Lurker > joe40001

I thought it was pretty good. A feel things didn't ring true, but based on the framing device I was ok with. Several laugh out loud moments for me.

DnDer posted...

Food stamps are already race-based, and race-based in favor of white people.

No they are not.

Sure, it looks like it's based on income and work requirements, but even just a scratch on the surface reveals numbers that show institutional racism hard at work.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/

Your example doesn't hold up like you think it does when white people are getting assistance 2:1 compared to black people. (See the chat about 1/2 - 2/3 of the way down.) It's not color-blind at all.

If you are trying to construct the the argument that because 62.7 of the recipients are white and 27.0 are black, white people are getting "2 to 1" food stamps of black people. I mean, surely you understand that's just a completely bogus argument, right?

Firstly, that is not the amount per person that is received but the demographics of the people who receive it.

Secondly 12.1 percent of the us population is black, and 27.0 of food stamp recipients are black, which means they are receiving food stamp benefits at a rate which is over 2 times relative to their size of the population, which means as intended, it is going to those in need, and those in need are disproportionally black.

What is even your attempted argument here? What would that chart you point to look like in your perfect non "race based in favor of whites" version of food stamps? 50/50 blacks/whites? You know that's not how the demographics of this country look at all, right?

Tyranthraxus posted...

A colorblind program would indiscriminately help the higher and lower position.

That is patently, unequivocally, and indisputably false. You clearly fundamentally do not understand what is being discussed. If you can't wrap your head around how things like food stamps work then there is nothing I or anybody can say that can help you.

DnDer posted...

But you will. In both cases.

You can't have egalitarian practices in place until there's a basis of equity to begin with. That just doesn't exist at present and color-blind policies won't get you there.

They come after.

I totally disagree.

If your program addresses unfairness regardless of race, and the program is completely successful in it's aims, then by definition there can be no racial inequality at the end of the program.

I think some of you are confused and think "oh it just means treat everybody the same as if we are all on equal footing right now". But that's not it at all, it's like food stamps, you give food stamps based on poverty not race. Food stamps is a color-blind program, are you against food stamps? Do you think food stamps would be a better program if it was race based and not income based?

If you don't think it would be better, you are basically already on Coleman's side.

Somebody being black (or any race) is not a disadvantage, it's racist unfair treatment they have experienced and the legacy of that racist unfair treatment that is the disadvantage, not their race. And so you center the programs around addressing unfairness and not race. And you actually address the problem head on.

Like I said, unless you think food stamps would be better if it was race based and not income based, you are already basically on Coleman's side.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Colorblindness be like
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/9/AARLwzAAE9u1.jpg

That not accurate at all though. By the metaphor the lower spot is the disadvantaged group, and so colorblind programs are about helping the disadvantaged, and so the program would help the lower person.

Like that other person said, color-blind programs (food stamps, medicaid, etc) help those being treated unfairly, any representation of a colorblind program as not helping those being treated unfairly is by definition a strawman.

metralo posted...

what specifically do you think changed?

Places like twitter/facebook where "engagement" was the driving force for profit made conflict in discourse much more incentivized.

If you are spammed the worst takes by the most upsetting people you are going to lose your patience and start assuming that everybody is as dense as the dumbest people in your feed. So financial incentives pushed people in divisive directions and contributed to the election of further divisive individuals.

It's an engagement aka conflict feedback loop, and things like wokeness played a part in that. Small group of people get "outraged" for shallow contextless reasons, there's a backlash to it, there's a backlash to the backlash, social media acts like it's the most important thing in the world because it gets clicks and then some episode of a show is removed or somebody's career is ruined. And then the whole discourse continues to get worse and more divisive.

Well, I apologize for failing to "keep it real". My goal is direct and honest communication. It is not my goal to be obtuse, but to be precise to avoid confusion.

loafy013 posted...

Ah, yes, the glory days of 2010 when people who supported Obama were definitely not judge as horrible assholes and worthy of hatred.

I mean... yeah.

Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true. Obama/McCain/Romney people could support any one of them and have relatively civil conversations with those who supported the other side.

