Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody?

[Chief]

Rolled over to Part 2:

Society/Culture - Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 -

Potatoes have no gender. And soon, nearly 70 years (sic), the name of Hasbro’s popular spud-shaped toy will reflect that: No more Mr. Potato Head. It’s just Potato Head. On Thursday, the company announced it would be rebranding the iconic quick-change toy to break away from traditional ideas...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

No i didnt want to cancel private drivers. I was making a point that trying to eliminate all deaths was stupid. In any case, what is your point in relation to this thread?

Retrospection.

Professional drivers are woke, in a roundabout way.

 

[Chief]

have to see ourselves as people linked to our ancestors and our future descendents he argued. I.e. the sort of backwards bloodline thinking that justified monarchies and discrimination based on race and sex.

I bet what he meant was that I'm he thinks we have an obligation to our ancestors and our descendants.

I don't know about ancestors, but we have an obligation to our descendants, for sure.

It's obvious that you're trying to reframe this "no man is an island" view to some sort of "wacky collectivist" view.

 

[Seeds]

Retrospection.

Professional drivers are woke, in a roundabout way.

Had a few drinks tonight?

 

[ferball]

Cool story.

"Woke" has a thousand meanings, depending on time of day and what the speaker last ate. It's a nonsense word for nonsense people.

For 100-150 years black Americans have used the words "woke" "wake" "awaked" etc etc to refer to the understanding of what it means to live in the US and be black. So if you're not black and living in the US you don't have that particular visceral understanding of just how the system is stacked against you (cos it isn't ... stacked against you in that particular way and you haven't experienced it. Unless you are black... etc etc)

Its just typical the way its use has been appropriated by * wits.

 

[the_interloper]

Retrospection.

Professional drivers are woke, in a roundabout way.

Wow, this is an angle I never thought of.

 

[Gethelred]

Ha ha I’ve heard this one before. I think more correctly no one likes being called racist (save for some extreme right wingers I guess), so if you label someone that it doesn’t mean they are racist. In my opinion of course.

That's an interesting take ha ha, but if it makes you happy I'm ok with it.

And this is pretty close to my original point to be honest

The laughter seems out of place.

 

[Gethelred]

“This person said something not racist but they are sending an invisible signal to other racists, so yeah they’re all racist”, being a bit over the top to make my point but that’s the general idea.

Lee Atwater was a campaign advisor of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush snr. He said this, when interviewed about the Southern Strategy, which was the deliberate strategy to campaign to the racists with using coded language:

Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "fellow, fellow, fellow". By 1968, you can't say "fellow"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "fellow, fellow". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.

Just to be clear, he wasn't saying 'fellow'.

So, I have a question for you. If someone can demonstrate that dogwhistling has been a thing used historically, and that person can demonstrate its use in multiple different election campaigns, if a group of people from a minority group come up with a concept which they then demonstrate using evidence (which is what CRT is) that demonstrates the effects of racism on legislation without needing to literally mention race in any way, is it truly so far fetched to warrant laughter in reply?

 

[the_interloper]

Lee Atwater was a campaign advisor of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush snr. He said this, when interviewed about the Southern Strategy, which was the deliberate strategy to campaign to the racists with using coded language:.



Just to be clear, he wasn't saying 'fellow'.

So, I have a question for you. If someone can demonstrate that dogwhistling has been a thing used historically, and that person can demonstrate its use in multiple different election campaigns, if a group of people from a minority group come up with a concept which they then demonstrate using evidence (which is what CRT is) that demonstrates the effects of racism on legislation without needing to literally mention race in any way, is it truly so far fetched to warrant laughter in reply?

Ok so I'm no expert on CRT, I must say i'm skeptical of what I've read though. Particularly I think because of how it used to justify things like quotas and "representation". You did lose me at the bolded though, do you mean the concept of CRT doesn't mention race in any way? (I'm assuming not)

I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist or hasn't existed in the past. The problem is it's hard (maybe impossible) to prove, which can make it convenient for both sides i suppose. Your example was interesting but I'm not sure how relevant it is to us today in all honesty.

