2 2
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

Ironically enough, Woke ideology is singularly humorless.  As Gandhi said, "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."

Like most religiously held beliefs, any parody must be accompanied by appropriate emoticons to so indicate, since any attempt at being more absurd is futile.

Much of Woke liturgy seems to have been lifted verbatim from humor anthologies.  The response to the question of whether the Radio Announcer job application was successful of "N- n- n- no, they di- di- di- didn't hire me 'cause I'm j- j- j- jewish" was not a case of antisemitism.

It is unfortunate that much of the efforts of the Woke mob are entirely counterproductive.  For example, the effects of Affirmative Action tend to call into question the qualifications of people who actually have paid their dues and are well qualified.  Working with Lethal Service equipment, I do not want to be anywhere near a 'Diversity Hire' of any stripe.

I have lived long enough to have seen vast improvements in some of the issues that are dear to the hearts of the Woke, and take exception to their misrepresentation.  I have worked with and for people from every continent but Antarctica, male and female (there's a difference), straight and gay, and the only criteria that matter are integrity and professional competence.

The most patently racist people I know are those who complain the loudest about 'racism' and so forth.  The academics who claim it's 'racist' to expect employees to show up on time or know mathematics are viewed as insulting by many of the people to whom they refer who are entirely reliable and mathematically literate.

Someone stating Dr. Martin Luther King's standpoint verbatim would be labeled an Oreo or worse.  Judging only by the content of one's character?  Heresy!  Blasphemy!

Do we still have problems as a society?  Most certainly.

Are they accurately characterized by Woke orthodoxy?  Not even slightly.

Do any of the 'solutions' put forth by the Woke have merit?  No more than filling a fire extinguisher with gasoline.

I have spent enough time in Socialist Workers' Paradises to be skeptical of solutions implemented by committee.  I am also skeptical of those who wish to be on the committee.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, winsor said:

The most patently racist people I know are those who complain the loudest about 'racism' and so forth.  The academics who claim it's 'racist' to expect employees to show up on time or know mathematics are viewed as insulting by many of the people to whom they refer who are entirely reliable and mathematically literate.

So you would consider MLK, Frederick Douglas, Harriett Tubman - to be the most racist people in the country?

Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, billvon said:

So you would consider MLK, Frederick Douglas, Harriett Tubman - to be the most racist people in the country?

Fascinating.

Wouldn't know - never met any of them.

IIRC, Douglass and Tubman had skin in the game from the standpoint of having been slaves.  The institutional racism against which they fought was a matter of record.

Believe it or not, much has changed since then.  

As I recall, Dr. King was a proponent of equality, not 'equity.'  I'm all for the former and recoil at the latter.

My point is that someone to whom everything is all about race is a racist.  Someone who makes decisions regardless of race isn't.

There, that was easy, wasn't it?

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, winsor said:

Wouldn't know - never met any of them.

Hmm.  So you can not have any opinions on people you haven't met?  Interesting.  Because in your post above, you seem to have a great many opinions on "woke" people you have never met.

But in any case I will help you out here.  From Frederick Douglas, one of the more important civil rights leaders during and after the Civil War: 

. . The true problem is not the negro, but the nation. Not the law-abiding blacks of the South, but the white men of that section, who by fraud, violence, and persecution, are breaking the law, trampling on the Constitution, corrupting the ballot-box, and defeating the ends of justice. The true problem is whether these white ruffians shall be allowed by the nation to go on in their lawless and nefarious career, dishonoring the Government and making its very name a mockery. It is whether this nation has in itself sufficient moral stamina to maintain its own honor and integrity by vindicating its own Constitution and fulfilling its own pledges, or whether it has already touched that dry rot of moral depravity by which nations decline and fall, and governments fade and vanish. The United States Government made the negro a citizen, will it protect him as a citizen? This is the problem. It made him a soldier, will it honor him as a patriot? This is the problem. It made him a voter, will it defend his right to vote? This is the problem. This, I say, is more a problem for the nation than for the negro, and this is the side of the question far more than the other which should be kept in view by the American people.

