Woke is a Joke

[billvon 2,380]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

I am seeing more and more parallels between Woke ideology and the Cultural Revolution.  It turns out that I am hardly alone.

Indeed you are not.  Society is changing, generally for the better.  And there are a lot of people who react to that with dismay and fear.  Change is often difficult, especially for us old people.

It's gotten so bad that Texas is now passing laws to prevent the teaching of CRT.  When a state acts to suppress a book, a philosophy or a field of study, you know they are reacting out of fear.

[gowlerk 1,902]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Ever been to Kansas?

Many times. It is not nearly as flat as the place I live in the Red River (of the north) "valley". Have you ever been to the Delmarva Peninsula? Now that is flat land. Kansas is mostly gently rolling hills.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Ever been to Kansas?

Kansas is downright mountainous compared to where I grew up.

[kallend 1,620]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Ever been to Kansas?

Unfortunately.

[gowlerk 1,902]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Unfortunately.

Wichita, source of all Cessnas. Also the home of Mike Pompeo, but he wasn't born there.

[Stumpy 256]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Like making a case to a flat-earther that the earth really is round.

Spot on. It's not worth the effort.

[gowlerk 1,902]

16 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Spot on. It's not worth the effort.

I always just assume that nobody is really that stupid and that the flat earth thing is a put on game. I seldom play, just like I seldom play with the troll here.

[winsor 185]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

Indeed you are not.  Society is changing, generally for the better.  And there are a lot of people who react to that with dismay and fear.  Change is often difficult, especially for us old people.

It's gotten so bad that Texas is now passing laws to prevent the teaching of CRT.  When a state acts to suppress a book, a philosophy or a field of study, you know they are reacting out of fear.

Teaching religion in public schools is proscribed in this country.  Thus, noting that CRT ideology is a system of belief makes its removal from the curriculum no big deal.

If you want to teach ABOUT it the way one does a 'Comparative Religion' (or "Applied Bullshit' as the case may be), fine.

At least the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, has some entertainment value.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Teaching religion in public schools is proscribed in this country. 

?? Where the heck did you get that idea?  Religious studies are taught in a great many public schools. 

[winsor 185]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:59 AM, billvon said:

?? Where the heck did you get that idea?  Religious studies are taught in a great many public schools. 

Reading Comprehension 101: 'Comparative Religion' ok, 'Fundamentals' of Scientology' not so good.  Teaching anybody's religion as "The Truth" (tm) is pretty much verboten.

Since religion is a communicable form of mental illness, 'Woke' meets those criteria well.

A Disease of Denial, the mental malware that is 'Woke' fits the religious paradigm nicely:

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/woke-virus-spreading-7-signs/

What Woke shares with the Cult of the Magic Jewish Zombie and the Cult of the Illiterate Pervert Psychopath is that any correlation between the ism and reality is happenstance.  If claims are verifiable, that 'PROVES' it!  If claims are verifiably false, THAT PROVES NOTHING!

Whatever floats your boat.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[metalslug 31]

On 9/16/2021 at 2:07 AM, SkyDekker said:

Like making a case to a flat-earther that the earth really is round.

Don't they already believe it's round ?  coin-shaped ?

[winsor 185]

I guess the Reign of Terror is a more apt analog to the Woke paradigm of today:

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/12/wokeness-an-evil-of-our-age/

I'm not sure what "American Greatness" has to offer otherwise, but in the '70s such magazines as Penthouse actually published some quite legitimate articles that would not be picked up elsewhere (yeah, the pictures were awesome as well) so being on a particular website does not invalidate the points made by default.

Again, Woke qualifies nicely as a communicable form of mental illness, though it is somewhat more pathological than most mainstream religions.  Of course, as 'fundamentalists' routinely demonstrate, the fundamentals of most religions are rather evil.

