On a serious note, I’ve been guilty of all of the what I perceived as jokes and harmless in the past, even probably “micro aggression”, but you grow up and educate yourself, as I said to a close friend a few weeks ago when discussing BLM, “Do you believe you are policed differently on a match day just because you are a football fan?” He responded “definitely” I let him think about his answer.
That is a superb analogy and real food for thought.
What a fantastic post! i joke with friends who are black + mixed race, however it really hit home the first part you put: So when you consider telling a “joke”, can you actually relate to the person you are saying it about? If the answer is “no”, even if the “joke” is well intentioned, it’s probably best to leave it.
I am sorry to admit, this has always been my default with friends. More for comedy/joking around and nothing ever harmful, but what you put really makes me think about these things. Even if private with friends we know/we think we know wont take offence, however I cannot relate so why?
Thank you for the food for thought, i also echo the previous comments you should post more, interesting read.
So Iceman actually touches upon that in a follow-up:
"I want to put people's minds at ease that micro-aggressions can be OK, as long as it is part of a "social contract" between the two people involved. Some of my friends will make jokes about me which would be considered a micro-aggression. That is fine in that scenario, as we have set boundaries between ourselves, know where the line is and I am fully aware of them and their intentions. You may have similar boundaries set with your friends and that is OK too."
I am of a similar mindset. One thing I would say, though, is that generally it's best if you leave it to me to "break the duck" when it comes to any micro-aggressions.
I'm generally quite comfortable with some chat, but one example stands out to me where I wasn't. It was actually in a pub before a Charlton game, where a mate introduced me to his clearly drunk - but ultimately quite nice - friend, who straight off the bat goes "fuck me, Mr Miyagi!". I gave him a pass because he'd clearly massively misjudged the situation while under the influence, and then did offer apologies. But other people I know would not have taken it as well as I did. This is an incredibly complex issue and Iceman has provided a wonderful insight to which I haven't got much to add as it's so comprehensive.
Cheers Pads, makes perfect sense. I will have been guilty no doubt of introducing this form of bond. So a rain check really for me, ideally i will refrain totally unless instigated by the other person.
Obviously you cant really change what has happened to date, but i did have a word with someone who i am very stereotypical with, but more for laughs and jokes factor, so i understand it even more so on top of what has been posted.
TBF a bit of ignorance and just me not being as aware as i should be really, nothing sinister.
and that's how most people learn and move forward @johnnybev1987
We all make mistakes and get things wrong but if we learn from that then fine.
It's those that say "It's was just a joke, I've been saying that for years, can't we tell a joke anymore, I told my black friend and he wasn't upset so it's OK, it's not racist cos it's funny" and just won't move forward that are the problem.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
Thank you for an
excellent, and extremely thought-provoking post @Iceman. Again, this is going
to be a far-too-long post because this is an issue which is very important to
me; I do not expect that pretty much anyone will read it, but it will make me
feel better for writing it!
I am going to disagree
with some things you said, but before doing so, I do want to reemphasise that I
was very impressed by your post and I have, and will continue to think deeply
about it.
I hate doing this (and
it will become obvious why) but possibly I need to start by giving my
credentials. Nobody on here will know, but I am moderately physically
disfigured in a way that anyone would notice and would easily put my into a
protected social category, but which I am very glad to say does not stop me
from doing the things I want to do in life.
So I do get where you
are coming from, and I do appreciate your perspective.
That said, so much of
the modern approach to society honestly fills me with horror and dread for the
future. Fundamentally, I take Douglas Murray’s analogy on all these rights
claims: as a society, in the UK, we were getting to a place where we were
amongst the most open and tolerant societies in the history of the earth, and
just when that train was pulling into the station, the driver has jabbed on the
accelerator, crashing luggage and passengers out of the way. Current thinking
on the likes of white privilege and micro-aggressions, rather than a focus on
our shared humanity, is setting society back decades, and I fear it will get
worse.
Terms like ‘white privilege’
are so poorly defined that they do not take into account aspect like the fact
that South Asian, South East Asian, Jewish, and indeed Nigerian, Brits do
better in our society that white ones – and good for them! At very best it
tends to give a single-variant analysis of situations that are much more
complex, without even stopping to consider how one might measure how important
that single variant is.
It also tends to allow
people to make sweeping generalisations about white people – is it really true
that a Hasidic Jew can walk it any office and see people that ‘look like them’?
It is true that for families coming here from, say, Moldova, English is the
language spoken in their household?
In terms of
micro-aggressions, again I recognise what you are saying, and it is undeniably
true that plenty of comments one hears (along the lines of renaming the White
Cliffs of Dover) turn out to be some random comment on Twitter. But let’s not
kid ourselves that high profile ideas like defunding the police, destroying the
nuclear family, distrusting the scientific method, and reviewing the entirety
of history and literature through a perspective of race or gender are somehow
sane. Fundamentally, these rights claims won a long time ago and are now
desperately trying to stay relevant: they have no answers to problems whose
causes they cannot even define properly.
