The Woke Generation - Fighting Back

Post Reply New Topic

It is certainly disappointing when people decide to "attack the messenger" rather than the message.

It has always come across to me as an indication that the person\group doing this is incapable of refuting what is being stated (whether through lack of supporting resources for a counter-argument, because they subconsciously agree with the content, or some other reason), and so is seeking to diminish the "inconvenient" message through the only other option available to them.

The question is: How do you define, and so ensure, "equal opportunity", let alone "equal results"\"equal outomes"?

Is "equal opportunity", as is put forward by one group, simply having the same opportunity for an education, employment, etc. regardless of one's starting situation?
Alternatively, is it everyone having the same opportunity for an education, employment, etc. but starting from the same level (and how is this defined and\or arranged)?

Going beyond this, to "equal results" - How can this be ensured (at least after the first "generation"), when those who (as an example) lack the aptitude\temperment to be an educator, but as that was what they wished to become were able to do so? The flow on from the range of people in that position (from those who have the ability\aptitude, compared to those lacking it) who had the same "outcome", is going to flow through, compounding the different "opportunity" of those who come after them, based upon the outcome from the earlier generations.

Additionally, given the diverse levels of ability\skill\aptitude each person is likely to have in a given role, would there be a requirement for employment\remuneration to be independent of an applicant\employees ability, etc. (and how, then, would you ensure applicants were chosen at random, rather than for one of their ability, to ensure an "equal outcome", rather than one based on other considerations)?

I think not handcuffing and tear-spraying children from disadvantaged backgrounds for suffering a mental breakdown should be a reasonable start in going towards equal opportunity.
Once we solidly get there, we can think of more subtle nuances.

Fact is the woke generation ARE fighting back.

And if you're scared of nonces: thank first wave feminism that it's illegal.

Used to be the case that 12 was the age of consent.

And if the 40 yo man married the 12 yo girl, nobody spoke out about it. Only concern was over 'sodomy' (so if he was after a boy) and prostitution and masters chasing servants.

Who, exactly, is saying this? Could you provide links to some examples? It's not my impression that the above sentiment is common, much less faddish, here in the West, even among the "Woke Generation."


Of course it's nonsense. The only question is how many people are indeed making the above claim.


Agreed.


Agreed so far.


Here the author seems to be insinuating that there is little or no cost to "accusing" another person of "an -ism". That's often NOT the case. Depending on how many and what kinds of people see your tweet, and depending on whether you tweeted it under your legal name, and depending on where you live and what you do for a living, it might cost you a lot. People who call out others for racism, sexism, etc., justified or not, still tend to get lots of flak -- and worse -- for so doing. Sometimes they are subjected to severe harassment. (I'll post links to some articles about this later.)


Several different issues are being jumbled together here.

A big problem with today's social media is that it exposes people to harassment to a degree unheard of in previous eras. These days almost everyone is more-or-less compelled to post loads of info about themselves on LinkedIn, in order to find a job -- a horrible violation of most people's privacy, in my opinion. It exposes many ordinary people to all of the hazards but none of the perks of being a movie star. This is true especially for women, and certainly NOT just for un-"woke" white males. On top of this, almost anything that anyone says online has the potential to get instant worldwide publicity, if it happens to be noticed by someone with a big enough Twitter following.

So we all live in a much scarier world than we did a generation ago. It has become much more dangerous for most people to say anything even remotely controversial (at least under our legal names) no matter where you are on the political spectrum.

At the same time, the U.S.A. is now undergoing a major cultural shift, mainly because white people, though still a majority, are no longer quite the absolutely overwhelming majority that we were even a generation ago. Due in part to this demographic change, major corporations are finally starting to notice that they can no longer get away with completely ignoring the feelings of people of color, and likewise colleges are under pressure to avoid creating a hostile learning environment for people of color. Hence the sudden "politically correct" realization that we all need to ditch various odds and ends of casual (and not-so-casual) racism that have been more-or-less baked into American culture for generations, but that most white people never noticed before, because they never had to.

The rapidity of the cultural shift is understandably making a lot of white folks, especially older white folks, feel disoriented. The main reason I'm not as disoriented as many white people of my generation is that I was a feminist activist for a while off-and-on when I was in my twenties, back in the early 1980's. Among many feminists back then, it was already considered axiomatic that we white feminists needed to educate ourselves about issues affecting women of color. So to me the idea of "intersectionality" is just common sense.

I think progressive-leaning white people need to try to be more patient when talking to white folks who are feeling disoriented. It should be our job, not the job of people of color, to do what we can to counteract racist habits among white people. But I think a gentle approach is more likely to be successful than a harshly critical approach, at least when we are dealing with people who are not complete jerks. (Alas a lot of people these days are complete jerks.)


I agree that we shouldn't be erasing American history by ceasing to honor people, like Lincoln, who made major progress toward ending at least some kinds of oppression, even if they have a mixed record in this regard.

I do wonder, though, what kind of a neighborhood the above-mentioned school was located in. It would be rather insensitive, for example, to put a "Lincoln" school right next door to a Navajo reservation, or in a non-reservation urban neighborhood where some significant number of Navajo people live. (See Lincoln: No Hero to Native Americans by Sherry Salway Black, Washington Monthly, January/February 2013.)

On the other hand, I think "Lincoln" would be a perfectly appropriate name for an integrated public school located in a majority-white neighborhood, near a majority-black neighborhood, where hopefully there would also be schools named after black anti-slavery activists like Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass.


