a handful of personal experiences, but I know my experiences are a very small sample size Again, let's go back to the two authors I've been mentioning. Their success is meaningful because it involves hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people. So in this case these authors are championing some of the ideas from the OP, and in my opinion these ideas are counter productive.

As for on RF, I just gave the example of being told women should just "suck it up". To me, that either blatantly misogynistic, or it's based on intersectionality. Because on the intersectional continuum, trans people are more oppressed than women.

As far as my assessment of you, from what you've said on this thread I would say you are left leaning (as am I), but not woke.

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."

In the OP I tried to convey that none of these are ideas are cut and dried. Are some DEI initiatives productive? I'm sure they are. But many have devolved.

Yes, I'm aware of this paradox. So here's an example that I don't want to pursue in this thread, but I would discuss elsewhere: I think unmonitored mass immigration of Muslims into secular societies is a bad idea. A significant percentage of all Muslims are "Islamists". By this I mean they want to spread Sharia. IMO Sharia is a very intolerant ideology, and I don't think we should tolerate Sharia in secular societies.

So, that's my opinion. In many companies if DEI has taken control I could well get fired for having that opinion. DEI staff would be very intolerant of my opinion on Sharia.

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.

Then in this case I'd say you have a woke perspective. We disagree on this point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of hateful speech, but I do not think that censorship is the way to handle it.

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?

IMO we're discussing trends in society, not so much personal experiences. I've repeatedly used the example of these two authors, and done some very conservative extrapolation to conclude that millions of people believe much of what's on the OP.

Can you tell me what you think of my analysis of what we can learn about the success of these two authors?

 

[icehorse]

Here's the thing: for the most part, the way we verify that we provided equal opportunity is by seeing equality of outcomes. When you don't see equality of outcomes, this is a sign that there are factors at play that you didn't consider.

It's all fine and good to say "everyone was equally welcome at our public meeting for this project," but if you didn't get anyone showing up at the meeting from the underserved community that's right in line with the proposed highway, this is a strong sign that those residents didn't really have an equal opportunity to participate.

So when you say that you're suspicious of "policies that try to make outcomes equal for everyone," I question whether you support real equality of opportunity, since equality of opportunity is a policy that tries to make outcomes equal for everyone.

I already acknowledged that your public meeting example was an example of equity that seems good

As for making determinations about equality of outcomes, here I think you're on thin ice. (But I do appreciate the fact that we're discussing it cleanly.) I'm a huge fan of MLK, although I'm no expert. I would say that since his day we've made a lot of progress to provide more equal opportunities in our society. Not yet perfect, but progress. This stuff takes time, and I think one flaw of the woke is that they are impatient with the progress.

Here are some examples of the kind of equity I think the woke are pushing for:

- we should have as many women CEOs as men.
- we should have proportionate representation across all job categories.

Now this sounds good at first blush, but implementing these sorts of ideas is fraught with bad side effects.

 

[icehorse]

@Argentbear - What part of "have a fine day" was confusing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As for on RF, I just gave the example of being told women should just "suck it up". To me, that either blatantly misogynistic, or it's based on intersectionality. Because on the intersectional continuum, trans people are more oppressed than women.

You keep on misrepresenting intersectionality. It's not about keeping a score of who's "more oppressed." It's about recognizing that we can have gaps of opportunity when we ignore people's unique characteristics.

As an example: say a government provides job retraining for unemployed people by funding agencies that provide these services.

In one particular town, there are three agencies:

- one is LGBTQ-friendly, but is pretty racist.
- one is accepting of all races, but is pretty anti-gay.
- one isn't discriminatory at all, but their building isn't wheelchair accessible.

This arrangement will serve many gay people, many people of visible minorities, and many people with disabilities, but how is someone who's gay AND belongs to a visible minority AND a wheelchair user supposed to access these services?

That's intersectionality.

 

[icehorse]

You keep on misrepresenting intersectionality. It's not about keeping a score of who's "more oppressed." It's about recognizing that we can have gaps of opportunity when we ignore people's unique characteristics.

As an example: say a government provides job retraining for unemployed people by funding agencies that provide these services.

In one particular town, there are three agencies:

- one is LGBTQ-friendly, but is pretty racist.
- one is accepting of all races, but is pretty anti-gay.
- one isn't discriminatory at all, but their building isn't wheelchair accessible.

This arrangement will serve many gay people, many people of visible minorities, and many people with disabilities, but how is someone who's gay AND belongs to a visible minority AND a wheelchair user supposed to access these services?

That's intersectionality.

I agree that your example is one good example of intersectionality, but mine is a different example, also good.

So intersectionality is broader than you're painting it, it also includes the use of the "oppression hierarchy".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already acknowledged that your public meeting example was an example of equity that seems good

As for making determinations about equality of outcomes, here I think you're on thin ice. (But I do appreciate the fact that we're discussing it cleanly.)

Well, I've asked you several times now: how would you determine that opportunities are actually equal if you aren't considering equality of outcomes?

I'm a huge fan of MLK, although I'm no expert. I would say that since his day we've made a lot of progress to provide more equal opportunities in our society. Not yet perfect, but progress. This stuff takes time, and I think one flaw of the woke is that they are impatient with the progress.

