"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Farm Boy]

And they've done what about it?... anecdotally?

They punch down with slightly altered ammunition.

What, like changing that was on the table?

 

[Narz]

how even well meaning policies and laws designed specifically to be equitable and fair create harmful consequences for marginalized groups because the crafters of the law, however well-intentioned, are not only not aware of the problem at the outset, but also not even aware that such an awareness exists, so they're incapable of seeing the unfairness even when it's pointed out to them

Right, like how handouts rather than career opportunities keep whole segments of the population in poverty. Same thing w alot of charities, they end up making the problem worse.

Wokeness is like that too. People share a status they didn't even read and think it makes them some sort of ally.

There's a psychological term for this, I forgot what it was. Where you think you're doing something healthy so you give yourself points and end up behaving less healthfully later. I bet el-mac knows what I'm talking about.

It's good to realize most of our assumptions are wrong but in an era of unlimited opinions at our fingertips it can be overwhelming and desperately grasp for overarching theories.

 

[Samson]

Can't open wiki @ work strangely (I'll look later) but if you don't think conscious awareness has an effect on actions why even engage in discussion?

Because that is what my subconscious has decided to do? Also there is a difference between "I am far from convinced" and "I do not think".

But really, I do not think the question of how much of our real decision making takes place in our conscious and subconscious actually has a practical influence on my life. It makes a difference in some reasoning concerning the justice system and morality, but as a result of my doubt in its effector function I tend towards interpretations that do not require conscious decision making.

 

[sophie]

Right, like how handouts rather than career opportunities keep whole segments of the population in poverty. Same thing w alot of charities, they end up making the problem worse.

Wokeness is like that too. People share a status they didn't even read and think it makes them some sort of ally.

There's a psychological term for this, I forgot what it was. Where you think you're doing something healthy so you give yourself points and end up behaving less healthfully later. I bet el-mac knows what I'm talking about.

It's good to realize most of our assumptions are wrong but in an era of unlimited opinions at our fingertips it can be overwhelming and desperately grasp for overarching theories.

Yeah, see these are still known-unknowns for you: things that you are conscious of as potential oversights that could arise as part of a solution. They are what come immediately to mind for you. What I'm talking about, again, are unknown-unknowns: things that you wouldn't ever think of, things that you wouldn't even think to think of, or even think to ask someone else of, and which, when pointed out to you, you might not even recognize as things that exist or that would be a problem.

 

[Kaushad]

handouts rather than career opportunities keep whole segments of the population in poverty.

Give me money or give me an honest way to earn it, but don't pretend that career "opportunities" are a sensible solution to poverty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Derek Chauvin went to jail (for now)... so... racism solved? BLM should declare mission accomplished?

very notably, blm (the organization itself) committed fraud and each political party went through the motions of proposing legislation to reform police conduct before proceeding to instantly and indefinitely block each other's proposal and do nothing...which seems to suit them just fine.

what, exactly, was done to alter the oversight of police and their conduct? what legislation passed which could be traced to stopping the rioting?

You've framed this in the scariest language possible, but basically you're saying that bad actors will misuse things, which isn't exactly a novel insight.

certainly not novel, and cancel culture is the example of those bad actors in the context of woke. as with most things, cancel culture actors are only a % of "woke" as a whole. aside from an active effort to spread harm among that group, woke has a mix of beliefs that are likely correct or incorrect (depending on belief) and doesn't look much different from other groups.

perhaps in that light i was a too hard on wokeists in general, when my negative feelings special to the movement are almost entirely about their smaller % of bad actors. the rest probably aren't pushing for mob rule or trying use fear to control discourse.

Like I mentioned before, a huge component of Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory

a huge component of these things is to reject the need for evidence/rational basis to support their claims.

 

[Gorbles]

what, exactly, was done to alter the oversight of police and their conduct? what legislation passed which could be traced to stopping the rioting?

Ah, so now the "protestors" in Canada are done with their time in the news, we're back to asking gotchas about BLM? That principled stand in defense of people standing up for their rights that shouldn't be marred by bad-faith actors sure lasted long, eh?

 

[sophie]

Yeah, see these are still known-unknowns for you: things that you are conscious of as potential oversights that could arise as part of a solution. They are what come immediately to mind for you. What I'm talking about, again, are unknown-unknowns: things that you wouldn't ever think of, things that you wouldn't even think to think of, or even think to ask someone else of, and which, when pointed out to you, you might not even recognize as things that exist or that would be a problem.

a huge component of these things is to reject the need for evidence/rational basis to support their claims.

lmao.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

it's nice to conjecture unknown unknowns and all. but until you find and demonstrate them, there's no reason to privilege their existence over other unknown unknowns. not with belief, and certainly not with policy.

that something exists vs not is a falsifiable claim. when it's "pointed out", there should be evidence that supports this "pointing out", or not. something you can test for empirically.

