Main Menu

Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?

Started by Tjm86, 24 September, 2020, 08:01:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Legendary Shark


There's a lot of interesting stuff behind the curtain, but the light's all on the stage so much of it is in shadow. My flowery way of saying s'okay.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




sintec

Quote from: Funt Solo on 26 September, 2020, 04:21:05 PM
In my job as a teacher I support all my students, and my classroom (I'm proud to say) is inclusive. I correctly pronoun, I flag support, I shut down any sort of hate-speech that crops up (although it has very rarely cropped up), I don't push my politics on them and I try to demonstrate how debate and research can answer better where a fixed mindset can't.

Reading this made me think; some people would argue that creating that inclusive, safe-space is a political act. Teaching kids it's ok to be gay, or trans, or bi, to wear whatever you want and live your life however you want is, for them, a deeply political thing. Their view seems to be that this is indoctrinating children with liberal/feminist/gay/marxist ideology. A view that was enforced as law under in the UK under section 28 up until fairly recently so I guess we shouldn't be all that surprising that it's still got a lot of supporters. I'd hoped we'd moved past this but it seems many will fight for their right to ignorance.

TordelBack

Quote from: Funt Solo on 26 September, 2020, 04:21:05 PM.So, when it seems like there's a conflict between the two sets of rights I get confused as to how to fathom that.

That's at the heart of the fiddly bits alright. I think if you haven't had to struggle with this question at some point you really haven't cared about either.

QuoteIn my job as a teacher I support all my students, and my classroom (I'm proud to say) is inclusive. I correctly pronoun, I flag support, I shut down any sort of hate-speech that crops up (although it has very rarely cropped up), I don't push my politics on them and I try to demonstrate how debate and research can answer better where a fixed mindset can't.

As noted, this is in itself a highly political act. Would that all teachers were like you (acknowledging that many are).

Funt Solo

Of course it is part of politics (there's not much that isn't) - but professionally I can sidestep that as our employee handbook has a harassment policy (so my behavior can sidestep politics and land successfully in the realm of policy). What I don't do is criticize or laud particular politicians or parties - the better to avoid alienating my students (who may, any road, have been indoctrinated by their relatives). Trump makes this something of a challenge, especially when students call him out. I have to go to my happy place.

Talking of Clause 28, I'm proud to say (and really have my father to thank) I marched against it in Glasgow in the 80s, and was there to hear Ian McKellen give a speech against it.

See, when that man clubbed the head off the statue of Thatcher, I cheered. I had to cheer. Go on, my son!
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Professor Bear

Quote from: Tjm86 on 26 September, 2020, 03:53:43 PMConsidering that we currently seem to be living with "Generation Outrage" where it is not just a right to be offended but it almost seems mandatory at times, I'm not sure how to do so.

Don't take this as a personal jibe or anything, but perhaps the only "generation outrage" is those who refuse to question - let alone share - their privilege.  In the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of people who considered themselves blameless started asking why black people "suddenly" wanted civil rights, and why they were so uppity and demanding about it.  Why couldn't they be civil and ask politely?  Maybe we might have granted them those civil rights when we felt it was an appropriate time and/or they were responsible enough to handle them - I guess we'll never know, because those equal rights terrorists and their coordinated mobs had their way.

Maybe we just didn't have any opportunity to hear what oppressed or erased groups wanted or thought about things before?  Before social media, the public were filtered by the editors of newspapers or political programming who vetted their opinions and decided who did or didn't have a right to be heard, but now opinions are immediate and globally available and groups who've previously been deliberately excluded from the discourse are "suddenly" demanding this or that out of nowhere.

Tjm86

Quote from: Funt Solo on 26 September, 2020, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 26 September, 2020, 03:53:43 PM
Am I allowed to ask these questions?

I think this is a safe space for that.


Thanks for that.  Yes it is.  Surprising and refreshing for the Internet.  Been said countless times before on these parts.  Not entirely sure why some of those who have migrated to Facebook have come to the view that this is such a reactionary space.  Especially considering what that world can be like.

It's also been useful following the way this thread has evolved.  Personally I'm conflicted by my discomfort over some of the issues that have been mentioned.  On the Trans / Cis-gender / sorry, what else is it called? issue I do have female colleagues who mention how it makes them feel at times.  There is the occasional rumour mentioned but nothing concrete.  At the same time though we have several transitioning students who are simply accepted in terms of their preferred gender.

For my part I find that all of this jars with the attitudes I grew up with at school.  A lot of us are all of the same age for the most part where the idea of a "tranny" was considered something disturbing.  The Monty Python "I'm a lumberjack" song and video is a good example of attitudes of earlier generations on this issue.  Now I'm teaching kids who identify by a gender different to that at birth without even thinking about that fact.

So following the thinking and experiences of folks round here has been helpful.  I'm grateful personally for the help.  Thanks folks.

Prof, thanks for those thoughts too.  Fair point.  My issue is not with the legitimate grievances but with the petty ones masquerading as legitimate concerns.  As an example I ended up in trouble for using the 'n' word in a debate about a child using the word 'retard' to describe another who has a diagnosis for Autism.  My point was that the two words are equivalent and neither should be used.  As a point of order there were no ethnic minority children in the class. 

