what exactly is "woke"

[Deleted]

Ironically, today's column by Leonard Pitts dealt in part with the word "woke" and its corruption by conservatives. Pitts wrote, "Woke means awake and aware". www.nny360.com/opinion/columns/leonard-pitts-jr-it-s-hard-to-fight-from-a-crouch/article_d27635f8-1f25-5b56-980c-88fff564d0d1.html?msclkid=ee771f55cf0d11ec97a15f0f2042247e

BTW, sorry about the long address above but I can't figure out the link thingy!

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2022 14:45:19 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

My understanding of being “woke” is not just going along with the information given to us, or accepting things at face value, but instead, thinking a little deeper and asking questions.

When I first started hearing the term, it was in regards to minorities in our society and the truth about history as it pertains to minorities, not just what the “white man” was ok with being known about that history and minorities in general.

It has since branched out to include more things we are told and led to believe is true in and about the US.

Thats just my understanding though. I could very well be wrong about all of it.

i think it is an unfortunate term, in a way.
but basically, it just means being aware.
and why should a person not aspire to that?

i think it is our democratic duty to question favored truths.
if we don't do that, how will we know whether we are being
led astray?

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2022 16:12:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Probably started here.

A Fox employee said executives at the network said they wanted to purposely air 'grievance' to 'get people boiled up': NYT

Executives at Fox News indicated to employees that they wanted to push a narrative that focused on "grievance," according to a report published Saturday by The New York Times.

One current Fox employee said the network execs had a goal to highlight "the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up."

The driving narrative, the employee suggested, was one that made viewers believe they're in danger. "They're coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you," the employee told The Times.

Media Matters, a nonprofit media watchdog, has published reports accusing Fox News of fearmongering across a variety of issues, from terrorism at the southern border to critical race theory to the coronavirus pandemic.

Polls have previously indicated that people who watch Fox News are likelier to believe former President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. They're also more likely to believe in vaccine misinformation.

The influence Fox News, as the most-watched cable news channel in the US, has is felt widely, even in federal office. President Joe Biden has in private referred to Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch as "the most dangerous man in the world" and "one of the most destructive forces in the United States."

According to The Times report, the network leverages viewer data to make decisions about its coverage.

As Insider's Kelsey Vlamis reported, Fox News host Tucker Carlson relies on comprehensive "minute-by-minute" data that informs the network how viewers respond to different coverage.

"He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up," one former Fox employee who worked with Carlson told The Times.

Fox reporters who covered Trump unfavorably consistently received low ratings, The Times reported. As did left-leaning guests.

"They're all obsessed with the minute-by-minutes," another former Fox employee told The Times. "Every second that goes on that network now gets scrutinized."

When reached for comment, a Fox News Media spokesperson referred Insider to the following statement published in The Times:

"FOX News Media has grown through strategic innovation, redirecting investments in journalism to encompass more than 50 percent of the budget while expanding our footprint beyond one legacy linear network to eight thriving platforms. As a result, we've doubled our audience, achieved unrivaled results, and have become the destination that more Democrats and Independents choose for their news coverage while our competitors have lost dramatic levels of viewership. We couldn't be prouder of our entire team, whose commitment to excellence in journalism and opinion has led FOX News Media to all-time ratings records and delivered the best in class to our viewers."

A Fox employee said executives at the network said they wanted to purposely air 'grievance' to 'get people boiled up': NYT

the bolded section is completely false.  Democrats and Independents used to make up over half their audience.  now it is less than 20%.  so even if they HAVE doubled their audience, there is no way that they have gained Democratic and Independent viewers, just based on the raw numbers.

but they lie pretty consistently about a great many things.  why should they not lie about themselves?

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2022 19:07:13 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

May 2, 2022 18:44:58 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

why couldn't you travel in this life? to read that from you makes me so sad. I feel like having been able to travel as much as I did (for work) in my early/mid 20s, I learned SO MUCH about other ways of life than the "American Dream" (spoiler: it wasn't all that dreamy...) how I grew up. I can't even fathom how different a person I'd be today without that early adventuring. 

Why couldn’t I travel in this life?

Well, I had my first baby when I was 19yo and was a SAHM for the next few years. There was no money at that time to try to explore the world. 

Another baby and a separation from my ex-husband, with a divorce a couple years later, and I was a single Mom with 2 small children.