He was, in other words, espousing what today is called critical race theory, which many conservatives react to like vampires being fed a garlic knot.

Quote

As I recall, Dr. King was a proponent of equality, not 'equity.' 

A speech from Dr. King:

Our government was giving away millions of acres of land.  Not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm.  Not only that - they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming.  Not only that - they provided low interest rates in order to mechanize their farms.  Not only that - today these people are receiving millions of dollars not to farm and they are the very people telling the black man that he needs to lift himself up by his own boot straps…

This is what we are faced with.  This is the reality.  Now when we come to Washington in this campaign we are coming to get OUR check.

He was assassinated shortly thereafter.

Quote

My point is that someone to whom everything is all about race is a racist.  Someone who makes decisions regardless of race isn't.

And again, the reason we have made so much progress in minority rights is largely because of the people who dedicated their lives to fighting racism - the very people you are calling racists.  And the people who believe that there is no racism (and that there never has been) are a large part of the reason we still have it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

It is unfortunate that much of the efforts of the Woke mob are entirely counterproductive.  For example, the effects of Affirmative Action tend to call into question the qualifications of people who actually have paid their dues and are well qualified.  Working with Lethal Service equipment, I do not want to be anywhere near a 'Diversity Hire' of any stripe.

Except that sometimes (in my personal experience) the "diversity hire" turns out to be, in fact, just as great a contributor as the other employees. They were "diversity hires" because they were actively recruited from historically Black universities (where our company hadn't looked before the advent of affirmative action). The same went for women -- once there was an emphasis on looking for qualified women in some fields, it was surprising how many of them were found. No, they weren't all perfect, but then neither were the white men who had previously been in some of those positions.

When you're the only (woman, hispanic, whatever), people tend to see the faults and differences more easily than they see the samenesses. "He's not quite as aggressive because he's Hispanic," "she's a bitch" and perceptions like that. Harry or Lloyd might show those same qualities, but they're OK because otherwise they're familiar.

Quote

I have lived long enough to have seen vast improvements in some of the issues that are dear to the hearts of the Woke, and take exception to their misrepresentation.  I have worked with and for people from every continent but Antarctica, male and female (there's a difference), straight and gay, and the only criteria that matter are integrity and professional competence.

How on earth do you think those vast improvements came about? Maybe "wokeness" at its max (there are, in fact, shades of wokeness) is dumb; so is feminism at its max. But, ya know -- there are still bros out there, and currently male-dominated trades and service jobs where women have to put up with shit to show that they can "take it." And let's not even go to the workplaces were "politically incorrect jokes" include ones that people don't share with the "person who doesn't fit in." Which means that they're continue not to fit in, and be resented, so that the rest of the workplace doesn't have to worry about the n-word slipping out, or characterizations of co-worker women as "being on the rag" rather than maybe having a bad day, or maybe even being right.

If we wait for the people in power to feel sorry for the ones who don't have power, and begin to cede some of their power, and call that sufficient progress, that's bullshit.

I don't know about you, but I have been denied jobs because of my gender. I've been paid significantly lower than someone in the same job (probaby because of a combination of gender and how I got into that job -- and when I found out, it was corrected). I've been denied opportunities, but ended up OK. Note, though, that when I was working, I was characterized as being too blunt and brutal sometimes; enough so that I don't really remember any sexual harrassment on the job (also because I worked for IBM in the 80's, and at least my division was very good about paying attention to that). I'm one of the few women of my acquaintance who can say that.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as gender, do you really think that there isnt' some overlap in the middle?

How about left-handedness? Here's a graph of left-handedness historically. Interestingly, it was seen as bad, and suppressed, for much of history. My mother was left-handed (born in 1930), and while she remained that way, she said there were occasional teachers who suggested she might smear less if she were to learn to write with her other hand.

Maybe, just maybe, the acceptability of gender overlap or "irregularity" will increase the number of people who are willing to question it in themselves. That's a good thing.