 

[Narz]

Because that is what my subconscious has decided to do? Also there is a difference between "I am far from convinced" and "I do not think".

But really, I do not think the question of how much of our real decision making takes place in our conscious and subconscious actually has a practical influence on my life. It makes a difference in some reasoning concerning the justice system and morality, but as a result of my doubt in its effector function I tend towards interpretations that do not require conscious decision making.

I don't believe in free will either. I think restructing society to make good decisions come naturally will be more effective than educating people consciously. That's definitely what I noticed in my own life (right environment/setup trumps knowledge of what I 'should' do)

Yeah, see these are still known-unknowns for you: things that you are conscious of as potential oversights that could arise as part of a solution. They are what come immediately to mind for you. What I'm talking about, again, are unknown-unknowns: things that you wouldn't ever think of, things that you wouldn't even think to think of, or even think to ask someone else of, and which, when pointed out to you, you might not even recognize as things that exist or that would be a problem.

Ok

Give me money or give me an honest way to earn it, but don't pretend that career "opportunities" are a sensible solution to poverty.

How are you interpretation career opportunities? It seems to have negative/disingenuous connotations for you.

 

[Narz]

it's nice to conjecture unknown unknowns and all. but until you find and demonstrate them, there's no reason to privilege their existence over other unknown unknowns. not with belief, and certainly not with policy.

that something exists vs not is a falsifiable claim. when it's "pointed out", there should be evidence that supports this "pointing out", or not. something you can test for empirically.

In this recent library book I read estimated unknowns account for 50% of all consequences. So its good to be aware of but that's still 50% potential influence based on our understanding. All the more reason to make the most of what we can rigorously understand.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

When people are working multiple jobs just to break even, it's insulting to suggest work is a solution

 

[Angst]

i understand where narz is coming from re: opportunity, but personally i don't think it means handouts (kinda laden word too, btw) are to be denied people. nor am i sure that's what's he's saying. can narz maybe confirm that he's not against handouts, but rather than he wants greater structural change for people to make a living?

like cloud strife pretty much outlines why handouts being bad is not a good take in the current environment; at least not in the us where opportunity doesn't exist for most in a poverty wage system.

but as someone who loosely follows the thread when it's slightly off topic, i wanted to ask. do people here generally agree that the current work environment is bad, and that handouts are a sort of useful but symptom-treatment-ish solution to the system at hand?

however the solved system would look like is another question of course, i just wonder whether that's narz's general point

(and for the record, that whatever nebulous thing wokeness is correlated to general worker's rights, and the multiple other threads of discussion in this thread, is symptomatic to the lack of usefulness of it. i think it's damning that so many discussions thread into general leftist and disjunct talking points)

 

[Narz]

i understand where narz is coming from re: opportunity, but personally i don't think it means handouts (kinda laden word too, btw) are to be denied people. nor am i sure that's what's he's saying. can narz maybe confirm that he's not against handouts, but rather than he wants greater structural change for people to make a living?

I'm pro social services, just not ones that incentivize dependency and punish people for working.

 

[Angst]

I'm pro social services, just not ones that incentivize dependency and punish people for working.

but one could argue they all incentivize dependency by default, and we're in an environment where working dependencyis a real issue - like, sure, living being based on work makes sense, but i'm talking people that will instantly lose their housing if they get fired. maybe you can be more concrete? example of what's bad? i have a feeling my first take on what you meant was off, and that eg cloud strife's response was fair in my eyes

 

[Gorbles]

I'm pro social services, just not ones that incentivize dependency and punish people for working.

Can you give a literal example of what this means?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm pro social services, just not ones that incentivize dependency and punish people for working.

Its harder to separate that yolk from that scrambled egg though. What I mean, is that To the extent that the social safety net contributes to "dependency"... it sort of has to, in order to function properly. Societal stability is reliant on creating an environment where everyone is, to quote Morpheus... "hopelessly dependent on the system". On some level, you need everyone to feel like they have something, anything... to lose, even if its just access to so-called "handouts".