GeraldDarko posted...

So now numbers is saying he may give his opinion later, but told me he was giving a more detailed and precise response that I couldn't understand. Bro just talks, then tells himself he's right because he's a genius. He needs some friends or group therapy. He needs people to check him to his face. We all need that form time to time. Everyone is ignorant when they stand alone.

You seem to be confused. I was responding to StealThisSheen who requested I answer a question in a different topic, which I did not want to do at the time. In this topic, I responded to you, as I said I did. You seemed to take issue with the length of my response but I was honestly just trying to be precise and comprehensive.

I interact with many people IRL and do not have these kinds of communication issues. I'm guessing there are a few elements at play, one is this community and it's in-group/out-group dynamics, another is that conversations in forums that bounce around multiple people are more likely to be muddled, and finally I think a large part is the medium of text making it hard for us to clearly understand each other's moods, intents, and subtext of our communication.

Don't get me wrong, there are times IRL where I have communication issues, though there isn't hostility involved, just sometimes normal people thinking/talking in a normal people way that doesn't make intuitive sense to me.

BurmesePenguin posted...

I think its funny that you ask why people dislike your posts in every topic despite at least one person going into detail about it in every other topic youve made and it always ends up being some variation of the same thing. And yet every new topic you feign ignorance and claim to be genuinely curious as to why.

Ok, if it's so simple, answer the question: If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct would you say I should have done differently?

VRX3000 posted...

So he wants to have programs aimed to help poorer communities.instead of one aimed at helping minorities.

he does realize that in most cases thats the same group of people hes helping, right? I mean all hes doing is changing the name of a program. Hes not changing the actual target for it.

so basically, all hes saying is hey, dont forget poor white people. Which all these programs already help. Food stamps is a low income program. White people get on all the time. Same with disability. Same with Medicaid. Etc etc.

And he's ok with all of those. All of those effective programs are already color-blind programs. Most popular common sense programs are. But occasionally certain people will push solutions where race instead of class or disadvantage is the focus of the program, and his argument is that those things aren't helping.

Probably his big emblematic example of the kind of thing he's talking about is college admissions where an Asian kid (even one who came from disadvantage, poverty, a tough neighborhood, etc) has to hide their Asianness when applying to college and get much higher standardized scores (than even the white people sometimes) because the college is aiming for "racial equity", and thus race, not class, is used as the lens through which the college believes corrective discrimination must occur.

It's things like that he's against.

In short his argument is "help people based on class and you will still help everybody disadvantaged who needs helping, but you won't miss anybody disadvantaged, and you won't hurt anybody disadvantaged. Furthermore, these policies will meet less resistance, and by de-emphasizing race will help move us away from racism as a society."

SayHeyyShohei posted...

Color blindness ignores the fact that society is not equal when it comes to race and until it does we literally cannot be color blind without other races falling short and being marginalized.

That's not really true though. If people are being treated unfairly due to their race, and you rollout policies that ensure people are treated fairly regardless of race, then if those policies are successful, people would be treated equally.

It's something like this: There's 8 very wealthy affluent white people, 2 struggling poor white people, there's 8 struggling poor black people, and 2 very wealthy affluent black people.

A color blind policy will help the 10 struggling poor people, and a race based one will help the 10 black people. Is the race based one really helping address inequality?

Furthermore if the policy was one that was only going to help 2 people, odds are it would help the 2 affluent black people and not any of the 8 ones actually struggling. Whereas a color-blind class based solution (like Coleman advocates for) would help 2 of the struggling people, likely both black.

Does it really make you feel good to think of Asian students having to hide their asianness on college application essays and being discriminated against based on their race? Or well off institutions claiming they are addressing racism when they just chase a quota rather than send resources to places where people are struggling? IMO these aren't solutions, it's virtue signaling that defines and divides people based on race. It ignores people's humanity and personal experience, and sees them first through the lens of race. And to me that seems like a really really dumb way to try to move past racism.

One thing I really dislike about non-colorblind solutions is that they are so shallow, and can often be this super reductive, and indeed a kinda racist "race-essentialism" view of people.