All too often theory
around micro-aggressions relies on taking a very uncharitable view of the
supposed aggressor. So, if I set my mindset that I am an underprivileged person
then I will tend to see false-positives everywhere – to pinch and corrupt your
example: I walk into a clothes shop and the assistant rushes to ask if they can
help, do I assume that they want to get someone who looks like me out of their
shop as soon as possible? Or else they do not come up to me, should I think
that they suppose that someone who looks like me will not buy anything there?
There is very little
that wider society can do here, it is up to me and my mentality. This is where
I see that we are going wrong, in atomising society, encouraging people to see
themselves as their groups first and as individuals second, we are cruising to
disaster.
Again, to pinch your
example of walking into an office – it is all about mentality. I am well into
my forties (dear Lord!) and I can literally remember meeting one person who
‘looks’ like me once in my entire life. But, on the other hand, everyone I meet
is a human being, and all of us look (and genetically are) and hell of a lot
more similar that we look different.
Again, it is about
setting our mentality to see how similar we are.
There is a huge amount
of research to suggest that this poking fun at differences is the way that societies
grow together. In my opinion, that it is always more successful way for society
to be.
In general, almost
nothing that we can do is worse for young people than to tell them that they
live in a society that is prejudiced against them and does not want them to
succeed – in doing so, this thinking is actively encouraging them to get the mosquito
bits that the video references. They will inevitably end up finding examples
everywhere, and this is a recipe for failure.
@bigstemarra is being against racism an ideological position? I don't think it is, though there are many who would like it to be (on both left and right). To my mind it's about common decency and the reason education comes up is because people are human and make mistakes or say things that offend. I think anyone suggesting people learn from that is coming from a compassionate viewpoint, recognising that the person who's said something might want to learn why they've offended and consider if they meant to. I don't think any political viewpoint or ideology has a monopoly on decency.
It's interesting you paint it that this is something generated by the left and there are Witch Finder Generals patrolling the internet. I don't know, maybe these people are there. I know the internet is somewhere that is full of bad behaviour, but this cuts both ways. I gave up on the Charlton Facebook group because it was so racist and it was either spend all my time there arguing with people who were convinced that they were superior or leave. And if there are so many people stopping racist and borderline-racist views, why are they so prevalent?
What specifically do you object to in critical race theory? Do you think that race is biologically-determined rather than social? Or that institutions are colour-blind? I'm conscious I don't want to put words in your mouth here - but you're the one saying it shouldn't be accepted as truth, so I think that you should expand on what it is that you don't think holds true.
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
With the best will in the world, it seems self-defeating to bemoan the lack of nuanced debate and then decline to put your questions across the the OP. For money, I think you should, because I agree debate is important.
Having said that, I do not agree that someone who makes a claim that certain behaviour is racist is the same as someone claiming that vaccines are used by the deep state to control populations, I think that is a false equivalence.
I think there is also a danger that people see 'balance' and 'debate' as meaning that each person's point of view holds equal weight, when I think that it is clear that in talks of racism, more weight should be given to people who have a lived experience of that. And if you don't have first hand experience of these issues, you should probably be more open to the possibility of being mistaken/wrong. IMO.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
@bigstemarra - What does any of what you say have to do with racism? Racism isn't an ideologically debatable position, and if someone thinks it is, they are racist. And that's fine, they can go and be racist, but they can't expect to be free from the repercussions of being a racist.
@bigstemarra - What does any of what you say have to do with racism? Racism isn't an ideologically debatable position, and if someone thinks it is, they are racist. And that's fine, they can go and be racist, but they can't expect to be free from the repercussions of being a racist.
I would say Paddy that depends on how you define racism. If we are to take the Oxford standard which we often do, it would say:
"1Prejudice,
discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the
basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group,
typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
However, such themes have arisen recently such as silence is violence or you are complicit unless you actively speak out. Such as BLM marches demanding people say certain phrases, do certain gestures.
I do agree with you that true racism is abhorrent and not a debatable position, but as the lines have been blurred on what actually constitues racism - I don't think that's a position that one can have anymore.
Terrific post @SteveKileyCambridge As the great Bob Dylan wrote, "Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
Rip down all hate, I screamed Lies that life is black and white Spoke from my skull I dreamed Romantic facts of musketeers Foundationed deep, somehow Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now"
@bigstemarra is being against racism an ideological position? I don't think it is, though there are many who would like it to be (on both left and right). To my mind it's about common decency and the reason education comes up is because people are human and make mistakes or say things that offend. I think anyone suggesting people learn from that is coming from a compassionate viewpoint, recognising that the person who's said something might want to learn why they've offended and consider if they meant to. I don't think any political viewpoint or ideology has a monopoly on decency.
It's interesting you paint it that this is something generated by the left and there are Witch Finder Generals patrolling the internet. I don't know, maybe these people are there. I know the internet is somewhere that is full of bad behaviour, but this cuts both ways. I gave up on the Charlton Facebook group because it was so racist and it was either spend all my time there arguing with people who were convinced that they were superior or leave. And if there are so many people stopping racist and borderline-racist views, why are they so prevalent?
