The ‘Culture Wars’ are a manifestation of confected OUTRAGE and FURY created and driven by the MSM for clicks from middle aged conservatives who are oblivious to how they are being manipulated.
is short for "awoken" and means being aware of inherent racism still prevalent in society- nothing more - only one item on Clergs list is at all relevant to the term.
Indeed - Woke just means don't be smug and "put yourself in someone else's shoes". And on the basis of Hotblack's 6 point sprawling "critical thinking" thread, which was basically "check your priors" - Hotblack is entirely woke.
I don't believe that trans people should just be generally allowed to use womens facilities etc etc or claim women status for any purpose. On most issues I am instinctively socially liberal. I believe in free speech - I think Kathleen Stock at Essex university was treated very badly indeed by Essex university and the students.
Mostly, I think 'culture wars' are a big distraction from the subjects i'd prefer people to be discussing.
Identity politics is now an absolute obsession of the right unfortunately. For every post you will find on social media complaining about racism or other dont be a dick to other people type stuff, you will find ten from people having a go at the "woke" and delighting in their apparent new found freedom to be vaguely racist and xenaphobic.
I try to be anti culture wars and it seems to me both sides are as bad as each other. As noted the other day they are driven by the US and so we need to distance ourselves from the US and its culture in this regard.
Both sides are not as bad as each other - on one side you have people who generally think it is best not be to be dickish to other groups of people (and yes sometimes may have gone too far to find insult but, in the main, point out obvious injustices) and on the other a group of people who delight in slagging them off for it. The latter are now by far the most vocal of the two groups.
on side you have people who stalk JK Rowling and take pictures of themselves outside her house and post it on social media as "punishment" for saying that gender must not replace sex
I am instinctively liberal in the sense I want to be left alone and I am happy leave you alone too - I dont like banning things, and generally believe people should have equality of opportunity so far as its achievable.
The DnI approaches at institutions now seems to be driven by american thinking on the topic - they are not world leaders in this area - they have a very polarised and backward view on stuff.
On Race - american racism is different to Brit/Eu racism - they still had segregation in the 60s FFS - their police kill people on a regular basis, you can basically categorise people by racial characteristics as they have more universal experiences over there.
In the UK Race is inherently mixed with our class system - bottom of the heap are poor immigrants, then poor white people, then middle class immigrants and middle class white people (they also have divides but I would argue the middle classes in britain have more in common with each other than the poor), then there are the rich and privileged - west london is super diverse, the posh haunts in mayfair are super international, i refuse to accept that some mega rich minority person has the same challenges as those in the "poor" category.
On sex/gender - again the US has always been more regressive than the UK/EU on this point as they are more religious - there is more of the social expectation of a "womans place" in the US than there is in the UK, although we obviosuly have our own challenges. Again with sex/gender its wrapped up in the class system - poor women face much harsher and nastier challenges than a woman who went to cheltenham ladies.
I am not saying we do not have issues in the UK - we definately do and we need to address them - but we should not borrow the yank thinking on this - those guys approach things in an alien fashion - they are good at marketing and getting inside other cultures, but in this instance (like guns) we dont want it brah.
I think it is worth the effort to assess each issue without regard for whose talking head has dug which trench line. Very easy to become lazy, forego one's own assessment and just subscribe to one side. If a critical mass of people does this, discourse dies and all that remains is shouting and name-calling.
Diceman - probably not directly but within my experience at law firms and financial institutions (where people tend to be from fairly privileged backgrounds) it becomes tedious being pushed to attend another "woman in work" call to hear how life was so hard for "Tilly Smith-Cooperwright" and how awesome she is for having made it in the corporate environment with her top private school education and all the other trappings.
Being the first in my family to undergraduate level and educated a sink comp school, but unfortunately being in possession of a male appendage i consider with shame how my gender could possibly have held her back so much.
What BillyBob said. It's class and money (and the education it buys) that really matters to your life chances in the UK. Race and sexuality (now) and even gender are a million miles behind.
The average upper middle class, public school educated, gay, Asian woman has much, much better life chances than the average working class white heterosexual boy from a rough town in the north of England.
Almost all of identity politics is squabbling amongst the incredibly privileged and as such the lot of them can get off twitter and get in the fvcking sea as far as I am concerned.
