What is "Woke"?

[PozBearWI]

14 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

@PozBearWI The same YouTuber did a good video on pronouns worth watching.

 

That was well done too, I'll tune into him from time to time...

[PozBearWI]

8 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I suppose the issue I see with "wokeness" is 'who decides what is or is not woke'? I suspect that it's born out of some vestige of virtue-signaling to say "this is the vogue view to which to subscribe for this moment" and anyone who doesn't is singled out for attack or made an example of in a rather "Brownshirt" manner.  Sure, life and society is a series of progressions and steps toward a destination, and rarely is it a straight path. You'll have course corrections throughout that journey -- you've veered too far left, now you've gone too far right -- that should eventually lead to a consensus of centrism.

Think of it as a pendulum. One end is controlled by a fulcrum that doesn't move all that much but viewing the other end can create a perception that things have veered way off course. Eventually, that fulcrum and pendulum will come to rest somewhere in the center alignment.

Notice the number of companies in the current economy that have backtracked from the notion of DEI being a first consideration for all hires. I think we can agree that we want diversity and inclusion in society as well as the workplace. I'll ask the irreverent question of whether going all out on DEI was a bridge too far for too many people. Someone I know is currently working for a company that is highly focused on DEI, and as a result they went all in on promoting it and made DEI hires that have been unsuccessful. Her manager constantly bludgeons her people with DEI-speak, and meanwhile the place is literally a sweatshop where employees are overworked, micromanaged, and shown how expendable they are by arbitrarily being terminated. DEI might be a wonderful thing, but without qualifications, training, support, and helping maintain a productive workforce who isn't overworked and burnt-out, the notion of DEI gets painted with the brush of the few who might have benefitted from it at the cost of a productive and well-run organization. (My friend has already given her notice to go elsewhere, she couldn't stand it). 

I'm all for inclusion. When I managed folks, I made sure that my employees were diverse but qualified and had opportunities to be successful. Maybe I'm just old but I think a lot of that is missing in the current climate. Or maybe I'm marching to my own drum and trying to do the "right thing" by people. Which strikes me as being fair, equitable and inclusive. And often diverse.

This was actually covered fairly well last night on Bill Maher's 8/30/24 show.  Options other than color to encourage diversity.  

Many times I am struck with how racist some of our antiracist fellows are.  We still focus way too much on complexion and too little on who we actually are.  While on one hand it is a great thing that we have a woman of color running for President; in truth color is just a small part of who she is.  Rather she has had diverse professional experiences; and we can see even in her policies how that has shaped her.  Almost comical how some pundits are going nuts over her apparent position changes and yet the rather dramatic position changes of Agent Orange are ignored by those same people.  

One day the race of leader, victim, neighbor will a footnote rather than the main part of our description of someone.  But for now we seem to be overly focused on race.  

[hntnhole]

14 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

'who decides what is or is not woke'?

I suppose it's the user of the term, but beneath that simplicity is the thought process inculcated into that person by the cultural group he/she identifies with.  On the face of it, I doubt many would argue that aspiring to DEI is a negative notion (unless, obviously, the defendant feels a part of a historically neglected group, and thus anticipates equity of some kind in a "woke" agenda).  

I don't think we're at a "Brownshirt" moment quite yet, when gangs of thugs roamed the streets a century ago, looking for "the other" to beat up.  That said, we've already seen a "kinda-sorta" Torchlight Parade, with unimpressive, home-made flagging, the torches sourced from garden-supply stores.  We're on the road to that shocking development, but not quite there yet.  There's still time to quell that insidiously selfish instinct, but only if those carrying that burden are voted out of office in decisive numbers.

I enjoyed the "pendulum" metaphor, and it's a good one.  The problem though, is it can easily swing so far in one direction that the balance is destroyed (i.e, the fulcrum itself becomes un-centered), and then there's nothing but chaos.  The more reasonable folks that get on the "woke" side of the pendulum, the better.  It's a bit of an "ask" though, given the hard-set "values" the anti-wokers seem so infused with.  I guess we'll see in a few weeks.  

14 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I think we can agree that we want diversity and inclusion in society as well as the workplace. I'll ask the irreverent question of whether going all out on DEI was a bridge too far for too many people.