What Percentage of People Are Left Handed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, winsor said:

It is unfortunate that much of the efforts of the Woke mob are entirely counterproductive.  For example, the effects of Affirmative Action tend to call into question the qualifications of people who actually have paid their dues and are well qualified.  Working with Lethal Service equipment, I do not want to be anywhere near a 'Diversity Hire' of any stripe.

And yet you have no problem being next to those whose lack of diversity made it easier for them to be hired.

Quote

The most patently racist people I know are those who complain the loudest about 'racism' and so forth.  The academics who claim it's 'racist' to expect employees to show up on time or know mathematics are viewed as insulting by many of the people to whom they refer who are entirely reliable and mathematically literate.

Given your posting history I am not in the least bit surprised you think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, winsor said:

Woke ideology is singularly humorless.

"Woke" is just a buzz word that right wingers like to misuse and get worked up about. Same as "critical race theory". They both just mean "aware of WTF is going on" as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by gowlerk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

"Woke" is just a buzz word that right wingers like to misuse and get worked up about. Same as "critical race theory". They both just mean "aware of WTF is going on" as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent synopsis.

The GOP can't talk about policy, because their only policy is to eliminate taxes on their mega-donors. So they are left yammering about "woke", "critical race theory", and "The libs want to take away Taylor Swift!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And as far as gender, do you really think that there isnt' some overlap in the middle?

How about left-handedness? Here's a graph of left-handedness historically. Interestingly, it was seen as bad, and suppressed, for much of history. My mother was left-handed (born in 1930), and while she remained that way, she said there were occasional teachers who suggested she might smear less if she were to learn to write with her other hand.

Maybe, just maybe, the acceptability of gender overlap or "irregularity" will increase the number of people who are willing to question it in themselves. That's a good thing.

What Percentage of People Are Left Handed?

'Gender' is a grammatical construct, while 'sex' is biological.  'Der Kitzler' and 'die Klitoris' are German for 'clitoris,' one is masculine ('man in the boat' maybe?) and the other is feminine.  Either way you describe it, it is usually an indication that a female is present.

As far as left-handedness goes, I recall learning to write with the hand that didn't hurt from being smacked with a ruler.  I am now very much ambidextrous.

I do not get the impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it was 50 years ago, just that it is less closeted.  Perhaps that is due to having grown up in artistic circles.

If homosexuality is, indeed, more prevalent, I suspect it is related to conditions described as ''Behavioral Sink."

I consider Veterinary Science to be a better standard than similar human studies in the sense that it is fraught with a different range of emotions than are human studies.  By this I mean that one can place a bet on a stallion, mare or gelding, an Arabian, Appaloosa or Paint and nobody will freak out with charges of racism and/or sexism.  If someone doesn't think there is a difference, they are free to bet on a Clydesdale against a Thoroughbred.

Americans like it simple, but life isn't always like that.  If you are in Asia and treat Han Chinese, Koreans, Ainu, Annamese, Khmer and Thai as interchangeable, you are in for a rude awakening.  The same goes for losing track of the differences between Maori, Zulu, Yoruba, Ibo, Tutsi, Hutu and Mandingo, or between Sicilian, Finnish, Castilian, Norman, Scottish, Welsh, Czech and Albanian.

Thomas Sowell has done a rather good job of putting Woke ideologies into perspective.  Where he is wrong, if you wish to disagree with him I strongly suggest that you have your rhetoric in order.

Having had enough family that went up in smoke, I am sensitive to the concept of 'special treatment.'  When a group demands to be treated differently, my feeling is that one should be careful what they ask for.

I agree that many things sucked 150 years ago but, even if they require a great deal of improvement, they are by no means the same as they were then.  To bitch about things that were true 4 or 5 generations ago is kind of pointless.   Also, many of the 'solutions' that were put forth in the mid 19th century have been tried and found wanting, Socialism/Communism for example.  What made sense as a means of survival for a Shtetl in the Pale against Cossacks et al. is hardly suitable as a universal basis for government.  It's been tried.

Like George W. Bush, we have to come to a point where we declare 'Mission Accomplished!' and move on.  Of course there is a bit of tidying up to do, but we will make short work of it as usual.