Who has more in common? 2 people of different races both living in the same neighborhood, going to the same school, in the same group of friends, both in deep poverty, both nearby crime, both without a father in their life? Or each one of those people with a rich wealthy privileged counterpart half way across the country of the same race?

I think anybody with any intellectual integrity knows the answer to that question. And I'm sorry, but it's just silly to act like the opposite is true. You simply don't address racism by enshrining racial discrimination as the solution.

A black person isn't at a disadvantage because they are black, blackness (or any skin color) is not a flaw or detriment. The problem is the legacy of unfair treatment of people based on their race, and any ongoing unfair treatment.

The unfair treatment of a person, not the race of the person, is the problem needing addressing. And so any policy in which addressing that unfair treatment is the core focus is going to be more effective.

Because seriously? What's the goal? Let's cut the bullshit. Is the goal a kinda schadenfreude antagonisms of people (rich and poor) around racial lines because we are angry about the legacy of racism? Or is the goal to effectively address and solve the existing unfairnesses for those struggling? Because like I said, the unfairness is the problem, and so it needs to be the focus of the solution of anybody who is looking to actually solve the problem.

If I'm honest, I feel like a lot of people who advocated for corrective racial discrimination to address the issues of unfair treatment do so not because they think it will be most effective, but because they know it's the solution most likely to piss off some people they want to piss off. They call it color-blind policies "gateways to white supremacy" not because it makes any intellectual sense, but because republicans are more open to color-blind solutions than race-based ones, and they liking calling everything republicans touch "gateways to white supremacy". They'd probably call pickup trucks "gateways to white supremacy" if a bunch of republicans talked about how much they liked them.

And for many of these people, they'd cut off their own nose to spite a republican. And yes, they'd sacrifice the well being of people of color they purport to be advocating for if it meant they got to upset their "enemies".

I think the truth is: anybody with common sense and the slightest bit of intellectual honesty can see that to address unfairness based on race, you need to address unfairness not race. They can see that if everybody is being treated fairly, regardless of race, racism is being solved, and thus they can see that solutions that do this (color-blind solutions) are the best solutions.

But when they see the 2 options put in front of them:

1. Help the disadvantaged people by focusing on unfairness.
2. Help a little bit of the disadvantaged people. Harm some of the disadvantaged people. But also piss off republicans.

They empathically choose option 2. I honestly think that's what's happening for a lot of people. I suspect some people in this topic, if they honestly asked themselves which one they would choose, they would realize it is option 2.

A color-blind policy working as intended ensures nobody is treated unfairly based on race, a race based attempts to treat people unfairly based on race but in a opposite corrective direction, and ultimately almost always neglects the actual struggling people of a race in favor of tokenizing the already privileged based on race. IMO if you truly care about the problem of racism, that is the problem of people being treated based on race, your goal obviously needs to be about addressing unfairness.

OmegaM posted...

I tend to use "woke" to refer to the idea that everything up until very recently (maybe 10 years ago) is so racist, sexist, etc. it should all be thrown out.

This is a pretty good definition. For the person looking for my definition I'd say it would be a combination of the above with also outrage that refuses to look at context (them banning that one episode of community is a great example), and also corporate/political virtue signaling in which people say things that only seem good on an insanely shallow level, but lack intellectual principled consistency.

shnangyboos posted...

He basically advocates for colorblindness, which in our modern progressive times is a Trojan horse for white supremacy. The ideals that led the Civil rights movement are now tools of white supremacy in our modern progressive times.

I think by definition there is no way that color-blindness can support white supremacy. If every policy is about ensuring everybody is treated 100% fairly regardless of race then by definition there would be no way for the policy to favor white people.

Do you have any way to substantiate your claim that color-blindness "is a Trojan horse for white supremacy"? Can you give an example of a color blind policy (that is a policy in which people are treated 100% fairly regardless of race) in which white people are somehow favored? Because honestly I've heard this claim repeated before but I've never heard it defended, and it very much seems intellectually impossible just on a fundamental logical level.

