Wokery
- Thread starter thenewoc
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I thought you were a liberal dowie?
I just get bored of it going the same way it always goes with you in any discussion with any member. It goes round in circles as you attempt to suck them into the dowie hole.
I just get bored of it going the same way it always goes with you in any discussion with any member. It goes round in circles as you attempt to suck them into the dowie hole.
No, I attempt to discuss the topic at hand. In reply I get some nonsense about Ben Shapiro, some other poster talking about the length of posts etc..
What exactly is going around in circles here? I point out the fallacies in Hurd Durf's replies for example and he just responds with more of the same, still doesn't address the arguments.
You guys want to engage in posturing etc.. I'm here for discussion, if that bores you or if you're not able to have a discussion on a topic and would prefer to resort to immature ad hominems etc.. then no one is forcing you to engage.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
There are lots of ways to have a discussion. Some ways are more interesting, insightful, and fun than others.
And some are accurate and factual.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,726
- Location
- Auckland
And some are none of the above which is the point being made albeit more politely.
e: actually, that's not quite correct. I meant that it is not uncommon for a hole to appear which is then burrowed into which might be parallel to the existing discussion and may be factual to the hole parameters but is far enough removed from the original topic as to be less interesting, relevant, or worth engaging with. If only there were a succinct term for this. 'Something hole' just doesn't have that ring to it ...
e: actually, that's not quite correct. I meant that it is not uncommon for a hole to appear which is then burrowed into which might be parallel to the existing discussion and may be factual to the hole parameters but is far enough removed from the original topic as to be less interesting, relevant, or worth engaging with. If only there were a succinct term for this. 'Something hole' just doesn't have that ring to it ...
Fascinating to see both "cancel culture" denial AND CRT denial. Once again, I'll use my "lived experience" 
from a massive tech company. We were all asked to read Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" to "educate ourselves" and told that if we aren't onboard with anti-racism, we should look for somewhere else to work. We were also told not to "debate or debunk" such information, but rather to just "listen with an open mind". In this industry, this is not uncommon right now and this ideology is rooting itself very deeply into many organisations. To suggest CRT is limited to some small "academic" circles or fringe groups is just naïve. Certainly it's come from the fringe but it's now being adopted wholesale.
from a massive tech company. We were all asked to read Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" to "educate ourselves" and told that if we aren't onboard with anti-racism, we should look for somewhere else to work. We were also told not to "debate or debunk" such information, but rather to just "listen with an open mind". In this industry, this is not uncommon right now and this ideology is rooting itself very deeply into many organisations. To suggest CRT is limited to some small "academic" circles or fringe groups is just naïve. Certainly it's come from the fringe but it's now being adopted wholesale.
Last edited:
We were offered "unconscious bias" training but none of us took it up because we're pretty certain we're not massive racists in need of re-programming. Our hiring history and the diversity in the organisation as a whole should show it up for being absolute nonsense as a requirement but some people in higher-up positions are keen on all this stuff.Fascinating to see both "cancel culture" denial AND CRT denial. Once again, I'll use my "lived experience"
As for your situation, being told not to debate is absolutely pathetic. I'd probably take that as a cue to find an employer that actually cares about a harmonious work environment with robust employees who get the job done.
Unconscious bias. AKA try to convince normal people they are somehow racist/sexist.
We get the same BS, it's all a big box ticking exercise. Someone said they have to do it, so they do it. Not figured out for who benefits from it though. The "BAME" people look embarassed by it all, the rest don't actually give a crap.
We get the same BS, it's all a big box ticking exercise. Someone said they have to do it, so they do it. Not figured out for who benefits from it though. The "BAME" people look embarassed by it all, the rest don't actually give a crap.
Last edited:
Same reason we don't we listen to flat Earthers and anti-Vaxers?
It's certainly being dragged out into the open at the moment in order to be debunked. This is good because anyone with 2 brain cells can see it's logically flawed. To call Critical Race Theory a "Theory" is a complete misnomer, it's pseudoscience.
I wouldn't want any ideology of authoritarianism and irrational prejudice to be dominant and imposed on people in education and employment. Especially not one that was also about victim-blaming and the corruption of all ideas of equality, diversity, liberalism, etc.
I have slightly less contempt for honest supremacists who are honest about their opposition to those ideas. Their ideology is the same but at least they're honest about it.
So yes, if I had the power I would censor CRT and unconscious bias ideology. For the same reasons I would censor, for example, Nazism. I wouldn't ban such ideologies, but I would suppress them and attempt to prevent them gaining power. I don't care which group identities such ideologies target - that's just a matter of fashion. In many cases you can swap between them just by changing the targetting. For example, swap "white" and "Jew" and you can swap between CRT and the more extreme forms of anti-Semitism. Same idea, different targetting.
This is the irony of all this - flying the banner of "inclusion" and trying to reach some fanciful eutopia, yet it does the absolute opposite.
Unconscious bias is quite useful and shouldn't be lumped in with wokeness. It's not there to suggest that deep down we're all racists, sexists, transphobes or whatever but that sometimes we make decisions that are biased towards certain groups (duh 
) which may not be the best option.
Where I worked about 15 years ago the head of diversity took the training that showed he was slightly biased against black people. His unit also had the highest BHD levels.
Also found out later when I worked with the different faith networks that the Pagan Association wasn't an official one because as a Christian he wouldn't give them recognition.
) which may not be the best option.Where I worked about 15 years ago the head of diversity took the training that showed he was slightly biased against black people. His unit also had the highest BHD levels.
Also found out later when I worked with the different faith networks that the Pagan Association wasn't an official one because as a Christian he wouldn't give them recognition.
Fascinating to see both "cancel culture" denial AND CRT denial. Once again, I'll use my "lived experience"
I think there is a lot of naivety about this, as seen in the earlier replies you don't really get any decent arguments from the proponents, in part perhaps because they're unfamiliar themselves (in some cases it's perhaps a case of: Republicans say it's bad so it must be good or it must be good because I'm against racism and so anti-racism is a good thing right?). Tellingly all they can do is call names or try to go with some form of deflection/downplaying whereby CRT or aspects of it are either very narrow and just academic theory or overly broad whereby they can act as though introducing CRT in schools is simply teaching kids about slavery etc.. and then pretend opponents are opposing that.
Ironically you'll find that some of the academic types who go for the denial of CRT being an issue based on this sort of narrow argument also disown DiAngelo - this is where you see the not real CRT line (sort of like "nah, not real socialism, real socialism has never been tried" argument.) The problem is the average HR person or diversity trainer (often a well-meaning, middle-class white woman) is oblivious to that, they've seen the woke reading lists shared on Instagram by celebs last summer and the calls to "educate yourself", and the'yve just gobbled up this material at face value.
That's another dubious one - there is even an implicit association test you can do which purports to check your biases. Like a lot of research and famous results in Psychology these days, it's turned out to be kinda sus. This article has a good summary:
https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html
Of course, the HR types will lap up these sorts of tests too.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
All I can learn from CRT is that the white man is keeping the black man down and the black man shouldn't even try to make something of himself as the system is rigged against him...so just excuses?
Shouldn't the total opposite be taught? in that your skin means nothing and you have as good a chance as anyone else if you put in the effort?
Shouldn't the total opposite be taught? in that your skin means nothing and you have as good a chance as anyone else if you put in the effort?
https://youtu.be/zUR_ME-kacY
Good video, love how the lady asking questions has to make an attempt at making him look like a knuckle dragging idiot, usual woke tactic when they are losing an argument.
Good video, love how the lady asking questions has to make an attempt at making him look like a knuckle dragging idiot, usual woke tactic when they are losing an argument.
- Status