February 22, 2023 - 7:00am
Has wokeism passed the high point of its influence? Tyler Cowen — who isn’t entirely hostile to the movement — believes that it has. By way of evidence, he points to the fact that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) roles are taking the brunt of job cuts in the US tech industry.
According to figures compiled by Revelio Labs, and cited here by the Daily Mail, DEI teams have “shed about a third of their staff” over the last year. This reverses the previous trend — which had seen corporate America quadruple the number of DEI positions in the space of five years.
This isn’t the only setback for the woke agenda. For instance, its ideological monopoly over the big social media companies has been broken by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. There are signs of change in the legacy media too. Last week, the executive editor of the New York Times told staff to wind their necks in after they protested the publication of an article that offended them (an entirely reasonable defence of JK Rowling).
But don’t be fooled. The war against woke is far from won. For a start, the tech companies may be the exception not the rule. The downturn in the sector is prompting layoffs across all departments — not just in DEI and human resources. Even if the tech lords are especially tired of paying staff to be activists, that doesn’t mean that the same is true of other culturally significant industries. Just look at publishing, where the influence of sensitivity readers is as strong as ever — as demonstrated by the bowdlerisation of Roald Dahl. It’s encouraging to see authors like Salman Rushdie speaking out against this “absurd censorship”, but the battle is ongoing and its outcome uncertain.
Furthermore, it’s not enough to be tough on woke, we must also be tough on the causes of woke. The single best explanation for the rise of the movement is Peter Turchin’s theory of elite over-production. This is the idea that when a society produces more expensively-educated individuals than it actually needs, a frustrated intelligentsia ends up fomenting revolution.
On one level, wokeness is just another revolutionary movement. However, it pulls off the trick of not having to overthrow capitalism by creating non-jobs and the illusion of meaningful employment. No wonder big businesses love it. But can they still afford it? HR magazine reports that listings for DEI roles are down by 19% from last year. Thus if the supply of non-jobs is drying up, but universities continue to churn out surplus graduates at the same rate then the tensions generated by elite over-production will grow more acute.
The obvious solution is stop the universities pandering to teenage radicals while loading them up with lifelong debts. Ultimately, it is the State that underwrites the student loan system, therefore our politicians need to put an end to this misallocation of resources. If they don’t, then the forces of wokeness won’t weaken, and they’ll take on a new and more desperate form.
One last thing to think about. If we really have reached peak wokeness — then peak anti-wokeness is sure to follow. The two ideologies may be viscerally opposed to one another, but they also have a lot in common. Anti-woke activists and journalists operate in an attention economy that is every bit as hungry for clicks and clout as its woke counterpart.
If cultural conservatives lock themselves into an increasingly frantic competition for audience share, then they too will crack-up. Already we’re seeing tensions flare — for instance the clash between Matt Walsh and the Triggernometry podcast over the former’s highly personal attack on the trans activist Dylan Mulvaney.
It’s time to get off the outrage bus altogether. That doesn’t mean giving up the fight against wokeness, but taking it more seriously. Reclaiming our institutions for the common good requires painstaking policy work, it cannot be achieved by the Right-wing entertainment industry. That might sound po-faced, but true anti-wokeness begins by accepting reality.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBravo! Great article.
Of course we should stop giving out student loans to people to study degrees that don’t have top grades – ABB (or whatever todays A Level equivalent is) for humanities.
It would save huge amounts of money (50% of student loans get paid off by the taxpayer), it would re-allocate young people to “shortage occupations” via apprenticeships and it would stop the proliferation of woke HR types.
But as someone pointed out to me in the comments section the other day we would have to move A Level (and GCSE) grading to a system where the top 7% get an A, the next 20% a B and so on, otherwise the schools will just inflate the grades awarded to get their students into university.
I think that, until the early 1980s, A-levels were graded in the way that you are suggesting that they should be graded.
Sadly Thatcher ditched the old way because you couldn’t show improvement over time if the same range of grades appeared every year (politicians do like show how well they have done). It was a good method because it mitigated the problem of easier or more difficult exams over different years.
…I did my A-levels in 1975, and they were and had been since time immemorial…and as David Shepherd points out in his comment, it was a pretty bombproof system…in that it assumed that human intelligence, application and capacity to deal with (exam) stress didn’t somehow exponentially improve year on year, but exam setting and marking could be very variable…
…so each undergraduate cohort was broadly comparable with the one that went before, and a consistent standard was maintained over time…and people not really suited to academic study pursued other options, rather than demanding the right to do a worthless degree in a joke “university”…and then being enraged when they find themselves in a dead end job in a call centre.