Bat178 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF12BjmhA50

That one's pretty good

For those looking to see Coleman's idea's challenged, here is a debate sponsored by TED in which some of the criticisms of Coleman's stance are raised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgfoV85KFJA

I have several extensions that make yt bearable. Every time I am exposed to yt without extensions it's a nightmare.

Spoilers for breaking bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8domW4NwpBQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOnYfyaI3Os

StealThisSheen posted...

So why won't you answer the question later in the topic, when asked? Why are you judging other people on their answers, but refusing to give your own?

I'm not judging them. IMO "Judging" suggests that I disapprove of them. I'm genuinely interested in them.

There's a good chance I'll share my definition in a little bit when the topic has otherwise slowed down. Like I said, the main goal was to allow an open topic where everybody else could share their perspective.

This topic is very weird to me, because almost all of them I find unattractively overweight.

StealThisSheen posted...

Why do you keep defending that user, across multiple topics, but you won't answer questions posed to you? Can you explain, please?

I did answer questions posed to me. You asked me how it what you said could be perceived as rude and I articulated it. Also I'm answering your questions right now.

You posted a topic asking other people to define "Woke," but you won't define it yourself, when asked. Please explain?

As the OP of that topic I did not want to bias the discussion in any way. If I opened with my definition then the topic might have gotten sidetracked into discussions about my definition rather than each of the posters offering their own definition, the latter being the goal of the topic.

hockeybub89 posted...

When the politicians vow to destroy my entire life, people who vote for them may deserve a bit of my ire.

Your opinions have routinely been a personal insult to everything I value in life. Whether or not you believe that interpretation, surely you can understand how someone may feel attacked and insulted in that situation.

You confuse saying a lot of words with making a substantive argument based in evidence. Being good at debating and being right are not the same thing. A good debater can be wrong about everything. In fact, one doesn't even need to believe what they are saying to win a debate.

I am also on the spectrum and I believe that your co-workers see you as a nice guy, but I don't believe you are this wordy IRL, nor do I believe you are regularly going on long spiels of medical disinformation and crappy views towards LGBTQ people. I don't think you're telling a trans person IRL that they're too emotionally invested to have a rational debate on the subject, as I have witnessed on here.

What I think has changed for me since 2010 is that I have found meaning in life and in my work and that I know more about who I am and what I value. I don't stand for attacks to that and I don't care how much the generic you wraps it up in "difference of opinion" and "honest debate".

And I think our only major issue is that sometimes you misunderstand what I am saying as an attack on you or what you value, when it is not. I truly do not mean to attack you or anybody as a person in any way. I try to remain civil and polite and if it seems like I'm emotionally distressing somebody IRL or otherwise I will generally try to move away from the conversation, as conversations where others feel emotionally hurt or attacked are antithetical to my goals.

Anyway, despite your clear negative reaction to my opinions, I really appreciate and respect how you wrote this message. A lot of people on CE (some of which don't nearly disagree with me as strongly as you) would be incapable of writing in this kind of thoughtful and direct way. And I truly think it helps me better understand your perspective and inform my own future conduct much better than any insult or vitriol would have.

I know what's in my heart, and it isn't hateful, it isn't bad, it isn't dumb, it isn't cruel. But I'm a human person and so it's certainly possible my motives/goals fail to manifest in the appropriate opinions/arguments, and it's also possible that even if my ideas too are good I can communicate them in a flawed manner. I think more than likely most of our issues are indeed communication ones. Not just content but also communication style.

Regardless, I hope you understand that I do genuinely appreciate how you communicated here, and I do think it is worthy of respect.

StealThisSheen posted...

Seems like a personal problem. Maybe it'd be wise if you reflected on why you get modded so often. I have no problem whatsoever not getting modded.

Inohira expressed that most of these moderations he was were not even his, he just is unable to speak about them.

Again, posts like this make it seem like your goal is to be intentionally rude to Inohira. If it is not your goal to do so I strongly suggest you rephrase how you communicate.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not being condescending at all. Why are you assuming I'm being condescending? Can you explain, please?