Perhaps.  Maybe too quickly?  Sadly though, there are generations of folks who grew up with a mindset of "us vs. them", and to the point that those folks will support anti-wokeism to their dying breath.  Throw into that sour mix the notion of Religiousity, perverted and twisted from it's ancient/original message by the forebears of the anti-wokers.  When (or if)  these misguided folks find disappointment in November, the "Brownshirts" may well cause major problems.  After all; it's a generational, inculcated identity that will be judged (assuming a Democratic sweep) and found wanting.  If anyone thinks that's a bridge-too-far, consider that the Speaker of the House, 3rd in line to the Presidency, is actively trying to "bring about the "End Times" (as described in ancient texts), according to a number of reports.  I haven't heard any recordings of him actually saying it out loud, which would prove damning.  Thus, I can't personally say whether it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.  

14 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

at the cost of a productive and well-run organization

I too was in business for many years, and encountered similar events within the organization.  Once, it got so bad I had to go out to the LA office and fire someone.  Completely unpleasant, in every way.  However, no business owner can allow one misguided person to infect an entire office with cultural biases or worse.  It got so bad (before I even found out) that the rest of the staff didn't dare tell me at first, but garbage like that always surfaces at some point, and they got (a very minor) scolding about letting things get to that point before reporting it. 

All of which is to agree that we need to keep ourselves aware of what is happening around us, consider where we stand on the issues, and defend those who are unable to defend themselves - across the board.  

Thanks for that most interesting addition.  

[SomewhereonNeptune]

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

Thanks for that most interesting addition.  

Well, I try. But I'm perhaps in the minority in this group since I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian (read: Do what you want, but don't force me to fund your decisions).

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I don't think we're at a "Brownshirt" moment quite yet, when gangs of thugs roamed the streets a century ago, looking for "the other" to beat up.  That said, we've already seen a "kinda-sorta" Torchlight Parade, with unimpressive, home-made flagging, the torches sourced from garden-supply stores.  We're on the road to that shocking development, but not quite there yet.  There's still time to quell that insidiously selfish instinct, but only if those carrying that burden are voted out of office in decisive numbers.

This was out of a different topic, but I lived in a town in New York where the "elected" representation (Board members, Supervisor) did everything possible to shut-down public comment, well before what we've also seen from parents being branded as domestic terrorists. Our confluence of events occurred when enough people became involved, aware, and irate enough to vote out the incumbency, but those who were front and center fighting were branded as Brownshirts in the process. By people who didn't understand the use of the term. Not like the public shouting down we see today and the polarization.

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I enjoyed the "pendulum" metaphor, and it's a good one.  The problem though, is it can easily swing so far in one direction that the balance is destroyed (i.e, the fulcrum itself becomes un-centered), and then there's nothing but chaos.  The more reasonable folks that get on the "woke" side of the pendulum, the better.  It's a bit of an "ask" though, given the hard-set "values" the anti-wokers seem so infused with.  I guess we'll see in a few weeks.  

I like the center. I support the more moderate approach in most matters. The trouble now is the vast division -- on both sides -- that hasn't been positive politically. Used to be that political compromises could be made. Now it's an all-or-nothing which serves no one well, lest the citizens who elected them.

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I too was in business for many years, and encountered similar events within the organization.  Once, it got so bad I had to go out to the LA office and fire someone.  Completely unpleasant, in every way.  However, no business owner can allow one misguided person to infect an entire office with cultural biases or worse.  It got so bad (before I even found out) that the rest of the staff didn't dare tell me at first, but garbage like that always surfaces at some point, and they got (a very minor) scolding about letting things get to that point before reporting it. 

All of which is to agree that we need to keep ourselves aware of what is happening around us, consider where we stand on the issues, and defend those who are unable to defend themselves - across the board.  

Thanks for that most interesting addition.  

I suspect that in her case, the hill that her 'current' organization has wanted to die on is DEI. That's come complete with very biased management decisions and overall suspect behavior toward some people and not others. Her (the manager-in-question's) decision-making has veered totally off course from the values of the organization to where it's no longer considering the "equity" and "inclusion" parts, and the only thing remaining is "diversity". Sort of. The manager is in a minority group. So is my friend. Everyone else she hasn't tried to terminate? White-male. Her higher-ups? Either deaf, dumb and blind to it, or (more likely) giving tacit approval by doing nothing about it.

 

 

[HairyPozBottom]

On 2/12/2024 at 3:25 PM, topblkmale said:

White liberals co-opted the term.