If, when someone like George Floyd is killed, and the hue and cry is raised to the effect that no CITIZEN or HUMAN BEING should ever be treated like that, I'm with you.  Make it all about race and you've lost me.  If I come across a case where a deadbeat junkie without a fashionable skin color similarly comes to grief at the hands of the authorities and nobody bats an eye, I call foul.

If the goal is equality, I'm in.  If you want to focus on differences, again, be careful what you ask for.

Pretending everyone is 'the same' is a fool's errand.  That is not necessary to have the standard of 'equal rights, equal responsibilities - no more, no less.'

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, winsor said:

'Gender' is a grammatical construct, while 'sex' is biological.  'Der Kitzler' and 'die Klitoris' are German for 'clitoris,' one is masculine ('man in the boat' maybe?) and the other is feminine.  Either way you describe it, it is usually an indication that a female is present.

Since we're not speaking in German, it's a safe bet that a different definiition of gender is what is being discussed. What's the point of writing such a long post when your very first paragraph shows you have no intention of discussing the subject honestly?

Quote

If the goal is equality, I'm in.

Don't bullshit a bullshitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, winsor said:

'Gender' is a grammatical construct, while 'sex' is biological.

Right wingers like you keep citing biology when attacking discussions about human gender and sexual identity when you know next to nothing about biology.

You probably think animals are just male or female. You're wrong. Biology is a branch of science and you cannot claim scientific reasoning without knowing science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2021 at 1:56 PM, wmw999 said:

Except that sometimes (in my personal experience) the "diversity hire" turns out to be, in fact, just as great a contributor as the other employees. They were "diversity hires" because they were actively recruited from historically Black universities (where our company hadn't looked before the advent of affirmative action). The same went for women -- once there was an emphasis on looking for qualified women in some fields, it was surprising how many of them were found. No, they weren't all perfect, but then neither were the white men who had previously been in some of those positions.

When you're the only (woman, hispanic, whatever), people tend to see the faults and differences more easily than they see the samenesses. "He's not quite as aggressive because he's Hispanic," "she's a bitch" and perceptions like that. Harry or Lloyd might show those same qualities, but they're OK because otherwise they're familiar.

How on earth do you think those vast improvements came about? Maybe "wokeness" at its max (there are, in fact, shades of wokeness) is dumb; so is feminism at its max. But, ya know -- there are still bros out there, and currently male-dominated trades and service jobs where women have to put up with shit to show that they can "take it." And let's not even go to the workplaces were "politically incorrect jokes" include ones that people don't share with the "person who doesn't fit in." Which means that they're continue not to fit in, and be resented, so that the rest of the workplace doesn't have to worry about the n-word slipping out, or characterizations of co-worker women as "being on the rag" rather than maybe having a bad day, or maybe even being right.

If we wait for the people in power to feel sorry for the ones who don't have power, and begin to cede some of their power, and call that sufficient progress, that's bullshit.

I don't know about you, but I have been denied jobs because of my gender. I've been paid significantly lower than someone in the same job (probaby because of a combination of gender and how I got into that job -- and when I found out, it was corrected)

I've been denied opportunities, but ended up OK. Note, though, that when I was working, I was characterized as being too blunt and brutal sometimes; enough so that I don't really remember any sexual harassment on the job (also because I worked for IBM in the 80's, and at least my division was very good about paying attention to that). I'm one of the few women of my acquaintance who can say that.

Wendy P.

I agree that a 'diversity hire' is often as competent (or incompetent, as the case may be) as candidates that otherwise work their way through the HR system.

Having said that, I have encountered people who were downright scary (von Moeltke's fourth type of officer: stupid and energetic and thus dangerous).  The problem is that you can't fire them like you would a non-protected class employee, so they often get promoted into a role where the hope is that they can't do as much damage (I'm not kidding).

Niccolo Machiavelli in 'The Prince' noted that it is all well and good to be good, but if dealing with evil one must also be evil.  Thus, given how vile racism and sexism are it takes an approach that is equally awful to counter them.

The problem is that the evil used to defeat evil is still evil.