Apologies for my laughing emoji on your previous post, I am a smartarse and you walked into it!

 

[Gough]

Ok so I'm no expert on CRT, I must say i'm skeptical of what I've read though. Particularly I think because of how it used to justify things like quotas and "representation". You did lose me at the bolded though, do you mean the concept of CRT doesn't mention race in any way? (I'm assuming not)

I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist or hasn't existed in the past. The problem is it's hard (maybe impossible) to prove, which can make it convenient for both sides i suppose. Your example was interesting but I'm not sure how relevant it is to us today in all honesty.

Apologies for my laughing emoji on your previous post, I am a smartarse and you walked into it!

Opposition to CRT seems to me about protecting the feelings of a bunch of kids who might feel a bit uncomfortable about what their grandparents got up to.

 

[Gethelred]

Ok so I'm no expert on CRT, I must say i'm skeptical of what I've read though. Particularly I think because of how it used to justify things like quotas and "representation". You did lose me at the bolded though, do you mean the concept of CRT doesn't mention race in any way? (I'm assuming not)

Critical Race Theory is the examination of laws written throughout American history under conditions of racism (at different times and in different places) to see how that racism has either been averted or perpetuated. The Civil Rights act made it illegal to write explicitly racist laws, but just because one is not explicitly racist does not mean one is not racist.

May I ask you what you've read, where you sourced it? Because in the main CRT is academia, papers and essays examining the effects of laws on disparate populations, quite numbers based and dry stuff. It's collecting data and reviewing a century's worth of legislation and governmental documentation to demonstrate something that requires spans of time to demonstrate.

I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist or hasn't existed in the past. The problem is it's hard (maybe impossible) to prove, which can make it convenient for both sides i suppose. Your example was interesting but I'm not sure how relevant it is to us today in all honesty.

...

Okay, here's the problem.

Atwater was involved in the 1980 and 1984 elections. He was the campaign manager for Bush senior in '88. In 2000, Jeb Bush as governer ran a voter intimidation strategy in a battleground state, setting up police checkpoints between a voting booth and a black community and positioning police around voting booths, and openingly publicly questioning prospective voter's criminal records on the basis of 'voter safety', which resulted in his brother George winning the election in that year.

Then we get to the Donald of it all.

I have another question, based from this: how aware would you say you are of this stuff?

You thought dogwhistling wasn't a thing to the point of laughing at it. You think a movement which began under Nixon and was continued in every single Republican government since isn't relevant to modern history.

Apologies for my laughing emoji on your previous post, I am a smartarse and you walked into it!

My issue with a lot of this stuff is that people on this board laugh at some pretty awful things. I get that we soften reality with laughter, sand away the hard edges, but to laugh at this is to dismiss it.

Don't think dismissal is what the myriad of people who've put genuine thought into this deserve.

 

[the_interloper]

Critical Race Theory is the examination of laws written throughout American history under conditions of racism (at different times and in different places) to see how that racism has either been averted or perpetuated. The Civil Rights act made it illegal to write explicitly racist laws, but just because one is not explicitly racist does not mean one is not racist.

May I ask you what you've read, where you sourced it? Because in the main CRT is academia, papers and essays examining the effects of laws on disparate populations, quite numbers based and dry stuff. It's collecting data and reviewing a century's worth of legislation and governmental documentation to demonstrate something that requires spans of time to demonstrate.

I've heard it mentioned a lot in the media over the last few years, have read some articles from right leaning and left leaning news sources I guess. I haven't looked at academic articles and all the rest of that.

Intersectionality is one concept I've heard a lot about, on Linkedin and in the corporate world. I don't automatically dismiss it but the way this is approached in corporate Australia makes me a bit cynical. I heard it described quite well on a podcast recently, something like "we bung a black person, a lesbian and a disabled person on the board and that gives us our passport to do business in today's corporate world". So yeah, corporations don't care about the issue, they want to appear to look like they do so they can transact.

...

Okay, here's the problem.

Atwater was involved in the 1980 and 1984 elections. He was the campaign manager for Bush senior in '88. In 2000, Jeb Bush ran a voter intimidation strategy, setting up police checkpoints between a voting booth and a black community and positioning police around voting booths, and openingly publicly questioning prospective voter's criminal records on the basis of 'voter safety'.

