When I first saw the spec ad, I thought it’s white people who might be offended by it as they might get the message that white polar bear lives matter more than white human lives. The teacher who posted it surely thought he was being a white ally to the non-white student who did the ad. And since anti-white bias is an “accepted” form of bias, he wouldn’t have expected a backlash. Then the backlash came from the woke, which he wouldn’t have expected (but in hindsight, probably should have)
100% agree with you. In fact, when I saw that I thought it was offensive as well - for the very reason you stated. But I also understood that, like my article says, it’s an opinion. It is ironic that I’m defending a person who’s politics I would 100% disagree with. You are dead right that the teacher sees himself as a “ally”…. yet it just goes to show… This woke virus will destroy anyone - regardless of intent - it sets it sights on… “ally” or not
I've engaged in discussions on these topics hundreds of times now on social media. I attempt to have civil conversation, listen and empathize, and convey a differing opinion.
Unfortunately, I've seen no one open to that. It doesn't mean they don't exist - I still have hope that they do - but they definitely aren't the majority.
Instead, I hear a lot of people who wish to explain to me why my POV is incorrect. They wish to educate me. And if I don't conform, then they attack. It's a very sad cycle that is allowed and in fact, cheered, by many of my liberal colleagues.
It's a movement that demands compliance. That compliance is tied to an ethereal "truth" that is tied to nothing but public opinion, and must be adopted for acceptance. It's the least inclusive movement I have ever experienced, quite ironically.
I hear you, Brent. It's all pre-packaged borrowed responses, not critical thinking. You're so right that it always turns personal immediately, with name-calling etc. Which, of course, shows they have no argument. Least inclusive movement ever for sure. Everything it says it stands for, in practice, it comes out the opposite. Appreciate your thoughts...
You conveniently gloss over slash leave out a few things -
-It’s no longer a student mistake when the professor (Rich) elevates that mistake as “brilliant”
-This only got to the point of what you call “outrage” because Rich ignored and argued with critique of his decision to elevate the spec ad for a full week until his boss came a-knockin
-we can’t see these comments where Rich doubled and tripled down on his assertion of the above as “brilliant” because he deleted his post (which was not only scaredy cat, punk a** behavior, but also an admission of guilt, so even he doesn’t agree with you)
-it’s interesting what qualifies as performative outrage. I’m wondering what makes this very post you took the time to write valid critique and not just that 🤷🏾♀️
Nothing you have noted above has changed my opinion.
If you believe my take is performative, that's okay. You're free to do so. I like diversity of opinion.
However, I will note, that while there's much to be gained from being performatively outraged for the woke - receiving digital props, elevated ally status, feeling powerful - there's little to be gained in taking my position.
I'll leave it to others to judge who is acting performatively and who isn't.
And by the way you are right about one thing at least.
We do care about impact way more than intent.
There are many accounts of slave owners who articulated positive intent for the humans they turned into property.
What mattered was the impact of them doing so.
A drunk driver may not intend to hit and kill a pedestrian, but that drunk driver is still going to jail for the impact of what they have unintentionally done.
I could go on but it’s too pretty out today to spend any more time educating you :)
However, drunk driving is already a crime. So think it's a bad analogy for intent vs impact.
Think a better analogy is a person who simply doesn't see the pedestrian and kills them by accident. The impact absolutely still matters. But we don't punish that person the same way we would if someone aimed their car at a pedestrian with the intent to kill them.
But if vengeance and public humiliation is your goal, then indeed, intent matters little.
Because taking time to understand someone's intent has the effect of humanizing them, and digital beatdowns like this are about dehumanizing the target of the outrage.
At this point, Rick is merely a white male avatar, a villain, someone who deserves to be destroyed.
But there will be no hearing, no nuance can be considered, because that would get in the way the real objective: establishing woke power dynamics that bully, silence, censor and instill fear.
I can’t respond to all the whining you do at the end but I can go with the unintentional pedestrian striking. I think you’re right, that is a more appropriate scenario to reference!
(I actually am listening :)
If that person went to court mouthing off about how the driver shouldn’t have been in the street and they didn’t do anything wrong and they were just driving…sentencing would go differently.
The court room, you mentioned, is ordered. Mouthing off isn't even allowed. People are allowed to have their side represented and considered by a jury of their peers. There is no mobbing tolerated in a real courtroom. No shouting down of people. And it's in this environment, we hopefully get to a more fitting sentence.
The public mobbing/canceling of someone, is a court of public opinion. It's not about truly hearing what people are saying, it's about posturing and scoring maximum points against others to gain social status.
Woke mobbing is just a performative trial, by self-appointed judges. The jury is woke and comes armed with pitch forks and torches. That's because canceling, to be effective, has to be done publicly. It's the whole point of the exercise - shaming, destroying, posterizing etc.
Trials done in the court of public opinion, have no interest in reaching any mutual understanding. The opportunity for real understanding could only come with a phone or zoom call or meet up.
And it would be done out of the eye of the public because in that case, the goal is healing and the restoring of people, rather than ruining them permanently.
It’s interesting because I didn’t see any mobs or pitch forks, just people using the comment function to share their thoughts! But our experiences and perception of them is different.