As the article notes, the appeal of Woke is the best of intentions of those who speak well of it.  The regimes supplanted by seriously evil revolutions were generally quite flawed, and Western society is hardly without its inherent bugs.

Having said that, whatever the very real problems are to be addressed, Woke, far from being a cure, is all that much worse.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,120]

15 hours ago, winsor said:

I guess the Reign of Terror is a more apt analog to the Woke paradigm of today:

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/12/wokeness-an-evil-of-our-age/

I'm not sure what "American Greatness" has to offer otherwise, but in the '70s such magazines as Penthouse actually published some quite legitimate articles that would not be picked up elsewhere (yeah, the pictures were awesome as well) so being on a particular website does not invalidate the points made by default.

Again, Woke qualifies nicely as a communicable form of mental illness, though it is somewhat more pathological than most mainstream religions.  Of course, as 'fundamentalists' routinely demonstrate, the fundamentals of most religions are rather evil.

As the article notes, the appeal of Woke is the best of intentions of those who speak well of it.  The regimes supplanted by seriously evil revolutions were generally quite flawed, and Western society is hardly without its inherent bugs.

Having said that, whatever the very real problems are to be addressed, Woke, far from being a cure, is all that much worse.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Ah yes from the author who feels the need to tell his children to stay away from black people. I can understand why you would feel connected to his opinions.

Edited September 20, 2021 by SkyDekker

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah yes from the author who feels the need to tell his children to stay away from black people. I can understand why you would feel connected to his opinions.

WTF?

I did a search of the article and found nothing to support that characterization.

Do you have anything that supports or refutes the points he made in the article?

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[wmw999 2,116]

18 minutes ago, winsor said:

WTF?

I did a search of the article and found nothing to support that characterization.

Do you have anything that supports or refutes the points he made in the article?

 

BSBD,

Winsor

He didn’t write it in his article. But he has espoused warning his children against young Black men. 
Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,120]

45 minutes ago, winsor said:

I did a search of the article and found nothing to support that characterization.

Hence why I stated author and not article. Maybe google the author and read some of his previous "work". But even the article reeks of: blacks, latinos and women don't have it so bad anymore, so why do they have the gall to keep squawking.

[billvon 2,380]

On 9/18/2021 at 3:01 AM, winsor said:

Reading Comprehension 101: 'Comparative Religion' ok, 'Fundamentals' of Scientology' not so good.  Teaching anybody's religion as "The Truth" (tm) is pretty much verboten.

Quick refresher - you said "teaching religion in public schools is proscribed in this country."  You did not say "Teaching scientology in public schools is proscribed in this country."  You then went on to correct yourself and state that teaching religion is indeed OK.  And that reinforces my point earlier - teaching CRT as a theory about the structure of society is 100% acceptable in public schools*, and indeed has led to people learning more about race in the US. 

Could have saved a lot of typing, but then again I have a feeling you're one of those people who would rather die than admit they made an error.

(* - except in states where book-burning types fear it.)

[metalslug 31]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

...teaching CRT as a theory about the structure of society is 100% acceptable in public schools..

Acceptable as optional curriculum, I'd be OK with that.  Heck, I think my school had a Dungeon's & Dragons social club,  each to their own in how they spend their time there.

..and then there's this; (Kimberlé) "Crenshaw —who coined the term “CRT”— notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice."

Is there no way that could be a potential problem ? ..as it appears to invite any activist to jump on the bandwagon and add their own politics, thereby substantially diverging it from formal academia. If anything utterly false, absurd or libellous emerges from CRT, then I expect some forum members here will again use the Jedi mind-trick defence; "This is not the CRT you're looking for. Move along..." , regardless of whether it was real to those who were taught that syllabus.

3 hours ago, billvon said:

(* - except in states where book-burning types fear it.)

Yeah, that book-burning thing is catching on .. 