Then we get to the Donald of it all.

I have another question, based from this: how aware would you say you are of this stuff?

I don't know much about politics to be honest particularly the history of American politics, you may have already guessed this.

You thought dogwhistling wasn't a thing to the point of laughing at it. You think movement which began under Nixon and was continued in every single Republican government since isn't relevant to modern history.

My issue with a lot of this stuff is that people on this board laugh at some pretty awful things. I get that we soften reality with laughter, sand away the hard edges, but to laugh at this is to dismiss it.

Don't think dismissal is what the myriad of people who've put genuine thought into this deserve.

I did just say that I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist.

It's more the way that term is used as a way to attack someone and ultimately brand them as racist. It made me laugh because I'd just finished talking about "woke, PC etc etc" and how buzz terms get thrown about and then dogwhistling got mentioned.

 

[Gethelred]

I've heard it mentioned a lot in the media over the last few years, have read some articles from right leaning and left leaning news sources I guess. I haven't looked at academic articles and all the rest of that.

Intersectionality is one concept I've heard a lot about, on Linkedin and in the corporate world. I don't automatically dismiss it but the way this is approached in corporate Australia makes me a bit cynical. I heard it described quite well on a podcast recently, something like "we bung a black person, a lesbian and a disabled person on the board and that gives us our passport to do business in today's corporate world". So yeah, corporations don't care about the issue, they want to appear to look like they do so they can transact.

Businesses adopt approaches that they thing will serve the bottom line. I don't really see the value in looking to them to be trendsetters or to lead in this area, but here's the thing: these businesses adopt these measures out of expediency, but over time the culture within the business changes because of it. What was once good business becomes a point of pride.

I did just say that I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist.

You did question its relevance to contemporary America, based on the difficulty in determining a dogwhistle from reasonable debate.

It's more the way that term is used as a way to attack someone and ultimately brand them as racist. It made me laugh because I'd just finished talking about "woke, PC etc etc" and how buzz terms get thrown about and then dogwhistling got mentioned.

Buzz terms are social vernacular, and the alt right has actively seized on a number of these words.

For example, take Christopher Rufo. He pioneered the demonisation of CRT; he gave the term to Fox. From the New Yorker:

As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.

www.newyorker.com

Rufo said this on twitter, on the same subject:



These words are taken, rebadged and the meaning changed, diluted or perverted, and then sent out for mass consumption.

 

[the_interloper]

Businesses adopt approaches that they thing will serve the bottom line. I don't really see the value in looking to them to be trendsetters or to lead in this area, but here's the thing: these businesses adopt these measures out of expediency, but over time the culture within the business changes because of it. What was once good business becomes a point of pride.

You did question its relevance to contemporary America, based on the difficulty in determining a dogwhistle from reasonable debate.

Buzz terms are social vernacular, and the alt right has actively seized on a number of these words.

For example, take Christopher Rufo. He pioneered the demonisation of CRT; he gave the term to Fox. From the New Yorker:

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.

www.newyorker.com

Rufo said this on twitter, on the same subject:



These words are taken, rebadged and the meaning changed, diluted or perverted, and then sent out for mass consumption.

Well you’ve summed it up well with your last paragraph that’s for sure, I certainly agree with that. I guess I’d add that’s it not only the alt right that does this though, I feel the left do this also, but fair point.

 

[Seeds]

I've heard it mentioned a lot in the media over the last few years, have read some articles from right leaning and left leaning news sources I guess. I haven't looked at academic articles and all the rest of that.

Intersectionality is one concept I've heard a lot about, on Linkedin and in the corporate world. I don't automatically dismiss it but the way this is approached in corporate Australia makes me a bit cynical. I heard it described quite well on a podcast recently, something like "we bung a black person, a lesbian and a disabled person on the board and that gives us our passport to do business in today's corporate world". So yeah, corporations don't care about the issue, they want to appear to look like they do so they can transact.



I don't know much about politics to be honest particularly the history of American politics, you may have already guessed this.