The binary choice in the OP is not realistic. It creates a false equivalence between both "sides" whereas, as guy points out, the far right pushing this is far, far worse than the people just trying to be decent. It's "very fine people on both sides" and the prominence given to Nigel Farage before the brexit referendum for "balance" writ large.
Merely for entertainment/incitement, depending on one's inclinations, here's a summary of the anti-woke arguments. I freely concede that it is largely plagiarised from far more eloquent and better informed FT commenters, but it's grist to the mill! 😊
Identity politics is the contrivance, fetishization and weaponization of victimhood. The West is twisting itself in knots to appease highly vocal activists whose views are devoid of rationality or science. The world currently has three powerful ideologies: (1) Chinese/CCP totalitarianism; (2) Islamic totalitarianism; and (3) Rational liberalism. Wokeism/identity politics is destroying the third and is hugely benefiting the first two:
(1) ‘Diversity’ and ‘equity’ are replacing ‘meritand equal opportunities at point of entry’.‘Diversity/equity’ never means representation of, e.g. the working class, or conservatives, or Asians, it is a weapon used to advance carefully selected, politically-favoured ‘tribes’. There is no difference between (i) diversity; (ii) targets; (iii) quotas; (iv) affirmative action; and (v) anti-white/anti-Asian/anti-male discrimination. They are substantially identical except for the level of euphemism. Diversity should be irrelevant: all that should matter is merit. Bluntly précised, the “diversity bandwagon” grifters’ schtick is simply: “We can’t impose our left-wing social engineering via objective measures of merit and competence, so we’re now deploying blackmail and affirmative action - and creating jobs for ourselves as the moral arbiters of wrongthink”.
(2) Different racial outcomes reflect different cultures and behaviour. People of every colour are successful when they: (i) obtain at least a high school education, (ii) secure a full-time job, and (iii) marry before having children (the ‘success sequence’), as well as (iv) avoiding crime. See the black US economist Thomas Sowell’s extensive body of work on this (e.g. “The Economics and Politics of Race”), as well as that of Amy Chua, Andrew Sullivan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, Heather MacDonald (City Journal), Jason Reilly, John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Megan Kelly, Shelby Steele (e.g. "The Content of Our Character"), Thomas Chatterton Williams (e.g. "Self-Portrait in Black and White"), Walter Williams, and Wilfred Reilly. Facing them, the primary snake oil salesmen of critical race theory and ‘wokethink’ are activists such as Kimberlé Crenshaw,Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones,Robin DiAngelo,Ibram X. Kendi, and assorted status-signalling shills and hangers-on. The latter’s critical race theory and derivative arguments place racial conflict at the centre of every issue at the expense of race-neutral considerations like objective truth and human individuality. New phrases have entered our public debate: terms like systemic racism, unconscious bias, white privilege and cultural appropriation. Anti-racism training has become a big business with the most popular speakers and authors generating considerable revenue. Contemporary anti-racism breathes new life back into racial thinking and emphasises differences between people that were only recently being overcome. So-called ‘anti-racism’ has rejected the civil rights era aspiration for colour blindness, as people are once more being taught to see each other as racialised beings. White people are assumed to be the beneficiaries of ‘white privilege’ – and black people the victims of ‘systemic racism’. Such gross racial generalisations are to the detriment of everyone in society. The sole beneficiaries of this approach are self-appointed ‘race experts’ who have manoeuvred themselves in powerful positions to intervene in all aspects of our public and private lives. This self-evidently toxic ideology is dividing people and turning every interracial reaction into a minefield, electorally damaging the Left, undermining the centre, and empowering the Trump-esque Right.
(3) People cannot change sex. (a) Ideologues are grooming, drugging, chemically sterilising and surgically mutilating children; (b) women’s sports are being destroyed; and (c) women are being exposed to sexual assault and rape in saunas, changing rooms, toilets, rape crisis centres, hospitals, and prisons. ‘Gender’ is a made-up concept. ‘Gender identity’ is a quasi-religious men’s sexual rights cult, driven by (i) paraphilia/autogynephilia in adult males (e.g. Andrea Chu, Torrey Peters, Grace Lavery, Aimee Challenor); (ii) mental health issues including social contagion/‘Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria’ (“ROGD”) in trans-identifying girls; and (iii) opportunism by male athletes (e.g. Rachel McKinnon, Alana McLaughlin) and sex offenders seeking access to victims (e.g. Karen White, Barbie Kardashian, Darren Merager). However, trans activists have until recently successfully hijacked major Western institutions and blackmailed media and politicians into terrified obedience.
