Why the Left Doesn't Need to Be Woke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dunno. Same people who think "the patriarchy" is an actual thing maybe?
You don't know? :D

This is a perfect example of making up something to complain about it, geez. Especially in a thread about "woke" behaviour (which is often criticised for looking for problems that don't exist).

I’ve heard the argument made in several places.

I leave ESPN on during the day. It’s sports. Subject of diversity amongst NFL coaches comes up. Few talking heads put forth the argument that since the vast majority of owners are white, they hire white head coaches, who then hire white assistants, and white trainers. Not out of racist leanings, but more out of shared origins, commonality.

Putting aside whether the argument the talking heads made is correct or not aside, I would say I’ve heard media figures claim a trickle-down effect does exist
Would you associate media figures with being "woke"? This isn't a gotcha, I have little idea about your position. It seems to me that if mainstream media is making claims, then we're kinda past the point of anyone relating it to a subset of "woke" behaviour, is all.

As for commonality . . . it's still bias on some level. Even if it's as simple as friend-and-acquaintance groups causing bias with regards to staff intake. It's still arguably not getting the best person for the job (which is the argument against stuff that goes the opposite way, like diversity quotas). I feel, even if I personally I think "trickle down" is the wrong phrase for it, it still describes something that is flawed. No?
 
I just use woke for shorthand as people will generally know what I'm referring to. What woke is will vary by country.

In order for a country to be more or less woke though you need various thing. Certain level of prosperity, cultural attitudes etc.
 
You mean to say the only NZ politician whose existence I am aware of. And she is cool :)

Idk if you would think that if you watched her in interviews more lol.

Jacinda normally gets the glory outside NZ.

Probably wouldn't vote for her party unless Labour went extra derp but would use electorate vote if she was my MP (splitting my vote).

Last election I did split vote between Green candidate and Labour.
 
Would you associate media figures with being "woke"? This isn't a gotcha, I have little idea about your position. It seems to me that if mainstream media is making claims, then we're kinda past the point of anyone relating it to a subset of "woke" behaviour, is all.

As for commonality . . . it's still bias on some level. Even if it's as simple as friend-and-acquaintance groups causing bias with regards to staff intake. It's still arguably not getting the best person for the job (which is the argument against stuff that goes the opposite way, like diversity quotas). I feel, even if I personally I think "trickle down" is the wrong phras
I think I’d call the media figures that made the argument woke, yes. They claim bias is present, and it may be, but they didn’t conclusively demonstrate it was, yet spoke of a need for action anyway. You probably shouldn’t consider a thing actionable if you can’t really prove it exists to begin with.

The problem is falsifiability. There’s no way for the owners to falsify the claim, really. No one can read their minds. Even if they say it is incorrect, that they are not biased, everyone’s aware that they could be lying or misrepresenting.

They are subject to criticism based on the present inequality of outcome, but their critics don’t really attempt to conclusively demonstrate inequality of opportunity based on owners statements. They just point to the inequality of outcome and presume it must be there.
 
I think I’d call the media figures that made the argument woke, yes. They claim bias is present, and it may be, but they didn’t conclusively demonstrate it was, yet spoke of a need for action anyway. You probably shouldn’t consider a thing actionable if you can’t really prove it exists to begin with.

The problem is falsifiability. There’s no way for the owners to falsify the claim, really. No one can read their minds. Even if they say it is incorrect, that they are not biased, everyone’s aware that they could be lying or misrepresenting.

They are subject to criticism based on the present inequality of outcome, but their critics don’t really attempt to conclusively demonstrate inequality of opportunity based on owners statements. They just point to the inequality of outcome and presume it must be there.
It seems to me that even if we had a media that wasn't focused on a 24-hour news cycle (that drives content down to something of a lowest-common-denominator, especially in realtime segments), a conclusive demonstration would require too much time to capture anyone's interest. There's plenty of longform discussion and evidencing of the concepts, at the very least (not that these are used by the media, generally).

So we're back to what "woke" means (in the . . . third thread? On it? I'm not sure :D).
 
Few talking heads put forth the argument that since the vast majority of owners are white, they hire white head coaches, who then hire white assistants, and white trainers. Not out of racist leanings, but more out of shared origins, commonality.

This would also be racism though. You could claim that it’s just individuals gravitating to those with similar backgrounds, but that abstracts away the historical and sociological context out of which these scenarios emerge.

White people - men especially - are very determined to define racism (and sexism) narrowly as an antagonistic animus towards a particular group, ironically, because the world which they experience is set up with them in mind and so they never come into contact with situations with ostensibly “fair” systems that nevertheless unfairly harm those not in mind. Even when objections are raised to the false fairness of the system, the reasonability of the objections are not determined by some objective standard, but subjective evaluations made by individuals, who, again have no reference point for what is being talked about. They can only imagine themselves in that scenario, and in doing so deem that which is comprehensible to them to be reasonable and that which is not to be absurd sjw screeching.

This applies to everything, including “objective” or “falsifiable” standards. There may be an ontological objectivity in the confluence of perspectives, but ultimately knowledge is not experienced at the group level. It can only be experienced as a subjective individual, where what you deem to be falsifiable, what you deem to be rational or logical, what you even select or choose to take away from some “objective” analysis is necessarily always driven by your reference. There is no objective knowledge, it can only exist in relation to the knower.