I did just say that I'm not saying dogwhistling doesn't exist.

It's more the way that term is used as a way to attack someone and ultimately brand them as racist. It made me laugh because I'd just finished talking about "woke, PC etc etc" and how buzz terms get thrown about and then dogwhistling got mentioned.

Why should corporates care about any issue. They arent people. They are tools to build wealth for people. And thats all they should be.

only people and the government that regulates corporates should care.

 

[the_interloper]

Why should corporates care about any issue. They arent people. They are tools to build wealth for people. And thats all they should be.

only people and the government that regulates corporates should care.

Fair enough. I guess that’s why I take a dim view of being lectured to by corporations about social issues, I know they don’t care and are doing it to ultimately improve their bottom line.

 

[Gethelred]

Well you’ve summed it up well with your last paragraph that’s for sure, I certainly agree with that. I guess I’d add that’s it not only the alt right that does this though, I feel the left do this also, but fair point.

The only other thing I'll say here is, I'm by no means an expert. I've not studied gender theory, even if the studying I have done has touched on it from time to time.

I think we're also getting a little muddied; this isn't a left/right discussion, but a prog/conservative argument. And the fact is by its very nature, conservativism does not allow for the creation of new concepts or ideas, merely the redefinition or appropriation of existing ones.

In short, the progressives come up with a theory, the conservatives criticise it or appropriate it. Problem is, the appropriation's getting hijacked, often by those with malign goals.

And the left don't generally need to hijack their own terms.

 

[Seeds]

The only other thing I'll say here is, I'm by no means an expert. I've not studied gender theory, even if the studying I have done has touched on it from time to time.

I think we're also getting a little muddied; this isn't a left/right discussion, but a prog/conservative argument. And the fact is by its very nature, conservativism does not allow for the creation of new concepts or ideas, merely the redefinition or appropriation of existing ones.

In short, the progressives come up with a theory, the conservatives criticise it or appropriate it. Problem is, the appropriation's getting hijacked, often by those with malign goals.

And the left don't generally need to hijack their own terms.

No its a woke left vs liberal left vs conservative argument.

conservatives want corporates to focus solely on profit with minimal regulatory interference (Although they are occassionally hypocrites and abandon this ideology when it suits them)

The liberal left want governments to set much tighter boundaries for how corporates are allowed to act but then allow corporates the freedom to pursue profit within those boundaries.

the woke left want corporates to set the social boundaries and make profit one of many goals instead of the sole goal.

the far more optimal approach is the one set by liberals. Its both the most efficient and the most fair. But for some reason the woke left cant do the math and cant see how their approach is completely open to free riding. Its like they dont understand the role of government and how it can benefit society.

 

[the_interloper]

The only other thing I'll say here is, I'm by no means an expert. I've not studied gender theory, even if the studying I have done has touched on it from time to time.

I think we're also getting a little muddied; this isn't a left/right discussion, but a prog/conservative argument. And the fact is by its very nature, conservativism does not allow for the creation of new concepts or ideas, merely the redefinition or appropriation of existing ones.

In short, the progressives come up with a theory, the conservatives criticise it or appropriate it. Problem is, the appropriation's getting hijacked, often by those with malign goals.

And the left don't generally need to hijack their own terms.

Honestly from what I know left = progressive and right = conservative. Not sure if that is definitively correct but seems to be close enough. I guess generally i think a mix of both approaches is the way to go.

This is why I'd identify as "centre-right" I agree with things like free healthcare, pro choice, pro euthanasia etc etc but would find myself agreeing with more from the right than left. Though I guess our mainstream right is more left than the US right, a lot seem to lump the two together.

I've not studied gender theory either of course, can't say I'm rushing to either, reckon i'd be a real pain in the arse in a class like that!

 

[Gethelred]

No its a woke left vs liberal left vs conservative argument.

conservatives want corporates to focus solely on profit with minimal regulatory interference (Although they are occassionally hypocrites and abandon this ideology when it suits them)

The liberal left want governments to set much tighter boundaries for how corporates are allowed to act but then allow corporates the freedom to pursue profit within those boundaries.

the woke left want corporates to set the social boundaries and make profit one of many goals instead of the sole goal.

the far more optimal approach is the one set by liberals. Its both the most efficient and the most fair. But for some reason the woke left cant do the math and cant see how their approach is completely open to free riding. Its like they dont understand the role of government and how it can benefit society.