(4) Men and women doing identical jobs are paid the same. The so-called pay gap is overwhelmingly not the result of sexist employers, but rather of personal choices arising from biology: (a) men and women are biologically different, have different interests and make different career choices; and (b) put crudely, women have babies, and babies don’t get along well with demanding, full-time jobs. When couples choose to have children, that choice has consequences. There are 168 hours in the week for everyone. If you have children, that's time you can't commit to your employer. That's no ‘fault’ of employers. It has always been open to couples to make the man the primary carer, and it remains so now. None of us can have it all: e.g. successful CEOs sacrifice time with their family. Children take time and effort, even if child-rearing is outsourced to schools, nannies, etc. Deciding to have children and deciding who takes the primary carer role is a personal decision for each couple. The most valuable employees are those who can focus 100% on their career. That is not discrimination, it’s the inevitable result of a world in which clients have freedom of choice where to take their business. Wishful thinking won’t survive international competition. In a global economy, all the domestic legislation in the world forcing employers to accept inferior performance won’t change competitive dynamics from overseas rivals without such handicaps. We can’t change economic reality via employment law.
These are all facts denied following an abdication of intellect by Oppression Olympics, Diversity Top Trumps, Grievance Studies professional victimhood “scholars” and activists who insist on dividing the world into “evil oppressors” and “the virtuous oppressed”. Left-leaning hangers-on have succumbed to tribalism: "What does my tribe believe? We believe (certain) women, we believe (certain) oppressed people/minorities, trans-activists claim to be oppressed/minorities – don't think too much about it – I'm going to parrot this nonsense because I've been told that this is the right side of history, and I want to feel I'm on the right side of history. Don't ask questions. it. Transphobe! Racist! Bigot!"
China observes gleefully, and continues to focus on reality, science and objectively assessed merit, such as the Gaokao exam.
I don't actually believe that those on the 'woke' side are just trying to be decent in many cases though.
'Decency' just isn't aggressive in the way that woke culture has become. Decency is accepting of others points of view and perspectives. It's tolerant and gives people the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't write complaint letters because a photographer offered to give a woman a hand down off a stage. Most of all decency (when it is a 20 something middle class white kid) doesn't lecture a middle aged black working class guy about how he is using the wrong language to describe his own ethnicity and how THEY are offended by it (as I witnessed recently).
I dont particularly mind if you want to do it - if you happen to be trans I will respect how you want to be referred to.
I dont want to be strong-armed into doing it myself (either overtly or via being peer-pressured into it by the implication its "being nice" for everyone to do it).
I also dont want to be in a position where I have to flag I am more on the gender-critical side of the fence of that debate at work - i dont talk politics in the office, I dont talk religion in the office and I shouldnt have to.
"as a white bloke, ironically, you are right at home in the woke movement
you can feel REALLY smug at how caring you are while shitting on everyone else"
I am not in the "woke movement" I don't even know what that means. I am not politically active at all on identity issues, maybe I should be but I am not. I just tend to sympathise more with people who complain about injustices than those who slag them off for it.
Society is so black/white now (racial undertone unintended).
Politics is either LEFT or RIGHT. Centrists are mocked or loathed, I’m not sure which. We clearly have a two-party system, Lib Dems and green are useless.
But just because you’re not for something doesn’t mean you’re actively against. Does that make any sense? You’re not into abortions (personal stance) but don’t want to make them illegal.
disagree tbh rumpy (at least as we would have understood them in our lifetimes to date)
politics is either isolationist or globalist
brexiteer or fbpe
trump or aoc
they don’t fit into left/right categories like they used to (or even their own categories - eg trump says caitlyn jenner can use any bathroom she wants in trump towers and gets a massive cheer from the red hats - is he “woke”?)
the history books will probably trace it back to the internet
I would like however people to stop pretending men are women when they are actually not. I think that makes me a TERF, though I’m not particularly radical and just a bit fed up.