I know this sounds paradoxical but, depending on the goals of the group, "racial affinity groups" can be a step toward integration even though they involve a temporary separation. For a detailed discussion of analogous issues involving the progress of women's rights, see Separate to Integrate by Barbara Leon, written back in the early 1970's.


I agree that looting does have victims, and indeed I consider it to be an example of the reasons why "defund the police" is a bad idea. But we do need substantial reform of police departments, probably MUCH more substantial than most of the reforms that have been proposed so far.


"Disparity of outcome" is not, all by itself, "evidence of systemic oppression," but that's no reason to deny the reality of systemic oppression, for which there is plenty of other evidence.


There is plenty of both good and evil, and extremes thereof, in America's past -- and present. We need to embrace the good while at the same time coming to a much more thorough reckoning with the evil.

Note to Conservatives: While you are "Fighting Back" against SJAs, SJWs, Liberals, Civil-Rights Attorneys, and the entire woke movement, try to remember what happened when you were bragging about "Owning the Libs".

Just as your favorite loud-mouthed bigots have slunk back to their holes, there will likely be no one to stand up for you and your rights when you get arrested, file for bankruptcy, or are the defendant in a civil lawsuit -- at least, no one who speaks fluent "Liberalese".

"We The People" are not just wealthy, white, evangelical Christian, male property-owners any more.

We are also the poor, the minorities, the other-believers, the women, and the people who can just barely pay the rent.

We also run the government AND the media.

Good luck in 2024!

You will need it!

I don't know any liberals who dont occassionally laugh and shake their heads at wokeism.

The extreme form certainly -- like PETA trying to get laws passed against using animal names as insults.

Simply being aware that people of other races and situations have their own cultures and problems is the foundation of the "Woke" movement.  Being aware that one's own assumptions about those other people may be innaccurate is one step further.

Indiana Senate backs bill to ban renaming of Indianapolis

Let's see, the HAES movement, yeah there is no such thing as body size affecting your health, be 600 lbs and you are still good, that is just doctors lying about your medical issues by blaming it on your weight. It's a big conspiracy.

I have laughed at SJWs who try to say stupid, idiot, etc is ableist words and to try and keep people from using them and trying to bring back the old definitions to them.

The ones who think genders should not be assigned at birth and you can raise a kid to be genderless, so does this imply trans is a choice? Cis kids are still going to know their gender and still know their pronouns even if they are raised as a they and never told they were a boy or a girl and never heard of their parents being called mommy or daddy. Even if you raise your son as a girl, he will still know he is a boy and experience dysphoria about his gender. This is exactly what happened with I forget his name when he had a botched cicrumsized and his penis had to be removed so he was raised as a girl instead. At age 15 he decided to live as a boy than as a girl and even changed his name to a boy's name. He never felt right about his gender when he was living as a girl. It was believed then gender was taught and a choice, but gender is a real thing and something we do not choose. Proof that trans gender is a real thing because gender is not always going to match your sex. So these SJWs are contradicting themselves if they think they can raise their kid to be genderless and hide pronouns from them. For s**ts and giggles I can troll these wokes and say "So does this mean trans isn't real and it's also a choice?" but I doubt they would realize their own hypocrisy and their contradiction and instead paint me as transphobic instead because they either twist your words and are being deliberately obtuse or they are this stupid. Plus I wouldn't want to deal with these delusional wokes taking my Tweet and twisting it and showing it off and all the other wokes take their word than looking at the context. That's Twitter for you. They will even screen shot your Tweet for in case you delete it and repost it.


I think these are what we call radical feminists. They take it too far and go extreme making the rest of us look insane.

Are they trying to force their kids to be genderless or just raising them in a way that allows them to make their own choice later without as much influence? As in, if you're raised as a boy it may be more difficult to say "actually I'm a girl" versus if you were raised without any expectations, if that makes sense.

Growing up, my mom pretty much did not force gender roles on me and I was in fact a tomboy. I still knew I was a girl.
Difference between cis kids and trans kids is us cis kids do not question our assigned gender, we just accept we are in fact a boy or a girl. We don't feel our gender because we are comfortable with our assigned gender. Someone told me on reddit we all feel our gender but the reason why I don't feel mine is because mine doesn't get challenged. I suppose I would feel my gender if my mom kept telling me I couldn't play with my brothers' Hotwheels or play in the dirt or play with their action figures because I am a girl or if she forced me to not wear my clothes because she wanted me to be a boy and forced me to not play with Barbies. My brothers plays with my Barbies too and my youngest used to pretend the whole Barbie family was clumsy so they would stumble over furniture and even fall through the floor.


I totally know that allowing a trans gender child to live however they want; let them wear the opposite gender clothes, let them play with opposite gender toys, their dysphoria would still be there. This has nothing to do with gender roles as the gender critical try to make it out to be. Kids are not trans because of forced gender roles because of their sex. But this is what many parents seem to think who don't know any better or if they fall for the wrong crowd and get misinformation. I don't think every person with transphobic thoughts is actually a TERF because of misinformation and ignorance.

Those are 10 very good suggestions. I do these things every day. It gives me satisfaction to do these things.

Sooooo, because not ALL gays & black people in America are being murdered for being gay and/or black, it's A-Okay to keep hating on them in the name of Freeeeeeedommmmmmz! ?

At the risk of sound ageist: Thank the lawd bebe jebuz these are the thoughts of old people who are nearer to the end of their lives & will be gone soon along with them.

This is called a strawman argument. It is misrepresenting an "other" side in order to use its own arguments to refute those points. It is 2021, can't we focus on real issues and not simply ideological posturing?