You called them a self-proclaimed expert, when I do not believe they claimed any particular expertise. Also you are using a lot of effusive exclamation points and the phrase "The idea of gaining knowledge titillates me!" Such type of communication is more common amongst people sarcastically offering praise/interest than those who genuinely have that interest.

I could be mistaken, if I am indeed mistaken and your curiosity is genuine, then I do apologize. Either way, it felt useful to me to communicate how I felt your tone was coming across.

Smackems posted...

I still wanna know why he hates that engine so

It's a Mary Sue.

StealThisSheen posted...

Ahh, finally, a self proclaimed expert on the subject! The idea of gaining knowledge titillates me!

Could you give examples of "woke" games, please, and why they are bad, or offensive, please? You're clearly an authority, so I'd love to see more of your thoughts!

Um, just fyi, you're being kinda rude.

If you are legitimately interested in Inohira's perspective, you probably shouldn't be mocking and condescending towards them.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Yes. Sony put the kibosh on anime titties and it really is a tragedy. At least Nintendo is still letting them in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke1YKF3tNCE

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I agree with this, but it's a function of the candidates themselves. They are the ones who court controversy, pursue exclusionary and conspiratorial politics, and remain unpunished by their constituency for doing so. It seems inevitable that voters who elect carnival barkers might be seen as bad people to some extent or another.

In 2010, this wasn't really quite the same in America; candidates were not as aggressive, lines tended to exist, and people agreed that certain statements could, would, and should end your political career. Now, convicted and/or admitted sexual assault is insufficient to deter a voting base.

I do acknowledge shifting standards have affected this. Though personally I think it's the "engagement (aka conflict)" motives of media and social media that have really made modern times feel so different and antagonistic. Those motives and social media political team sports tribalism of woke vs anti-woke and all the surrounding noise is what IMO deranged the ability for civil good faith discussion. And downstream of that was the few politicians that deviate from previous minimum requirements for viability.

In other words I don't think it's the bad politicians being elected that caused the inability to have civil good faith conversations.

But rather I think it's the inability to have civil good faith conversations that caused the election of bad politicians.

That said, it would be foolish to ignore the feedback loop elements of that problem.

FolkenRawr posted...

I'm a guy with clinical depression/dysthymia, massive self worth issues and anxiety. Yes, I think it's unreasonable to look at that ad and to feel 'attacked' in literally any way, shape, or form. And not just unreasonable, but in serious need of actual self reflection.

Really?

Personally I see the long shot of men on grills speaking in unison as pretty explicit framing meant to state "yes this commercial is meant to generalize about men as monolith."

To me the commercial is saying "Men have historically been involved in some shitty things, and so men as a demographic need to take a long hard look in the mirror about the part they've played in this, and reflect on how they're not good enough and need to do better to be less toxic."

And so as a man I don't see how one would not feel targeted by that.

But I am honestly very interested in your perspective here, because it seems fundamentally different to mine. To you, what is the message/argument of the commercial? And why do you feel like it is addressed to you?

FolkenRawr posted...

Seriously, are you throwing word salad into a Chat AI or something?

Edit: Freedom of speech in the colloquial sense you're clearly using involves the freedom to be called out for being an asshole. No. No I don't feel any type of fear of expressing my opinions any more or less than I did in 2010.

I am trying to express myself comprehensively and precisely. Maybe it's because I'm on the spectrum, but writing like that is how I like to talk. I feel like if you read it as written is quite intelligible and detailed, but maybe because it doesn't lend itself to skimming some people don't like it. IDK

Edit: Freedom of speech in the colloquial sense you're clearly using involves the freedom to be called out for being an asshole.

It does, but it would not include doxxing, personal IRL harassment, or career sabotage. Also it is often important to draw a distinction between somebody "being an asshole" and somebody holding an opinion that we disagree with.

"If somebody votes for a different political candidate than I would, this does not make them a horrible asshole worthy of hatred and vitriol." IMO in 2010 that statement was uncontroversial. And IMO now is something I feel like many from many places would disagree with.

