Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

When that distinction makes the difference between something factually wrong and something factually right, yes, you should have to.

What, exactly, have I said that's factually wrong?

As soon as someone makes a claim about something not existing long ago (as you did), then that necessarily expands the conversation to include what things were like a long time ago.

Even if I said, hypothetically, that diversity didn't exist long ago (which isn't much of a stretch, as the majority of societies have been hemogenous, and those that haven't have usually been empires), how would that actually be relevant to what's being discussed?

When we're discussing climate change, it's a red herring 90% of the time to say that the climate has always changed (which is true), that life has thrived when the planet's been much warmer (which is true), that humans have survived more extreme weather shifts than today (which is true). All of these statements are academic to the issue of climate change as it currently exists in the 21st century, and in the two centuries prior.

I brought it up because you said something factually incorrect. If someone said transport is a 1900s invention, and I said it's actually been around for millenia, it would be a bizarre defence to say "well, the context of the thread is modern stuff so obviously I meant modern forms of transport!"

Yes, transport has been around for millennia. Diversity has been around in some form or another ever since human groups started bumping into each other. You're pulling a millennia old "technically" that's irrelevant to the actual subject, because it's silly to draw equivalents between the two.

This is a lie. Saying that two things qualify as examples of X doesn't mean those two things are equal in any other ways.

Then why bring it up?

So to get this straight: you think it would be perfectly reasonable and correct to state that "transport is less than 2 centuries old"? Because the surrounding context is about modern stuff and thus we should all just assume that when you say "transport" you actually mean specific modern forms?

No-one's said transport is less than two centuries old. If, however, you're discussing something that exists in the present day, the bounds of conversation pertain to the present day.

And this isn't even an assumption as you put it. The original topic was DIE statements. That's somehow broadened out to diversity, inclusion, and equity, which has further broadened out to, among other things, the sum total of human history because of a "technically." Instead of actually discussing the issue (which, to be frank, is a lost cause right now), we've gone down this semantic rabbithole.

EXACTLY. But you haven't been saying "equity in these areas is contentious". You've been saying equity itself, and DEI, are contentious in themselves. That necessarily includes the innocuous and harmless stuff alongside the rest. This has been exactly my point from the start.

But they ARE contentious. I've cited numerous examples of them being contentious. You've gone from actually engaging with the issues at hand to dragging wheelchairs into this.

No-one has a problem with wheelchair ramps (and since I apparently have to do this, I'll say that yes, I'm certain that someone, somewhere, wants to remove wheelchair ramps, or wants to remove paraplegics or some eugenicist shit). If your point from the start, as you put it, is equity includes wheelchair ramps, congratulations. Equity includes wheelchair ramps. That doesn't actually address the issue at hand. Again, with climate change, this is like harping on and on about climate shifts over Earth's history, instead of actually engaging with AGW.

Funny how a discussion about DEI, which encompasses equity, can lead to discussing examples of equity! How odd!

It IS funny, because you've taken us down this semantic rabbithole.

It would be true to say equity CAN disadvantage people. But to say it necessarily disadvantages people, you must believe that any examples that qualify as equity must also disadvantage people. And that is mutually contradictory with your acknowledgement that wheelchair accessibility doesn't disadvantage anybody.

You're seriously engaging in the distinction between "can' and "does" in this context? You understand that by this measurement, nothing could ever be an issue unless it was true 100% of the time.

It's a waste of time to say this, this is clear, but again, no-one is complaining about wheelchairs. I've given you examples of equity, I've given you examples of people's issues with equity,

The only way to reconcile this is to acknowledge that equity doesn't always disadvantage people.

If you condemn equity as a whole, then you're condemning all implementations and forms. And that's what you've been doing: rather than condemn specific instances, you've been condemning the entire principle.

By showing you perfectly innocuous forms of equity, I'm showing you that you cannot tar the entire principle with the same brush.