If you allow a situation to develop where too many people are feeling like they have nothing to lose, and the system has nothing to offer them, you risk a scenario where there are too many people with a substantially increased incentive to stop cooperating with, or adhering to the rules and processes of the system. One guy defects from the system, meh, throw him in jail, but when that number gets too big, it becomes unworkable and society breaks down. Its a catch 22. If the system gives folks "handouts" then you risk/cause increased dependency on the "handouts", but you also increase confidence and/or reliance on the system, which encourages folks to cooperate with the system, and follow the rules, etc.

I've mentioned before on these threads that some people, being denied a "handout" may just pull themselves up by their mighty bootstraps... but some people will stomp you with their boots and steal your wallet. It's a gamble assuming that cutting off the social services society offers will result in people making societally productive choices.

 

[Lexicus]

Can you give a literal example of what this means?

In a lot of neolib countries you qualify for benefits based on income leading to the "benefit trap" or "benefit cliff" where making some money from working leads to benefits being cut off, and neither work income nor benefit income are sufficient to really live on

Edit: should note narz sounds more like he's saying he's against benefits completely. Benefit structures that penalize working are one thing but "incentivizes dependence" is a dumb talking-point - people are all "dependent" on the source of their income stream

 

[Lexicus]

I've mentioned before on these threads that some people, being denied a "handout" may just pull themselves up by their mighty bootstraps... but some people will stomp you with their boots and steal your wallet. It's a gamble assuming that cutting off the social services society offers will result in people making societally productive choices.

It should be noted that people who turn to a life of crime tend to be some of the hardest-working, most entrepreneurial people around.

 

[Narz]

maybe you can be more concrete? example of what's bad?

For example say you get on disability benefits (in the USA), you are no longer able to work past a certain amount of hours/wages. If you do you risk losing your benefits. If a person wants extra income they are focused to work under the table or illegally, this can be an education in itself but of course is not useful for a regular resume.

If that person got kicked off their benefits for whatever reason (as many did during the coronavirus pandemic) they're really screwed, no work history, references, social contacts from work, etc.

Tldr : many forms of social services actively punish you for seeking education or work. @Lexicus summarized as well

In a lot of neolib countries you qualify for benefits based on income leading to the "benefit trap" or "benefit cliff" where making some money from working leads to benefits being cut off, and neither work income nor benefit income are sufficient to really live on

Yes this. This type of dependency also does one's head in a bit. Perhaps in the West & US particularly there's too much emphasis on hard work, vocation as identity nose to the grindstone, etc. which is unhealthy. But all evidence I've seen says that chronic unemployment is very bad for the psyche.

Can you give a literal example of what this means?

See above.

Its harder to separate that yolk from that scrambled egg though. What I mean, is that To the extent that the social safety net contributes to "dependency"... it sort of has to, in order to function properly. Societal stability is reliant on creating an environment where everyone is, to quote Morpheus... "hopelessly dependent on the system". On some level, you need everyone to feel like they have something, anything... to lose, even if its just access to so-called "handouts".

Again I'm not opposed to social safety but not if it disempowers the individual.

Like say you're a young lady & two rich guys wanted to marry you.

Guy #1 : Will pay all your expenses, keep you generally safe but also demands you can't work or seek other opportunities to contribute to your own life.
Guy #2 : Will pay your basic expenses, keep you safe but also encourage you to explore work, other educational, social & economic opportunities without shaming you if you end up just being a housewife or whatever.

Obviously guy #2 is preferable.

If you allow a situation to develop where too many people are feeling like they have nothing to lose, and the system has nothing to offer them, you risk a scenario where there are too many people with a substantially increased incentive to stop cooperating with, or adhering to the rules and processes of the system. One guy defects from the system, meh, throw him in jail, but when that number gets too big, it becomes unworkable and society breaks down. Its a catch 22. If the system gives folks "handouts" then you risk/cause increased dependency on the "handouts", but you also increase confidence and/or reliance on the system, which encourages folks to cooperate with the system, and follow the rules, etc.

Agree with that. There's no free lunch even if there appears to be. Hard to really mobilize against 'the man' when the man fills your food bowl.

I
I've mentioned before on these threads that some people, being denied a "handout" may just pull themselves up by their mighty bootstraps... but some people will stomp you with their boots and steal your wallet. It's a gamble assuming that cutting off the social services society offers will result in people making societally productive choices.

I think we're more in agreement than disagreement. To truly benefit those in need we'd have to restructure society in a major way. Nowhere have I suggested or even will suggest we should pull the rug out from under people without offering them other opportunities.