Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I make sure to tell Tim that he's wrong about something at least weekly.  It's my good deed of the day.

I think I speak for all of us when I say you provide this forum with a valuable service.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

that is an outstanding read and echoes many of my own thought processes about woke thought and intersectionality. This stuff is the most depressing religion I've ever heard of - you get all the strident authoritarianism, unquestionable dogma, impassioned declarations of heresy, and condemnation of unbelievers, but you don't get any forgiveness of sins or seventy two virgins.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Of course, it's not just the Assistant Dean.  A bunch of people had to sign off on the decision to ban this student from campus, and I do worry that some vital piece of information is being left out of this story.  

Maybe so, but this started with Dr. Social Justice locking the University into a process with the complaint.  If they would have just ignored the pointed questioning this would never have happened.  

Much like Charlottesville, it was a poor tactical move to give the degenerate racists the fight and press they were looking for.  Bad decision not to bury this early in the process.

The two times I've interacted with UVA was with the pompous asses in admissions and one football game I went to go see where the crowd threw stuff at our group (nasty, intent to injure stuff).  So, no doubt, UVA are all tools - the whole lot of them, are undeniably guilty, and richly deserve the beatdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sand said:

The two times I've interacted with UVA was with the pompous asses in admissions and one football game I went to go see where the crowd threw stuff at our group (nasty, intent to injure stuff).  So, no doubt, UVA are all tools - the whole lot of them, are undeniably guilty, and richly deserve the beatdown.

This is where I feel the need to defend my counterparts at UVA, which is a truly excellent, world-class university.  The folks who you interacted with in admissions or athletics are basically foreigners as far as the academic folks are concerned.  We know they work at the same institution that we do, and we may like them, but they're not really peers.  

Universities are like little cities.  Different silos of the same entity don't necessarily see eye to eye.  I'm actually part of the weird side.  The athletics people are probably pretty normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For me, the interesting thing about this story is that I can imagine the social dynamics at play and how a bunch of people sign off on a decision that they know is wrong but they go along anyway because it's just easier. 

I think it's worse than that. I think they know it's career suicide to voice any opposition. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is where I feel the need to defend my counterparts at UVA, which is a truly excellent, world-class university.  The folks who you interacted with in admissions or athletics are basically foreigners as far as the academic folks are concerned.  We know they work at the same institution that we do, and we may like them, but they're not really peers.  

Universities are like little cities.  Different silos of the same entity don't necessarily see eye to eye.  I'm actually part of the weird side.  The athletics people are probably pretty normal.

I may have carried a bit of a grudge here for the last 30 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This takes petty to the next level.

https://youtu.be/P7HSa6rzrmI

Twitter suspends project Veritas and James O'Keefe for exposing a CNN director stating that CNNs goal was to get Trump out of office and he specifically joined for that reason. Obviously people on here do not like veritas and O'Keefe but that's not the petty part. Apparently if you try to search project Veritas, the first result on Twitter is CNN.  They can't help themselves. 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Insein said:

This takes petty to the next level.

https://youtu.be/P7HSa6rzrmI

Twitter suspends project Veritas and James O'Keefe for exposing a CNN director stating that CNNs goal was to get Trump out of office and he specifically joined for that reason. Obviously people on here do not like veritas and O'Keefe but that's not the petty part. Apparently if you try to search project Veritas, the first result on Twitter is CNN.  They can't help themselves. 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

Do you like James O'Keefe?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djmich said:

Brearley

A bit of a rant but pretty much how I’d imagine one of these exclusive nyc schools being run.

"We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years."

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

"We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years."

:mellow:

lol yah that raised any eyebrow.

I think one of the big “talking past each other” items right now is “systemic racism”.  It’s kinda like “white supremacy”.  I think there are these newly popular phrases the woke crowd loves that are very mis-applied and help more to divide than do anything good.  Honestly I remember white supremacists when I was a kid, it was synonymous with KKK.  Now most white people are in some part of white supremacy without even knowing it.  
 

Was thinking about starting a thread on both of these.

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Insein said:

This takes petty to the next level.

https://youtu.be/P7HSa6rzrmI

Twitter suspends project Veritas and James O'Keefe for exposing a CNN director stating that CNNs goal was to get Trump out of office and he specifically joined for that reason. Obviously people on here do not like veritas and O'Keefe but that's not the petty part. Apparently if you try to search project Veritas, the first result on Twitter is CNN.  They can't help themselves. 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

I knew we were friends but...this changes things. And not in a bad way ;)

-Keep talking/posting, I want to hear more. 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, djmich said:

lol yah that raised any eyebrow.