You might have had a leg to stand on if the subject of equity, on this thread, wasn't brought up in a clear, specific context. If I'm talking about equity in a given context, if I'm citing people in said context, and bringing up issues in said context, going outside that context doesn't actually address anything. It's not exactly a case of whataboutism, but it reminds me of when people pressed a company (Nike, I think) about paying its workers a living wage, and the entire thing entered quibbling as to what a living wage actually was. It's semantic avoidance of the actual issues at hand. Or, again, if I'm on the climate change thread, it's a waste of time to quibble that climate change has happened throughout Earth's history. It's a waste of time because everyone already knows this. I KNOW wheelchair ramps exist, the people I've cited know that wheelchair ramps exist, I'm sure that the universities requiring DIE statements have wheelchair ramps, none of this is actually relevant to the discussion. To mention a recent article on The Conversation, which details the tensions between equity and liberal democracy, asking "but what about wheelchairs?" doesn't actually add anything, unless you're such a literalist that a mention of something in one context must, ipso facto, include the thing in each and every other context. Again, if I'm discussing climate change, quibbling about climate change from millions of years ago, or debating whether it should be called global warming or climate change, doesn't add anything, it's just wasting people's time.

If you can cite people objecting to equity because of wheelchair ramps, by all means post it on the anti-woke thread, but until then...well, actually, I doubt there's going to be an "until then," because this has become a nitpicking of terminology rather than any actual engagement.

 

[Hawki]

Snip

I'm not sure what your point is here. You start by saying you don't care about Cuba, but clearly do because of geo-political relevance, so...

Anyway, yes, realpolitik is a thing. If we're talking about Taiwan, while the US obviously has a vested interest in ensuring it isn't taken by China, the real crux is what the Taiwanese people themselves want. As for Cuba, well, the embargo isn't a literal blockade, Cuba still trades with other countries, but putting military forces on Cuba itself is a separate issue. One that I doubt the US would tolerate, but on the other hand, it would be kind of taking a page out of Russia's playbook - justifying military action due to 'encroachment' by other powers.

 

[Silvanus]

What, exactly, have I said that's factually wrong?

That diversity-- not the modern form of diversity, not diversity "as we currently understand it", not "harmonious" diversity, just simple mixing of human demographics-- is extremely new.

Even if I said, hypothetically, that diversity didn't exist long ago (which isn't much of a stretch, as the majority of societies have been hemogenous, and those that haven't have usually been empires), how would that actually be relevant to what's being discussed?

You tell me, you're the one who said it. People often appeal to the idea that things didn't happen in history to discredit modern ideas, so that could've been the motive for bringing it up.

When we're discussing climate change, it's a red herring 90% of the time to say that the climate has always changed (which is true), that life has thrived when the planet's been much warmer (which is true), that humans have survived more extreme weather shifts than today (which is true). All of these statements are academic to the issue of climate change as it currently exists in the 21st century, and in the two centuries prior.

Correct. Yet it would still be incorrect to say the climate hasn't changed before. This is why it's better to refer to the current crisis as anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, transport has been around for millennia. Diversity has been around in some form or another ever since human groups started bumping into each other. You're pulling a millennia old "technically" that's irrelevant to the actual subject, because it's silly to draw equivalents between the two.

Which is why nobody drew equivalences between the two. For the fiftieth time.

Then why bring it up?

? Because accuracy matters.

No-one's said transport is less than two centuries old. If, however, you're discussing something that exists in the present day, the bounds of conversation pertain to the present day.

If someone says something that isn't limited to the modern day, then I'm not going to limit my response to the modern day. Be specific about the forms you're talking about and we'll be fine.

I mean... you say I'm harping on what you call a "technicality", but you've spent just as long arguing against it. Even longer if we talk about post length. How much earlier would we have been done if you'd just acknowledged that you didn't mean "diversity", but rather the modern form of harmonious, integrative diverse society? But no, it's apparently super mega important to you that I abandon that distinction.

But they ARE contentious. I've cited numerous examples of them being contentious. You've gone from actually engaging with the issues at hand to dragging wheelchairs into this.

Your examples are contentious. Other examples aren't contentious. But you're tarring the latter because the former is contentious.

You're seriously engaging in the distinction between "can' and "does" in this context? You understand that by this measurement, nothing could ever be an issue unless it was true 100% of the time.

"Can" and "does" have enormously different meanings.

It's not a case of "oh it's just not 100%". The uncontentious instances of equity make up the majority. So it's more like you're focusing on 10%, and declaring the remaining 90% automatically problematic because they share a descriptive term.

 

[tstorm823]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-incredible-meltdown-of-the-center-for-antiracist-research/

https://unherd.com/thepost/ibram-x-kendis-race-hustle-deserves-to-fail/

I'm not yet certain this story isn't entirely nothing. They initially had tens of millions in funding and got a team of 36 people to support Kendi's vanity project. Now they've realized that in the long term, they are only bringing in enough funding to support a staff of 17 towards Kendi's vanity project. The 19 people layed off are certainly not happy to be laid off, and they may be properly identifying that all that money toward's a Kendi vanity project is waste and grift, but there are still millions of dollars annually in grants and donations going into that.

