"Obama says Democrats need to avoid being a 'buzzkill'"
28 Oct 2022, 12:19 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
My strong belief is that what we call "wokeness" or "political correctness" is actually mainly based in Fortune 500 companies. Large companies are nuts on signaling and inclusion - it makes sense because they are often global companies that have to have people of vastly different religions, cultural backgrounds, etc work together. So I see "wokeness/political correctness" as mainly a product of large corporation HR departments.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Yes it's a known problem. Some call it performative wokeness.
Performative wokeness enables privileged people to reap the social benefits of wokeness without actually undertaking the necessary legwork to combat inequality.
You'll find that sentence copied and pasted all over the Web.
I'd go further and suggest that it's often used as an obfuscating tactic by those whose true intentions are quite the opposite, e.g. the wealthy, whose wallets say a lot more about their actual commitment to equality.
But I think it's also sometimes just used as a back-covering tactic against accusations of sexism, racism, etc. The BBC often makes me laugh when it says this kind of thing:
A criminal calling themselves Stephen Jones took up the tenancy and paid the rent and council tax. They never moved into the property, but used access to it to sell on for £196,000 - well below market value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-63392025
I have always seen They pronouns being used, this is nothing new. Even when I was a teen I would see They pronouns. They just simply don't know who the person was. Anyone can use a voice disguise posting as a he.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.
28 Oct 2022, 12:53 am
League_Girl wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
My strong belief is that what we call "wokeness" or "political correctness" is actually mainly based in Fortune 500 companies. Large companies are nuts on signaling and inclusion - it makes sense because they are often global companies that have to have people of vastly different religions, cultural backgrounds, etc work together. So I see "wokeness/political correctness" as mainly a product of large corporation HR departments.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Yes it's a known problem. Some call it performative wokeness.
Performative wokeness enables privileged people to reap the social benefits of wokeness without actually undertaking the necessary legwork to combat inequality.
You'll find that sentence copied and pasted all over the Web.
I'd go further and suggest that it's often used as an obfuscating tactic by those whose true intentions are quite the opposite, e.g. the wealthy, whose wallets say a lot more about their actual commitment to equality.
But I think it's also sometimes just used as a back-covering tactic against accusations of sexism, racism, etc. The BBC often makes me laugh when it says this kind of thing:
A criminal calling themselves Stephen Jones took up the tenancy and paid the rent and council tax. They never moved into the property, but used access to it to sell on for £196,000 - well below market value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-63392025
I have always seen They pronouns being used, this is nothing new. Even when I was a teen I would see They pronouns. They just simply don't know who the person was. Anyone can use a voice disguise posting as a he.
OK it's a fair cop. Hmm..... the BBC could have killed 2 birds with 1 stone, because he was clearly self-identifying as a man, so "himself" would have been PC and less clumsy grammar.
28 Oct 2022, 2:04 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
stratozyck wrote:
My strong belief is that what we call "wokeness" or "political correctness" is actually mainly based in Fortune 500 companies. Large companies are nuts on signaling and inclusion - it makes sense because they are often global companies that have to have people of vastly different religions, cultural backgrounds, etc work together. So I see "wokeness/political correctness" as mainly a product of large corporation HR departments.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Because you know what? If your coworker wants you to call them a pregnant dude, you do it. If your coworker likes it when you wish them a happy insert whatever religious holiday, you do it. If your coworker gets married to a goat, you buy them a gift and wish them good luck.
Because what matters most to Fortune 500 companies is we all get along so we continue the gears of profit.
When I think in those terms, it does kindof make sense to me to extend that to my neighbor. I have no desire to intentionally hurt anyone and if it makes them feel better, I should do it.
Yes it's a known problem. Some call it performative wokeness.
Performative wokeness enables privileged people to reap the social benefits of wokeness without actually undertaking the necessary legwork to combat inequality.
You'll find that sentence copied and pasted all over the Web.
I'd go further and suggest that it's often used as an obfuscating tactic by those whose true intentions are quite the opposite, e.g. the wealthy, whose wallets say a lot more about their actual commitment to equality.
But I think it's also sometimes just used as a back-covering tactic against accusations of sexism, racism, etc. The BBC often makes me laugh when it says this kind of thing:
A criminal calling themselves Stephen Jones took up the tenancy and paid the rent and council tax. They never moved into the property, but used access to it to sell on for £196,000 - well below market value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-63392025
I have always seen They pronouns being used, this is nothing new. Even when I was a teen I would see They pronouns. They just simply don't know who the person was. Anyone can use a voice disguise posting as a he.