A few years after that, I got hired at my current job, and I could better provide for my children, but the day to day expenses of raising them by myself (their Dad was not consistently paying child support) and although I did take my children on trips or pay for them to go on trips with my family when I couldn’t get off work to go with them myself, funding traveling for me to see the world like I wanted to, was far down on my list of my priorities. 

My adult life has been just doing what I need to do with the choices I’ve made. I’m not upset about it, because I love my children and don’t regret having them, so my life has just been what it was since I was 19yo and got married, pregnant with my first baby.

Now I’m 50yo and as much as I’d still really like to travel the world, I feel like it’s more important to try to be able to retire comfortably ASAP. 

And just typing that last sentence made my eyes start watering for whatever reason, so Imma end it there.

pick a place you want to go, and start a Go_Fund_Me page.  i promise you i will contribute.

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2022 8:29:01 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

May 4, 2022 8:07:56 GMT -5 scgal said:

Are they touu? How many harsher sentences are because of repeat offenders and not just the 1st time in front of a judge. 

Yes, they are. Google it. Read some studies. This is well documented.

indeed. 
i am not sure that people understand the phrase "all other factors taken into consideration", but it might be useful here:

all other factors being taken into consideration, incarceration rates are higher, and sentencing is worse for people of color than white folks.

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2022 18:06:06 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I’ve given it some thought after reading Tiny ’s post earlier today, and I don’t think shame or guilt are productive emotions for someone that is willing and trying to grow. When we learn better, it’s on us to do better. As long as we strive to learn, do and be better, I don’t really feel like we should beat ourselves up for the ways that we were unintentionally ignorant before. And I don’t mean “ignorant” as an insult. Here, I’m using the term to just mean a lack of knowledge. 

OAN and off topic, I’ve thought about what some of you said, encouraging me to make traveling a priority if it’s what I really want. I use to have a “traveling “ fund as part of my budget. I don’t recall when or why I removed that. I’m going to add it again. The only times I’ve been out of the country, was on a family reunion cruise to Mexico, and when I went to Jamaica twice in the same year. I’m ok if I never go on a cruise again. I enjoyed the time with my family, but I feel like I’ve still not experienced Mexico because we docked near tourist strips and I only had 8 hours on 2 days to be in Mexico. 

I don’t want to be a tourist, I want to be a traveler, and in my wonky mind, those are 2 different things. The second time I went to Jamaica, when I walked out of the airport, I STG I had the strangest feeling, like I’d come home. I still don’t know what that feeling was about, but for a while after I returned from that trip, I tried to figure out how I could move to Jamaica.

Anyway, even if I figure out how I can spend a week or 2 in a foreign land every year, that’s still not what I wish I could do. I don’t really want to just sightsee. In my perfect life, I guess I would be something like a nomad? I don’t want to just go where and do what tourists do, I want to learn about the people that live in other places, about their cultures and what their lives are like. That takes a little more time than a few days, or even a week or 2.

I guess I should’ve figured out in my 20’s how to fund a life like that, because at this point in my life, I really don’t see me realistically being able to fulfill those dreams. But you all are correct, it’s not too late to at least visit some of the places I’d like to go.

Mister and I travel well together. I’ve learned from experience that just because you like or even love a person, it doesn’t necessarily mean you can travel with them without issues.

I will see what I can figure out.

i really don't think it is that easy, unfortunately.  i have been working on this for about 20 years now, and i am still not there. but i am getting close.  it is not just about having the means.  sure, that is part of it.  but it involves a lot of careful planning.  because being nomadic means skirting the rules and keeping on the move.  most countries only allow 90 day visits, and few tolerate visits of over 182 days.  so that means NEVER MAKING ROOTS.  and that is cool.  but what is easier is to have at least five places where you can stay up to 80 days, and just circling around between them.  it is not like having a fixed address, but it is also not like being utterly homeless.  you always have somewhere to go, and you can relax and absorb your surroundings for up to 12 weeks or so without any hassle from the local authorities.  but yeah, that takes a lot of thought and planning, and a willing partner, in some cases.

[djAdvocate]

PS- that last remark is not to discourage you IN ANY WAY.  you are younger than me.  you can do it.  but it is as big a commitment as you will ever make in this life.

[jerseygirl]

May 8, 2022 15:46:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 2, 2022 16:12:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Probably started here.