What specifically do you object to in critical race theory? Do you think that race is biologically-determined rather than social? Or that institutions are colour-blind? I'm conscious I don't want to put words in your mouth here - but you're the one saying it shouldn't be accepted as truth, so I think that you should expand on what it is that you don't think holds true.
Yes, of course it is; but so are many things; belief in democracy, law and order, treating the sick; many things, in fact. That's not the issue. We all have ideological positions; it is natural for any sentient human being.
Critical race theory is predicated upon putting people in different boxes based upon the colour of their skin; even worse, it generalises about the motivations, beliefs and aspirations of those people.....based upon the colour of their skin. I think that there is a word to describe this.....
It is the opposite of what MLK stood for; so when I see his teachings co-opted by those who espouse it, it is fundamentally dishonest, as well as being a lot more besides.
I think this video humorously and neatly sums up the problems that myself and many others have with it:
Are you familiar with the concept of 'original sin'? It is the sort of guilt ridden nonsense promulgated by medieval religionists. We were supposed to have left that nonsense behind when we underwent the enlightenment. So much for progress:
The black American academic Thomas Sowell said:
“It is
self-destructive for any society to create a situation where a baby who is born
into the world today automatically has pre-existing grievances against another
baby born at the same time, because of what their ancestors did centuries ago.”
Should we despise Germans and Japanese people alive now on the basis of what their grandparents may have done to ours during WWII? Of course not. It is an insane proposition. There are legitimate grievances that certain sections of society will have of course; however the answer is most definitely not this regressive, divisive, simplistic, hateful nonsense.
As we are seeing, it creates more problems than it solves and we as a society are going backwards as a result.
I am far from alone in this opinion.
As for the prevalence of racist views; well, that is a subjective perception, so I'll have take your word for it. I'm sometimes surprised (although I shouldn't be - normal distribution curve and all that) at some of the numbskulls that we appear to have in our support. Social media can be a right sewer sometimes - you couldn't pay me to be on Facebook, for example....it attracts thick people with very loud voices (the kind who credulously lap up laughable conspiracy theories like mothers' milk) like flies to shit....maybe that's a clue as to the reason why!
To
fill out a couple of the points, I have agreed previously and still do
that this current movement is less about actual equality and more about
'picking the right side'. Outcome of equality and outcome of equity are
two different things - and if you think outcome of equity is right, then
how can you be pushing for equality? If black individuals make up
approx 13% of the country, does that mean they only get 13% of the
opportunities? Or are we saying this should be 50/50 before we consider
other ethic groups? Opportunity should be granted on merit and merit
alone, to base any such decision on skin colour is racism, whichever way
it favours.
Since the social media age, Western countries
have increasingly found themselves at extreme polarisations where
centricism isn't accepted anymore. Everybody from Andrew Neil to Joe
Rogan are being touted as far-right for not subscribing to the beliefs
that we are not ultimately racist societies, we are not perfect but
fundamentally we are not a force for evil. Or alternatively (slight
digression) but for believing that gender/sex are not interchangable
based on feeling. The issue you see in the mainstream is that major
outlets are firmly hedging their bets based on the ideology of
preference and I think nobody can disagree that industries that were
previously the place for equal debate are now one way or the other. When
you take into account the ability of social media to influence public
opinion(I recommend checking out The Social Dialemma for more info),
it's dangerous. When big tech can effectively control public thought -
this is the kind of socially engineered movement you can expect to see.
The next thing I want to touch upon is a go-to viewpoint. When it comes to any socially relevant issue, if you dont have a lived experience
of a situation you can't fully grasp or comprehend it and therefore are
not entitled to an opinion. But when these critial themes affect large
parts of our lives and taxpayer funding - I believe we all have a right
to our say without condemnation. It is such an exlusive viewpoint
position that does nothing except transfer power, which may be the goal.
The moment free speech dies is the moment out society begins to
implode.
Furthermore, the ironic position on re-education
point that bigstemarra picked up on is this is often by white
individuals who have read some material from people such as Ibram Kendi
and fully subscribe to it, and after all, can't fully comprehend it as
they're "not part of that demographic". Therefore they have to believe
this is true and right, and will defend it/push it on others to sate
their own poisition to say 'I am with you'. I don't think, for the most
part, that people have bad intentions when they do this. They believe in
a cause, and believe it's the right one - maybe it is, but to
fundamentally be opposed to discussion and nuanced debate is dangerous
and unfortunately is increasingly pushing us into tribal camps 'far
left' being the progressive collection of values and 'far right' being
the more traditional values. The danger with removing the centre is you
instantly become Marxists vs Nazis and I really don't see how this ends
well for us.
I'd like to think that as a society we can
and should do more to make sure everybody feels included and important
to our functioning society, but that is not what I see happening. All
across America we see the destruction of public property, destruction of
private property, opposing political opinions leading to outright
assault, GBH, attempted murder and more. The constant denigration of the
police force as a whole by the media leads to such events as the two
police officers shot at point blank range in Compton. Yes we can all
agree that the police force isn't perfect, but I believe for the most
part they do their best, and when we see examples of wrongdoing it
should be called out - and more so it is.