Worse, it doesn’t even work…I’m much involved in schools as a Governor…and it is perfectly clear that the top cohort know where they need to go and what they did to do…but only the shrewdest of the others realise they are wasting their time…
…they being the ones who use the opportunity to leave home, and then use their student status to get entry level work in retail, hospitality and all manner of places where smart, hard-working but non-academic youngsters can make their way.
Sadly Thatcher ditched the old way because you couldn’t show improvement over time if the same range of grades appeared every year (politicians do like show how well they have done). It was a good method because it mitigated the problem of easier or more difficult exams over different years.
…I did my A-levels in 1975, and they were and had been since time immemorial…and as David Shepherd points out in his comment, it was a pretty bombproof system…in that it assumed that human intelligence, application and capacity to deal with (exam) stress didn’t somehow exponentially improve year on year, but exam setting and marking could be very variable…
…so each undergraduate cohort was broadly comparable with the one that went before, and a consistent standard was maintained over time…and people not really suited to academic study pursued other options, rather than demanding the right to do a worthless degree in a joke “university”…and then being enraged when they find themselves in a dead end job in a call centre.
Worse, it doesn’t even work…I’m much involved in schools as a Governor…and it is perfectly clear that the top cohort know where they need to go and what they did to do…but only the shrewdest of the others realise they are wasting their time…
…they being the ones who use the opportunity to leave home, and then use their student status to get entry level work in retail, hospitality and all manner of places where smart, hard-working but non-academic youngsters can make their way.
I think that, until the early 1980s, A-levels were graded in the way that you are suggesting that they should be graded.
Bravo! Great article.
Of course we should stop giving out student loans to people to study degrees that don’t have top grades – ABB (or whatever todays A Level equivalent is) for humanities.
It would save huge amounts of money (50% of student loans get paid off by the taxpayer), it would re-allocate young people to “shortage occupations” via apprenticeships and it would stop the proliferation of woke HR types.
But as someone pointed out to me in the comments section the other day we would have to move A Level (and GCSE) grading to a system where the top 7% get an A, the next 20% a B and so on, otherwise the schools will just inflate the grades awarded to get their students into university.
Tony Blair wanted 50% of people to go to university, and recently he adjusted his desire to be 70%. And those people who do go mostly rack up huge debt.
What a great way to grow a generation of activists. It’s a shame that the universities and young people have fallen for the scam, although I would laugh my socks off if the activists turned against Tony Blair’s vision of the future.
As that’s a 40% increase in the number of university students, did he happen to mention what he expected those people to do upon graduation?
You are going to have a lot of frustrated and disillusioned young people; they were promised the world if they got a degree, and instead they just got to serve sandwiches.
Yep. Increasingly, nursing and policing require degrees. I expect that burger flipping will soon.
I knew a university degree was no guarantee of a job when I was 13. Why is this generation so naive, and why is their disillusionment everyone’s problem?
They have been brainwashed in many ways.
They have been brainwashed in many ways.
The irony is that a properly educated young person, who had spent three years at a university as they used to be, would be less bothered about having to spend their days in a dead end and boring job. Real education is about reading, learning and debate, not ‘getting a good job’, and it is always there, inside the recipient’s head and on their bookshelves. My generation in the 1970s despised the ‘good job’ obsession of our parents. That was not what we went to university for.
Speak for yourself. You must have done a useless arty-farty degree.
I had the choice of doing an apprenticeship at 16 or going to university to do an engineering degree – which pretty automatically leads to a good job, even today.
You too, speak for yourself.
I guess you did a useless degree as well.
I guess you did a useless degree as well.
I too did a ‘useless’ degree but think you misunderstand what makes it useless. It is useless if it does not make you a better person who therefore can live a better life, which will be beneficial for you and those around you.
Too many degrees these days, it seems, positively make you a worse person.
If a degree makes you a better person then it would be worth your investment of time and money. Clearly far too many are not. And cannot be if 30%, let alone 50 or70%, of people go to Uni.
Maybe you’re right but how can you define what result the degree will have before you actually start it?
My grandson did an Economics degree and, after two years of passing exams, decided to stop and get a job. BUT he lived in Wales and didn’t owe any money for the degree.
Maybe you’re right but how can you define what result the degree will have before you actually start it?