A Fox employee said executives at the network said they wanted to purposely air 'grievance' to 'get people boiled up': NYT

Executives at Fox News indicated to employees that they wanted to push a narrative that focused on "grievance," according to a report published Saturday by The New York Times.

One current Fox employee said the network execs had a goal to highlight "the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up."

The driving narrative, the employee suggested, was one that made viewers believe they're in danger. "They're coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you," the employee told The Times.

Media Matters, a nonprofit media watchdog, has published reports accusing Fox News of fearmongering across a variety of issues, from terrorism at the southern border to critical race theory to the coronavirus pandemic.

Polls have previously indicated that people who watch Fox News are likelier to believe former President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. They're also more likely to believe in vaccine misinformation.

The influence Fox News, as the most-watched cable news channel in the US, has is felt widely, even in federal office. President Joe Biden has in private referred to Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch as "the most dangerous man in the world" and "one of the most destructive forces in the United States."

According to The Times report, the network leverages viewer data to make decisions about its coverage.

As Insider's Kelsey Vlamis reported, Fox News host Tucker Carlson relies on comprehensive "minute-by-minute" data that informs the network how viewers respond to different coverage.

"He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up," one former Fox employee who worked with Carlson told The Times.

Fox reporters who covered Trump unfavorably consistently received low ratings, The Times reported. As did left-leaning guests.

"They're all obsessed with the minute-by-minutes," another former Fox employee told The Times. "Every second that goes on that network now gets scrutinized."

When reached for comment, a Fox News Media spokesperson referred Insider to the following statement published in The Times:

"FOX News Media has grown through strategic innovation, redirecting investments in journalism to encompass more than 50 percent of the budget while expanding our footprint beyond one legacy linear network to eight thriving platforms. As a result, we've doubled our audience, achieved unrivaled results, and have become the destination that more Democrats and Independents choose for their news coverage while our competitors have lost dramatic levels of viewership. We couldn't be prouder of our entire team, whose commitment to excellence in journalism and opinion has led FOX News Media to all-time ratings records and delivered the best in class to our viewers."

A Fox employee said executives at the network said they wanted to purposely air 'grievance' to 'get people boiled up': NYT

the bolded section is completely false.  Democrats and Independents used to make up over half their audience.  now it is less than 20%.  so even if they HAVE doubled their audience, there is no way that they have gained Democratic and Independent viewers, just based on the raw numbers.

but they lie pretty consistently about a great many things.  why should they not lie about themselves?

Yep
news - papers, tv websites all have an interest in ‘riling up’ people to gain audience
Opposite of above- leak of Supreme Court abortion draft going to banning LGBT kids from classrooms, banning contraceptives etc etc
Both ‘sides’ feel absolutely justified in the opinions being flung around about the other side

Both ‘sides’ are doing no favor to the American people

[djAdvocate]

May 6, 2022 10:41:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

we've seen what happens when someone posts with no intention to offend but some people find it offensive.

No, we have seen what happens when someone posts with no intention to offend but does offend, is told they are being offensive and doubles down on their "right" to say whatever they want as long as "they don't intend to be offensive". This is actually what being woke is all about. Understanding that social injustice occurs and often if it isn't our own experience we don't understand how things affect BIPOC and being willing to learn and try to do better. The phrase that explained this best to me is that I'm not judged on intent but impact and I need to own the impact my words and actions have. Whether I intend to offend or not, if I am offensive the correct response is to apologize and rephrase what I was trying to say, not try to justify and dig in my heals on my right to be offensive.

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

[djAdvocate]

May 6, 2022 17:05:33 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

 OMG,if there ever was a post proving how far apart people are on this issue your post would get First Place.

This is the divisiveness I'm talking about. How is this good for society?
You are attacking me because you don't understand what I'm saying.... and anyone who strays from the preferred line must be attacked.
In your mind this cannot be discussed.

  How much do you really think Marxism is to blame for this politization of the issue

Lots, look it up.
What do you think the ideology is? Who do you think Antifa are and why have they taken over?

marxiststudies.blog.yorku.ca/2020/08/antifa-and-the-marxist-left-some-questions-and-answers/

www.dailysignal.com/2020/08/02/how-wokeness-is-a-product-of-marxism/

true gact that a large segment will need to be brought on board kicking and screaming because they are NOT going to give up their preferential treatment without a fight.

Yes...... and I was offering a solution.