Guy talking absolute wham in this thread. The sort of limited intellect that the likes of antifa rely on for their continued existence. “But they are called antifa which means anti fascist so they must be anti fascist and there is absolutely nothing else to it”.
In unrelated news, my organisation Anti-paedo wants all Guy’s money and if he doesn’t pay up… well, you know what that means.
I havent mentioned antifa, they barely exist in this country. I am talking about the cultural divide in this country and the people the right generally describe as "woke", which are generally speaking those leaning more to not being dickish to other groups, even if they sometimes take offence to easily, and less towards xenephobia and complacency.
Guy, you’re not qualified for this conversation. You are, to borrow the phrase of a lefty hero a “useful idiot” that falls hook line and sinker for all their little tricks. You probably haven’t even noticed the subtle shift from simply not being racist to the new directive to be “anti racist”.
There is definitely a subset of woke that very much do lean towards being dickish toward anybody who does not conform with their orthodoxy. No point pretending that everybody is CofE woke like you, Guy.
Asimov you seem to be having an entirely different conversation -who is “they”? I was asked to identify either as woke or gammon, I choose the former, obviously that does not mean I identify with or support every political sub grouping within that. It’s rather like accusing me on being asked to choose whether I am right leaning or left leaning and on me choosing left accusing me of being an idiot for being a communist -its nonsensical.
I'm on the right - oh sorry that's too loaded - the "correct" side of history.
But all that aside, 100% what Donny said.
I'm rediscovering my inner Marxist. Identity politics is such a tool of class oppression. Convince people that their enemies are those who look or sound different and not those who actually perpetuate a system that oppresses them, and hey you help perpetuate the system.
D&I as far as I see it in my very woke and very well paid organisation seems to be about hiring the privately educated gay sons of doctors or the polished Asian daughters of lawyers, rather than a kid who grew up somewhere in the tough suburbs or in the country and might actually contribute to meaningful diversity.
Neither. This is just an attempt at polarisation i.e. a manipulation technique that involves the deliberate attempt to move people away from the political centre by increasing the gap between two affinity groups, usually the political left and political right or liberals and conservatives & often using bots for false amplification.
0
3
Are they the only choices?
0
2
yes
2
2
The only sensible thing to do is be a conscientious objector and stay out of the war altogether.
0
3
the correct side
0
4
woke and proud
0
3
I guess I'll have to reluctantly pick gammon then
Woke is ruining everything
1
2
How can Heff be Woke, when his OP is inherantly sexist, and excludes females from his nomenclature (gammons of course being exclusively male).
Middle-aged, wannabe QC - you're as gammonage as they come TBH.
0
3
Woke believes that:
forced masking is "kind" and should last forever (so may cold bugs around!)
the sun shines out of the EU's arse
transwomen are literally women and it is bigoted not to agree with this (even if your functional view of women and transwomen is day-to-day identical)
asexual is a sexuality that requires its own day
all white people are privileged and should submit to lectures by American millionaires about it
anti-semitism isn't "real" racism
0
2
there's a certain kind of innate gammon who likes to ape woke to horrific effect (see e.g. Jolyon)
0
1
Neither. This so-called conflict bears no relation to normal people's lives. But if I had to choose, then gammon.
0
1
Woke believe in non-binary. Gammon/Woke is so binary. Meh. Adopts centre/leftness.
0
2
although actually tbf I am not sure how woke Jolyon is, he is just very into TRAing (and I suppose the EU)
0
1
I wouldn't be surprised if Heffalump actually WAS Jolyon tbh.
0
1
The ‘Culture Wars’ are a manifestation of confected OUTRAGE and FURY created and driven by the MSM for clicks from middle aged conservatives who are oblivious to how they are being manipulated.
I do HTH.
0
1
I guess woke on the basis that they are, on balance, far less obsessed with the insanely boring culture war than the gammons.
0
1
is short for "awoken" and means being aware of inherent racism still prevalent in society- nothing more - only one item on Clergs list is at all relevant to the term.
0
1
also if you look at any social media site you will see the "culture war" is being driven 90 per cent by the right.
0
2
Guy - it involves a very specific world view that is definitely not just "awareness of racism"
0
1
Indeed - Woke just means don't be smug and "put yourself in someone else's shoes". And on the basis of Hotblack's 6 point sprawling "critical thinking" thread, which was basically "check your priors" - Hotblack is entirely woke.