OK it's a fair cop. Hmm..... the BBC could have killed 2 birds with 1 stone, because he was clearly self-identifying as a man, so "himself" would have been PC and less clumsy grammar.
Didn't they mean someone posed as him so they used "they" for the imposter?
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.
28 Oct 2022, 3:40 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
The other stuff, I wish you wouldn't use the term "Democrats" so broadly. As you noted, you don't intend to refer to the average voter, but a small and vocal subset. Please, then, say "a small and vocal subset." I know it's extra words, but it helps reduce the over generalization us "regular" Democrats encounter.
You know, there are people who've been on this forum for over a decade who I still can't get to understand that I'm not a Republican?
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
28 Oct 2022, 9:37 am
League_Girl wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Yes it's a known problem. Some call it performative wokeness.
Performative wokeness enables privileged people to reap the social benefits of wokeness without actually undertaking the necessary legwork to combat inequality.
You'll find that sentence copied and pasted all over the Web.
I'd go further and suggest that it's often used as an obfuscating tactic by those whose true intentions are quite the opposite, e.g. the wealthy, whose wallets say a lot more about their actual commitment to equality.
But I think it's also sometimes just used as a back-covering tactic against accusations of sexism, racism, etc. The BBC often makes me laugh when it says this kind of thing:
A criminal calling themselves Stephen Jones took up the tenancy and paid the rent and council tax. They never moved into the property, but used access to it to sell on for £196,000 - well below market value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-63392025
Performative wokeness enables privileged people to reap the social benefits of wokeness without actually undertaking the necessary legwork to combat inequality.
You'll find that sentence copied and pasted all over the Web.
I'd go further and suggest that it's often used as an obfuscating tactic by those whose true intentions are quite the opposite, e.g. the wealthy, whose wallets say a lot more about their actual commitment to equality.
But I think it's also sometimes just used as a back-covering tactic against accusations of sexism, racism, etc. The BBC often makes me laugh when it says this kind of thing:
A criminal calling themselves Stephen Jones took up the tenancy and paid the rent and council tax. They never moved into the property, but used access to it to sell on for £196,000 - well below market value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-63392025
I have always seen They pronouns being used, this is nothing new. Even when I was a teen I would see They pronouns. They just simply don't know who the person was. Anyone can use a voice disguise posting as a he.
OK it's a fair cop. Hmm..... the BBC could have killed 2 birds with 1 stone, because he was clearly self-identifying as a man, so "himself" would have been PC and less clumsy grammar.
Didn't they mean someone posed as him so they used "they" for the imposter?
I was joking.
29 Oct 2022, 3:48 am
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The other stuff, I wish you wouldn't use the term "Democrats" so broadly. As you noted, you don't intend to refer to the average voter, but a small and vocal subset. Please, then, say "a small and vocal subset." I know it's extra words, but it helps reduce the over generalization us "regular" Democrats encounter.
You know, there are people who've been on this forum for over a decade who I still can't get to understand that I'm not a Republican?
I know.
And I've pointed it out to people when I see it.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
29 Oct 2022, 4:44 am
The two political extremes always remind me of each other.
The Obama article reminds me (in a strange way) of a Christian propaganda film called "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas." I would've expected the film to be aimed at criticizing atheists like me, but its main target is actually Christians who are buzzkills at Christmas, as represented by a character named Christian White, who goes out to his car to sulk during a Christmas party. Of course, Kirk can't just say to Christian, "Hey dude, lighten up. You're putting people off of wanting to join our religion." He has to devise elaborate, contrived Biblical reasons to be a fun party animal at Christmas.
So now we have Obama essentially saying "Hey dudes, lighten up. You're putting people off of wanting to join our political party." But then he has to quickly add that they're not actually wrong in their approach.
05 Nov 2022, 10:56 am
blitzkrieg wrote:
I think if the Democrats & their media affiliates would focus more on how much better they are with their attitude to wealth inequality than the Republicans, rather than focusing on petty woke issues, they'd probably make the Republicans unelectable.
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
05 Nov 2022, 4:37 pm
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I think if the Democrats & their media affiliates would focus more on how much better they are with their attitude to wealth inequality than the Republicans, rather than focusing on petty woke issues, they'd probably make the Republicans unelectable.
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
That's true. But you can't really compare the UK & the U.S. The Republicans are fairly extreme compared to the UK Conservatives.
05 Nov 2022, 4:51 pm
blitzkrieg wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I think if the Democrats & their media affiliates would focus more on how much better they are with their attitude to wealth inequality than the Republicans, rather than focusing on petty woke issues, they'd probably make the Republicans unelectable.