This seems to
be painted as a black vs white issue currently and the last six months,
but I firmly believe this is on all of us to be slightly more human, and
accepting of eachother. Let's not be so quick to jump on mis-comments,
let's work together to improve society. Call out wrongdoing of all kinds and grow as a community.
But who had mentioned Critical Race Theory before you did?
It seems on twitter to be used exclusively as a stick to hit so called "woke" people and woke itself is now used as an insult to dismiss any position or view that people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect.
CRT is not what most people think about or even have heard about when they oppose racism.
And educating ones self is not "re-education", another loaded dog whistle word.
Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
Nice straw man you have there.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
But who had mentioned Critical Race Theory before you did?
It seems on twitter to be used exclusively as a stick to hit so called "woke" people and woke itself is now used as an insult to dismiss any position or view that people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect.
CRT is not what most people think about or even have heard about when they oppose racism.
And educating ones self is not "re-education", another loaded dog whistle word.
Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question.
Concepts such as white privilege and micro-aggressions, which were so impressively highlighted in the post that started this thread, are essential elements of Critical Race Theory (please see Pluckrose, Lindsay, Boghossian et al). I agree that CRT is often mislabeled (not least because it is so confused and confusing) but that does not mean that its ideas are not currently sweeping over large sections of society today.
Again, on re-education, I take your point, but this does often tend to be used in a rather more concerning way. For example on the British Empire, I know quite a bit about it good and bad, and I have broadly come to the conclusion that it was a good thing or at least as good as the plausible alternatives. When people have previously encouraged me to 're-educate' myself on this, they have not meant 'learn more facts', rather 'think differently about the facts you know already'.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
Nice straw man you have there.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
I suspect it's more a case that someone, once, said they were triggered by the WCoD, and it was jumped on on social media, or in the tabloids. Or it may even have been completely made up. All to ridicule those genuinely fighting against racism. Nonetheless, Iceman's post, and many of the replies to it, give me hope in an age when POTUS can refuse to condemn white supremacy, and a white supremacist group are on 'standby' to back him up, possibly in the event that he narrowly loses the election in November. Only on CL could you have such a open and honest debate.
[Btw, why is 'woke' such an insult? Doesn't it just mean 'polite, and not racist'?]
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
A very thought provoking post @Iceman which you have articulated excellently. Like others I hope you post more frequently.
@Algarveaddick it is possible to read without commenting. Perhaps some don't want to potentially derail the thread and thus feel reluctant to question assertions made. Speaking as one old sparring partner to another over many years implying that other posters maybe racists, rather than inconsiderate or insensitive perhaps, is not a way to stimulate healthy debate. In my opinion of course which I assume we are still allowed?
Perhaps I see it too simply Len? To me (my opinion - if I am allowed?) you are either with Iceman, or against him. In my opinion if you are even questioning his thoughts and assertions, you have racist tendencies. Can you be "a little bit racist"? Or are you just "inconsiderate or insensitive"? I am not implying that some other posters are racist - I am stating that some other posters are racist. It would be incredible - impossible even - that on a forum as large and diverse as this one if there were not.
That’s very much a rigid black and white view to take. Playing devils advocate, It could well be that people 100% agree with Iceman’s stance and aims, are fully in his corner, but have a slight nuanced view on how we get to equality, or the impacts of that. And with it being a very complex and delicate subject where your view can easily be misinterpreted, an open forum debate with people you don’t know then for some people they may be cautious to share their thoughts and would prefer just to read and absorb others views.
I did suggest that I might see it too simply. Though I have not seen anything in subsequent posts - well put across as they are - to change my mind... yet.
But who had mentioned Critical Race Theory before you did?
It seems on twitter to be used exclusively as a stick to hit so called "woke" people and woke itself is now used as an insult to dismiss any position or view that people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect.
CRT is not what most people think about or even have heard about when they oppose racism.
And educating ones self is not "re-education", another loaded dog whistle word.
Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question.
I assume that this post is addressed to myself. I shall attempt to address each point.
The OP's post outlined his thinking on the concept of 'white privilege' which is the central tenet of CRT, hence the critique. If you read the post, then you will see that it is the theory which underlies the arguments made.
There is a world of difference between those that believe that 'people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect' and the woke. The first is a laudable, but suitably vague catch all that few would disagree with. The latter is a self proclaimed anti-racist who also happens to be a credulous, simple minded racist.
Re-education? First mentioned here: 'It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?' by Algarve. This was what led to my first post - you can see it in the thread.