0
1
I'm neither woke or gammon.
I don't believe that trans people should just be generally allowed to use womens facilities etc etc or claim women status for any purpose. On most issues I am instinctively socially liberal. I believe in free speech - I think Kathleen Stock at Essex university was treated very badly indeed by Essex university and the students.
Mostly, I think 'culture wars' are a big distraction from the subjects i'd prefer people to be discussing.
0
1
Has the poor woman also now been hounded out of Essex?
0
1
Woke means weaponise your personal identitarian data points (real or confected)
0
2
Identity politics is now an absolute obsession of the right unfortunately. For every post you will find on social media complaining about racism or other dont be a dick to other people type stuff, you will find ten from people having a go at the "woke" and delighting in their apparent new found freedom to be vaguely racist and xenaphobic.
0
3
Certainly hounded out of Sussex
0
2
I have no team. But I can find almost no common ground with woke on policy. Any policy.
0
2
I try to be anti culture wars and it seems to me both sides are as bad as each other. As noted the other day they are driven by the US and so we need to distance ourselves from the US and its culture in this regard.
0
1
Both sides are not as bad as each other - on one side you have people who generally think it is best not be to be dickish to other groups of people (and yes sometimes may have gone too far to find insult but, in the main, point out obvious injustices) and on the other a group of people who delight in slagging them off for it. The latter are now by far the most vocal of the two groups.
0
1
on side you have people who stalk JK Rowling and take pictures of themselves outside her house and post it on social media as "punishment" for saying that gender must not replace sex
0
1
as a white bloke, ironically, you are right at home in the woke movement
you can feel REALLY smug at how caring you are while shitting on everyone else
0
2
erm nobody thinks stalking someone is ok
i don’t think everyone on the “non-woke” side is cool with those guys who beat up owen jones for being gay
1
1
Agree with Canary Worf.
I am instinctively liberal in the sense I want to be left alone and I am happy leave you alone too - I dont like banning things, and generally believe people should have equality of opportunity so far as its achievable.
The DnI approaches at institutions now seems to be driven by american thinking on the topic - they are not world leaders in this area - they have a very polarised and backward view on stuff.
On Race - american racism is different to Brit/Eu racism - they still had segregation in the 60s FFS - their police kill people on a regular basis, you can basically categorise people by racial characteristics as they have more universal experiences over there.
In the UK Race is inherently mixed with our class system - bottom of the heap are poor immigrants, then poor white people, then middle class immigrants and middle class white people (they also have divides but I would argue the middle classes in britain have more in common with each other than the poor), then there are the rich and privileged - west london is super diverse, the posh haunts in mayfair are super international, i refuse to accept that some mega rich minority person has the same challenges as those in the "poor" category.
On sex/gender - again the US has always been more regressive than the UK/EU on this point as they are more religious - there is more of the social expectation of a "womans place" in the US than there is in the UK, although we obviosuly have our own challenges. Again with sex/gender its wrapped up in the class system - poor women face much harsher and nastier challenges than a woman who went to cheltenham ladies.
I am not saying we do not have issues in the UK - we definately do and we need to address them - but we should not borrow the yank thinking on this - those guys approach things in an alien fashion - they are good at marketing and getting inside other cultures, but in this instance (like guns) we dont want it brah.
1
1
I think it is worth the effort to assess each issue without regard for whose talking head has dug which trench line. Very easy to become lazy, forego one's own assessment and just subscribe to one side. If a critical mass of people does this, discourse dies and all that remains is shouting and name-calling.
0
1
" i refuse to accept that some mega rich minority person has the same challenges as those in the "poor" category. "
would anybody sensible try to make you agree they do have the same challenges?
0
1
Woke.
Equality of outcome.
0
1
Diceman - probably not directly but within my experience at law firms and financial institutions (where people tend to be from fairly privileged backgrounds) it becomes tedious being pushed to attend another "woman in work" call to hear how life was so hard for "Tilly Smith-Cooperwright" and how awesome she is for having made it in the corporate environment with her top private school education and all the other trappings.
Being the first in my family to undergraduate level and educated a sink comp school, but unfortunately being in possession of a male appendage i consider with shame how my gender could possibly have held her back so much.