... you specialise in distinctions without meaning, seemingly out of desire to differentiate yourself from people you don't like.

Just say you don't like them, you don't agree with them. Own the fact that you are more conservative than they are. They believe ostensibly similar things that you do.

That is, unless you don't actually believe them, and simply affect the pretense for the same reason businesses do, for the marketing?

 

[Gethelred]

Honestly from what I know left = progressive and right = conservative. Not sure if that is definitively correct but seems to be close enough. I guess generally i think a mix of both approaches is the way to go.

Doesn't quite work out that way.

Left vs right wing are positions on organisation and economics. Conservative vs progressive are positions on change.

The value of the various dichotomies is not that of identity, but of categorisation. People wed themselves too readily to a position, instead of looking at whether or not a policy or a theory adequately addresses or explains the current reality and suggests a solution.

We need good ideas, and we need to recognise bad ones. Being wedded to an individual ideological position locks one into immobility.

This is why I'd identify as "centre-right" I agree with things like free healthcare, pro choice, pro euthanasia etc etc but would find myself agreeing with more from the right than left. Though I guess our mainstream right is more left than the US right, a lot seem to lump the two together.

If you agree with those things, you're not right wing at all. Study further what it means to be right wing, and you'll see how those positions have been co-opted from left wing positions over time.

But again, good ideas are good ideas, regardless of where on the spectrum they sit.

I've not studied gender theory either of course, can't say I'm rushing to either, reckon i'd be a real pain in the arse in a class like that!

I took a class called History of Sexuality. On the surface, it was a history of sexual expression, the act itself and how it was considered by wider society.

On the other hand, it was a class in which a bunch of women round my age and I talked about sex for hours on end. Dunno how that's a bad thing, personally.

 

[the_interloper]

Doesn't quite work out that way.

Left vs right wing are positions on organisation and economics. Conservative vs progressive are positions on change.

The value of the various dichotomies is not that of identity, but of categorisation. People wed themselves too readily to a position, instead of looking at whether or not a policy or a theory adequateled addresses or explains the current reality and suggests a solution.

We need good ideas, and we need to recognise bad ones. Being wedded to an individual ideological position locks one into immobility.


If you agree with those things, you're not right wing at all. Study further what it means to be right wing, and you'll see how those positions have been co-opted from left wing positions over time.

But again, good ideas are good ideas, regardless of where on the spectrum they sit.

I took a class called History of Sexuality. On the surface, it was a history of sexual expression, the act itself and how it was considered by wider society.

On the other hand, it was a class in which a bunch of women round my age and I talked about sex for hours on end. Dunno how that's a bad thing, personally.

Honestly I reckon that would drive me mad for a lot of reasons, but that's another story!

And fair enough, that seems to make sense. Feels like there's a lot of pressure to pick a side these days (or maybe just because I'm older)

 

[the_interloper]

I find it amusing the amount of people I know with "he/him" pronouns on Linkedin, I'd say most if not all think its dumb but are trying to look good.

 

[chunkylover53]

I find it amusing the amount of people I know with "he/him" pronouns on Linkedin, I'd say most if not all think its dumb but are trying to look good.

Lol, LinkedIn.

"Today, before I logged onto Bigfooty, I saw a homeless man sitting outside our office. Instead of kicking him and asking him to move like I usually do, this time I bought him a coffee and offered him an interview for our vacant executive of sales role. He turned up late, and half way through the interview offered me the role, which I thought was strange given I was meant to be interviewing him. Nonetheless I took the role, he's the best boss I've ever had. Do you know who that homeless person was? That's right, Warren Buffet".

 

[chunkylover53]

this page is so good.

https://twitter.com/StateOfLinkedIn

 

[the_interloper]

this page is so good.

https://twitter.com/StateOfLinkedIn

Yeah it's brilliant, one of the best