As far as the original post that sparked all this, I certainly would not choose that hill to die on, as it were. As I said at the time, it was tired and unfunny - in fact it was the first time he posted something similar. Racist, yes probably. Embarrassing? Definitely. I don't know what he was thinking, personally, but people make mistakes. The fact that it clearly bombed and left him looking a tit was punishment enough for me - he humiliated himself and that's got to hurt. In a sensible world, he deletes it and we move on. But this is not a sensible world, obviously. There's outrage to be had and I find that just as tiresome as his original 'joke'. It's like the fuel that powers our brave new world. Some people really seem to thrive on it.
Others see it differently and that's up to them. We are adults; we are allowed to have different opinions, aren't we?
However, I don't get this bit: 'Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question'.
Who was doing that? I don't think it was mentioned. There seems to be a bit of confusion in your post.
Still, we can't get everything right all the time. I'm not perfect and clearly you aren't either.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
Nice straw man you have there.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
I suspect it's more a case that someone, once, said they were triggered by the WCoD, and it was jumped on on social media, or in the tabloids. Or it may even have been completely made up. All to ridicule those genuinely fighting against racism. Nonetheless, Iceman's post, and many of the replies to it, give me hope in an age when POTUS can refuse to condemn white supremacy, and a white supremacist group are on 'standby' to back him up, possibly in the event that he narrowly loses the election in November. Only on CL could you have such a open and honest debate.
[Btw, why is 'woke' such an insult? Doesn't it just mean 'polite, and not racist'?]
“The fear of being called out or canceled can restrict free speech and honest differences of opinion. For instance, if Jeff thought a particular social policy advocated by a woke group wasn't going to be particularly effective at achieving the desired ends, he might be afraid to voice his concerns about the policy for fear of being called out or canceled by the woke group. When it rises high enough, woke activists might become, in effect, a "thought police." At this point, wokism might start to represent McCarthyism or some type of Orwellian future in which freedom of expression becomes severely restricted.”
Plus Obama in 2019: “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Obama said. “You should get over that quickly." He went on to explain, “The world is messy; there are ambiguities.”
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
Nice straw man you have there.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
I suspect it's more a case that someone, once, said they were triggered by the WCoD, and it was jumped on on social media, or in the tabloids. Or it may even have been completely made up. All to ridicule those genuinely fighting against racism. Nonetheless, Iceman's post, and many of the replies to it, give me hope in an age when POTUS can refuse to condemn white supremacy, and a white supremacist group are on 'standby' to back him up, possibly in the event that he narrowly loses the election in November. Only on CL could you have such a open and honest debate.
[Btw, why is 'woke' such an insult? Doesn't it just mean 'polite, and not racist'?]
“The fear of being called out or canceled can restrict free speech and honest differences of opinion. For instance, if Jeff thought a particular social policy advocated by a woke group wasn't going to be particularly effective at achieving the desired ends, he might be afraid to voice his concerns about the policy for fear of being called out or canceled by the woke group. When it rises high enough, woke activists might become, in effect, a "thought police." At this point, wokism might start to represent McCarthyism or some type of Orwellian future in which freedom of expression becomes severely restricted.”
Plus Obama in 2019: “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Obama said. “You should get over that quickly." He went on to explain, “The world is messy; there are ambiguities.”
I don't know about 'might be'. Clearly, we're already there.
Thanks @Iceman thought provoking stuff for me personally as someone involved in the kebab episode you describe.
Please post more often on any topic.
Powerful stuff from @rikofold and @LennyLowrent. Thanks for sharing. As the product of a "mixed" (sic) marriage I can empathise.
My dad often used an old anarchist phrase that now underpins my values.
"You fist's freedom ends where my nose begins"
To me that means you're free to do as you wish up to the point where your actions impact on others.
Those actions might be a word, a look, a judgement, a recruitment decision, an actual fist or a "joke" but they do matter if they impact on others.
One last word on Muhammad Ali. He certainly espoused racist and anti-Semitic views in his youth but rejected them later in life.
Such a disappointment that the person who provoked this thread has made dozens of posts over the weekend yet cannot bring himself to provide one word of apology.
Tells its own story.
I don't know who that person is D, I guess I have not been following the post concerned, but I can only assume that along with that person some of the "usual" suspects have taken Iceman at his word and not opened the thread as they are not interested in educating themselves. It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?
This is why I decided not (until now) to contribute to this thread.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
I like this post, and if I may make so bold it is about not taking everything for granted and jumping on a fashionable bandwagon, but to interrogate the issue and be open to the nuances. I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary. Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others? If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth. What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism? If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
Nice straw man you have there.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
As I have said above, and is this a straw man position, is it right or wrong to proceed in a negative way towards others due to the accident of their birth. That would include others white black brown yellow red or whatever? A child arrives in the world unknowing, but if that child gets antagonistic responses just because of who they are then in my world view that is wrong. I don't regard that viewpoint as either simplistic or complicated.
In an age when POTUS can refuse to condemn white supremacy, and a white supremacist group are on 'standby' to back him up
I will say that I am no fan of the way that Trump expresses himself quite often, but that is simply not a fair characterisation of what was said last night. He repeatedly did condemn it last night (just has he has repeatedly condemned it throughout his presidency - even going so far as to label the KKK as a terrorist group), but the moderator simply kept asking the same question. This would be frustrating for anyone, particularly someone like Trump.