If they close the center, that'll be a story. For now, this seems like the normal course of events.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Okay, let's address this, because you are so close to some sort of real insight here, let me see if I prod you over the line.

Every lockdown is different. Different circumstances, different policies, different areas, different length of time. What doesn't seem to quite click through your brain is that because no two lockdowns are the same, statements as bald as "lockdowns don't work" are prone to be ridiculous. It's a bit like saying "you can't stop a vehicle by throwing things at it". Well, depends on whether you're throwing a foam ball, brick or a grenade, and whether the vehicle a bike, family saloon or APC, etc.

So have a chew on these reasons you're beginning to think about, because when you do you should start to realise they undermine the very case you're trying to make in the first place.



<sigh> You don't understand the drug licensing laws.

Ivermectin has been through clinical trials and has recognised efficacy as a an antiparasitic. That then means, like many drugs, it can also be used "off-label" for conditions it has not been specifically trialled for. This use of "off-label" prescriptions is a very well-worn technique that provides benefits for millions of people annually when people can't be arsed spending hundreds of millions on a clinical trial when we all know perfectly well the drug works. Therefore, IVM did not require an emergency authorisation for covid: it was already available for physicians that wanted to use it irrespective of whether there was any halfway decent data to support it.

Remdesivir, however, at the start point of covid had not been approved through a clinical trials process for anything, therefore was illegal to use outside a registered clinical trial. Remdesivir, therefore, did require an emergency authorisation. Because these processes are generally rational ones to encourage responsible, evidence-based medical care, the authorities waited until they had data that suggested remdesivir's efficacy was at least reasonably plausible.

Show me evidence that a covid lockdown anywhere provided more benefit than the costs incurred?

It's not wholly about licensing laws. Why was IVM demonized on the news / covid discussion while remdesivir wasn't talked about in nearly the same manner and basically not even discussed at all? Remdesivir for quite a bit of time actually had high quality data saying it didn't work while at least IVM was an unknown since no high quality trials were done for the longest. Also IVM has a very know safety profile and remdesivir doesn't and remdesivir is far far far far far far far more expensive.

Thank you for spurting your grotesque ignorance over this forum (again).

Firstly, we might note the changed nomenclature was not just related to stigma, it's also that many professionals felt that given the increased understanding of this family of diseases, the old names were inaccurate or misleading.

Secondly, there are a shitload of considerations in changing the name of a disorder. They need to be designed carefully to be scientifically / medically accurate, and they need to weigh the risks of whether there is a benefit compared to costs such confusing patients (who will not be used to new terminology), etc. These decisions also generally have to be made by consensus of professionals and professional organisations, which means a great deal of consultations, discussion. Of course it takes a long time.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why the fuck does anyone have a problem removing unncessary stigma from medical conditions? What is wrong with you?

How is the name of fatty liver disease not basically exactly what the disease is?

Fatty liver disease (steatosis) is a common condition caused by having too much fat build up in your liver. A healthy liver contains a small amount of fat. It becomes a problem when fat reaches 5% to 10% of your liver's weight.

What you're saying is impossible was literally done. That's really all there is to say here.



There's not a single reason I would take your amateur guidance over the recommendations of experts. Sorry.



Do you recognise the difference between making policy recommendations and reporting what the scientific evidence shows?



The evidence base for both drugs was different. Thus they were treated differently by medical experts and authorities.



I don't really give a shit about all these explanations/excuses. You asked for something he was wrong about. He was wrong about that.

You're literally just gaslighting at this point. It wasn't done and it's impossible to be done even today.

So you can't tell when you're over a cold? You have to go to an expert to know when you can go back to work or hang out with friends?

And why were science experts recommending things not based in actual scientific evidence?

The evidence was different. High quality trial showed remdesivir didn't work yet it was always still given out like candy while IVM that didn't have data showing it didn't work was demonized as horse medicine...

Everyone was wrong about something at several points. Fauci was far more wrong than Makary, yet he's some dangerous person to listen to and Fauci isn't?