I'm not a big fan of the Third Reich, and its defeat was largely at the hands of the Soviet Union.  It's a good thing that Nazis were defeated, but that does not change the fact that Josef Stalin made Adolf Hitler look like a rank amateur (ok, maybe Junior Varsity) when it came to brutality and murder.

Similarly, Mao Zedong outdid the Japanese Empire in brutality and murder, try though they might.

As far as inappropriate office behavior goes, I'm with you.  In the same sense that people wouldn't dream of bragging about finding their car in the yard after a night  of drinking the way they might have in the '70s, you don't have people making the kinds of tasteless jokes in the workplace that you would have then, and that's a good thing.

Yes, I have been denied jobs because another applicant checked 'diversity' boxes that I didn't.  I was selected by the manager but overridden by HR. 

Luckily I have not worked much of anywhere that finding love at the office was acceptable.  The sexual preference/orientation/whatever of coworkers was basically not a factor.

My point is that if discrimination is bad, it's bad.  If you okay much of any form of discrimination, your really can't bitch if someone engages in a form of which you do not approve.  Double standards don't cut it.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, winsor said:

Having said that, I have encountered people who were downright scary (von Moeltke's fourth type of officer: stupid and energetic and thus dangerous).  The problem is that you can't fire them like you would a non-protected class employee, so they often get promoted into a role where the hope is that they can't do as much damage (I'm not kidding).

You're not kidding, but you're also obviously not telling the truth. People in protected classes can and do get fired.

Quote

Niccolo Machiavelli in 'The Prince' noted that it is all well and good to be good, but if dealing with evil one must also be evil.  Thus, given how vile racism and sexism are it takes an approach that is equally awful to counter them.

The problem is that the evil used to defeat evil is still evil.

I'm not a big fan of the Third Reich, and its defeat was largely at the hands of the Soviet Union.  It's a good thing that Nazis were defeated, but that does not change the fact that Josef Stalin made Adolf Hitler look like a rank amateur (ok, maybe Junior Varsity) when it came to brutality and murder.

Similarly, Mao Zedong outdid the Japanese Empire in brutality and murder, try though they might.

The defeat of the Nazis and Japanese was also largely at the hands of the USA. This means the USA is just as evil?

Quote

My point is that if discrimination is bad, it's bad.  If you okay much of any form of discrimination, your really can't bitch if someone engages in a form of which you do not approve.  Double standards don't cut it.

So why are you engaging in them? You demand that no-one should mention that George Floyd's killing and others like it have roots in racism and discrimination, yet you start this entire thread solely so you could bitch about the employment discrimination you think you were once subject to. You stink of hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

My point is that if discrimination is bad, it's bad.  If you okay much of any form of discrimination, your really can't bitch if someone engages in a form of which you do not approve.  Double standards don't cut it.

AA does not MANDATE specific diversity hires; a judge can do so in specific cases, based on a documented history of discrimination. Individual companies can make decisions that include quotas (generally tied to the local population). That might be unpopular within some of that company's management team, but it's not the fault of AA per se. That the company previously hired people willing to discriminate based on prejudice or laziness shouldn't be rewarded with a "you just go on ahead now."

It's disingenuous simply to expect people to stop. When I was in management, we did not have quotas. Period. We had suggestions; my area had fewer than most, simply because our past performance showed a willingness to engage with other job markets.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, winsor said:

'Gender' is a grammatical construct, while 'sex' is biological.  

Close.  Sex is based on biology.  Gender is determined by society.  (And you could claim that also determines grammar - so, close.)

Quote

As far as left-handedness goes, I recall learning to write with the hand that didn't hurt from being smacked with a ruler.  I am now very much ambidextrous.'

Absolutely.  And if they hit you just a little harder - perhaps broke a few bones - you might now be right handed exclusively.  But that's not a good approach to take IMO, nor is that outcome desirable.

Quote

When a group demands to be treated differently, my feeling is that one should be careful what they ask for.

Also agreed.  However, given that history is full of people being harassed, imprisoned, and even killed when they merely ask for equality - might be a good idea to do a little more work to see why that is.