I wholly disagree that "woke" is a term co-opted by white liberals. That's an unfair and inaccurate assertion.

As a white liberal, I can tell you none of my friends have ever used the term...certainly not without quotes around it. It would be considered cultural appropriation to do so. One of biggest compliments I ever received was being called "woke" by a friend/coworker (a middle-aged Black woman). As a Black person who works as a nonprofit devoted to supporting girls and young women of color, she had every right to use the term and I was deeply flattered to be considered "woke" in her eyes.

The white folks who co-opted the term were the usual division-mongering, lie-spreading Republicans who took a known Black word and used it against white liberals to frighten white conservatives. 

Sorry, dude, but by falsely blaming it on white liberals, you're participating in the same bullshit narrative. It's the other white folks you should direct your comments at, not us. 

Edited September 2 by HairyPozBottom

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Well, I try. But I'm perhaps in the minority in this group since I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian (read: Do what you want, but don't force me to fund your decisions).

That explains a great deal. As I explain that position to other people, "It means he likes living in a nice world but doesn't want to pay the costs of living in a nice world. It's called freeloading."

[SomewhereonNeptune]

20 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

That explains a great deal. As I explain that position to other people, "It means he likes living in a nice world but doesn't want to pay the costs of living in a nice world. It's called freeloading."

That's the problem with random assumptions, since you don't actually know me. They're almost always mistaken.

I'm definitely not freeloading. I pay a great deal in taxes, probably more than I reasonably should, and take very little from the system I pay into. I do so out of ability to support others in need, in addition to being charitable. So just because someone is fiscally conservative doesn't mean that he's unwilling to pay for those nice things, but that he's already paying and wants to be sure that money is being put to best use.

[NEDenver]

On 9/2/2024 at 7:36 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

That's the problem with random assumptions, since you don't actually know me. They're almost always mistaken.

I'm definitely not freeloading. I pay a great deal in taxes, probably more than I reasonably should, and take very little from the system I pay into. I do so out of ability to support others in need, in addition to being charitable. So just because someone is fiscally conservative doesn't mean that he's unwilling to pay for those nice things, but that he's already paying and wants to be sure that money is being put to best use.

I mean, the only thing left is to decide which half of the conservative dichotomy you fall under.  It’s pretty obvious.  Well, you could also be a bot.  

[nanana]

Unfortunately at some point 51% of the voters learned they could freeload the shit out of the other 49%. THAT’s freeloading. 

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, nanana said:

Unfortunately at some point 51% of the voters learned they could freeload the shit out of the other 49%. THAT’s freeloading. 

I call bullshit.

[NEDenver]

15 hours ago, nanana said:

Unfortunately at some point 51% of the voters learned they could freeload the shit out of the other 49%. THAT’s freeloading. 

People who don’t pay income taxes make too little to hit the minimum threshold.  They still pay sales taxes and any number of fees.  If they’re renting, they’re paying their landlords’ property taxes.  Any direct payments to them have immediate positive economic impact.  Everyone knows this. 
 

Granted there are always sycophants willing to sit around waiting for a trickle down that’s never, ever going to happen.  We’ve been running this stupid economic experiment for 40 years now.  It’s a failure.  

[nanana]

I like the pushback but the reality is that a redistributive government is going to lose credibility especially when it gives to people who didn’t pay into the system. Almost every claim of racism is an admittance that the outraged didn’t pass economics 101. You can’t invent money unless you’re a socialist. As Margaret Thatcher (I hated her when I was an economic child) said, socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. I’d ask all of you: do you know how to sustain yourselves or do you depend upon others to survive? What do the real contributors really owe you? Perhaps they’re willing to pay you off to not be hideous but what are you really doing to be subsidized?

 

[nanana]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I call bullshit

BootmanLA as much as you preach and pontificate using many wraps of text I’d like to see you dig deeper into your vast collection of wisdom blah-blah into the vast past of asci text to teach me something other than what some deity told you to think and manifest. Despite the lack of wisdom you have a great fact base. Bring it on. 

[BootmanLA]

39 minutes ago, nanana said:

Bring it on. 

Okee dokee.

You wrote:

47 minutes ago, nanana said:

You can’t invent money unless you’re a socialist.

 That would come as a shock to any number of societies that existed in millennia past, having invented money but which had zero socialist features. Given that most of the rest of your ill-informed screed descends from this gross misunderstanding of economics, I really could leave it at that and consider your argument debunked.