No. No I don't feel any type of fear of expressing my opinions any more or less than I did in 2010.

While I am quite surprised by this, I appreciate that you answered honestly. Thank you.

FolkenRawr posted...

Holy fuck. No. In absolutely no way do I find that commercial making negative generalizations about 'all men'.

Interesting. So you think a man viewing that ad would be unreasonable to infer that the ad was in anyway talking about them or their character?

hockeybub89 posted...

Even when you have no evidence of anything, you make giant posts about how you feel studies would probably agree with you. No one believes that you challenge yourself or are open to change.

I am sharing my perspective. You are welcome to share your perspective. However I do not appreciate being called "the worst". It is telling that IRL I am never met with the kind of animosity that a few people show here, it goes against many of your assertions about my character. I have developed a good relationship with my project lead at work, and I expressed that I fear that people secretly hated me there, and she insisted quite adamantly that nobody at work hated me, that I am very kind and compassionate, and that I needed to stop being so hard on myself.

Nearly everybody I know IRL says, quite emphatically I am far too hard on myself.

It is only when I go to a forum with a limited ideology window and express myself honestly in a way that seems to deviate from their consensus that am I treated like a contemptable pariah and my character is attacked. I think it stands to reason that my honest non-conformity rather than my character which is to blame for that response.

I try to sincerely share my perspective and opinion. I do so respectfully. You are and always were welcome to challenge that perspective. But IMO resorting to mockery and character attacks when you have no substantive challenges to my argument/perspective is at best childish and at worst needlessly cruel. I remember you HB, you are capable of civility and good faith discussions, I hope you return to that.

ClayGuida posted...

I'm not even sure what woke culture is. Is that being polite? Having common courtesy?

The god damn horror!

That is not how anybody who takes issue with it would define it, no.

creativerealms posted...

@joe40001 what your discribing is pandering. Yes pandering is bad. No matter which group is the target audience. Shallow representation for the sake of more money is a bad thing.

Wokeness tends to change depending on who you ask

I agree. Which is why it's a bad term to have a debate around in a vacuum. A great many people's definition of woke includes reductive sometimes insulting identity based corporate pandering, whereas some people's definition is purely about showing compassion to underprivileged people.

No doubt many a debate has been had where 2 people each with 1 of the 2 listed definitions argued for hours about the merits of "wokeness".

I do think it's better if people try to be specific about what they are referring to, I aim to be that way myself.

darkace77450 posted...

"The belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them." - Ryan Newman, general counsel to Ron DeSantis

That's what DeSantis, through his attorney, defined "woke" to be when testifying under oath. That's what DeSantis has been railing against for several years.

Source? I would find it very interesting if that is how Ron DeSantis defined the term.

GeraldDarko posted...

I'll ask to answer more directly, which freedoms have you lost? You gave me your thoughts on woke culture, some of which I agree with, but nothing you said described and impingement on your freedoms.

I suppose to answer your question super precisely it would depend on how you would define "freedoms". If your question is "has an element of the state/law enforcement fined or imprisoned you due to wokeness?". I think you know that basically everybody's answer is going to be no. But by virtue of how self-evident that is, I didn't think that was the question you were asking.

So I can refine my answer if you give some examples of freedoms that would count towards what you were asking. So yeah, let me know what would count and I can alter my response accordingly.

For me at the time, I was answering based on a definition of freedom which includes freedom of speech as a principle, and in my idea of that principle, respectful civil good faith discussion of people from opposing viewpoints without fears of doxxing, deplatforming, or career sabotage are part of that conception of that "freedom". And bad financial incentives of social media, bad faith grifters. political actors, opportunists, diversionary tactics, and yes, the shallow tenants of wokeness and how it is practiced all combine together and do indeed hinder that freedom as I see it.

I think if almost anybody is honest with themself they would admit that they felt much more free to be honest about their opinion and have calm civil good faith disagreements with people without fear in 2010 than they do now. And if you agree to that premise then I think you are cosigning the idea that yes the freedom of free-speech has been somewhat curtailed. And IMO I think it's pretty apparent that "wokeness" played a part in that. (provided you and I share a sufficiently similar definition of the term.)

myusernameislame posted...