Also, there is a big question over whether it is fair to see the Proud Boys as white supremacists - annoying, yes, trolls, yes, rather more nationalist than would be my taste, yes, but it is an odd white-supremacist group that routinely denounces white supremacism and whose two leaders are a Cuban and a Chinese American!
Trump certainly does not help, but this is all part of the same 'reds under the bed' style moral panic that insists that racism is everywhere (while happily allowing the left to avoid condemning Antifa - ie the ones responsible for the vast majority of political violence in the US at the minute - because they are 'just an idea' as Biden put it last night, with no further questions).
I wouldn't disagree with your central point - is it wrong to discriminate due to accidents of birth? Yes, absolutely.
However, deciding whether this has actually happened or not is where the nuance comes in. Especially if you think that for instance, literally everything is racist, or on the other hand, that racism does not exist at all....because this will lead to two opposite outcomes; neither of which is desirable IMHO.
Who makes the call is everything, which is why nothing like this is ever simple.
In science you test a hypothesis with only two possible outcomes; either the hypothesis is supported or not. No need for nuance because the data is all that counts and the answer is clear. Science doesn't care about your opinions or your feelings, which is why it is the most reliable way that we know to get objective answers about the physical world around us.
However, in matters 'social' there can never be such a distinction, which is why when non-scientists talk with absolute certainty they are on very dodgy ground, whether they choose to believe it or not. That is fine, as long as they know the difference between opinion and fact. Wokery has never been strong on this (to put it mildly) as it relies on unquestionable belief - things are true because we say they are. There's a reason they don't like science as it allows questioning, which is verboten in their world. Like I said, it's a religion really.
There is a time for nuance, to step back and reflect on complexity. When someone asks you if you condemn white supremacy is not one of them. Is there any answer to that question more necessary and sufficient than yes?
But who had mentioned Critical Race Theory before you did?
It seems on twitter to be used exclusively as a stick to hit so called "woke" people and woke itself is now used as an insult to dismiss any position or view that people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect.
CRT is not what most people think about or even have heard about when they oppose racism.
And educating ones self is not "re-education", another loaded dog whistle word.
Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question.
I assume that this post is addressed to myself. I shall attempt to address each point.
The OP's post outlined his thinking on the concept of 'white privilege' which is the central tenet of CRT, hence the critique. If you read the post, then you will see that it is the theory which underlies the arguments made.
There is a world of difference between those that believe that 'people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect' and the woke. The first is a laudable, but suitably vague catch all that few would disagree with. The latter is a self proclaimed anti-racist who also happens to be a credulous, simple minded racist.
Re-education? First mentioned here: 'It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?' by Algarve. This was what led to my first post - you can see it in the thread.
As far as the original post that sparked all this, I certainly would not choose that hill to die on, as it were. As I said at the time, it was tired and unfunny - in fact it was the first time he posted something similar. Racist, yes probably. Embarrassing? Definitely. I don't know what he was thinking, personally, but people make mistakes. The fact that it clearly bombed and left him looking a tit was punishment enough for me - he humiliated himself and that's got to hurt. In a sensible world, he deletes it and we move on. But this is not a sensible world, obviously. There's outrage to be had and I find that just as tiresome as his original 'joke'. It's like the fuel that powers our brave new world. Some people really seem to thrive on it.
Others see it differently and that's up to them. We are adults; we are allowed to have different opinions, aren't we?
However, I don't get this bit: 'Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question'.
Who was doing that? I don't think it was mentioned. There seems to be a bit of confusion in your post.
Still, we can't get everything right all the time. I'm not perfect and clearly you aren't either.
Yet most of the "outrage" was not from people criticising the kebab shop racism but those defending him and his right, and theirs, to tell racist jokes because they always have and because worst things happen in Yemen or knife crime or child abuse, all irrelevant.
The "mock outrage" line along with PC gone mad and now woke are used to close down any discussion on racism and if that fails then there is always some whataboutery
Comments
That is a superb analogy and real food for thought.
We all make mistakes and get things wrong but if we learn from that then fine.
It's those that say "It's was just a joke, I've been saying that for years, can't we tell a joke anymore, I told my black friend and he wasn't upset so it's OK, it's not racist cos it's funny" and just won't move forward that are the problem.
I have read the posts from Iceman and others and have plenty of questions, but there is no point in me asking them.
The way that ideological positions are stated as incontrovertible, uncontroversial proof makes a powerful statement that sums up what many such as myself find disturbing about the brave new woke world that we now inhabit; namely it is a religion, an article of faith, with believers on one side and the damned on the other. There is no debate and certainly no space for nuance; we are right and anyone who questions such as a word of what we have to say is not only wrong, but evil. Social Justice Warriors are the self appointed priestly class of the new religion, excommunicating non-believers and damning them to hellfire. We've been here before and we now have legions of self-appointed Witchfinder Generals patrolling the internet for witches to burn. In our brave new world, anyone who dares to question the 'true faith' will be punished. There is no place for nuance, none for logic or evidence - you either submit to us, or you will be cancelled.