My grandson did an Economics degree and, after two years of passing exams, decided to stop and get a job. BUT he lived in Wales and didn’t owe any money for the degree.
You too, speak for yourself.
I too did a ‘useless’ degree but think you misunderstand what makes it useless. It is useless if it does not make you a better person who therefore can live a better life, which will be beneficial for you and those around you.
Too many degrees these days, it seems, positively make you a worse person.
If a degree makes you a better person then it would be worth your investment of time and money. Clearly far too many are not. And cannot be if 30%, let alone 50 or70%, of people go to Uni.
Speak for yourself. You must have done a useless arty-farty degree.
I had the choice of doing an apprenticeship at 16 or going to university to do an engineering degree – which pretty automatically leads to a good job, even today.
Yep. Increasingly, nursing and policing require degrees. I expect that burger flipping will soon.
I knew a university degree was no guarantee of a job when I was 13. Why is this generation so naive, and why is their disillusionment everyone’s problem?
The irony is that a properly educated young person, who had spent three years at a university as they used to be, would be less bothered about having to spend their days in a dead end and boring job. Real education is about reading, learning and debate, not ‘getting a good job’, and it is always there, inside the recipient’s head and on their bookshelves. My generation in the 1970s despised the ‘good job’ obsession of our parents. That was not what we went to university for.
Save the planet.
Any planet in particular?
Any planet in particular?
No.
You are going to have a lot of frustrated and disillusioned young people; they were promised the world if they got a degree, and instead they just got to serve sandwiches.
Save the planet.
No.
Please encourage those teenage radicals to look at other professions besides being professional whiners. It would make us all happy if we don’t have to pay half a year’s salary to get some plumbing done.
Learn a little! Without any formal training, apart from “carrying my Father’s tools” before I joined the Navy (as a seaman). I’ve done all the plumbing in my house apart from the Central Heating. That I allowed a plumber (and heating ‘engineer’) to plan and execute using me as his striker/mate. Well, he only lived 2 doors up the close. Modern materials are easy to use and most of the tools you need should already be available in a “well-found” house, boat or campervan. When you refurbish you toilet cistern and, in the process, turn it into a two-button system you will really be Flushed With Success (pun obligatory).
Learn a little! Without any formal training, apart from “carrying my Father’s tools” before I joined the Navy (as a seaman). I’ve done all the plumbing in my house apart from the Central Heating. That I allowed a plumber (and heating ‘engineer’) to plan and execute using me as his striker/mate. Well, he only lived 2 doors up the close. Modern materials are easy to use and most of the tools you need should already be available in a “well-found” house, boat or campervan. When you refurbish you toilet cistern and, in the process, turn it into a two-button system you will really be Flushed With Success (pun obligatory).
What makes Tony Blair and others think that manual labourers, trades people and many ‘low skilled’ job holders are less important for society and indeed for the individuals themselves. Happiness counts for more than fancy, useless, expensive degrees! Everyone has his or her special talent. ‘Less is more’ for many good people!
My oldest is starting university next year and I resent that she needs a degree to do any kind of job. It is a very expensive way to do some growing up. She is smart and academically minded but I did discuss with her that society needs more trades than BA’s.
As that’s a 40% increase in the number of university students, did he happen to mention what he expected those people to do upon graduation?
Please encourage those teenage radicals to look at other professions besides being professional whiners. It would make us all happy if we don’t have to pay half a year’s salary to get some plumbing done.
What makes Tony Blair and others think that manual labourers, trades people and many ‘low skilled’ job holders are less important for society and indeed for the individuals themselves. Happiness counts for more than fancy, useless, expensive degrees! Everyone has his or her special talent. ‘Less is more’ for many good people!
My oldest is starting university next year and I resent that she needs a degree to do any kind of job. It is a very expensive way to do some growing up. She is smart and academically minded but I did discuss with her that society needs more trades than BA’s.
Tony Blair wanted 50% of people to go to university, and recently he adjusted his desire to be 70%. And those people who do go mostly rack up huge debt.
What a great way to grow a generation of activists. It’s a shame that the universities and young people have fallen for the scam, although I would laugh my socks off if the activists turned against Tony Blair’s vision of the future.
I fear the current anti-Woke reaction will only last two or so years and then we will see a reassertion in an even more intolerant form. We are – at best – in remission. Woke victory may not be a foregone conclusion but it is the most probable scenario.
The problem is that the reaction is being fuelled by over 30s (e.g. the readership of UnHerd) finally waking up to the totalitarian methods and ethos underlying the various Woke campaigns.