When you don't have good data, it's good policy to err on the side of caution. "We don't know a lot about this new virus, so quarantine until we're absolutely certain it's dead" was the correct play.
When I got covid in late January 2020, in Montana where we were certain Covid hadn't spread to, I stayed sick at home for 2 of my allotted 3 yearly sick days before "feeling better" and going back to work. The 4th day, when I actually felt better and realized my feeling better the previous day was a obviously false sense of recovery, it was already too late and I'd infected my roommate, several coworkers, and god knows how many customers.

The general public is not as perfect as you pretend you are.

What upper respiratory virus is contagious for 10 days or more? Erring on the side of caution caused hundreds of thousands of families the time to be with loved ones during their last moments.

Sounds more like you went back early because of the US's shitty sick time allotment vs you making some major miscalculation. Most likely no customers unless your job is spending a prolonged amount of time in a room with your customers.

See if I said what you said about getting covid in January 2020, you all would tell me it probably wasn't covid because I didn't get tested and Fauci said on February 29th that there hadn't been any community spread of covid yet in the US. But when I say it was fucking ridiculously obvious that covid was spreading in the US before that time, I'm completely wrong because I have no fucking clue what I'm ever talking about about ever...

 

[Elijin]

Just once again mentioning I live in one of those "show me literally one place lockdowns worked" places.

 

[Silvanus]

Everyone was wrong about something at several points. Fauci was far more wrong than Makary, yet he's some dangerous person to listen to and Fauci isn't?

You asked when he was wrong. I gave an example. Why did you even ask if you were just going to moan about me providing an answer?

 

[tstorm823]

Everyone was wrong about something at several points.

Not me!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

What upper respiratory virus is contagious for 10 days or more? Erring on the side of caution caused hundreds of thousands of families the time to be with loved ones during their last moments.

As somebody who lost two grandfathers and an uncle in 2020, fuck you.

Sounds more like you went back early because of the US's shitty sick time allotment vs you making some major miscalculation. Most likely no customers unless your job is spending a prolonged amount of time in a room with your customers.

Incorrect

See if I said what you said about getting covid in January 2020, you all would tell me it probably wasn't covid because I didn't get tested and Fauci said on February 29th that there hadn't been any community spread of covid yet in the US. But when I say it was fucking ridiculously obvious that covid was spreading in the US before that time, I'm completely wrong because I have no fucking clue what I'm ever talking about about ever...

The fuck are you talking about?

 

[Absent]

Timothy Ash, on Biden's age.

Unless Joe Biden stands aside, the world must prepare for President Trump 2.0 | Timothy Garton Ash

The Democrats must choose a younger candidate if Donald Trump is to be kept out of the White House, says Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash

www.theguardian.com

And yes, I keep posting that in the funny woke thread, because the Democrat vote is supposed to politically represent the progressive left in front of the dusty old fascists.

 

[Hawki]

Majority of US students now support speech codes

Censorship and cancellation efforts have accelerated on college campuses in recent years. But many still argue over where the support for these policies originates, whether it be the faculty, students, or administrators. A new survey shows that the force of student opinions on campus censorship...

unherd.com

Jesse Singal on Coleman Hughes vs. TED

By now most of us know that Coleman Hughes, a heterodox black thinker, got into trouble when he gave a preapproved TED talk echoing Martin Luther King's "don't judge a person by their skin color" trop

whyevolutionistrue.com

 

[Avnger]

Majority of US students now support speech codes

Censorship and cancellation efforts have accelerated on college campuses in recent years. But many still argue over where the support for these policies originates, whether it be the faculty, students, or administrators. A new survey shows that the force of student opinions on campus censorship...

unherd.com

Jesse Singal on Coleman Hughes vs. TED

By now most of us know that Coleman Hughes, a heterodox black thinker, got into trouble when he gave a preapproved TED talk echoing Martin Luther King's "don't judge a person by their skin color" trop

whyevolutionistrue.com

How dare those dastardly, evil youths support diversity, the right to protest, and basic codes of conduct....

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

How dare those dastardly, evil youths support diversity, the right to protest, and basic codes of conduct....

Protest? Or riot and trash the place so badly it literally makes the administrations not want certain speakers because the riots caused by the tantrums cause so much damage?

Heckler's vito is a thing.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

From Woke world.