I don't doubt the good intention of people who initially got involved.

I would certainly be supportive of their message ................but in its current state wokeness has turned in to something nasty.

and we need something else.

there is probably considerable overlap between Marxists and Antifa, because both are extremely questioning positions.  however, it is possible to be a Marxist and authoritarian, and it is possible to be a capitalist and be Anti-Fascist.  so, i think there is a Venn Diagram here, and the overlap is far less than complete.

i am a liberal and i am an anti-fascist, but i am no Marxist.

[Deleted]

May 8, 2022 15:50:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 2, 2022 19:07:13 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Why couldn’t I travel in this life?

Well, I had my first baby when I was 19yo and was a SAHM for the next few years. There was no money at that time to try to explore the world. 

Another baby and a separation from my ex-husband, with a divorce a couple years later, and I was a single Mom with 2 small children.

A few years after that, I got hired at my current job, and I could better provide for my children, but the day to day expenses of raising them by myself (their Dad was not consistently paying child support) and although I did take my children on trips or pay for them to go on trips with my family when I couldn’t get off work to go with them myself, funding traveling for me to see the world like I wanted to, was far down on my list of my priorities. 

My adult life has been just doing what I need to do with the choices I’ve made. I’m not upset about it, because I love my children and don’t regret having them, so my life has just been what it was since I was 19yo and got married, pregnant with my first baby.

Now I’m 50yo and as much as I’d still really like to travel the world, I feel like it’s more important to try to be able to retire comfortably ASAP. 

And just typing that last sentence made my eyes start watering for whatever reason, so Imma end it there.

pick a place you want to go, and start a Go_Fund_Me page.  i promise you i will contribute.

That is so kind of you, and I sincerely appreciate you for saying that. But I could never do that, ask people to help pay for me to travel.

[Deleted]

May 8, 2022 16:10:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 6, 2022 17:05:33 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

This is the divisiveness I'm talking about. How is this good for society?
You are attacking me because you don't understand what I'm saying.... and anyone who strays from the preferred line must be attacked.
In your mind this cannot be discussed.

Lots, look it up.
What do you think the ideology is? Who do you think Antifa are and why have they taken over?

marxiststudies.blog.yorku.ca/2020/08/antifa-and-the-marxist-left-some-questions-and-answers/

www.dailysignal.com/2020/08/02/how-wokeness-is-a-product-of-marxism/

Yes...... and I was offering a solution.

I don't doubt the good intention of people who initially got involved.

I would certainly be supportive of their message ................but in its current state wokeness has turned in to something nasty.

and we need something else.

there is probably considerable overlap between Marxists and Antifa, because both are extremely questioning positions.  however, it is possible to be a Marxist and authoritarian, and it is possible to be a capitalist and be Anti-Fascist.  so, i think there is a Venn Diagram here, and the overlap is far less than complete.

i am a liberal and i am an anti-fascist, but i am no Marxist.

Thank you for saying it so well

[raeoflyte]

May 8, 2022 16:08:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 6, 2022 10:41:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No, we have seen what happens when someone posts with no intention to offend but does offend, is told they are being offensive and doubles down on their "right" to say whatever they want as long as "they don't intend to be offensive". This is actually what being woke is all about. Understanding that social injustice occurs and often if it isn't our own experience we don't understand how things affect BIPOC and being willing to learn and try to do better. The phrase that explained this best to me is that I'm not judged on intent but impact and I need to own the impact my words and actions have. Whether I intend to offend or not, if I am offensive the correct response is to apologize and rephrase what I was trying to say, not try to justify and dig in my heals on my right to be offensive.

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

From what I've seen this is what happens. When someone can admit mistake.

[Deleted]

May 8, 2022 16:08:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 6, 2022 10:41:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No, we have seen what happens when someone posts with no intention to offend but does offend, is told they are being offensive and doubles down on their "right" to say whatever they want as long as "they don't intend to be offensive". This is actually what being woke is all about. Understanding that social injustice occurs and often if it isn't our own experience we don't understand how things affect BIPOC and being willing to learn and try to do better. The phrase that explained this best to me is that I'm not judged on intent but impact and I need to own the impact my words and actions have. Whether I intend to offend or not, if I am offensive the correct response is to apologize and rephrase what I was trying to say, not try to justify and dig in my heals on my right to be offensive.