Have you even entertained the possibility that the shows/movies aren't actually doing that and you're just seeing something that's not there because of confirmation bias? There's plenty of straight white cis males dealing with depression that don't have this problem.

I always entertain the idea that I could be wrong. I try to check and challenge myself. But I've seen it many times both in subtext and text of lots of content. Have you entertained the idea that some shows/movies are actually doing that and you're just not seeing something that is there because of confirmation bias?

For example, would you say an ad like this is not making any sort of negative generalization about men:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYaY2Kb_PKI

Do you think an impressionable young man struggling with depression and very poor self-image viewing that ad would be totally wrong in thinking "oh, I guess I'm a piece of shit just for being a man"? Because personally I think that's a pretty understandable interpretation of that ad from that point of view.

Secondly I doubt there is much research on the subject, but I would be very surprised if most of the large demographics of men struggling with depression would argue that their representation in media had no negative impact on them. That's why some dumb people get triggered on dumb shit like pronouns in starfield. It's because pronouns remind them of wokeness, and wokeness reminds them of the 80 mainstream movies they've had to watch where their former role model Indiana Joneses and Luke Skywalkers are presented as pathetic pieces of shit that a plucky young girl needs to take to school because they are all just that dumb and pathetic. Particularly for people on the spectrum, like me, media can teach people how to view themselves and how they feel allowed to view themself. And if a lot of media shows the demographic you identify with as a "pathetic piece of shit punching bag", it is likely you will at least somewhat internalize that.

Heck, I remember watching re-runs of Everybody Loves Raymond when I was young, and I took Deborah's animosity and seeming total lack of romantic interest in Ray as indication that most women thought of their husbands as pathetic jokes that they didn't respect their partners and weren't truly romantically/sexually interested in.

It was honestly an epiphany to me when I came to understand some women genuinely like sex completely of their own volition and weren't doing it as a kind of charity humoring of their men romantic partners.

And that show wasn't even woke, it is just an example of how repeated tropes in media can shape how people perceive themself. And I acknowledge this cuts all ways. Only showing minorities as criminals, or women as sex objects, many more, all those are also things that will have negative impacts. However wokeness largely ignores the problem, it often just says straight men are dumb punchline buffoons and women and PoC are flawless, and in doings so it harms alls groups, and humanity itself as humanity is much more detailed than that.

IMO, you do the most good when you say "people aren't defined by identity characteristics, but by their character and humanity." and then you have large assortments of characters representing that. And most of the protagonists should probably be people with flaws who overcome them.

Maybe the whole "straight white men are pathetic punching bag" trope is something you haven't seen. It's not everywhere all the time. There are lots of good movies that don't have this problem. Additionally wokeness has been overstated, not every movie that gets called woke is actually woke (like Barbie which if you pay attention is actually sympathetic to the male victims of "patriarchy"). But on the whole, from my perspective there's been an undeniable trend of "straight men as either evil or pathetic dumb oaf punching bag". I'm very much not saying it's everywhere, it's mostly limited to corporate product movies that aren't made by passionate creatives but by greedy profit-driven virtue signaling companies who know the right kinds of tropes in their movie will get them a low-effort boost. But I'm also not saying it's nowhere.

And so, I'd be truly surprised if you truly believed that you haven't seen any of this kind of idea anywhere. I saw a whole open mic performance whose premise was "straight white men are awful and should hate themselves more." I didn't object because I strongly believe in free speech, but like yeah, I'm not making this up. It's a meme going around, and it's showed up in some movies. I'd expect there are probably a few people on CE who would even defend that take tbqh.

If you don't see it at all, I guess we just have fundamentally different perspectives.

GeraldDarko posted...

That's a lot of words to say no.

That's because I'm not saying no. I'm giving a more detailed and precise response to what I feel the question was asking in it's fullness.

If you want a one word answer, it would be "Somewhat".

I'm confused by your response. Are you just fishing for people to give a specific answer? Are you genuinely curious about people's perspective on the issue? Because if it's the latter I don't know why you took issue with my response.