[winsor 185]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Quick refresher - you said "teaching religion in public schools is proscribed in this country."  You did not say "Teaching scientology in public schools is proscribed in this country."  You then went on to correct yourself and state that teaching religion is indeed OK.  And that reinforces my point earlier - teaching CRT as a theory about the structure of society is 100% acceptable in public schools*, and indeed has led to people learning more about race in the US. 

Could have saved a lot of typing, but then again I have a feeling you're one of those people who would rather die than admit they made an error.

(* - except in states where book-burning types fear it.)

Teaching ABOUT religion is okay.

Teaching OF religion (i.e. religious instruction or indoctrination) - not so good.

The tale goes that a traveler had a flat tire and, while installing the spare, realized hw was across the fence from an insane asylum, with residents strolling about on the lawn.

While wrestling the spare into place he knocked over the hubcap in which he was keeping the lugnuts, which all went through a grate into a storm sewer.

One of the people across the fence had been watching his progress, and said "take one lugnut off of each of the other wheels and space the three as evenly as you can.  There is an auto parts store a couple of miles up the road where you can replace them."

Taking his advice, the motorist installed the spare and got ready to go.

"Thanks for the help" he said.

The resident said "no problem.  I'm crazy, not stupid."

The moral to that story is that it is often more effective to evaluate content than the source..

Again, the problem is one of definition, and that we are talking past each other.  I should have thought that you would have picked up on that by now.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Edited September 21, 2021 by winsor
error (I'm not dead yet)

[wmw999 2,116]

5 hours ago, winsor said:

The moral to that story is that it is often more effective to evaluate content than the source..

One has to have enough background knowledge to be able to evaluate it. Just as most Americans self-evaluate as being above-average drivers, most probably self-evaluate as capable of evaluating scientific information in a knowledge vacuum. 
Wendy P. 

[Stumpy 256]

36 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

One has to have enough background knowledge to be able to evaluate it. Just as most Americans self-evaluate as being above-average drivers, most probably self-evaluate as capable of evaluating scientific information in a knowledge vacuum. 
Wendy P. 

This cartoon keeps coming up in various places, and it summarises the attitude pretty well.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

One has to have enough background knowledge to be able to evaluate it. Just as most Americans self-evaluate as being above-average drivers, most probably self-evaluate as capable of evaluating scientific information in a knowledge vacuum. 
Wendy P. 

Very true.

But the trustworthiness of the source also matters.
Especially for stuff that ordinary people cannot accurately judge.

The idea of running one lug nut short on each wheel for a short time is something that is very easy to evaluate. A 'no brainer' if you will. 
The key to that anecdote is that it was a simple idea that the motorist simply hadn't thought of.

Effectiveness & safety of vaccines, transmissibility & deadliness of viruses, effectiveness of mitigation methods, all of that is well beyond the judgement capabilities of 'ordinary people.' 
Or even scientists.
In the beginning of the pandemic, the big thing was hand washing, sanitizer & disinfecting surfaces. That's because the known coronaviruses (along with rhinoviruses) are 'surface contact' spread (large droplet).
After the spreader event at the church choir practice in Washington state, a few epidemiologists clued into the fact that Covid-19 is more 'airborne' spread (small droplet). They tried to convince the scientific community, but were dismissed for quite a while. 
So 'wash your hands' took precedence over 'stay away from people and wear a mask' for quite a while. And the disease spread. 

Of course, when the scientific folks understood the reality, and changed the recommendations, all of the idiots refused to believe them. 
And accused them of lying. Or not knowing what they were doing.

And the alt-right shit spreaders took it and ran.

Anyone who applies critical thinking to Brietbart or OAN knows full well how accurate their reports are(n't). 
But the fools and idiots lap it up, spread it around and revel in their ignorance.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Acceptable as optional curriculum, I'd be OK with that.  Heck, I think my school had a Dungeon's & Dragons social club,  each to their own in how they spend their time there.

..and then there's this; (Kimberlé) "Crenshaw —who coined the term “CRT”— notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice."

