The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Lord Ratner]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:40 AM, kaputt said:

To be fair, there is a pretty massive difference between saying you are going to boycott a product, service, person, sports league, etc.. (even if some of the reasoning seems silly or ridiculous) by not buying or partaking in what they are offering; vs a concerted effort to smear and ultimately remove and destroy a person, business, idea, symbol, tv show, book, movie, etc...

Example: I personally do not watch a second of NBA basketball and have not for years now. My reasoning is based not only on the ridiculous woke, political, and pro Chinese crap the league has spouted in recent history, but also the fact that it’s absolutely garbage basketball. However, my choice to not watch is my own and I don’t give a shit if someone else absolutely loves to watch the NBA, that’s their choice and they have every right to do so. By choosing not to watch, I don’t have to see the stuff I don’t like (imagine that!) and if enough people ultimately start to feel like I do, it will hurt the league in its pocketbook and they may actually make a change that adjusts to the demands of their customers.

Which btw, actually seems to have happened with the NBA when their ratings went in the absolute toilet last year, and magically this year they’ve reduced a large amount of their political messaging. Maybe the next move they can make is raising the shot clock to 30 seconds and making them play defense. I digress...

What you won’t see me doing is throwing a temper tantrum through social media and interviews on CNN about how the NBA doesn’t prescribe to my cultural norms and needs to be removed from the face of the earth, damn the rest of you!

 

Shack. Boycotting ≠ Cancelling

[arg]

This is pretty good.

 

[pawnman]

https://notthebee.com/article/it-was-more-than-just-pepe-le-pew-new-york-times-columnist-went-after-speedy-gonzales-too-and-his-failure-was-epic

Before you get offended on someone's behalf... maybe see if they're offended first. 

[M2]

20 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Before you get offended on someone's behalf... maybe see if they're offended first. 

 

[M2]

14 hours ago, arg said:

This is pretty good.

 

Jonathan Pie, a fictional political correspondent character created and portrayed by English comedian Tom Walker.

Pie appears in a series of online videos in which he rants and explodes in anger about the state of British, American and Australian politics with the videos being presented as though he were a real reporter speaking his personal opinions to the camera before or after filming a regular news segment.

https://www.jonathanpie.com/

[pawnman]

57 minutes ago, M2 said:

 

The thing I've never understood about "cultural appropriation" is that the same people who will drag a white guy over the coals for wearing a sombrero will complain about the lack of representation in the media.

Of course it isn't represented...you want to fence off culture based on race, rather than share it with the rest of the population.

[jazzdude]

The thing I've never understood about "cultural appropriation" is that the same people who will drag a white guy over the coals for wearing a sombrero will complain about the lack of representation in the media.
Of course it isn't represented...you want to fence off culture based on race, rather than share it with the rest of the population.

It's also interesting to look back through history and see how different cultures borrow from other cultures, and how there are some pretty off the wall appropriations that may not be initially apparent.

Like tacos al pastor, typically thought of now as a Mexican dish, was borrowed from Lebanese immigrants to Mexico.

Stereotypes are the same; can often be good or acceptable, but can be used badly. But eliminating the stereotypes for a certain group in media means applying/assigning other stereotypes to that group, usually from a majority group.

[arg]

2 hours ago, M2 said:

Jonathan Pie, a fictional political correspondent character created and portrayed by English comedian Tom Walker.

Pie appears in a series of online videos in which he rants and explodes in anger about the state of British, American and Australian politics with the videos being presented as though he were a real reporter speaking his personal opinions to the camera before or after filming a regular news segment.

https://www.jonathanpie.com/

There's an Aussie that does something like this too. Can't remember his name.

[Lord Ratner]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:22 AM, M2 said:

 

It's one part depressing and one part amazing how many people will say just about anything with supreme confidence, then completely fall apart when you simply ask "why?"

[StoleIt]

Army testing showed women failed the ACFT at a consistent 65% rate, while men failed at about a 10% rate, according to Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sought the pause on the service’s implementation of the ACFT.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-considers-change-to-combat-fitness-test-scoring-for-male-female-soldiers-1.662045

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Army testing showed women failed the ACFT at a consistent 65% rate, while men failed at about a 10% rate, according to Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sought the pause on the service’s implementation of the ACFT.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-considers-change-to-combat-fitness-test-scoring-for-male-female-soldiers-1.662045

For a brand-new test that's still in the "data-gathering" phase of  implementation. 

[HossHarris]

11 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Army testing showed women failed the ACFT at a consistent 65% rate, while men failed at about a 10% rate, according to Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sought the pause on the service’s implementation of the ACFT.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-considers-change-to-combat-fitness-test-scoring-for-male-female-soldiers-1.662045

Wait .... are you suggesting there may be actual physiological differences between men and women. Weird 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

For a brand-new test that's still in the "data-gathering" phase of  implementation. 

I'm not sure if you're being held at gunpoint or something, but what's your point?

 

Any physical fitness test that applies the same standards to males and females will yield a similar result. It is a silly and counterproductive rebellion against reality to expect otherwise. Women are weaker than men. 

 

If we came up with tests for cellulite prevalence, congenital heart failure, osteoporosis, or visceral fat, we would have similarly disparate outcomes. 

 

Women and men are not the same. We have done a rather marvelous job separating out the military specialities that do not rely on the specifically-male attributes of the species, and getting women in there. Infantry-and-the-like will remain a male specialty until they are replaced by robots. 

 

I'm sure you'll be back suggesting we are bitter androgynists for favoring the robots when we criticize President Beiber for unveiling the latest DOD combat banana hammocks at his first press conference in the middle of the droid wars on Venus.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[pawnman]

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not sure if you're being held at gunpoint or something, but what's your point?