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
That's true. But you can't really compare the UK & the U.S. The Republicans are fairly extreme compared to the UK Conservatives.
You could very well be correct. In what ways do you think the differences in their extremeness might show?
05 Nov 2022, 5:11 pm
| ! | Cornflake wrote: |
| Several posts have been removed. It would be better if denigrating, personal opinions about other members' intelligence remain unspoken. It's rude, counter-productive, and looks a little too much like arrogant crowing. |
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
05 Nov 2022, 5:16 pm
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I think if the Democrats & their media affiliates would focus more on how much better they are with their attitude to wealth inequality than the Republicans, rather than focusing on petty woke issues, they'd probably make the Republicans unelectable.
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
That's true. But you can't really compare the UK & the U.S. The Republicans are fairly extreme compared to the UK Conservatives.
You could very well be correct. In what ways do you think the differences in their extremeness might show?
Oh, the Republicans in the U.S. are extremely Conservative by UK standards.
I'll give you a few examples:
The UK Conservatives aren't particularly religious, nor do they advocate for gun ownership. UK Conservatives are also a lot less hostile to the idea of wealth distribution than U.S Conservatives typically are.
By U.S standards - UK Conservatives probably aren't very Conservative at all.
06 Nov 2022, 1:13 am
blitzkrieg wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I think if the Democrats & their media affiliates would focus more on how much better they are with their attitude to wealth inequality than the Republicans, rather than focusing on petty woke issues, they'd probably make the Republicans unelectable.
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
That's true. But you can't really compare the UK & the U.S. The Republicans are fairly extreme compared to the UK Conservatives.
You could very well be correct. In what ways do you think the differences in their extremeness might show?
Oh, the Republicans in the U.S. are extremely Conservative by UK standards.
I'll give you a few examples:
The UK Conservatives aren't particularly religious, nor do they advocate for gun ownership. UK Conservatives are also a lot less hostile to the idea of wealth distribution than U.S Conservatives typically are.
By U.S standards - UK Conservatives probably aren't very Conservative at all.
Ah, I think I'm beginning to see what you mean. I suspect the confounding factor is the disconnect between what they say they want and what they really want. Here are my thoughts so far, which are developing as I write, and may yet change:
The UK is more urban than the USA, so the Tories have to at least appear to want to support a degree of redistribution. They often say "we want to help the poor more but it's economic suicide to do so," while perhaps in the US the Republicans get an easy ride on the back of the pre-existing rural "self-help" ideology. I think it's similar with religion - in the UK maybe there aren't that many fundamentalist Christian votes to be had, so politicians don't need to appeal to that. Gun control isn't an issue in the UK because there's no gun lobby to appease, and I think on the whole the British public sees the American gun ownership thing as rather scary. As for what the politicians really want, I think it's largely more money and power for themselves, on both sides of the pond. I'm not saying the Republicans won't give the rural folks a bit of what they want - racism, religious fundamentalism, guns, inequality, etc. - I just think it's mostly a cynical means to a rather different end. But their true agenda is by nature hidden and hard to know for sure, and if the Republicans are judged by their observable behaviour in the short term, then you very likely have a point. It's possible that we're both right, in different ways. And the matter is very likely more complicated than my 2 cents would suggest.
06 Nov 2022, 2:52 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
Maybe, but it didn't work for Corbyn in the UK. The elite managed to railroad him by highlighting the notion that he wasn't woke enough about antisemitism. Though some say he was too keen on redistribution to be electable in the first place.
ToughDiamond wrote:
The UK is more urban than the USA, so the Tories have to at least appear to want to support a degree of redistribution. They often say "we want to help the poor more but it's economic suicide to do so," while perhaps in the US the Republicans get an easy ride on the back of the pre-existing rural "self-help" ideology. I think it's similar with religion - in the UK maybe there aren't that many fundamentalist Christian votes to be had, so politicians don't need to appeal to that. Gun control isn't an issue in the UK because there's no gun lobby to appease, and I think on the whole the British public sees the American gun ownership thing as rather scary. As for what the politicians really want, I think it's largely more money and power for themselves, on both sides of the pond. I'm not saying the Republicans won't give the rural folks a bit of what they want - racism, religious fundamentalism, guns, inequality, etc. - I just think it's mostly a cynical means to a rather different end. But their true agenda is by nature hidden and hard to know for sure, and if the Republicans are judged by their observable behaviour in the short term, then you very likely have a point. It's possible that we're both right, in different ways. And the matter is very likely more complicated than my 2 cents would suggest.
A thought provoking post.