Quote

I agree that many things sucked 150 years ago but, even if they require a great deal of improvement, they are by no means the same as they were then.  To bitch about things that were true 4 or 5 generations ago is kind of pointless.

It's quite popular though.  Why, I've seen you bitch about things that happened centuries ago.  (Remember all your railing against Mohammed?)

Quote

If, when someone like George Floyd is killed, and the hue and cry is raised to the effect that no CITIZEN or HUMAN BEING should ever be treated like that, I'm with you.  Make it all about race and you've lost me.

Sorry you get lost.  The issue is that no CITIZEN or HUMAN BEING should ever be treated like that.  White people generally are not.  Black people more often are.  That's the problem.  The goal should be to make sure no one is ever treated like that.  Since it happens to black people more often, you have to do more work there.

Consider facing a house on fire with a limited amount of water to use to put it out.  Would you train your hose on the house on fire?  Or on the house next to it that isn't burning down, because "all houses matter?" 

Or would you walk away because there's no such thing as fire, and houses can just deal with it all equally if by some chance it does exist?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

As far as inappropriate office behavior goes, I'm with you.  In the same sense that people wouldn't dream of bragging about finding their car in the yard after a night  of drinking the way they might have in the '70s, you don't have people making the kinds of tasteless jokes in the workplace that you would have then, and that's a good thing.

Excellent point.

I would add to it by pointing out that if they no longer brag about finding their car in the yard after driving drunk - but they still drive drunk and crash through fences rather than park it - no real progress has been made.  Similarly, if the jokes go away (because "don't let Cindy from HR catch you!") but they also tell their black co-workers "it's great that you are so intelligent and hardworking!" no real progress has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, winsor said:

Americans like it simple, but life isn't always like that.  If you are in Asia and treat Han Chinese, Koreans, Ainu, Annamese, Khmer and Thai as interchangeable, you are in for a rude awakening.  The same goes for losing track of the differences between Maori, Zulu, Yoruba, Ibo, Tutsi, Hutu and Mandingo, or between Sicilian, Finnish, Castilian, Norman, Scottish, Welsh, Czech and Albanian

You know, I sometimes am embarrassed to be a white male in his forties. That is, embarassed on behalf of other white men.

To me everyone is just people. Where someone is from or where their roots lie is not important to me, unless it's important enough to them that they elect to tell me.

At the risk of undercutting my point:
I do not have a problem with diversity programs, in fact I am very much in favour of them.  However, I am against the idea of a "diversity quotum" as it is or was sometimes called in the Netherlands, mainly because the person(s) in question will be put under a magnifying glass. Some people will wonder out loud if that person got hired merely to fill the quotum which means the person has to work twice as hard to prove themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Baksteen said:

You know, I sometimes am embarrassed to be a white male in his forties. That is, embarassed on behalf of other white men.

To me everyone is just people. Where someone is from or where their roots lie is not important to me, unless it's important enough to them that they elect to tell me.

At the risk of undercutting my point:
I do not have a problem with diversity programs, in fact I am very much in favour of them.  However, I am against the idea of a "diversity quotum" as it is or was sometimes called in the Netherlands, mainly because the person(s) in question will be put under a magnifying glass. Some people will wonder out loud if that person got hired merely to fill the quotum which means the person has to work twice as hard to prove themselves.

My point regarding various groups comes from observing Americans overseas.

If you asked your average 19 year old kid in Vietnam who he saw, the answer would likely be 'a bunch of gooks.' 

Some of the more experienced people would say "those guys are Viet, but those are Annamese, while that group over there are Hmong, those guys are Korean and that group is ethnic Chinese.  Some of them are Buddhist, while a lot of those are Roman Catholic, some are Animist, and others are hard core Communist."

Failure to understand who's who and what to expect of them often proved fatal.

Cultural differences amongst groups of identical ethnicity can be remarkable, and quite a few wars have resulted thereby.