I think one of the big “talking past each other” items right now is “systemic racism”.  It’s kinda like “white supremacy”.  I think they are these newly popular phrases the woke crowd loves that are very mis-applied and help more to divide than do anything good.  Honestly I remember white supremacists when I was a kid, it was synonymous with KKK.  Now most white people are in some part of white supremacy without even knowing it.  
 

Was thinking about starting a thread on both of these.

Yeah,  I remember my parents talking about the Klan storming into a church out in the county one night and scaring the hell out of everyone in there, hoods and all.  They had a big march in the town, everyone kind of stayed away.  You never knew who they were, who supported them, who they knew who would look the other way if they committed violence.  To me, that's what white supremacy is, not some redefined phrase for someone who disagrees with you politically. 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Desert_Power said:

"We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years."

:mellow:

In principle, he's correct.  Maybe not the 60s, but certainly late 90s.  The US has overcome and made atonement for their past.

The race hustlers don't want that as that would cut off the money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

In principle, he's correct.  Maybe not the 60s, but certainly late 90s.  The US has overcome and made atonement for their past.

The race hustlers don't want that as that would cut off the money.

I don't agree that systemic racism is gone (as an aside I do agree with race hustler part). I was going to start a thread on this but I'll jam my thoughts in here.

People are talking past each other on this front.

A couple of basic concepts that I think need to be said to make this easier:

  • What is a system?  In this context it is the process/laws/procedures (i'll call it process) that we've established AND the execution of said things most typically by humans.  Most typically in the US by white humans (i'll call it people)
  • In some instances I would substitute the word bias for racism .  Racism is loaded and is not always accurate and therefore gets in the way of real discussion.  Bias has the same end result and much more plainly evident...you don't have to look into the soul of a person.

Our country has done an incredible job eliminating racism out of the process.  I wont say its completely out, but practically speaking it is.  This is where the conversation ends for some people...I assume Blade this is where you end it.  The system is not racist.  If we just ended here I would say that I largely agree, to the point where exceptions prove the rule.

But many of the people that administer it still have legacy bias.  I'd submit the majority of them if not all of them.  Every human truly has bias.  Some are racists.

You cannot separate the people from the system when the people are the ones that execute the system.  A jury and a judge may be implementing the non discriminatory laws , but the decisions they make will be influenced by their bias.  The lending officer may be implementing the non discriminatory lending rules but bias will enter into the interaction.  Does the lending officers bias make her more likely to recommend a certain loan vs another?  So on and so on.

The above plays out across millions of interactions every day.  We see it in policing.  The police manual doesn't say to handcuff black people differently.  But people have biases and the execution of the manual is influenced.  In some cases the bias is actually very foreseeable and not even necessarily the fault of the individual (in policing I think this is true I wrote about this and how to try to counteract it earlier).

Where do I net out on it all.  We've come an incredibly long way.  The processes are in very good shape.  The people despite everything you read are in good shape.  We can do better with the people though.  Job training is one area.  Another is the actual process itself...sometime you might need to add elements to it that are counter-intuitive to "race neutral" but can help ensure race neutrality in the execution of it by humans.   

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're hearing about systemic racism not because of any large change in the system but two things:

  1. A reckoning with our history that includes a slaveholding past, no atonement right away for the slaveholding, broken promises to slaves, continued problems in voting and representation, Jim Crow and the separate but equal doctrine, and then, housing and other systematic ways of excluding blacks from full integration that still trickles down to this very day and left an indelible mark upon not just black culture, but black existence. That the police have been charged with upholding these laws represents a real problem, because the thrust of the laws, and thus, their enforcement, has been racially motivated, or racist, for lack of a better term.
  2. The notion of "systemic racism" is eagerly used by those outside of the system that have keen interest in destroying it; namely Marxist, communist, and anarchist groups. These groups have all been at the forefront of both the radicalized movements that march and protest nightly and also for the thought behind mainstream leftist thought, which has adopted truly radical charges and changes since the nineties, when this was all relegated to certain subcultures like punk and erstwhile academia departments at über-liberal colleges and universities

That's a good place to start to begin to address "systemic racism." Systemic racism, as djmich alludes to, may be no longer there prima facie, or de jure, but the relics of past injustices certainly remain and still shape our world. The ghettos we so quickly dismiss (or lionize, if you're a limousine liberal) in polite conversation are there because of problems with integration, housing, and services offered to blacks from the fifties and sixties. The CRA of '64 didn't alleviate all of the de facto discrimination that happened to blacks beforehand and certainly couldn't address unspoken avoidance of the problems that were caused by past discrimination.