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

Being genuinely interested in why (how?) you (general you) caused harm and trying to learn from it, does matter imo.

I believe that if we are going to try to have honest conversations about these sensitive topics, the participants should be willing to accept that somebody might say something that they don’t articulate well, that might come across wrong, in a way they didn’t intend. It is better imo to try to figure out where that person is coming from with what they said, and give them a chance to correct themselves before pouncing. And the participants in the conversation should be willing to listen if they are corrected and/or it’s explained to them why what they said was problematic. 

I think these types of honest conversations, if they are meant to be fruitful, require grace from all parties. If I say dj, what you just said was offensive, because blah blah blah, the respectful thing would be for you to at least listen to and try to understand what I’m saying. By the same token if you say pink, what you just said was offensive because blah, blah, blah, I should listen to and try to understand what you are saying too. We can ultimately agree to disagree, but we should at least be willing to hear each other if we’re trying to have an honest conversation about sensitive subjects.

But that’s just me and my opinions.

[Deleted]

May 8, 2022 17:35:35 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

May 8, 2022 16:08:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

Being genuinely interested in why (how?) you (general you) caused harm and trying to learn from it, does matter imo.

I believe that if we are going to try to have honest conversations about these sensitive topics, the participants should be willing to accept that somebody might say something that they don’t articulate well, that might come across wrong, in a way they didn’t intend. It is better imo to try to figure out where that person is coming from with what they said, and give them a chance to correct themselves before pouncing. And the participants in the conversation should be willing to listen if they are corrected and/or it’s explained to them why what they said was problematic. 

I think these types of honest conversations, if they are meant to be fruitful, require grace from all parties. If I say dj, what you just said was offensive, because blah blah blah, the respectful thing would be for you to at least listen to and try to understand what I’m saying. By the same token if you say pink, what you just said was offensive because blah, blah, blah, I should listen to and try to understand what you are saying too. We can ultimately agree to disagree, but we should at least be willing to hear each other if we’re trying to have an honest conversation about sensitive subjects.

But that’s just me and my opinions.

I need all the grace I can get on these issues.  Living in a multi-ethnic community that is broadening every single day, I'm sure I will at some point inadvertently offend someone.  I think it's so important not to stereotype, not to assume your Middle Eastern neighbor worships within the Islamic tradition, not to assume your Asian neighbor is Buddhist.  Our Lebanese friends are Methodist, our Chinese friends are Baptist.  At the end of each day, it is all about listening and learning with respect.  

[laterbloomer]

May 8, 2022 16:08:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 6, 2022 10:41:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No, we have seen what happens when someone posts with no intention to offend but does offend, is told they are being offensive and doubles down on their "right" to say whatever they want as long as "they don't intend to be offensive". This is actually what being woke is all about. Understanding that social injustice occurs and often if it isn't our own experience we don't understand how things affect BIPOC and being willing to learn and try to do better. The phrase that explained this best to me is that I'm not judged on intent but impact and I need to own the impact my words and actions have. Whether I intend to offend or not, if I am offensive the correct response is to apologize and rephrase what I was trying to say, not try to justify and dig in my heals on my right to be offensive.

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

The slack is cut all the time, mostly it goes unnoticed because it is such a non event.
1st person - offensive comment
2nd person - that was offensive
1st person - I didn't mean it to be
2nd person - it's offensive because...
1st person - oops, not what I meant. Sorry. I was trying to say...
And life goes on with less than a 30 second blip.

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2022 17:35:35 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

May 8, 2022 16:08:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the problem with that judgment is that it is often far more harsh than it should be.  for example, if a person is GENUINELY interested in why they caused harm by their words or actions, and VOWS TO CHANGE their words or actions in order to prevent future harm, it would be REALLY NICE for the woke community to cut them some slack.

of course, the flipside is that a person who refuses to even consider the harm they have done should receive a unrelenting critique for that.

Being genuinely interested in why (how?) you (general you) caused harm and trying to learn from it, does matter imo.

I believe that if we are going to try to have honest conversations about these sensitive topics, the participants should be willing to accept that somebody might say something that they don’t articulate well, that might come across wrong, in a way they didn’t intend. It is better imo to try to figure out where that person is coming from with what they said, and give them a chance to correct themselves before pouncing. And the participants in the conversation should be willing to listen if they are corrected and/or it’s explained to them why what they said was problematic. 