1
1
What BillyBob said. It's class and money (and the education it buys) that really matters to your life chances in the UK. Race and sexuality (now) and even gender are a million miles behind.
The average upper middle class, public school educated, gay, Asian woman has much, much better life chances than the average working class white heterosexual boy from a rough town in the north of England.
Almost all of identity politics is squabbling amongst the incredibly privileged and as such the lot of them can get off twitter and get in the fvcking sea as far as I am concerned.
If that makes me 'Gammon' so be it.
0
1
Woke. But not the insane type who doesn't even try and see things from another perspective.
0
1
Heh @ this
and gammon means ‘a piece of salted pork’
big brain stuff
1
1
The binary choice in the OP is not realistic. It creates a false equivalence between both "sides" whereas, as guy points out, the far right pushing this is far, far worse than the people just trying to be decent. It's "very fine people on both sides" and the prominence given to Nigel Farage before the brexit referendum for "balance" writ large.
The whole thing is hideous.
2
2
Merely for entertainment/incitement, depending on one's inclinations, here's a summary of the anti-woke arguments. I freely concede that it is largely plagiarised from far more eloquent and better informed FT commenters, but it's grist to the mill! 😊
Identity politics is the contrivance, fetishization and weaponization of victimhood. The West is twisting itself in knots to appease highly vocal activists whose views are devoid of rationality or science. The world currently has three powerful ideologies: (1) Chinese/CCP totalitarianism; (2) Islamic totalitarianism; and (3) Rational liberalism. Wokeism/identity politics is destroying the third and is hugely benefiting the first two:
(1) ‘Diversity’ and ‘equity’ are replacing ‘merit and equal opportunities at point of entry’. ‘Diversity/equity’ never means representation of, e.g. the working class, or conservatives, or Asians, it is a weapon used to advance carefully selected, politically-favoured ‘tribes’. There is no difference between (i) diversity; (ii) targets; (iii) quotas; (iv) affirmative action; and (v) anti-white/anti-Asian/anti-male discrimination. They are substantially identical except for the level of euphemism. Diversity should be irrelevant: all that should matter is merit. Bluntly précised, the “diversity bandwagon” grifters’ schtick is simply: “We can’t impose our left-wing social engineering via objective measures of merit and competence, so we’re now deploying blackmail and affirmative action - and creating jobs for ourselves as the moral arbiters of wrongthink”.
(2) Different racial outcomes reflect different cultures and behaviour. People of every colour are successful when they: (i) obtain at least a high school education, (ii) secure a full-time job, and (iii) marry before having children (the ‘success sequence’), as well as (iv) avoiding crime. See the black US economist Thomas Sowell’s extensive body of work on this (e.g. “The Economics and Politics of Race”), as well as that of Amy Chua, Andrew Sullivan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, Heather MacDonald (City Journal), Jason Reilly, John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Megan Kelly, Shelby Steele (e.g. "The Content of Our Character"), Thomas Chatterton Williams (e.g. "Self-Portrait in Black and White"), Walter Williams, and Wilfred Reilly. Facing them, the primary snake oil salesmen of critical race theory and ‘wokethink’ are activists such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, and assorted status-signalling shills and hangers-on. The latter’s critical race theory and derivative arguments place racial conflict at the centre of every issue at the expense of race-neutral considerations like objective truth and human individuality. New phrases have entered our public debate: terms like systemic racism, unconscious bias, white privilege and cultural appropriation. Anti-racism training has become a big business with the most popular speakers and authors generating considerable revenue. Contemporary anti-racism breathes new life back into racial thinking and emphasises differences between people that were only recently being overcome. So-called ‘anti-racism’ has rejected the civil rights era aspiration for colour blindness, as people are once more being taught to see each other as racialised beings. White people are assumed to be the beneficiaries of ‘white privilege’ – and black people the victims of ‘systemic racism’. Such gross racial generalisations are to the detriment of everyone in society. The sole beneficiaries of this approach are self-appointed ‘race experts’ who have manoeuvred themselves in powerful positions to intervene in all aspects of our public and private lives. This self-evidently toxic ideology is dividing people and turning every interracial reaction into a minefield, electorally damaging the Left, undermining the centre, and empowering the Trump-esque Right.
(3) People cannot change sex. (a) Ideologues are grooming, drugging, chemically sterilising and surgically mutilating children; (b) women’s sports are being destroyed; and (c) women are being exposed to sexual assault and rape in saunas, changing rooms, toilets, rape crisis centres, hospitals, and prisons. ‘Gender’ is a made-up concept. ‘Gender identity’ is a quasi-religious men’s sexual rights cult, driven by (i) paraphilia/autogynephilia in adult males (e.g. Andrea Chu, Torrey Peters, Grace Lavery, Aimee Challenor); (ii) mental health issues including social contagion/‘Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria’ (“ROGD”) in trans-identifying girls; and (iii) opportunism by male athletes (e.g. Rachel McKinnon, Alana McLaughlin) and sex offenders seeking access to victims (e.g. Karen White, Barbie Kardashian, Darren Merager). However, trans activists have until recently successfully hijacked major Western institutions and blackmailed media and politicians into terrified obedience.
(4) Men and women doing identical jobs are paid the same. The so-called pay gap is overwhelmingly not the result of sexist employers, but rather of personal choices arising from biology: (a) men and women are biologically different, have different interests and make different career choices; and (b) put crudely, women have babies, and babies don’t get along well with demanding, full-time jobs. When couples choose to have children, that choice has consequences. There are 168 hours in the week for everyone. If you have children, that's time you can't commit to your employer. That's no ‘fault’ of employers. It has always been open to couples to make the man the primary carer, and it remains so now. None of us can have it all: e.g. successful CEOs sacrifice time with their family. Children take time and effort, even if child-rearing is outsourced to schools, nannies, etc. Deciding to have children and deciding who takes the primary carer role is a personal decision for each couple. The most valuable employees are those who can focus 100% on their career. That is not discrimination, it’s the inevitable result of a world in which clients have freedom of choice where to take their business. Wishful thinking won’t survive international competition. In a global economy, all the domestic legislation in the world forcing employers to accept inferior performance won’t change competitive dynamics from overseas rivals without such handicaps. We can’t change economic reality via employment law.
These are all facts denied following an abdication of intellect by Oppression Olympics, Diversity Top Trumps, Grievance Studies professional victimhood “scholars” and activists who insist on dividing the world into “evil oppressors” and “the virtuous oppressed”. Left-leaning hangers-on have succumbed to tribalism: "What does my tribe believe? We believe (certain) women, we believe (certain) oppressed people/minorities, trans-activists claim to be oppressed/minorities – don't think too much about it – I'm going to parrot this nonsense because I've been told that this is the right side of history, and I want to feel I'm on the right side of history. Don't ask questions. it. Transphobe! Racist! Bigot!"
China observes gleefully, and continues to focus on reality, science and objectively assessed merit, such as the Gaokao exam.
0
2
Pinkus: since the two are mutually exclusive, what is more important to you: equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?
0
1
I don't actually believe that those on the 'woke' side are just trying to be decent in many cases though.
'Decency' just isn't aggressive in the way that woke culture has become. Decency is accepting of others points of view and perspectives. It's tolerant and gives people the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't write complaint letters because a photographer offered to give a woman a hand down off a stage. Most of all decency (when it is a 20 something middle class white kid) doesn't lecture a middle aged black working class guy about how he is using the wrong language to describe his own ethnicity and how THEY are offended by it (as I witnessed recently).
0
1
The side that allowed cheeseburger pizza.
0
1
Its like the whole email pronouns thing.
I dont particularly mind if you want to do it - if you happen to be trans I will respect how you want to be referred to.
I dont want to be strong-armed into doing it myself (either overtly or via being peer-pressured into it by the implication its "being nice" for everyone to do it).
I also dont want to be in a position where I have to flag I am more on the gender-critical side of the fence of that debate at work - i dont talk politics in the office, I dont talk religion in the office and I shouldnt have to.
0
2
"as a white bloke, ironically, you are right at home in the woke movement
you can feel REALLY smug at how caring you are while shitting on everyone else"
I am not in the "woke movement" I don't even know what that means. I am not politically active at all on identity issues, maybe I should be but I am not. I just tend to sympathise more with people who complain about injustices than those who slag them off for it.
0
1
Jethers identifies as a bellend
0
3
Not the same side as this woman anyway
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022990…
1
3
Reckon this stuff is given undue prominence by the Telegraph and Guardian. 99% of people don’t give two shits about the “culture war”.