FWIW the cultural differences where I work are basically occupational.  It's more a matter of PhD vs MD, Biologists, Chemists, Electrical, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineers, Operators, HR, Accounting and Maintenance than of Country ABC or Ethnicity XYZ.  If someone ever talks about 'back home,' it could turn out to be Alabama or Sierra Leone, Puerto Rico or Peru, but if they don't bring it up, it's immaterial.

The primary line of demarcation is either you are competent and reliable or you are not.  That's it.

The key to getting past all the racist nonsense is to actively get over it.  All the staring at your navel and wallowing in 'the conversation' does nothing but perpetuate the lines of division, which is  unacceptable.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, winsor said:

The key to getting past all the racist nonsense is to actively get over it.  All the staring at your navel and wallowing in 'the conversation' does nothing but perpetuate the lines of division, which is  unacceptable.

Subconscious biases exist.

That's why the gold standard for medical studies are "double-blind" studies. That's how the vaccines for Covid-19 were tested.

If you think the way to eliminate bias is to just to ignore it, it just shows that you know nothing about the nature of bias and how to eliminate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

If you asked your average 19 year old kid in Vietnam who he saw, the answer would likely be 'a bunch of gooks.' 

Yes and no. 

You no doubt meant a "white 19 year old kid" because that's your baseline normal.  And in that case, yes, that kid is going to see all gooks - and be a little uncomfortable - because we all experience homophily.  Ignoring it means we let it run our lives.  Accepting it and working against it CAN let you see all people as people and not as "gooks" (or whatever.)  

But also no, a 19 year old Vietnamese kid is not going to see anything other than other people he knows.  He's going to see YOU as a "roundeye" and have to work to get over THAT.  Again, paying attention to our underlying drive to be racist is important in getting over that.

Watch any religion/group of parents/society that pretends sexual attraction doesn't exist, for example, and see how well that works out for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2021 at 10:46 AM, billvon said:

Yes and no. 

You no doubt meant a "white 19 year old kid" because that's your baseline normal.  And in that case, yes, that kid is going to see all gooks - and be a little uncomfortable - because we all experience homophily.  Ignoring it means we let it run our lives.  Accepting it and working against it CAN let you see all people as people and not as "gooks" (or whatever.)  

But also no, a 19 year old Vietnamese kid is not going to see anything other than other people he knows.  He's going to see YOU as a "roundeye" and have to work to get over THAT.  Again, paying attention to our underlying drive to be racist is important in getting over that.

Watch any religion/group of parents/society that pretends sexual attraction doesn't exist, for example, and see how well that works out for them.

I will credit you with being pedantic regarding the '19 year old kid,' but in context it applies to U.S. Servicemen, not 'white.'

I agree that denial of fundamentals rarely works, and I also contend that noting differences between groups of people is not necessarily racist or sexist, and can be counterproductive. 

For example, people from different geographical locales are to some extent better adapted to the climates (regardless of change) found there.  People of arctic heritage in general handle very cold climates better and people from tropical heritage tend to do better in hot climates.  None of this is universally true, but it fits with my experience.

The 'nature vs. nurture' concept applies as well, where identical twins raised in vastly different environments can have a completely different world view - though they can have a great deal of characteristics in common.  The difference between two people with identical ethnicity, one from Alabama and one from Congo can be remarkable, and to have the same expectations of both is unrealistic.  Actually, ethnically identical people raised in Manhasset and Bedford Stuyvesant are anything but interchangeable.

There are similarly differences between the sexes, both in physiology and temperament..  This is not to say that one group is 'better' than the other, or that these differences are universal, but as a stochastic reality it is demonstrable

If a biological man wants to live as a woman, that's his prerogative.  The same goes for a woman who wants to live as a man.  As a matter of etiquette I'll play along with the role, but when people get excited about a 'man' giving birth, I call bullshit.

I prefer to live in an environment where distinctions are largely an abstraction, where the kids and parents in, say, Boy Scouts are from all over Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and get along with dignity and respect.  That's typical of birthday parties around here as well, though there are girls in the mix.

If you think I should get all hung up on these 'differences,' I guess I'll have to disagree with you.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2