Without placing any value judgements, how would you personally define the term "woke"? Do you think most people define the term the same way?

For many people the shallow virtual signaling manipulation of people for corporate profit is a defining element of "wokeness" as such I don't believe your poll offers valid options.

Many make the argument that big greedy Disney "doing a half-assed job at a live action remake and then suggesting that those who don't like it dislike it out of racist/sexism, only to further leverage the constructed outrage/debate as advertisement for the product, all to fund their bottom line" isn't a bug of wokeism but a core design element.

And frankly that is a point of view I'm not unsympathetic towards.

I would say that echo-chamber culture and lack of tolerance towards diversity of opinion has been a bad thing for society and hurt society's freedoms. That isn't purely captured solely by the domain of "wokeness", but it is a non-trivial component.

Wokeness to me, often more reflects things like tropes in movies/shows that are simply shallow and reductive and kinda insult/hurt everybody. Though if I am going to interject my own personal point of view, as somebody who has struggled with severe clinical depression and mental health for most of my life, I certainly don't appreciate a show/movie implying that I'm a piece of shit simply because of my race or gender.

The worst thing about wokeness seems to be it's unwillingness to entertain any challenges or criticisms. IIRC Kendi pretty famously refused to have any sort of debate on his ideas. The core ideas of wokeness seem to largely work at a pretty shallow intellectual level in which they come up with arguments and policies with little to no evidence behind them, advocate for them as "anti-racist' and then claim on artificial literal construction level that people opposed to them are "anti-anti-racist" and thus racist. And frankly I'm surprised that such a gambit works on anybody older that 5 years old.

But even in engaging the question about my views on wokeness I'm somewhat playing into it, because the concept of "woke" is not sufficiently precisely defined to discuss too much. There are likely many policies that I support that might reasonable be called woke. So likely the more fruitful questions are more specifically defined.

Lizards posted...

He'll either abandon it or sealion, let's watch

EDIT: ha I guess I was looking at a cached view of this topic

Please tell me what you are implying I've done wrong here.

Maybe it's because I'm on the spectrum, but I truly am confused by people like you who treat me like I'm acting clearly negatively, when I am very matter of fact and direct.

I'm genuinely curious, so please answer this question: If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct in this topic would you say I should have done differently? Prior to my response to Axiom and your antagonism, what at all did I say or do in this topic that was objectionable? I am 100% seriously asking this question, because IRL I am never met with mocking hostility and so I am truly confused why it can sometimes happen here.

I played the first one for like 5 minutes, it was fairly jank TBQH

Wedge

Axiom posted...

You have a single post in here willing to analyze this video and you just straight up ignore it. Close this fucking topic

I'm sincerely very confused why you seem upset.

I really appreciate Doe's contributions. I've read every post in this topic and appreciate anybody who did share their perspective for sharing their perspective.

My purpose is to understand other people's perspectives on issues I find interesting. I have found that if I inject too much of my own perspective (particularly early on in a topic) often times the topic it can become personal or antagonistic and I haven't historically found that productive.

Perhaps I should have explicitly thanked Doe (and the others) who did share some of their thoughts. As I said, I am grateful for them. But I don't understand what I am being accused of doing wrong here. I wanted to facilitate discussion of what I see as a compelling perspective without the topic going into an antagonistic direction and I feel like I have been conducting myself appropriately towards that goal.

If I personally find Coleman's arguments compelling, and I wanted to hear other people's perspective on them without tainting or biasing the discussion in any way, what about my conduct would you say I should have done differently?

This is Coleman's summarizing of events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZlb-MdzKo

For those who had objections, does his response address any of your concerns? Even if you disagree with his talk do you disagree with TED's unique handling of his talk?

Umbreon posted...

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

I always think of this video. I've been rewatching law and order lately and I often think "if police had to question me for some reason, what would I do?" And part of me is like "I can answer just a COUPLE questions" and then I think of this video.

What do you think of it? Do you think the argument is good? Do you think it's flawed or problematic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxB3b7fxMEA