Wokeness takes the premise that all groups equal behaviorally (absent discrimination) and takes it to its logical conclusion; the outcome is discrimination, violence and chaos. Women-dominated scientific fields seem prone to capture by advocacy/politics (and become unscientific).
-
-
Replying to @dpovey1
I disagree -- for me (and Wikipedia) wokeness is about being aware of issues concerning social and racial justice. You seem to be taking wokeness to an extreme (that does have manifestations; but such is the case for any group) and then criticizing it for its extremity.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
For example: a "woke" person might think, in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, that systemic racism and economic inequality suffice to explain gaps between groups in many dimensions (say, academic performance).
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This seems an altogether reasonable position to me; we know that racism exists (if you don't believe in racism *now* somehow, you surely have to believe in racism in the past -- and the past determines the present, clearly). We know that economic power determines opportunities.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So, since they are known relevant factors, let's remove them from the picture (fight racism and economic inequality), level the playing field so to speak, wait enough years (to attenuate cross-generational effects) -- and then see what happens. What do you object to?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your entire worldview is a pile of s***, but don't take it personally as you didn't invent it you absorbed it from the ambient culture. Asking what I object to is like asking a modern scientist what s/he objects to in witchcraft or alchemy: everything, the entire edifice.
5 replies 5 retweets 71 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Well, you don't seem to be interested in civil discourse, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt: why do you think I am being an idiot by proposing we give social and economic reform a chance while other constructive alternatives seem missing?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @flancian @parallaxoptics and
Here's what you're missing: the entire system is sealed against disconfirmation in a particularly dangerous way; namely that the thing you think is a premise "discrimination explains differences" is actually an axiom and challenging that axiom marks the challenger as an outsider
3 replies 6 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @parallaxoptics and
I mean, that's a reasonable concern. I agree systems sealed against refutation are dangerous. That is a risk for any movement; I would also be concerned if I was seriously worried about this risk in the social justice movement. I just am not currently.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
If you recognize that risk in theory but don't see it as a problem right now then you are exactly the reason for the risk. You won't see any risk at all as long as the egregore is destroying people to your right and will only see the risk when you're the right-most person left.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @parallaxoptics and
Fair enough. I'll think about this further and look for reasons to upgrade the risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @flancian @CovfefeAnon and
I thought about this further today (this was on my todo list) and I didn't upgrade the risk. I don't rate the risk as null; I just don't think the SJ movement running amok ranks high in my worries, particularly when contrasted with the things that the movement opposes.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.