49 minutes ago, nanana said:

I like the pushback but the reality is that a redistributive government is going to lose credibility especially when it gives to people who didn’t pay into the system. 

Every government that does *anything* is "redistributive". Roads built with taxes redistribute money. Public buildings, including the courts needed to vindicate private rights, redistribute money through their very existence. Taxes exist as a means of providing societal good. The fact that they're sometimes abused doesn't mean that by definition, they're a failure.

And as @NEDenver pointed out, the overwhelming majority of people who don't pay *income* taxes do not, AT PRESENT, make enough to hit the lowest level of taxation. That includes disabled people and those too sick to work, children, full-time students, retired people, and more. That's the only way anyone can get anywhere close to claiming that "51%" of people are taking the other 49%'s money, and even then, that's still a specious claim.

Beyond that: almost all of those people still pay other forms of tax, including sales and use taxes (state and local), property taxes (state and local, either directly or included in their rents, because as an expense of renting property to others, that's going to be calculated in), tariffs (federal, which drive up the costs of imported goods for domestic consumers), plus a wide variety of "fees" (state and local) that are as often as not taxes by another name.

57 minutes ago, nanana said:

As Margaret Thatcher (I hated her when I was an economic child) said, socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. 

You should have stayed hating her. The fundamental flaw in her (and most conservatives' thinking) is that she and they think society exists to benefit themselves, so they can get rich off the labor of others. The truth is that society exists - or should exist, at any rate - as a way for a population to band together to jointly make and create the things that make it possible to live together peacefully. We have courts and police so that someone in every family doesn't have to stay awake all night guarding one's house and livestock. We have regulation of agriculture so that we don't all have to grow our own wheat and zucchini and sheep and chickens to have food to eat but can still be reasonably assured that the food we buy is safe. Money provides a relatively stable means of conducting trade between people, so that I can trade my work (physical or mental) for money, which I can then trade for food and housing (or a computer or a vacation). 

1 hour ago, nanana said:

I’d ask all of you: do you know how to sustain yourselves or do you depend upon others to survive? What do the real contributors really owe you? Perhaps they’re willing to pay you off to not be hideous but what are you really doing to be subsidized?

Almost every person on earth depends on others to survive. Even among the most "primitive" (by western standards) tribes engage in trade, and have for millennia. I sincerely doubt you'd survive six months if you had to do everything on your own, including somehow preventing the pollution of whatever land you claimed as your own (or even being able to hold onto that claim). 

[NEDenver]

7 hours ago, nanana said:

I like the pushback but the reality is that a redistributive government is going to lose credibility especially when it gives to people who didn’t pay into the system. Almost every claim of racism is an admittance that the outraged didn’t pass economics 101. You can’t invent money unless you’re a socialist. As Margaret Thatcher (I hated her when I was an economic child) said, socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. I’d ask all of you: do you know how to sustain yourselves or do you depend upon others to survive? What do the real contributors really owe you? Perhaps they’re willing to pay you off to not be hideous but what are you really doing to be subsidized?

 

I’m sorry you have no grasp of economics.  I’ve already got a friend from high school a bunch of us are trying to yank out of stupid right wing rabbit holes, but we can start with how our taxation system is designed to transfer wealth from the bottom to a very small subset of people at the top.  Stupid Republicans whine about how we’re feeding children instead of making them crawl around fixing machinery in meat packing plants.  Evil Republicans are collecting the money the rest of us including the stupid Republicans put in by government subsidies at a faster rate than ever before thanks to the last round of tax cuts pushed through by the Republicans in Congress.

Also, the laughability of pretending self sustainability is possible in the modern era is flat out alt-right nonsense.  For starters, I guarantee you didn’t build the device you’re using to access this forum yourself.  I used to pack shotgun shells with my dad and uncle growing up, but no one smelts and forms their own guns and ammunition after mining the raw materials.  We distribute specialized tasks out.  Hell, even Grizzly Adams got the occasional package.  It’s not like life can be a live action version of Valheim.

Alt-righters would just be silly if they weren’t so hellbent on creating a utopia for the top 0.1% at the expense of the rest of us, including themselves .  Gay alt-righters are sillier, since we all know we’re one of the social outgroups getting scapegoated.

Edited September 7 by NEDenver
Fixed a pronoun.