Affinity bias is a thing, and perpetuates inequity (and inequality). People hire people who they identify with. They hire people through their own social networks, which generally reflect social divisions. They hire based on "fit" with "corporate culture," and by doing so pass over qualified candidates with excellent skills that would stand out as different in a homogenous company.

Here are some examples of the kind of equity I think the woke are pushing for:

- we should have as many women CEOs as men.
- we should have proportionate representation across all job categories.

Now this sounds good at first blush, but implementing these sorts of ideas is fraught with bad side effects.

But rather than just dismissing these goals completely, we need to ask "if these things aren't happening, why aren't they?"

 

[icehorse]

Well, I've asked you several times now: how would you determine that opportunities are actually equal if you aren't considering equality of outcomes?

Affinity bias is a thing, and perpetuates inequity (and inequality). People hire people who they identify with. They hire people through their own social networks, which generally reflect social divisions. They hire based on "fit" with "corporate culture," and by doing so pass over qualified candidates with excellent skills that would stand out as different in a homogenous company.

But rather than just dismissing these goals completely, we need to ask "if these things aren't happening, why aren't they?"

I wouldn't claim to have all the anwers, because you're asking tough questions. But not having answers doesn't disqualify anyone from having legitimate criticisms, correct? So...

Equal opportunity has to start with our school systems. We have to dramatically increase our budgets for education. We also have to be honest about cultural problems. In many school districts kids just don't bother showing up, that's on the parents. But when a kid gets a high school degree (for example), that has to have meaning. It can't just be a "I sometimes showed up" award.

Next we have to look for things like motivation. Given two applicants with equal education, the one with more motivation ought to be the one who gets hired.

What creates bad outcomes are proportional hires, e.g. "well the local community is 40% black, so we must have 40% of our employees be black". Or women or other ethnicities. Should we also make cultures proportional? How about height or weight? How do we know what categories we should be striving to balance in terms of equal outcomes.

It seems to me we should get everyone a good education and then do our best to be color-blind, sex-blind, ethnicity-blind, and so on.

 

[Argentbear]

Do you think you could steelman my definitions of equality vs equity?

why don't you answer his question?

 

[Argentbear]

you're not the boss. from my perspective you're not holding up your end of this debate, have a fine day.

You claimed you haven't slurred anyone....but you have slurred trans people multiple times in this thread.

you claimed you have been called all sorts of names here in RF but you won't quote any of the supposed name calling. Is it because your claim about being called names here is just not true?

 

[Argentbear]

Yes, very roughly put: equity means equality of outcomes and equality means equality of opportunities. That's how people who discuss / debate DEI usually define those terms.

Equity means the quality of being fair and impartial.

 

[Argentbear]

I have a handful of personal experiences, but I know my experiences are a very small sample size Again, let's go back to the two authors I've been mentioning. Their success is meaningful because it involves hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people. So in this case these authors are championing some of the ideas from the OP, and in my opinion these ideas are counter productive.

Ideas you refuse to discuss here.

As for on RF, I just gave the example of being told women should just "suck it up". To me, that either blatantly misogynistic, or it's based on intersectionality. Because on the intersectional continuum, trans people are more oppressed than women.

wait. have pre3viously said "We're told that trans people are the most oppressed (although good evidence is scarce as hen's teeth)," but now you are saying this is the case. so which is it?

And we are still all waiting for you to tell us just who said women should just suck it up

 

[Argentbear]

@Argentbear - What part of "have a fine day" was confusing?

I am having a fine day thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

Yeah, just give evidence for where the Overton window is now and how it has moved since say at least year 2000.

 

[Debater Slayer]

[...] it's about - literally - dismantling western education:

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

What is "western education," and what is "western society"? The location listed on your profile is the US. Do you think your own country's education and society are similar enough to, say, those of Romania or Bulgaria, which is also a Western country, to be grouped with them under the same label in a discussion about social and educational nuances? What about, say, Greece and Sweden, given the many differences between them in social, educational, and cultural aspects?

Your above posts make it sound like "western education" and "western society" are well-defined entities that could be talked about as one unit, but considering that a significant number of Western countries strongly differ from each other in terms of many social, educational, cultural, and political aspects, I don't see how the grouping would be meaningful in this specific context.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What is "western education," and what is "western society"? The location listed on your profile is the US. Do you think your own country's education and society are similar enough to, say, those of Romania or Bulgaria, which is also a Western country, to be grouped with them under the same label in a discussion about social and educational nuances? What about, say, Greece and Sweden, given the many differences between them in social, educational, and cultural aspects?

Your above posts make it sound like "western education" and "western society" are well-defined entities that could be talked about as one unit, but considering that a significant number of Western countries strongly differ from each other in terms of many social, educational, cultural, and political aspects, I don't see how the grouping would be meaningful in this specific conte

well it's a rough blanket term, with some contradictions and imperfections, but I think that it refers to countries that decided to take heavy influence from rome, greece, and ancient israel (for the bible). Countries north of those 3 places, ranging from britain to russia, decided to take heavy influence from there. I've been trying to figure out why since I started foruming and reading. Western countries all seem to also recieve influence from a secular tradition after the middle-ages, with debatable influence from their own seperate mythologies, which might sometimes be similar. To figure that out, people try to study the ancient connections in indo-european languages, which might have similar words for different old gods, for example

Maybe it's not the greatest term, but it's what we got