When I first saw the spec ad, I thought it’s white people who might be offended by it as they might get the message that white polar bear lives matter more than white human lives. The teacher who posted it surely thought he was being a white ally to the non-white student who did the ad. And since anti-white bias is an “accepted” form of bias, he wouldn’t have expected a backlash. Then the backlash came from the woke, which he wouldn’t have expected (but in hindsight, probably should have)
100% agree with you. In fact, when I saw that I thought it was offensive as well - for the very reason you stated. But I also understood that, like my article says, it’s an opinion. It is ironic that I’m defending a person who’s politics I would 100% disagree with. You are dead right that the teacher sees himself as a “ally”…. yet it just goes to show… This woke virus will destroy anyone - regardless of intent - it sets it sights on… “ally” or not
I've engaged in discussions on these topics hundreds of times now on social media. I attempt to have civil conversation, listen and empathize, and convey a differing opinion.
Unfortunately, I've seen no one open to that. It doesn't mean they don't exist - I still have hope that they do - but they definitely aren't the majority.
Instead, I hear a lot of people who wish to explain to me why my POV is incorrect. They wish to educate me. And if I don't conform, then they attack. It's a very sad cycle that is allowed and in fact, cheered, by many of my liberal colleagues.
It's a movement that demands compliance. That compliance is tied to an ethereal "truth" that is tied to nothing but public opinion, and must be adopted for acceptance. It's the least inclusive movement I have ever experienced, quite ironically.
I hear you, Brent. It's all pre-packaged borrowed responses, not critical thinking. You're so right that it always turns personal immediately, with name-calling etc. Which, of course, shows they have no argument. Least inclusive movement ever for sure. Everything it says it stands for, in practice, it comes out the opposite. Appreciate your thoughts...
You conveniently gloss over slash leave out a few things -
-It’s no longer a student mistake when the professor (Rich) elevates that mistake as “brilliant”
-This only got to the point of what you call “outrage” because Rich ignored and argued with critique of his decision to elevate the spec ad for a full week until his boss came a-knockin
-we can’t see these comments where Rich doubled and tripled down on his assertion of the above as “brilliant” because he deleted his post (which was not only scaredy cat, punk a** behavior, but also an admission of guilt, so even he doesn’t agree with you)
-it’s interesting what qualifies as performative outrage. I’m wondering what makes this very post you took the time to write valid critique and not just that 🤷🏾♀️
Appreciate your thoughts, Lola.
Nothing you have noted above has changed my opinion.
If you believe my take is performative, that's okay. You're free to do so. I like diversity of opinion.
However, I will note, that while there's much to be gained from being performatively outraged for the woke - receiving digital props, elevated ally status, feeling powerful - there's little to be gained in taking my position.
I'll leave it to others to judge who is acting performatively and who isn't.
And by the way you are right about one thing at least.
We do care about impact way more than intent.
There are many accounts of slave owners who articulated positive intent for the humans they turned into property.
What mattered was the impact of them doing so.
A drunk driver may not intend to hit and kill a pedestrian, but that drunk driver is still going to jail for the impact of what they have unintentionally done.
I could go on but it’s too pretty out today to spend any more time educating you :)
Yes, impact matters.
However, drunk driving is already a crime. So think it's a bad analogy for intent vs impact.
Think a better analogy is a person who simply doesn't see the pedestrian and kills them by accident. The impact absolutely still matters. But we don't punish that person the same way we would if someone aimed their car at a pedestrian with the intent to kill them.
But if vengeance and public humiliation is your goal, then indeed, intent matters little.
Because taking time to understand someone's intent has the effect of humanizing them, and digital beatdowns like this are about dehumanizing the target of the outrage.
At this point, Rick is merely a white male avatar, a villain, someone who deserves to be destroyed.
But there will be no hearing, no nuance can be considered, because that would get in the way the real objective: establishing woke power dynamics that bully, silence, censor and instill fear.
I can’t respond to all the whining you do at the end but I can go with the unintentional pedestrian striking. I think you’re right, that is a more appropriate scenario to reference!
(I actually am listening :)
If that person went to court mouthing off about how the driver shouldn’t have been in the street and they didn’t do anything wrong and they were just driving…sentencing would go differently.
It's interesting analogy.
The court room, you mentioned, is ordered. Mouthing off isn't even allowed. People are allowed to have their side represented and considered by a jury of their peers. There is no mobbing tolerated in a real courtroom. No shouting down of people. And it's in this environment, we hopefully get to a more fitting sentence.
The public mobbing/canceling of someone, is a court of public opinion. It's not about truly hearing what people are saying, it's about posturing and scoring maximum points against others to gain social status.
Woke mobbing is just a performative trial, by self-appointed judges. The jury is woke and comes armed with pitch forks and torches. That's because canceling, to be effective, has to be done publicly. It's the whole point of the exercise - shaming, destroying, posterizing etc.
Trials done in the court of public opinion, have no interest in reaching any mutual understanding. The opportunity for real understanding could only come with a phone or zoom call or meet up.
And it would be done out of the eye of the public because in that case, the goal is healing and the restoring of people, rather than ruining them permanently.
It’s interesting because I didn’t see any mobs or pitch forks, just people using the comment function to share their thoughts! But our experiences and perception of them is different.
Stay blessed!
Figuratively speaking, of course.
And I will take that blessing, Lola!
Appreciate your take even if we don't agree.