To my mind the reaction epitomised the point that I was trying to make, that disability discrimination is a major and unrecognised issue.  The argument put to me was that the age of the children (12 to 13) made it inappropriate.  My counter that the children had initiated the need through their use of discriminatory language, the lack of minority individuals and that they all frequently used such language was considered irrelevant.

So it isn't so much those who have been excluded to date that I'm directing this at, rather at those who choose to be outraged on their behalf.

Leigh S

This review gets to the heart of matters with a lot less sophistry than we are seeing coming out of the Guardian et al:

https://www.vox.com/culture/21449215/troubled-blood-review-jk-rowling-transphobia-controversy

As an aside  - Cormoran Strike?!?  Honestly, what the heck - that sturck her as a good name for a "serious"" crime thriller?  If she isn't trolling the trans-movement, she is certainly trolling literature and her readers....

judgeurko

Just thinking again about the title of this thread, & the answer is clearly yes. The real issue appears to be that those who criticise what they see as "woke" behaviour don't seem to like having their opinion critiqued in return, & then bang on about being cancelled. Who are the real snowflakes?

sintec

That vox review really does make it sound like she's doing a bit of a Dave Sim and making her story subordinate to being a vehicle to express her political ideas and hatred for specific groups of people. It'll be interesting to see how that works out for her, it didn't go to well for Dave.

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




sintec

I'm not sure that article really makes a convincing case against defunding the police. I mean it's obvious that when there's a massive demonstration in progress police resources will be stretched.  Hell back in my free party days we'd often take advantage of things like local football derby matches to have a big blow out because we knew the police would be busy elsewhere. The second anecdote strikes me as spurious at best, it's hardly surprising that "a friend of mine felt suspicious that all was not well at their home and called the police to see if they could do a routine check" is a low priority. Also do you really want to live in a society where the police are going to come and snoop around your neighbourhood because someone was feeling a bit paranoid?

The point it does make slightly better is that policy by slogan is a bit shite - but that's hardly confined to the "woke" side of the political aisle, "Get Brexit Done" springs instantly to mind.

As opinion pieces go it  doesn't really do a convincing job of arguing that defunding the police is a bad thing. It doesn't even really tackle the central arguments of that campaign. It just provides 2 anecdotes the point of which seems to be "we need more police not less" (an argument I'd surprised to see you supporting Sharky). The central point of defunding the police is we need more support for communities not more mob-handed police armed with military grade gear.

sheridan

Quote from: sintec on 26 September, 2020, 06:03:21 PM
Their view seems to be that this is indoctrinating children with liberal/feminist/gay/marxist ideology. A view that was enforced as law under in the UK under section 28 up until fairly recently so I guess we shouldn't be all that surprising that it's still got a lot of supporters. I'd hoped we'd moved past this but it seems many will fight for their right to ignorance.


Who knows how far the government's new guidance will go - some have pointed out that teaching about the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s would prove difficult...

The Legendary Shark


I was more intrigued by the government jumping aboard the woke bandwagon angle - a prime example of politicians doing what politicians do; jumping in front of the parade.

The defund the police argument is, to me, largely irrelevant in the context of the direction I'd like to see society take. Policing, in my view, requires a more comprehensive and integral rethink.

The context of the thread is questioning "woke" and it is in that context I posted the link. The way ideas and movements can grab us by the emotions is powerful indeed - but then, so is the judo of rationality. I suppose the ideal is a kind of balance, to think as we feel as we do.

But I guess if we could all do that, we'd all be Buddha. As we can't, I think we should treat any movement, no matter how well meaning, with at least a modicum of scepticism.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Professor Bear

#88
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 30 September, 2020, 11:22:06 AMThe defund the police argument is, to me, largely irrelevant in the context of the direction I'd like to see society take. Policing, in my view, requires a more comprehensive and integral rethink.

Agreed, but this is years - realistically decades - away, if it ever happens at all.  What about people's material conditions right now?  Defunding the police - even if it is just another reformist argument - is becoming a mainstream position, and undermining it makes radical and effective overhaul less likely in the long run.  If your aim is to ask questions, you might start by asking who benefits from this position once again becoming seen as an extreme and unworkable one.

QuoteI think we should treat any movement, no matter how well meaning, with at least a modicum of scepticism.

In theory, this sounds like a reasonable centrist position, but in practice, there probably weren't a lot of black people in 1820s Alabama complaining about Abolitionists' ulterior motives.  Though given the state of discourse right now, possibly there were.  Possibly there were blokes in blackface and thick Russian accents wandering the countryside and saying anti-abolitionist slogans to random strangers and then slinking off whenever anyone tried to engage with them beyond that.  After the last few years, I'd believe it.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 30 September, 2020, 07:29:50 AM

Following the Woke Crowd Backfires for Minneapolis City Council.

1) this story actually makes a stronger case FOR defunding the police, and it's only an argument against if you accept their incorrect view of what the movement's aims are as factual rather than deeply incorrect at best, and at worst dishonest, because
2) - Intellectual Takeout is an alt-right website.  Its record on bias and fact-checking is spotty to say the least, but even Mediabiasfactcheck.com's rather charitable evaluation mentions many reasons for concern.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

I liked the bit where they claimed the PC Brigade are trying to cancel Thomas Jefferson.
You may quote me on that.