As a scientist, this is frightening. Time was when people could discuss ideas in a robust fashion, as in science, where your hypotheses are supported by evidence verified by testable, tangible means (i.e experimentation via the scientific method; the means by which the modern world as we know it was created via the enlightenment and its values). I have come across 'true believers' many times before; homeopaths, anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme right and left of the political spectrum; however, until now, they were always a vocal minority. Now they have power and numbers. As a scientist, you have to accept the principle that you may be wrong, if the evidence shows it and you must always be prepared to consider that evidence and change your position if necessary. It is the opposite of religious faith, which is immutable and immune to reason.
This is why talk of 're-education' has a very sinister connotation. You are not 're-educating' others, you are simply advocating a position which can then be critically evaluated and weighed against the available evidence, just like any other opinion. To cite critical race theory as demonstrable fact is the same as arguing for homeopathy; just because a group of people have convinced each other that it works, it does not mean that it does. Just because we would like something to be true (because it fits with our pre-existing prejudices about the world) it does not follow that it is. That's why we have the scientific method.
For this post, and other sins, I'm pretty sure that a few on here would love nothing more than to send me to a gulag for my 're-education' for denying the true faith. Others may wish to debate - this is something that I would love to do. It is a privilege to exchange ideas and points of view with those with the intellect and open-ness to questions ideas, even those that they may hold dear. It is only through this process that we have advanced as a society, technologically as well as culturally.
Extremism, religious or otherwise, rarely ends well. However, it is usually so destructive that it in burning everything down, it immolates itself in the process. Such is history, I suppose.
But I still have faith in humanity. The enlightenment will re-assert itself eventually, just not for a while, it seems.
It's interesting you paint it that this is something generated by the left and there are Witch Finder Generals patrolling the internet. I don't know, maybe these people are there. I know the internet is somewhere that is full of bad behaviour, but this cuts both ways. I gave up on the Charlton Facebook group because it was so racist and it was either spend all my time there arguing with people who were convinced that they were superior or leave. And if there are so many people stopping racist and borderline-racist views, why are they so prevalent?
What specifically do you object to in critical race theory? Do you think that race is biologically-determined rather than social? Or that institutions are colour-blind? I'm conscious I don't want to put words in your mouth here - but you're the one saying it shouldn't be accepted as truth, so I think that you should expand on what it is that you don't think holds true.
Having said that, I do not agree that someone who makes a claim that certain behaviour is racist is the same as someone claiming that vaccines are used by the deep state to control populations, I think that is a false equivalence.
I think there is also a danger that people see 'balance' and 'debate' as meaning that each person's point of view holds equal weight, when I think that it is clear that in talks of racism, more weight should be given to people who have a lived experience of that. And if you don't have first hand experience of these issues, you should probably be more open to the possibility of being mistaken/wrong. IMO.
I suppose my problem is about the nuances in what I see as something binary.
Isn't racism essentially about proceeding in a negative way towards others, based on the accident of birth of those others?
If that is a reasonable working assumption I fail to see any case that states it is OK to proceed in a negative way towards others based on an accident of their birth.
What is the saying? 'You can't be a little bit pregnant?'. Isn't that the case with racism?
If there is an argument that says it is reasonable to be racist a bit, then I am open to hearing it.
"Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now"
Critical race theory is predicated upon putting people in different boxes based upon the colour of their skin; even worse, it generalises about the motivations, beliefs and aspirations of those people.....based upon the colour of their skin. I think that there is a word to describe this.....
It is the opposite of what MLK stood for; so when I see his teachings co-opted by those who espouse it, it is fundamentally dishonest, as well as being a lot more besides.
I think this video humorously and neatly sums up the problems that myself and many others have with it:
Are you familiar with the concept of 'original sin'? It is the sort of guilt ridden nonsense promulgated by medieval religionists. We were supposed to have left that nonsense behind when we underwent the enlightenment. So much for progress:
The black American academic Thomas Sowell said:
“It is self-destructive for any society to create a situation where a baby who is born into the world today automatically has pre-existing grievances against another baby born at the same time, because of what their ancestors did centuries ago.”
Should we despise Germans and Japanese people alive now on the basis of what their grandparents may have done to ours during WWII? Of course not. It is an insane proposition. There are legitimate grievances that certain sections of society will have of course; however the answer is most definitely not this regressive, divisive, simplistic, hateful nonsense.As we are seeing, it creates more problems than it solves and we as a society are going backwards as a result.
I am far from alone in this opinion.
As for the prevalence of racist views; well, that is a subjective perception, so I'll have take your word for it. I'm sometimes surprised (although I shouldn't be - normal distribution curve and all that) at some of the numbskulls that we appear to have in our support. Social media can be a right sewer sometimes - you couldn't pay me to be on Facebook, for example....it attracts thick people with very loud voices (the kind who credulously lap up laughable conspiracy theories like mothers' milk) like flies to shit....maybe that's a clue as to the reason why!