Which frequently leaves the process of getting a white man to understand the oppression one experiences as less one of neutrally and factually describing what happened, and more trying to find a way to frame what happened in a way that is comprehensible to a white male framework, where unfairness is almost singularly experienced either as direct legal exclusion or a perceived unwarranted interpersonal malice or antagonism. Everything else is either rejected outright (“People aren’t inherently more skeptical of a woman’s knowledge or credentials”) or downplayed (“if I was catcalled I would welcome the compliment!”) I can try to explain to you what it is like having a deadname or why you should never ask a trans person for that name. But you will never know what it feels like to have a deadname, or to be asked to share it 5 minutes after meeting someone. Most cis people I’ve described it to reject my hurt entirely, while for trans people I need not even elaborate: “a guy I met at a bar asked me what my deadname is” is sufficient to elicit a visceral reaction.

In broad strokes that is what privilege is. Not that you are inherently richer or lead a more pampered life per se, but rather that you live in a world that was constructed with your background, your physiognomy, your language, and your culture assumed as the default. It is all the little things that you get to take for granted, that others have to do labor to navigate through. Even when talking and thinking about them, you have the privilege of rejecting anything which makes you uncomfortable, to simply dismiss and go about your day as if nothing has happened, and there are really very few direct consequences for doing so. That’s the privilege. Your existence is intrinsically held and treated as unquestionably valid with no effort on your part, whereas for me, every crumb of medical or legal care requires a laborious process of rhetorics, pathos, and careful and measured narrativizing, with maximal punishment for any error, misstep, or misinterpretation of the rules, rules which were not designed with me in mind, which rarely make mention of me, but which I must nevertheless interpret and navigate to survive.
 
Last edited:
(as I've said before) I doubt that anyone non-ironically self-identifies as "woke". It is the same dynamic with "hipster".
There was a survey I quoted in one of these threads, that about the same number of people identified as woke as thought it was a bad thing.
 
Don’t have much to say about trans issues. I’m not trans. Easy to imagine it’s tough. Sorry. Anyway(no easy way to move on from a description of difficulties experienced)
This would also be racism though. You could claim that it’s just individuals gravitating to those with similar backgrounds, but that abstracts away the historical and sociological context out of which these scenarios emerge.
If gravitating towards people of similar backgrounds is racist, all I can do is shrug. It’s not as though white men are the only group that gravitate towards those of similar backgrounds.

Precisely how would you counter the effect within the next millennia? Other than state enforced diversity quotas, which would create its own sort of havoc, I don’t see a realistic path forward.
 
If gravitating towards people of similar backgrounds is racist, all I can do is shrug. It’s not as though white men are the only group that gravitate towards those of similar backgrounds.

Precisely how would you counter the effect within the next millennia? Other than state enforced diversity quotas, which would create its own sort of havoc, I don’t see a realistic path forward.

Wait until you learn about integration. That'll be a real doozy to wrap your head around.
 
Wait until you learn about integration. That'll be a real doozy to wrap your head around.
It’s a sincere question. If people don’t have any active malice towards outgroups, but positive affect towards in-groups, how do you create absolute equality of opportunity?

Are ya gonna completely remove positive affect towards in-groups? Worthy goal, but let’s be honest: if it were achieved, would there even be a precedent for it? The scale of that task is challenging.
 
It’s a sincere question. If people don’t have any active malice towards outgroups, but positive affect towards in-groups, how do you create absolute equality of opportunity?
If I were to apply a simple bit of a math hand-waving, then I'd suggest creating a series of investments that 'grow the bottom' faster than they 'grow the median' (cause convergence) funding by a direct progressive tax. Hunt for, test, and then over-invest in these ideas. To use the 'kids watching a ballgame over the fence' meme, we tax the ballpark if it tries to build a taller fence and give out boxes based on height to the kids. Ideally we don't take away the box from the tallest kid to give to the shortest kid and we don't waste resources by handing a box to every kid.

You have to work with the analogy, but the gist is there. If there is a latent bias, but the system is designed to help those with greatest needs first, then the latent bias gets avalanched out.

As a side note: this is one reason why I so often ask people to invest in things that create game-winning solutions that can then drop in price. The only long-term solution is to not have the problem.

Edit: also remembering that removing a negative is the same as adding a positive. Like, if someone is stuck in a payday loan cycle, then we know they're very, very capable of managing a limited budget. We're talking an enormous negative that functionally becomes a positive when it's solved.
 
Last edited:
I just use woke for shorthand as people will generally know what I'm referring to.

lol this is a hilarious admission of how humiliating this thread is for everyone involved including me now
 
Your existence is intrinsically held and treated as unquestionably valid with no effort on your part
This is no one's life whatsoever & it's strange that you think it is. No one gaf about anyone else "intristicly", you gotta scrape for whatever you can get in this life, especially in America.

If your parents are rich & don't care what you do I guess you can coast but if you're unemployed don't expect people to validate your existence (unless they want to use you).

One thing white people defintely don't have is an excuse. Which is a good privledge to have actually. If you're white & you don't succed noone whatsoever is gonna give you any sympathy.
 
Last edited:
whereas for me, every crumb of medical or legal care requires a laborious process of rhetorics, pathos, and careful and measured narrativizing, with maximal punishment for any error, misstep, or misinterpretation of the rules, rules which were not designed with me in mind, which rarely make mention of me, but which I must nevertheless interpret and navigate to survive.
If you're male in many/most legal situtions you better be damn careful, in family court it's definitely stacked against you (tho it's getting slightly better these days). In the regular criminal justice system you'll get around twice the time for same crime as a male iirc (obviously if you're black & male it's even worse).

I have no medical care. I was unaware that race or gender played a part in getting medical care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom