“Woke”

[RecoveringYuppy]

Empathy and decency is one thing, but being supposed to no longer say "girlfriend" or "wife" or "mom" about your own is a whole new level of stupid.

Are you referring to d4m10n AF Academy post?

I don't read it as you can't do that. Quite the opposite, the first directive is do what the person you are talking to wants you to do. I think it follows that if you are talking about yourself you can use whatever words you like.

 

[LondonJohn]

These days you get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you're English, don't you?

Earlier this year I was applying for a new passport, and on my passport photo, on my face, in pen, I wrote “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack”. Caused a stupid load of fuss…..

 

[LondonJohn]

(And of course Mr Lee has some germane and instructive things to say about “wokeness” and political correctness)

 

[bruto]

That Air Force thing looks a little over the top, but I wonder if it lacks context. It is, to begin with, apparently a recommendation and not an order, and does not, as far as I can read, demand that certain words never be used - only that they should not be used when they shouldn't. In a diverse world, not every parent is automatically a mom or a dad, nor is every partner a boyfriend or girlfriend or a wife or a husband. Saying that, lacking detailed knowledge, or, for example, when addressing a roomful of people, one would do better not to assume these things, is not the same as saying you must never use the words.

I also note that in at least a cursory search, the expressions of outrage, and in fact, the only references at all, come from sources of which perhaps the least right wing is Fox News and the NY Post. It appears that the original source was a slide show given to trainees suggesting how they might phrase things to be more inclusive. It is not, as far as I can see, a statement of policy or a requirement.

And one might consider that if the last two suggestions (no disparaging nicknames, no use of "N" and other words) need saying at all, we might need to consider the context and the audience and their history here. I don't think the AF Academy has, up till now, been noted as a bastion of tolerance and inclusion.

And really, if the cadets at the Air Force Academy were to follow the guidelines, what harm would come to anyone anywhere? This is not some nefarious scheme to rob the English language of moms and dads and girlfriends.

 

[Darat]

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...ecting-me-to-say-partner-20181212-p50lsg.html

Edit: besides, it's right on that picture a wee bit upwards in the thread. Someone at the air force academy actually made a powerpoint slide about it. Plus, you have TragicMonkey as a witness about the use of "mom" and "dad". So I'm not sure exactly how much more room for denial there is.

She almost gets it: “… Maybe these people just use "partner" as the default in all their conversations, even with straight people….” But then misses it “… It’s unlikely, but it probably happens…”

 

[Darat]

Of course it is presented outside of context and of course is also described incorrectly because it is about having a “them” to rail against.

 

[Matthew Best]

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...ecting-me-to-say-partner-20181212-p50lsg.html

That seems to be a story about people referring to someone's wife as their "partner". But you said the problem was being supposed to no longer say "girlfriend" or "wife" or "mom" about your own, which is rather different. Nobody in that story is telling the writer than she can't refer to her "wife".

 

[TragicMonkey]

Of course it is presented outside of context and of course is also described incorrectly because it is about having a “them” to rail against.

Some people get so angry when their conception of what is normal is challenged. Is it because they fit their own conception of normal and regard variance from normal as being inherently bad? Or do they feel upset that they're possibly out-of-touch with the state of how things are? Or is it that they think it's criticism of them and such criticism is a personal attack? It's exceedingly hard to determine because it descends to incoherent rage and spluttering.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think the AF Academy has, up till now, been noted as a bastion of tolerance and inclusion.

You'd be surprised. I've rarely experienced as much ethnic & class diversity in the civilian world as I did at the Academy, where everyone was on full scholarship and students were drawn from all around the U.S.

(Not so much sex & gender diversity, alas.)

And really, if the cadets at the Air Force Academy were to follow the guidelines, what harm would come to anyone anywhere?

Nothing comes to mind, but then "woke" doesn't generally mean "harmful."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Of course it is presented outside of context and of course is also described incorrectly because it is about having a “them” to rail against.

WHAT context? A woman repeatedly refers to her wife as "wife", someone corrects her to "partner". Repeatedly. I mean, even if they didn't want to say "wife" themselves, one can just go, "ok, under what name?" for that reservation. Especially since it's for something where there is no pre-requisite to even be partners in any sense. But no, they feel like correcting the way she says it. With emphasis if needed.

Goes to another shop, the same happens.

Anything else I missed about that context?


And anyway, you notice the double standard, though, I hope?

- if I refer to someone in any other way than exactly how they want to, I'm the bad guy, and lacking empathy, etc... or at least as long as what they want aligns with the current woke fashion

- if someone else doesn't give a flip that a woman would like to be called "wife" and not "partner"... eh, it's apparently not that bad. They just used it about someone else. And it's apparently ok, because they used to. (Funny how when it's not the PC terms, being about someone else and being used to it, are what makes one the bad guy, not the excuse.)

That's what strikes me as expecting it to be a one way street. And not really empathy anyway. If it were empathy, then they'd care about what those two women would like to be called, no? But nope, you'll get this term whether you want it or not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing comes to mind, but then "woke" doesn't generally mean "harmful."

You’re right. It generally means “respectful”, “thoughtful”, “considerate’, “alert to the possibility that others may be different from us”.

Guess those sorts of things don’t float some people’s boats though….

 

[bruto]

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...ecting-me-to-say-partner-20181212-p50lsg.html

Edit: besides, it's right on that picture a wee bit upwards in the thread. Someone at the air force academy actually made a powerpoint slide about it. Plus, you have TragicMonkey as a witness about the use of "mom" and "dad". So I'm not sure exactly how much more room for denial there is.

Yes, I'm sure the powerpoint slide is real, but it's not a publication of rules, it's a powerpoint slide that accompanied a lecture about preferences in conduct.

And though I might indeed be missing the point, I was under the impression that TM's post above was about his mother's take on the news, an excessive reaction more about its sources than its true content.

 

[Darat]

WHAT context? A woman repeatedly refers to her wife as "wife", someone corrects her to "partner". Repeatedly. I mean, even if they didn't want to say "wife" themselves, one can just go, "ok, under what name?" for that reservation. Especially since it's for something where there is no pre-requisite to even be partners in any sense. But no, they feel like correcting the way she says it. With emphasis if needed.

Goes to another shop, the same happens.

Anything else I missed about that context?


And anyway, you notice the double standard, though, I hope?


- if I refer to someone in any other way than exactly how they want to, I'm the bad guy, and lacking empathy, etc... or at least as long as what they want aligns with the current woke fashion

- if someone else doesn't give a flip that a woman would like to be called "wife" and not "partner"... eh, it's apparently not that bad. They just used it about someone else. And it's apparently ok, because they used to. (Funny how when it's not the PC terms, being about someone else and being used to it, are what makes one the bad guy, not the excuse.)

That's what strikes me as expecting it to be a one way street. And not really empathy anyway. If it were empathy, then they'd care about what those two women would like to be called, no? But nope, you'll get this term whether you want it or not.

You seem to be like her - you almost grasp it and then you miss: “… Maybe these people just use "partner" as the default in all their conversations, even with straight people….”

She probably never noticed it until she married and started to refer to her other half as her wife. It's akin to like buying a certain make of car and all of a sudden there seem to be more of them on the roads than before.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

1. Nevertheless, you called into question whether such a correction actually happened. I provided a first hand account, now apparently that doesn't count, because... whatever.

2. Yes, but my point is that if I were to call someone "he" instead of their favourite pronouns, all that wouldn't count as an excuse. Very few people would be going "it's ok, because he's used to that", and then they too would be called names by the woke brigade.

Doubly so if I corrected a customer, which is what these guys are doing. We're not talking about someone making an occasional mistake. We're talking about people repeatedly correcting even a customer about what word they think is the right one. (Even she says there that she'll lets it slide the first time.)

I mean, forget even PC terms. Let's say you worked as a car mechanic and a customer comes in complaining that his "trunk" doesn't close right. Would you correct them to "boot"? More than once?

 

[Darat]

1. Nevertheless, you called into question whether such a correction actually happened. I provided a first hand account, now apparently that doesn't count, because... whatever.
...snip..

That was not a correction even given the slant of the article.

2. Yes, but my point is that if I were to call someone "he" instead of their favourite pronouns, all that wouldn't count as an excuse. Very few people would be going "it's ok, because he's used to that", and then they too would be called names by the woke brigade.

And?

Doubly so if I corrected a customer, which is what these guys are doing. We're not talking about someone making an occasional mistake. We're talking about people repeatedly correcting even a customer about what word they think is the right one. (Even she says there that she'll lets it slide the first time.)

Again even the article couldn't make it sound like a correction.

I mean, forget even PC terms. Let's say you worked as a car mechanic and a customer comes in complaining that his "trunk" doesn't close right. Would you correct them to "boot"? More than once?

Again what she recalled was not a correction.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, I'm sure the powerpoint slide is real, but it's not a publication of rules, it's a powerpoint slide that accompanied a lecture about preferences in conduct.

Yeah, but...some of those preferences are vastly more important than others. Throw in a "mom and dad" or two when briefing students on an upcoming parents' day (yes, that's a thing) no one will complain, not even the people with just one parent left. Drop an n-word or two and see how long you're put on probation and stripped of leadership roles.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Cain]

Motivated by virtue signalling, sure.

This is the phrase everyone gloms onto, but is that what's actually motivating people? I'd bet a thousand dollars that if we went to an affluent, progressive high school and asked a class, "Hey, do you guys y'all want to attend a higher ed. institution that is inclusive?" I'm almost certain the answer will be an immediate and enthusiastic "Yes!" And I'm certain that if you follow it up with, "Ah, so you're hoping to go to community college?" The answer will be "No..." They want to attend the most exclusive institution they can afford. Does it follow that they were “virtue signaling” with their original answer? No; it was a genuine answer, but people are complicated. They want the imprimatur of a respected IQ notarizing body, but they also want students to feel safe, not experience discrimination, etc. Of the two, which do they prioritize? Probably themselves.

Instead of virtue, I think it's a matter of generally signaling fitness, or more specifically social status. The words people use, their accent, manner of dress, etc. all signal status. Robin Hanson had a classic blog post about the activities people mistake (politics is not about policy, school is not about education, laughter is not about humor, food is not about nutrition, clothes are not about comfort). People who dress in "basic" ways are not (generally) as attuned to the culture. They're less likely to know what's in and what's out. People get in on the trend because they're motivated by conformity. Once too many people get in on the trend, it goes bust, and something else takes its place.

The only constant rule about language is that it changes. Words that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable. It happens. The criticism is that these language changes are not evolving organically; they're being imposed. Latinx is a prime example; the target population does not like the term, and some charge the Anglicization of their language is colonialism 101 -- like imperialist powers imposing borders on foreign people. I'd bet most self-identified Latinos and Hispanics do not even know the difference between Latino and Hispanic (not that it matters).

Young people and cognitive elites are among the most capable of adapting to changes in language. Corporations, like people -- because they are people -- also want to get social status on the cheap, hence the woke-washing. Just as it's easy to write on Instagram that "Trans rights are human rights," it's no skin off Budweiser's teeth to print rainbow labels to support Pride Month. It's amusing to see conservatives rage as the global marketplace takes precedence over the US. Oh no, it's profitable for franchise films to have superficially diverse casts. I'll be more interested when companies welcome unions, let alone workers owning and controlling the means of production.

 

[d4m10n]

Latinx is a prime example; the target population does not like the term, and some charge the Anglicization of their language is colonialism 101...

More like recolonialism, since the three Latin-based languages of Central & South America all came from bits of the former Roman Empire during the colonial era. It certainly is a bit gauche for woke Anglophones to tell Latiné folx how they ought to self-identify, though.

I'd bet most self-identified Latinos and Hispanics do not even know the difference between Latino and Hispanic (not that it matters).

In my experience most of us identify in terms of where our ancestors came from (e.g. Mexican American, Puerto Rican, etc.) rather than using an umbrella term one might use for an activist coalition or our current heritage month.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This is the phrase everyone gloms onto, but is that what's actually motivating people? I'd bet a thousand dollars that if we went to an affluent, progressive high school and asked a class, "Hey, do you guys y'all want to attend a higher ed. institution that is inclusive?" I'm almost certain the answer will be an immediate and enthusiastic "Yes!" And I'm certain that if you follow it up with, "Ah, so you're hoping to go to community college?" The answer will be "No..." They want to attend the most exclusive institution they can afford.

The opposite of community college is not "exclusive college" unless you're referring to some kind of academic achievement criteria which is not what is being discussed here.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Instead of virtue, I think it's a matter of generally signaling fitness, or more specifically social status. The words people use, their accent, manner of dress, etc. all signal status. Robin Hanson had a classic blog post about the activities people mistake (politics is not about policy, school is not about education, laughter is not about humor, food is not about nutrition, clothes are not about comfort). People who dress in "basic" ways are not (generally) as attuned to the culture. They're less likely to know what's in and what's out. People get in on the trend because they're motivated by conformity. Once too many people get in on the trend, it goes bust, and something else takes its place.

I don't think you're contradicting anything there. Sure, people try to make themselves sound more acceptable to a community. Been known in anthropology in like, forever. People will even answer something more acceptable than they really are even in anonymous polls. Whole tribes will declare themselves hunters and warriors, when for the last few generations they were ranchers and most don't even own a weapon.

That's not a counter to virtue signalling, though. Rather, that's the super-category and virtue signalling is the subset. The latter is just how you do it verbally or in writing.

And it's not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Conservatives equally will signal, say, that they're against abortions and then some of them... go have an abortion. Or some preacher will make a big show of condemning homosexuality, and then it turns out he hired male hookers.

Hell, it's not even limited to political issues. It can just as well involve pretending that I too totally believe in astrology, if the hottest girls in the school are into astrology. Or writing in the local newspaper that one is sure that the local team will win this weekend, even though realistically nothing past or present points at them even having a snowflake's chance in Hell. (It's more common than you'd think in local newspapers.) Or pretending to be totally against piracy because anything else will get you kicked off the chat on the Nexus, while running a pirated version of the game. Or whatever.

That's "virtue signalling": making yourself more acceptable to one target group, by professing to have whatever values or beliefs you think they want to hear you professing. It doesn't even have to be an actual virtue or anything.

And yes, it's a sub-category of the more general phenomenon where people change their clothes to fit the group, or change the music genre they listen to in order to fit the group, or start watching football just because (they think) they're expected to talk about it next day in their group, or a few other things. Yes, all of them boil down to making oneself at least seem more like a good fit. "Virtue signalling" is just the name for when it involves words instead of clothes or music genres. That's really all.