Long live sensible debate.
It seems on twitter to be used exclusively as a stick to hit so called "woke" people and woke itself is now used as an insult to dismiss any position or view that people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect.
CRT is not what most people think about or even have heard about when they oppose racism.
And educating ones self is not "re-education", another loaded dog whistle word.
Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question.
The problem is - who gets to decide what is racist?
As we know, some people are triggered by the White Cliffs of Dover. Should they be the arbiter? Should you?
When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is a whole industry out there that has to see racism everywhere in every single situation in order to justify its own existence and keep the cash rolling in. It is currently growing exponentially so expect a whole lot more racism to exposed, whether real or imagined.
And what about the concept of 'white privilege'? Would you condemn that as at least 'a little bit' racist?
Is the correct response to real or perceived racism more racism? The world is complicated because humans are complicated; not just that - they have different motives, can be emotional, rational, unpredictable, altruistic and self-interested...sometimes all at once.
I don't pretend to have all the answers - that is what separates me from the all knowing woke types on this thread who have it all worked out together with simplistic answers to complex problems. I wouldn't presume to count you amongst their number, of course!
Nonetheless, Iceman's post, and many of the replies to it, give me hope in an age when POTUS can refuse to condemn white supremacy, and a white supremacist group are on 'standby' to back him up, possibly in the event that he narrowly loses the election in November.
Only on CL could you have such a open and honest debate.
[Btw, why is 'woke' such an insult? Doesn't it just mean 'polite, and not racist'?]
The OP's post outlined his thinking on the concept of 'white privilege' which is the central tenet of CRT, hence the critique. If you read the post, then you will see that it is the theory which underlies the arguments made.
There is a world of difference between those that believe that 'people could and should be treated more fairly and with dignity and respect' and the woke. The first is a laudable, but suitably vague catch all that few would disagree with. The latter is a self proclaimed anti-racist who also happens to be a credulous, simple minded racist.
Re-education? First mentioned here: 'It begs the question, is it possible to re-educate a racist?' by Algarve. This was what led to my first post - you can see it in the thread.
As far as the original post that sparked all this, I certainly would not choose that hill to die on, as it were. As I said at the time, it was tired and unfunny - in fact it was the first time he posted something similar. Racist, yes probably. Embarrassing? Definitely. I don't know what he was thinking, personally, but people make mistakes. The fact that it clearly bombed and left him looking a tit was punishment enough for me - he humiliated himself and that's got to hurt. In a sensible world, he deletes it and we move on. But this is not a sensible world, obviously. There's outrage to be had and I find that just as tiresome as his original 'joke'. It's like the fuel that powers our brave new world. Some people really seem to thrive on it.
Others see it differently and that's up to them. We are adults; we are allowed to have different opinions, aren't we?
However, I don't get this bit:
'Deciding someone from the middle East must make his money from a kebab shop isn't a critique of CRT, it just lazy and racist. Whether the person making that "joke" is racist is another question'.
Who was doing that? I don't think it was mentioned. There seems to be a bit of confusion in your post.
Still, we can't get everything right all the time. I'm not perfect and clearly you aren't either.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/tech-happy-life/202006/the-promise-and-problems-being-woke
“The fear of being called out or canceled can restrict free speech and honest differences of opinion. For instance, if Jeff thought a particular social policy advocated by a woke group wasn't going to be particularly effective at achieving the desired ends, he might be afraid to voice his concerns about the policy for fear of being called out or canceled by the woke group. When it rises high enough, woke activists might become, in effect, a "thought police." At this point, wokism might start to represent McCarthyism or some type of Orwellian future in which freedom of expression becomes severely restricted.”
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Obama said. “You should get over that quickly." He went on to explain, “The world is messy; there are ambiguities.”
A child arrives in the world unknowing, but if that child gets antagonistic responses just because of who they are then in my world view that is wrong.
I don't regard that viewpoint as either simplistic or complicated.
However, deciding whether this has actually happened or not is where the nuance comes in. Especially if you think that for instance, literally everything is racist, or on the other hand, that racism does not exist at all....because this will lead to two opposite outcomes; neither of which is desirable IMHO.
Who makes the call is everything, which is why nothing like this is ever simple.
In science you test a hypothesis with only two possible outcomes; either the hypothesis is supported or not. No need for nuance because the data is all that counts and the answer is clear. Science doesn't care about your opinions or your feelings, which is why it is the most reliable way that we know to get objective answers about the physical world around us.
However, in matters 'social' there can never be such a distinction, which is why when non-scientists talk with absolute certainty they are on very dodgy ground, whether they choose to believe it or not. That is fine, as long as they know the difference between opinion and fact. Wokery has never been strong on this (to put it mildly) as it relies on unquestionable belief - things are true because we say they are. There's a reason they don't like science as it allows questioning, which is verboten in their world. Like I said, it's a religion really.
The "mock outrage" line along with PC gone mad and now woke are used to close down any discussion on racism and if that fails then there is always some whataboutery