I think these types of honest conversations, if they are meant to be fruitful, require grace from all parties. If I say dj, what you just said was offensive, because blah blah blah, the respectful thing would be for you to at least listen to and try to understand what I’m saying. By the same token if you say pink, what you just said was offensive because blah, blah, blah, I should listen to and try to understand what you are saying too. We can ultimately agree to disagree, but we should at least be willing to hear each other if we’re trying to have an honest conversation about sensitive subjects.

But that’s just me and my opinions.

i am a huge advocate of "calling in".

unless someone has a pattern of behavior which is known to be universally deplorable, they should be called IN to the conversation.  that way, they have the opportunity to defend themselves, grow, and change.

the alternative, calling them OUT, makes these conversations impossible.

edit: there is obviously a logical limit to this.  a person who constitutes a danger to those around him because of his behavior should not be offered an "in".

[finnime]

May 8, 2022 19:00:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2022 17:35:35 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Being genuinely interested in why (how?) you (general you) caused harm and trying to learn from it, does matter imo.

I believe that if we are going to try to have honest conversations about these sensitive topics, the participants should be willing to accept that somebody might say something that they don’t articulate well, that might come across wrong, in a way they didn’t intend. It is better imo to try to figure out where that person is coming from with what they said, and give them a chance to correct themselves before pouncing. And the participants in the conversation should be willing to listen if they are corrected and/or it’s explained to them why what they said was problematic. 

I think these types of honest conversations, if they are meant to be fruitful, require grace from all parties. If I say dj, what you just said was offensive, because blah blah blah, the respectful thing would be for you to at least listen to and try to understand what I’m saying. By the same token if you say pink, what you just said was offensive because blah, blah, blah, I should listen to and try to understand what you are saying too. We can ultimately agree to disagree, but we should at least be willing to hear each other if we’re trying to have an honest conversation about sensitive subjects.

But that’s just me and my opinions.

i am a huge advocate of "calling in".

unless someone has a pattern of behavior which is known to be universally deplorable, they should be called IN to the conversation.  that way, they have the opportunity to defend themselves, grow, and change.

the alternative, calling them OUT, makes these conversations impossible.

edit: there is obviously a logical limit to this.  a person who constitutes a danger to those around him because of his behavior should not be offered an "in".

I like that, "calling in." 

On the general subject of being or becoming woke, I think we each and all need to beware of how limited our vision is. We can only apprehend the experience and actions of others by true empathy. It is much much easier, and very human, to simply judge and move on.

I don't believe people generally want to foment fear, but I do think there are times when a person or group must act to provoke, to disturb the status quo. If your child is at risk of being shot dead while playing with a toy gun, then you need to act to change things right now. If being stopped for a broken car tail light could result in being assaulted or killed, you need to make noises. We in the U.S. live in a broad society that includes predators with guns. Some of them hunt other people. We need to stop them. I am very glad that my children, particularly my son, are white, because it is simply less dangerous. And I support other parents of all colors who want to know their chldren are not subject to harm because they look like their parents, or recognize they are not truly the gender they were born into, or love others of the same gender, or are girls.

Change is messy and loud and often chaotic. But it is necessary, IMO. How else to get to the point of action?

[laterbloomer]

May 8, 2022 19:00:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2022 17:35:35 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Being genuinely interested in why (how?) you (general you) caused harm and trying to learn from it, does matter imo.

I believe that if we are going to try to have honest conversations about these sensitive topics, the participants should be willing to accept that somebody might say something that they don’t articulate well, that might come across wrong, in a way they didn’t intend. It is better imo to try to figure out where that person is coming from with what they said, and give them a chance to correct themselves before pouncing. And the participants in the conversation should be willing to listen if they are corrected and/or it’s explained to them why what they said was problematic. 

I think these types of honest conversations, if they are meant to be fruitful, require grace from all parties. If I say dj, what you just said was offensive, because blah blah blah, the respectful thing would be for you to at least listen to and try to understand what I’m saying. By the same token if you say pink, what you just said was offensive because blah, blah, blah, I should listen to and try to understand what you are saying too. We can ultimately agree to disagree, but we should at least be willing to hear each other if we’re trying to have an honest conversation about sensitive subjects.