Cyberpunk 2077's world is still too binary

My character was trans in Cyberpunk 2077, but the world wasn't

Cyberpunk 2077's character creator is failed by its binary world

www.pcgamer.com

Where the author gets upset

• The game still uses male and female (which would be sexes) to sort people.
• That the majority of the world isn't flamboyantly non binary in how they dress.
• Lack of Gender non conformity body mods........ (what would this even mean who the hell knows because I don't know how you gender a metal arm but still)
• The author then bemoans how despite the massive backlash about fetishizing trans people that Cyberpunk 2077 received, that they're now upset it doesn't have lots more fetishization of trans people
• " Added to that, not every trans person's goal is to 'pass' anyway" so yes they're upset that Trans people may be normalised and not made to stand out.
• Lack of non-binary gender options (reminder this is a voiced game so every additional option would have to be fully voiced)
• Trans people now in current year not having voices that match there gender so for some reason Cyberpunk 2077 wouldn't have solved that at all

We're fucking years on for release and these complaints are still coming, and they're the same complaints again and again.


to be clear, the article was posted again by their twitter today

https://x.com/pcgamer/status/1708347038411157749?s=20

 

[Terminal Blue]

From Woke world.

Cyberpunk 2077's world is still too binary

I mean, yeah. CDPR made a big deal over how supposedly trans inclusive they were being after they got called out for making a lazy transphobic joke, and what they gave us is still less sincere in its trans representation than Saints Row 2, an intentionally crude and offensive game that released in 2008.

This is why I don't buy that this "anti-woke" shit is specifically about performative activism, because the "trans-inclusion" in 2077 is performative activism, but it's a video game and as we all know not liking a video game is basically the same as doing the holocaust and 9/11 at the same time.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I mean, yeah. CDPR made a big deal over how supposedly trans inclusive they were being after they got called out for making a lazy transphobic joke, and what they gave us is still less sincere in its trans representation than Saints Row 2, an intentionally crude and offensive game that released in 2008.

This is why I don't buy that this "anti-woke" shit is specifically about performative activism, because the "trans-inclusion" in 2077 is performative activism, but it's a video game and as we all know not liking a video game is basically the same as doing the holocaust and 9/11 at the same time.

People don't object to people disliking a video game.

People object to people throwing round accusations of lycanphobia because a cookbook doesn't talk about werewolves enough.

 

[Absent]

CDPR is oppressed and I think that what they are undergoing is as serious if not worse than the plight of LGBT+ people because when you think of it they are facing the full strength of ah fuck that I just can't this thread is so dumb.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

quite enjoy cyberpunk 2077 much in many ways, but even then it's still immature and sexually transgressive for something supposedly set in the future. You'd get a starker sexual culture shock from bumbling into your local Ann Summers than this game.Where's all the crazy sex toys of unimaginable shapes, designs and kinks? The modern day here is way more sexually experimental than that world they've built there. It's as plain as that. It just doesn't feel futuristic in that area. Which ain't something I'd usually bother noticing, but they really want you to notice a lot.

 

[Terminal Blue]

People don't object to people disliking a video game.

People object to people throwing round accusations of lycanphobia because a cookbook doesn't talk about werewolves enough.

Okay, so why do you care?

Like, that article is written by a trans woman expressing disappointment in a game that openly marketed itself on trans inclusivity and whose name is a reference to a genre that has a lot of trans fans. I get that maybe it's not for you and yout aren't interested in that because you were too busy enjoying the riveting gameplay of watching cars randomly backflip into the sky, but hey, people are allowed to care about things you don't. The normal response to encountering something you don't care about is to, you know, just move on.

But no, you can't move on can you? Not when the honor of video games has been so besmirched by someone daring to express a personal sense of disappointment in a game specifically marketed towards them. Lesser people might question what gives you the right to speak with completely unearned authority on subjects you clearly know nothing about and, in fact, pretend not to care about, but what do those people know? All that matters is that someone pointed out that a game that hyped up its representation did a pretty bad job of representation, and that's the same as calling all gamers transphobic!

Wait.. the word "transphobia" didn't actually appear in the article? Well, I'm sure it was implied. Why else would anyone write about such things? Could it possibly be that, as a trans woman herself, she actually cares and wants to push the industry towards a greater sincerity in its attempts to be "inclusive"? Of course not, because that would mean this wasn't all secretly about you and how criticism of a game makes you feel and whether you're transphobic (which you are, just get over it and if it bothers you try to do better).

I swear, nothing in this article is any weirder or more outlandish than the fact you read it and felt compelled to have an opinion.

 

[Avnger]

enjoying the riveting gameplay of watching cars randomly backflip into the sky

Random aside, but as a fan of Arma 3, I can tell you that it only gets even funnier when said "car" is actually a multi-ton main battle tank that "tripped" over a twig.