Unfortunately, many of the under 30s remain in thrall. Since the Woke control the education system it is likely that each year another batch of Woke students will arrive in the workforce. Meanwhile HR departments will continue to act as enforcers (just as they did with McCarthyism).
If one wants to improve the odds then I think society should focus on
1/ Reform of social media. The growth of the Woke from zero to 13% of the population since 2013 has been caused in part by the psychological effects on teenagers of Facebook and its successors. The polarising effects of the algorithms, the splintering of society into mutually hostile bubbles and the pressures for conformity within each bubble are all linked.
2/ Improving the economic prospects of Gen Z. Although it is not often admitted by them, I believe some of the anger behind much Woke activity is caused by the fact that since c.1990 in the US and since 2008 in the UK, the bottom third of society has experienced stagnant or declining living standards. This includes most under 30s. Even if Judith Butler et al had never been born and “critical theory” and its various offshoots never articulated, I think Gen Z would have been susceptible to some radical theory or other.
3/ Articulating a positive vision instead of just criticising the Woke. In particular, I would emphasise the importance of open and amiable debate (with reality and truth as the trump cards) as the only way to select the best ideas . The Tavistock fiasco would not have happened if its leadership had allowed open discussion of what was going on. So far the Woke’s greatest weapon has been their refusal to debate; going forward, it could become their Achilles’ heel.
That said, I am not optimistic. When I first encountered Turchin’s dire predictions twenty years ago, I was dismissive but since then he has looked more and more plausible. Maybe a severe general crisis is inevitable before the end of the 2020s. It is certainly worth doing what one can to try to avoid one.
“Woke victory may not be a foregone conclusion but it is the most probable scenario”
I fear you are right BUT it will be a short victory in so far as such a society will fail quickly. Unfortunately such a failure will be hugely destructive in the return to some sanity.
Wokeness is being taught in primary schools. Children tend to believe their teachers at a young age.
Wokeness is being taught in primary schools. Children tend to believe their teachers at a young age.
“Woke victory may not be a foregone conclusion but it is the most probable scenario”
I fear you are right BUT it will be a short victory in so far as such a society will fail quickly. Unfortunately such a failure will be hugely destructive in the return to some sanity.
I fear the current anti-Woke reaction will only last two or so years and then we will see a reassertion in an even more intolerant form. We are – at best – in remission. Woke victory may not be a foregone conclusion but it is the most probable scenario.
The problem is that the reaction is being fuelled by over 30s (e.g. the readership of UnHerd) finally waking up to the totalitarian methods and ethos underlying the various Woke campaigns.
Unfortunately, many of the under 30s remain in thrall. Since the Woke control the education system it is likely that each year another batch of Woke students will arrive in the workforce. Meanwhile HR departments will continue to act as enforcers (just as they did with McCarthyism).
If one wants to improve the odds then I think society should focus on
1/ Reform of social media. The growth of the Woke from zero to 13% of the population since 2013 has been caused in part by the psychological effects on teenagers of Facebook and its successors. The polarising effects of the algorithms, the splintering of society into mutually hostile bubbles and the pressures for conformity within each bubble are all linked.
2/ Improving the economic prospects of Gen Z. Although it is not often admitted by them, I believe some of the anger behind much Woke activity is caused by the fact that since c.1990 in the US and since 2008 in the UK, the bottom third of society has experienced stagnant or declining living standards. This includes most under 30s. Even if Judith Butler et al had never been born and “critical theory” and its various offshoots never articulated, I think Gen Z would have been susceptible to some radical theory or other.
3/ Articulating a positive vision instead of just criticising the Woke. In particular, I would emphasise the importance of open and amiable debate (with reality and truth as the trump cards) as the only way to select the best ideas . The Tavistock fiasco would not have happened if its leadership had allowed open discussion of what was going on. So far the Woke’s greatest weapon has been their refusal to debate; going forward, it could become their Achilles’ heel.
That said, I am not optimistic. When I first encountered Turchin’s dire predictions twenty years ago, I was dismissive but since then he has looked more and more plausible. Maybe a severe general crisis is inevitable before the end of the 2020s. It is certainly worth doing what one can to try to avoid one.
Good points, but we can’t keep making the same mistake that has brought us to this point: responding moderately to outrageous behavior. The noisiest people have been winning the argument for decades by sheer volume and we can’t let that continue.
Good points, but we can’t keep making the same mistake that has brought us to this point: responding moderately to outrageous behavior. The noisiest people have been winning the argument for decades by sheer volume and we can’t let that continue.