But that’s just me and my opinions.

i am a huge advocate of "calling in".

unless someone has a pattern of behavior which is known to be universally deplorable, they should be called IN to the conversation.  that way, they have the opportunity to defend themselves, grow, and change.

the alternative, calling them OUT, makes these conversations impossible.

edit: there is obviously a logical limit to this.  a person who constitutes a danger to those around him because of his behavior should not be offered an "in".

Just so I can picture this, what would you say when you are calling someone in vs what you would say if you were calling them out?

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2022 9:17:50 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

May 8, 2022 19:00:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am a huge advocate of "calling in".

unless someone has a pattern of behavior which is known to be universally deplorable, they should be called IN to the conversation.  that way, they have the opportunity to defend themselves, grow, and change.

the alternative, calling them OUT, makes these conversations impossible.

edit: there is obviously a logical limit to this.  a person who constitutes a danger to those around him because of his behavior should not be offered an "in".

Just so I can picture this, what would you say when you are calling someone in vs what you would say if you were calling them out?

a person is accused of racist, sexist, or homophobe speech, or unwanted touching (ala Biden), without any prior accusations.  rather than posting on Facebook that this person is a sex offender/predator or a racist (outing and ostracizing the individual), he or she should be taken privately aside and given the opportunity to address the offense.  

agree or disagree?

[laterbloomer]

May 9, 2022 12:11:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2022 9:17:50 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Just so I can picture this, what would you say when you are calling someone in vs what you would say if you were calling them out?

a person is accused of racist, sexist, or homophobe speech, or unwanted touching (ala Biden), without any prior accusations.  rather than posting on Facebook that this person is a sex offender/predator or a racist (outing and ostracizing the individual), he or she should be taken privately aside and given the opportunity to address the offense.  

agree or disagree?

I agree that is what should happen, I don't necessarily agree that the first Biden heard about his behaviour being inappropriate was on the Internet. Up until recently the most common response when a man was told their attention was unwanted was to dismiss the woman of being too uptight, whether it was said out loud or not. The most common advice given to men being rebuffed was to not give up. That said, I do think in the end Biden responded better than many, basically saying he was wrong to do that and he has learned better, (If I remember correctly) In my experience, by the time someone is being called out on the internet they were called in and rejected it. (I am ignoring politically motivated attacks that are motivated by trying to bring an opponent down)

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2022 12:48:19 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

May 9, 2022 12:11:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

a person is accused of racist, sexist, or homophobe speech, or unwanted touching (ala Biden), without any prior accusations.  rather than posting on Facebook that this person is a sex offender/predator or a racist (outing and ostracizing the individual), he or she should be taken privately aside and given the opportunity to address the offense.  

agree or disagree?

I agree that is what should happen, I don't necessarily agree that the first Biden heard about his behaviour being inappropriate was on the Internet. Up until recently the most common response when a man was told their attention was unwanted was to dismiss the woman of being too uptight, whether it was said out loud or not. The most common advice given to men being rebuffed was to not give up. That said, I do think in the end Biden responded better than many, basically saying he was wrong to do that and he has learned better, (If I remember correctly) In my experience, by the time someone is being called out on the internet they were called in and rejected it. (I am ignoring politically motivated attacks that are motivated by trying to bring an opponent down)

that was a confusing sentence.  i was using Biden as an example of inappropriate touching that should be addressed, not "no prior accusations".  

in the beginning, i think this is exactly how the MeToo movement worked- it was punitive FIRST and a bit more conciliatory later.  this left the accused scrambling for support, and with some predictably bad results (ie Franken).

i would appreciate it if you could tell me that you think this has evolved- that the system is less retributive than it was in the early days.  i remember being fairly horrified that people's lives were getting ruined over little more than accusations in some cases.

[Deleted]

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

[swamp]

May 9, 2022 14:34:07 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

These people need to get out of the ivory tower and get real jobs.  

[nidena]

May 9, 2022 14:34:07 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

The power of white-women's tears is pretty well-known in the anti-racism arena.

We don't like to be made to feel uncomfortable so we cry which then puts everyone in our vicinity into consolation mode rather than just letting us sit in our discomfort.  It's a method of deflection and takes the onus off us for our mistakes and biases.

It doesn't matter what Professor A said.  It could have been as innocuous as "Please say Black instead of POC when talking about Black people."