0
2
Society is so black/white now (racial undertone unintended).
Politics is either LEFT or RIGHT. Centrists are mocked or loathed, I’m not sure which. We clearly have a two-party system, Lib Dems and green are useless.
But just because you’re not for something doesn’t mean you’re actively against. Does that make any sense? You’re not into abortions (personal stance) but don’t want to make them illegal.
0
1
What Rumpy said.
0
1
I don’t identify as either.
0
2
Me neither and anyhow, no one, absolutely no one, cares what i think anyway.
0
1
disagree tbh rumpy (at least as we would have understood them in our lifetimes to date)
politics is either isolationist or globalist
brexiteer or fbpe
trump or aoc
they don’t fit into left/right categories like they used to (or even their own categories - eg trump says caitlyn jenner can use any bathroom she wants in trump towers and gets a massive cheer from the red hats - is he “woke”?)
the history books will probably trace it back to the internet
0
1
I would like however people to stop pretending men are women when they are actually not. I think that makes me a TERF, though I’m not particularly radical and just a bit fed up.
0
1
you’re not a terf ob
0
1
Hail Mary full of grace,
Punch the devil in the face
🙏🕯
0
2
Guy talking absolute wham in this thread. The sort of limited intellect that the likes of antifa rely on for their continued existence. “But they are called antifa which means anti fascist so they must be anti fascist and there is absolutely nothing else to it”.
In unrelated news, my organisation Anti-paedo wants all Guy’s money and if he doesn’t pay up… well, you know what that means.
0
1
Team Gammon
0
2
I havent mentioned antifa, they barely exist in this country. I am talking about the cultural divide in this country and the people the right generally describe as "woke", which are generally speaking those leaning more to not being dickish to other groups, even if they sometimes take offence to easily, and less towards xenephobia and complacency.
0
2
Guy, you’re not qualified for this conversation. You are, to borrow the phrase of a lefty hero a “useful idiot” that falls hook line and sinker for all their little tricks. You probably haven’t even noticed the subtle shift from simply not being racist to the new directive to be “anti racist”.
0
1
"I don't identify as either .... and anyhow, no one, absolutely no one, cares what i think anyway."
This. And I've got more pressing issues to worry about tbh.
2
2
There is definitely a subset of woke that very much do lean towards being dickish toward anybody who does not conform with their orthodoxy. No point pretending that everybody is CofE woke like you, Guy.
1
1
False choice. Other options are available.
0
3
Asimov you seem to be having an entirely different conversation -who is “they”? I was asked to identify either as woke or gammon, I choose the former, obviously that does not mean I identify with or support every political sub grouping within that. It’s rather like accusing me on being asked to choose whether I am right leaning or left leaning and on me choosing left accusing me of being an idiot for being a communist -its nonsensical.
1
1
I've changed my mind. I'm now woke.
0
1
dux, did you somehow remember there was this thread from 3 years ago and how you responded?
0
1
Dux keeps spreadsheets
0
1
No. I was searching for something else and came across this thread.
1
3
The comment that woke doesn’t affect 99 per cent of the population is absolute rubbish. It is rammed down your throat at almost every workplace by HR
1
1
Really? Sounds ghastly. I guess I must be lucky.
0
1
I'm on the right - oh sorry that's too loaded - the "correct" side of history.
But all that aside, 100% what Donny said.
I'm rediscovering my inner Marxist. Identity politics is such a tool of class oppression. Convince people that their enemies are those who look or sound different and not those who actually perpetuate a system that oppresses them, and hey you help perpetuate the system.
D&I as far as I see it in my very woke and very well paid organisation seems to be about hiring the privately educated gay sons of doctors or the polished Asian daughters of lawyers, rather than a kid who grew up somewhere in the tough suburbs or in the country and might actually contribute to meaningful diversity.
0
1
Neither. This is just an attempt at polarisation i.e. a manipulation technique that involves the deliberate attempt to move people away from the political centre by increasing the gap between two affinity groups, usually the political left and political right or liberals and conservatives & often using bots for false amplification.
Bots and Computational Propaganda: Automation for Communication and Control
Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems
0
1
Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems
0
3
Gammon. Woke people are thick
Join the discussion