Is there no way that could be a plem is the misguided otential problem ? ..as it appears to invite any activist to jump on the bandwagon and add their own politics, thereby substantially diverging it from formal academia. If anything utterly false, absurd or libellous emerges from CRT, then I expect some forum members here will again use the Jedi mind-trick defence; "This is not the CRT you're looking for. Move along..." , regardless of whether it was real to those who were taught that syllabus.

Yeah, that book-burning thing is catching on .. 

Might be the real problem is the mis-guided initialing of America. Might be some folks think CRT means Cheat Republican Taxpayers or something. Same with all of those roadside "interpretive" centers that pop up and fold later. You're driving along, having a swell time, why would you pull over to learn a new language, right? 

[billvon 2,380]

On 9/21/2021 at 1:22 AM, metalslug said:

Acceptable as optional curriculum, I'd be OK with that.

If you have seen any place where CRT courses are mandatory for all students, by all means post them here.  I have only ever seen two places where it is taught:

1) As an entirely optional course
2) As a mention in (for example) a black studies course, or a philosophy course, or a history of race course.

Quote

 

notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice."

Is there no way that could be a potential problem ?

 

Not sure why.  I mean, that is true of every single course of study out there.  Science is evolving.  So is math.  It is taught very differently today in primary schools.  Even history is taught differently today, now that we know more about the past.  (An example here is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.)

[billvon 2,380]

Y'know, reading Winsor's posts reminds me of my own path of learning about race/gender/orientation.

I started out about as ignorant as they come.  I went to an all-boys catholic high school where there were four black students (because if they had at least four they qualified for some federal something-or-other) and four non-catholic students.  Gay bashing was pretty much a given.  I was once in the dean's office (wound up there a lot) when two kids were hauled in for fighting.  The kid who swung first said "but he called me gay!"  The dean asked "Is that true?"  Other guy said "Yes, but . . . ."   They both got the same detentions, because "gay" was the worst insult imaginable.  Nothing was worse.

Then I got to college and learned a whole lot quickly about other races (Indian and Asian primarily) sexual orientations (she's WHAT?) and other religious options (of  which "none" was a very popular choice.)  Had to re-evaluate a lot.

Then I graduated and went into industry.  I worked with people of all genders and races.  Even knew a gay woman!  I understood. Gay people might have problems, and might be gross, but they did their own thing.  Transgender people had mental problems (it was right there in the DSM IV as a dysphoria) but I understood that they wanted to be seen as the opposite sex.  I finally understood women because I was finding it easier and easier to find girlfriends. And I could safely ignore everything else, because now I knew what was important, and I happily told people about my enlightenment.  I was race blind!  I had no problem with gays.  I thought women were equal.  I was woke.  On that now-famous Dunning-Kruger curve, I was at the top of that first peak.

Then I found myself managing a trans woman, and realized I knew nothing about trans people.  I discovered my best friend from primary school was gay and hadn't come out for a long time because of . . . people like me.  I talked to a man I worked with for years at a defense contractor and learned about what it was like to be perceived as black when it came to social situations.  Did camera for an all women 8 way team where most of the members were not straight.  I talked to an old friend I had known for years and found out she had been raped while I was seeing her.  And when I talked about that with some other friends of mine who were women, a good half the time there would be a long pause - and then I would hear about their rape, and how they felt like they couldn't tell anyone.

And I started realizing that I really knew very little about any of that, because I just didn't have the background, and I was relying on baseless assumptions.  I am now learning, slowly.  I've hit the bottom of that DK valley and am slowly starting to climb the other side.  I definitely don't have it all figured out, but I know the direction to go, and I know the importance of DEI programs and strong policies on non-discrimination and anti-harassment.   Even helped start the DEI program at my last company, and got a few parts of the sexual-harassment program training changed because I disagreed with its approach.

Winsor is traversing the same curve now.  I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what point on the curve he currently occupies.