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

May 9, 2022 14:34:07 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

White people, in particular where women's tears, have been used as a weapon for a long time. Sometimes a deadly weapon


part of the issue is it puts the POC in.a spot where they now feel to difuse things they must console the white person. They must stop talking about their experience and their topic as the white person's feelings now yet again take center stage.

From what I've read it can be a form of microagression.

It's okay to feel strong emotions but maybe excuse yourself if you are going to publicly start crying. Reflect on why you had that response and come back later to talk.

Let the focus remain on the talker and current subject. Don't turn it into a situation where your discomfort becomes center stage.

[laterbloomer]

May 9, 2022 13:01:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2022 12:48:19 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I agree that is what should happen, I don't necessarily agree that the first Biden heard about his behaviour being inappropriate was on the Internet. Up until recently the most common response when a man was told their attention was unwanted was to dismiss the woman of being too uptight, whether it was said out loud or not. The most common advice given to men being rebuffed was to not give up. That said, I do think in the end Biden responded better than many, basically saying he was wrong to do that and he has learned better, (If I remember correctly) In my experience, by the time someone is being called out on the internet they were called in and rejected it. (I am ignoring politically motivated attacks that are motivated by trying to bring an opponent down)

that was a confusing sentence.  i was using Biden as an example of inappropriate touching that should be addressed, not "no prior accusations".  

in the beginning, i think this is exactly how the MeToo movement worked- it was punitive FIRST and a bit more conciliatory later.  this left the accused scrambling for support, and with some predictably bad results (ie Franken).

i would appreciate it if you could tell me that you think this has evolved- that the system is less retributive than it was in the early days.  i remember being fairly horrified that people's lives were getting ruined over little more than accusations in some cases.

I've been struggling with how to explain my response to this. Weinstein, Cosby, Matt Lauer...there were so many perpetrators that were open secrets. It took an overwhelming number of women to bring forward accusations for them to be taken seriously enough for an investigation. Then it took years for the investigations to result in charges. In the meantime the political right managed to weaponise the whole thing and the next thing you know Franken is being forced by the left to step down from the Senate and the right is electing Trump President. I guess what I am trying to say is that even though the right has found a way to use this against the left politically, the problem is still that not enough men are being held accountable for abusing women. Anti choice laws that control women stem from the same value system.

[Deleted]

May 9, 2022 12:11:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2022 9:17:50 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Just so I can picture this, what would you say when you are calling someone in vs what you would say if you were calling them out?

a person is accused of racist, sexist, or homophobe speech, or unwanted touching (ala Biden), without any prior accusations.  rather than posting on Facebook that this person is a sex offender/predator or a racist (outing and ostracizing the individual), he or she should be taken privately aside and given the opportunity to address the offense.  

agree or disagree?

As much as I find racist, sexist, or homophobic speech offensive, there is a certain gap between those actions and unwanted touching for me.  I embrace the idea of calling-in as a possibly effective mechanism in some instances of speech.  However, I personally could not embrace that approach for actual touching.  This is 2022 and I doubt there is anyone on the planet so dense that they don't realize exactly what they are doing when they touch another person against their will.  Because of my personal experiences, this is a hard line item for me.  

[Deleted]

May 9, 2022 14:34:07 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

I certainly wish they had provided more background here.  I agree with Professor A about the oppressor role.  What was the point of the article overall?  

[Deleted]

May 9, 2022 15:02:06 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

May 9, 2022 14:34:07 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'd like to ask for opinions on something that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a year or so ago- an article in my college newsletter about a gathering of female professors of various ethnicities to talk about racism.

Professor A was a POC. She was talking with Professor B, who was white, and said something that upset Professor B so much that Professor B began to cry. Professor A stated that Professor B had turned her (Professor A) into the oppressor by reacting with tears.

They didn't say what Professor A's remark was so I have no idea how hurtful or offensive it would be to the average audience but I think Professor A was off-base in her reaction to Professor B's tears.

Anyone?

White people, in particular where women's tears, have been used as a weapon for a long time. Sometimes a deadly weapon


part of the issue is it puts the POC in.a spot where they now feel to difuse things they must console the white person. They must stop talking about their experience and their topic as the white person's feelings now yet again take center stage.

From what I've read it can be a form of microagression.

It's okay to feel strong emotions but maybe excuse yourself if you are going to publicly start crying. Reflect on why you had that response and come back later to talk.

Let the focus remain on the talker and current subject. Don't turn it into a situation where your discomfort becomes center stage.