So here we are today, reliving the past in a futile way, never advancing beyond anger on one side and outright refusal to talk about past wrongs and their lingering effects on the other side. One side feels like it is only lament, anger, and protestations that will eventually cause us to lose our false consciousnesses and see the "systemic racism," ignoring any culpability for a lack of progress made, the other side takes the bootstrap approach and refuses to admit its culpability in the present conditions of the Afro-American or person of color. This is not to say one is the same as the other. Personally, I think a lot of bootstrap arguments and refusal to admit past culpability fuels the anger and protestations against the current system. Sticking heads in the sand no longer works, so that's my two cents on the whole of it. Systemic racism, and the charge made thereof, isn't going away until a full reckoning of our history and policies are made. Anything else is just a band-aid covering a scab, waiting to be ripped off, yet still attached to the wound.

But that does not mean dismantling the system. It means making the system accessible to all. How to do that is the rub.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2021 at 5:07 PM, djmich said:

And to think, university is where we are supposed to encourage free thought and dissent.

And UVA's response to the suit from the student:  "Offensive speech does not enjoy First Amendment protections."  You can't make this stuff up.  And, of course, the question is - who decides what's offensive?

Not to mention the thread has a direct case that contradicts UVA's assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sand said:

And UVA's response to the suit from the student:  "Offensive speech does not enjoy First Amendment protections."  You can't make this stuff up.  And, of course, the question is - who decides what's offensive?

Not to mention the thread has a direct case that contradicts UVA's assertion.

In fairness to UVA, it's not as if they have a top-flight law school with people who are familiar with the first amendment or anything.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sand said:

That's a pretty easy first amendment lawsuit.  That city will be paying dearly for firing the officer over clearly protected speech.

Especially when the information was obtained by hackers breaching a website.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Those famously weak police unions.

Lt Kelly is not a member of the union.

And the strength of the police union relative to others does not make his firing less legal. 

Edited by thriftyrocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

And yet YOU'RE the one who brought up the weakening of unions.  :shrug:

@IvanKaramazov was simply responding to your absurd post to begin with.

VA is right to work which means he is not required to join the union. Without union contract or protection it's easy to fire without cause. They don't have to justify anything. It's possible the union tries to protect him anyway but we'll see. I am sure like Rittenhouse other concerned conservatives will donate to his defense.  It's a shame if he loses his job over a private message, but he did so on a gov computer/email. It is that brazenness which revealed his position and brought him scrutiny. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

VA is right to work which means he is not required to join the union. Without union contract or protection it's easy to fire without cause. They don't have to justify anything. It's possible the union tries to protect him anyway but we'll see. I am sure like Rittenhouse other concerned conservatives will donate to his defense.  It's a shame if he loses his job over a private message, but he did so on a gov computer/email. It is that brazenness which revealed his position and brought him scrutiny. 

 

Many people are on their work computers all day and often don't realize 1/ the time they are prob doing personal stuff like shopping or posting on message boards).

That said, it most likely would not have mattered in regards to the overall topic of this thread; Wokeness and Cancel culture. 

People who engage in it have no problem going to great lengths to out someone on their list. And thats the overall problem is that its not "illegal" to support someone like Rittenhouse, but the pressure by "wokers" on the dept once that info gets out is worse than the legal justification of firing the guy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

Many people are on their work computers all day and often don't realize 1/ the time they are prob doing personal stuff like shopping or posting on message boards).

That said, it most likely would not have mattered in regards to the overall topic of this thread; Wokeness and Cancel culture. 

People who engage in it have no problem going to great lengths to out someone on their list. And thats the overall problem is that its not "illegal" to support someone like Rittenhouse, but the pressure by "wokers" on the dept once that info gets out is worse than the legal justification of firing the guy.

I agree the hack and dox are criminal. He should take some responsibility for HRCing himself into being doxed. Now that the information is out there, the department would be negligent not to consider it wrt his employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 10:04 AM, djmich said:

I don't agree that systemic racism is gone (as an aside I do agree with race hustler part). I was going to start a thread on this but I'll jam my thoughts in here.

People are talking past each other on this front.

A couple of basic concepts that I think need to be said to make this easier:

  • What is a system?  In this context it is the process/laws/procedures (i'll call it process) that we've established AND the execution of said things most typically by humans.  Most typically in the US by white humans (i'll call it people)
  • In some instances I would substitute the word bias for racism .  Racism is loaded and is not always accurate and therefore gets in the way of real discussion.  Bias has the same end result and much more plainly evident...you don't have to look into the soul of a person.

Our country has done an incredible job eliminating racism out of the process.  I wont say its completely out, but practically speaking it is.  This is where the conversation ends for some people...I assume Blade this is where you end it.  The system is not racist.  If we just ended here I would say that I largely agree, to the point where exceptions prove the rule.

But many of the people that administer it still have legacy bias.  I'd submit the majority of them if not all of them.  Every human truly has bias.  Some are racists.