 

Any physical fitness test that applies the same standards to males and females will yield a similar result. It is a silly and counterproductive rebellion against reality to expect otherwise. Women are weaker than men. 

 

If we came up with tests for cellulite prevalence, congenital heart failure, osteoporosis, or visceral fat, we would have similarly disparate outcomes. 

 

Women and men are not the same. We have done a rather marvelous job separating out the military specialities that do not rely on the specifically-male attributes of the species, and getting women in there. Infantry-and-the-like will remain a male specialty until they are replaced by robots. 

 

I'm sure you'll be back suggesting we are bitter androgynists for favoring the robots when we criticize President Beiber for unveiling the latest DOD combat banana hammocks at his first press conference in the middle of the droid wars on Venus.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.  I'm just saying that the failure of women to complete this specific test doesn't mean they are somehow lesser or ineffective in combat roles, that the test itself is brand-new, and that many men will bitch and complain that fitness tests don't truly measure combat capability...until you start including women.  But if women struggle more than men, that some test that "doesn't measure combat capability" is suddenly evidence that women don't belong in combat.  As if they haven't been there for years.

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, pawnman said:

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.  I'm just saying that the failure of women to complete this specific test doesn't mean they are somehow lesser or ineffective in combat roles, that the test itself is brand-new, and that many men will bitch and complain that fitness tests don't truly measure combat capability...until you start including women.  But if women struggle more than men, that some test that "doesn't measure combat capability" is suddenly evidence that women don't belong in combat.  As if they haven't been there for years.

Ok, but they *are* lesser or ineffective in certain combat roles. Those roles are quite specifically the ones requiring brute strength or extreme stamina. No test is needed, beyond common sense, but if you have doubts, I believe the Marine Infantry Officer Course was opened to women a few years ago with a predictable outcome.

 

Fighter pilots? Cool. Navy SEALS? Nope.

 

The story with the Army test is that they specifically attempted to create a test that would be gender neutral, yet still women are being overwhelmingly outperformed by men. And why was such a test constructed, with a goal of removing gender-based scoring metrics? I suspect because "gender-based" is a political hot potato when one half of our government is making a serious-yet-absurd argument that gender does not actually exist. 

Except most women aren't interested in fighting reality either, and they don't want lower PT scores on their evaluations because some SJW professor of reptilian rape culture considers it patriarchal to have different scoring criteria. We are allowing a very small number of very stupid people to create a tremendous amount of work and wasted effort in the well-intentioned desire to be inclusive. But there is such a thing as "too far."

 

[FlyingWolf]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Except most women aren't interested in fighting reality either, and they don't want lower PT scores on their evaluations because some SJW professor of reptilian rape culture considers it patriarchal to have different scoring criteria. We are allowing a very small number of very stupid people to create a tremendous amount of work and wasted effort in the well-intentioned desire to be inclusive. But there is such a thing as "too far."

 

This struck me as a funny viewing of the SJW type. I'd venture most champion different scoring criteria for the identities other than white male.

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

11 hours ago, FlyingWolf said:

This struck me as a funny viewing of the SJW type. I'd venture most champion different scoring criteria for the identities other than white male.

 

 

They want to manipulate the outcome in pursuit of "equity," but doing so with differential scoring criteria is to highlight the very differences they claim don't exist.

 

The demonization of test scores in academia is evidence of this. Affirmative action in University admissions has been around forever, and that's just a form of differential scoring. Not good enough. So now we get rid of grades, leaving group identity rather than performance as the metric for measuring worth. Ugly stuff.

 

As soon as you realize that the whole philosophy is corrupt, and the leaders of the movement know it, understanding the policy gets a lot easier. There's a reason the thought-leaders on the left have all but completely stopped engaging in debates with their counterparts on the right. They're lying, and you don't promote a lie by giving your opposition a platform to call you out on it.

[FlyingWolf]

56 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

Agree, in general, CRT and the like are inconsistent, self-contradictory, and destructive... so I wont waste enegry trying to steel-man them.

Edited March 19, 2021 by FlyingWolf

[Lecarpetron Dukemarriot]

This appears to be cult indoctrination 

https://youtu.be/5lnTvwdoQFw

[busdriver]

This has been RATM's politics for a long time.  Have you actually listened to their lyrics?

 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Lecarpetron Dukemarriot said:

This appears to be cult indoctrination 

https://youtu.be/5lnTvwdoQFw

I think you might be late to the party...this has been common for RATM for 30 years.

[Lecarpetron Dukemarriot]

I’ve been listening to them for decades. Although maybe I missed the videos they produced in the past making little kids upset because they are white. 

[busdriver]

"Take the Power Back."

[pbar]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387769/F-22-stealth-fighter-pilot-reveals-forced-Air-Force-racism.html

I didn't see anything like this with the African-Americans I flew with or served with.  Heck, most of them did better than I did and went to USAFWS, SAAS, AWC, and made O-6...  YMMV though.

[Pooter]

5 hours ago, pbar said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9387769/F-22-stealth-fighter-pilot-reveals-forced-Air-Force-racism.html

I didn't see anything like this with the African-Americans I flew with or served with.  Heck, most of them did better than I did and went to USAFWS, SAAS, AWC, and made O-6...  YMMV though.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone here who knows more about the situation with this guy. My initial read is that something is a little fishy here. How does a supposedly shit hot raptor pilot/Harvard grad land himself as a line IP at the Randolph IFF squadron doing some innovation ball wash for AETC..

Is it because the organization with POC as the secdef, csaf, and cmsaf is viciously racist? Or is it because he pissed the wrong person off or was a douche in his community and was put out to pasture like so many other iron majors before him?
 

Sorry dude, I know it hurts. But it's happened to white dudes too. In fact.. almost exclusively white dudes.