You cannot separate the people from the system when the people are the ones that execute the system.  A jury and a judge may be implementing the non discriminatory laws , but the decisions they make will be influenced by their bias.  The lending officer may be implementing the non discriminatory lending rules but bias will enter into the interaction.  Does the lending officers bias make her more likely to recommend a certain loan vs another?  So on and so on.

The above plays out across millions of interactions every day.  We see it in policing.  The police manual doesn't say to handcuff black people differently.  But people have biases and the execution of the manual is influenced.  In some cases the bias is actually very foreseeable and not even necessarily the fault of the individual (in policing I think this is true I wrote about this and how to try to counteract it earlier).

Where do I net out on it all.  We've come an incredibly long way.  The processes are in very good shape.  The people despite everything you read are in good shape.  We can do better with the people though.  Job training is one area.  Another is the actual process itself...sometime you might need to add elements to it that are counter-intuitive to "race neutral" but can help ensure race neutrality in the execution of it by humans.   

You can change the written rules easily.  Changing the unwritten rules and personal biases of those who have discretionary power is a whole other matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sam Quentin said:

You can change the written rules easily.  Changing the unwritten rules and personal biases of those who have discretionary power is a whole other matter.

I'd say a few hundred years and a lot of dead soldiers from the civil war would disagree with the bolded.

But yes, personal biases take a lot of time and I'm not sure ever really gone completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Especially when the information was obtained by hackers breaching a website.  

And I'm sure Facebook and Twitter quashed all news stories on this as being the fruit of hacking.  Like they did with Hunter Biden.  

After all, they uniformly applies those rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sand said:

And I'm sure Facebook and Twitter quashed all news stories on this as being the fruit of hacking.  Like they did with Hunter Biden.  

After all, they uniformly applies those rules.

That was the biggest line of BS ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

VA is right to work which means he is not required to join the union. Without union contract or protection it's easy to fire without cause. They don't have to justify anything. It's possible the union tries to protect him anyway but we'll see. I am sure like Rittenhouse other concerned conservatives will donate to his defense.  It's a shame if he loses his job over a private message, but he did so on a gov computer/email. It is that brazenness which revealed his position and brought him scrutiny. 

 

I am not sure that is accurate.  He may have put his email address in at the website when he donated, but that is different than using his government computer and email.  A few people were identified as using their official email address, but I am not certain he was even one of them.

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I am not sure that is accurate.  He may have put his email address in at the website when he donated, but that is different than using his government computer and email.  A few people were identified as using their official email address, but I am not certain he was even one of them.

Possible he only listed his work email but don't think it changes much as far as policy. According to the Guardian article Kelly and the three others doxed used "official" email which I take to mean his gov email. The donation was anonymous but tied to his email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thriftyrocker said:

Possible he only listed his work email but don't think it changes much as far as policy. According to the Guardian article Kelly and the three others doxed used "official" email which I take to mean his gov email. The donation was anonymous but tied to his email.

So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

So?

When jonmx asked how it was legal in a hypothetical question, I gave a tangential response on how it was very much legal. He broke policy, and they don't even have to use that as a reason. I sympathize he was the victim of doxing, he should be able to move somewhere else to continue his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thriftyrocker said:

When jonmx asked how it was legal in a hypothetical question, I gave a tangential response on how it was very much legal. He broke policy, and they don't even have to use that as a reason. I sympathize he was the victim of doxing, he should be able to move somewhere else to continue his career.

How do you know he broke a policy, and how do you know that the penalty is supposed to be termination?  

I'm a government employee.  I'll give you three guesses what email address I use for social media, Amazon, DirecTV, Playstation, Steam, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How do you know he broke a policy, and how do you know that the penalty is supposed to be termination?  

I'm a government employee.  I'll give you three guesses what email address I use for social media, Amazon, DirecTV, Playstation, Steam, etc.  

That's fair. By using a work email he should not expect privacy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, djmich said:

KUDOS 

Its a potpourri of woke-ness.  Hurts my brain trying to unravel.

Apparently her and MTG are going to debate.  It's going to be an epic showdown of dumb and stupid all around!

Hopefully she uses this line during the debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I dunno.  I don't that first 10secs is too far off.  

I can't believe you made me watch it again.

I think that the first 10 seconds isn't so far off, in so much as police are out to kill black people isn't far off either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, djmich said:

I can't believe you made me watch it again.

I think that the first 10 seconds isn't so far off, in so much as police are out to kill black people isn't far off either.

Well, you made me click on a Twitter link, so we are even.  ;) 

You don't think that we've made a lot of choices of profit over people/planet that might have had some consequences on the planet?  Isn't that all she is basically saying in the first 1/3?  I didn't understand much of the point of the other 2/3rds.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...