Wokeness provides something Enlightenment liberalism lacks: a moral compass. Liberalism is about process; it is, by design, devoid of moral content. That’s why it’s such a good system for allowing diverse groups to coexist: it pushes moral decisions out of the public sphere and relegates them to the private.
However, people need shared moral rules to function. That’s what “culture” is: shared beliefs about the world. So Enlightenment liberalism’s very success leaves a huge moral hole in its center. Patrick Deneen articulates this best in Why Liberalism Failed.
1700 years of Judeo-Christian legacy and a shared Protestant culture papered over this hole for a long time. Then Nietzsche killed God, Mill deified man’s will (“my rights only stop at your nose”), the 60’s postmodernists drove a track bomb into the void at the center of liberal philosophy, and we’ve been living with the moral carnage ever since.
Wokeness fills that hole by providing a shared definition of “right” and “wrong”. Right = members of oppressed groups; wrong = members of the dominant group. The fact that such a reductive system is completely evil by either classical or Christian philosophy doesn’t make it any less useful or powerful. As the saying goes, once you abandon God, the problem isn’t that you’ll believe in nothing; the problem is that you’ll grasp at anything regardless of how absurd.
Wokeness won’t go away until we figure out an alternative metaphysical framework for our shared moral order. We will either succeed at that, or destroy Western civilization.
You make an interesting point, and it’s worth looking at seriously. The Enlightenment, for all its benefits, did leave a moral vacuum, Utilitarianism will never fill that vacuum, and even Kant, for whom I do have a lot of time, doesn’t cut it. As can be seen from the strength of the “fundamentalist” evangelical churches, people do seem to like certainty in their moral lives, and like to be told, unequivocally, what is right and what is wrong – “wokeness” serves this purpose for many young people.
Thanks, Linda. I’ve been thinking of expanding this thesis into an article I will shop around. You give me some encouragement to try it.
Thanks, Linda. I’ve been thinking of expanding this thesis into an article I will shop around. You give me some encouragement to try it.
You make an interesting point, and it’s worth looking at seriously. The Enlightenment, for all its benefits, did leave a moral vacuum, Utilitarianism will never fill that vacuum, and even Kant, for whom I do have a lot of time, doesn’t cut it. As can be seen from the strength of the “fundamentalist” evangelical churches, people do seem to like certainty in their moral lives, and like to be told, unequivocally, what is right and what is wrong – “wokeness” serves this purpose for many young people.
Wokeness provides something Enlightenment liberalism lacks: a moral compass. Liberalism is about process; it is, by design, devoid of moral content. That’s why it’s such a good system for allowing diverse groups to coexist: it pushes moral decisions out of the public sphere and relegates them to the private.
However, people need shared moral rules to function. That’s what “culture” is: shared beliefs about the world. So Enlightenment liberalism’s very success leaves a huge moral hole in its center. Patrick Deneen articulates this best in Why Liberalism Failed.
1700 years of Judeo-Christian legacy and a shared Protestant culture papered over this hole for a long time. Then Nietzsche killed God, Mill deified man’s will (“my rights only stop at your nose”), the 60’s postmodernists drove a track bomb into the void at the center of liberal philosophy, and we’ve been living with the moral carnage ever since.
Wokeness fills that hole by providing a shared definition of “right” and “wrong”. Right = members of oppressed groups; wrong = members of the dominant group. The fact that such a reductive system is completely evil by either classical or Christian philosophy doesn’t make it any less useful or powerful. As the saying goes, once you abandon God, the problem isn’t that you’ll believe in nothing; the problem is that you’ll grasp at anything regardless of how absurd.
Wokeness won’t go away until we figure out an alternative metaphysical framework for our shared moral order. We will either succeed at that, or destroy Western civilization.
I have direct evidence that woke is bad for my health. On Monday afternoon I attended my GP’s surgery for a blood pressure test. Before performing my BP test, the clinician questioned me about my ethnicity. I immediately felt myself becoming agitated and said something along the lines of “put down what you like, but for God’s sake please don’t ask me about my gender or you’ll send me round the bend.” When she took my BP, it was sky high. Thankfully, it was back to normal when I tested myself at home that night and the following morning. Yesterday I wrote to the practice managers telling them what had happened, and they have agreed to put a note on my file to the effect that I am not to be subjected to DEI-based questions.
So did they ask you how your birthing person partner was feeling lately, as maybe home issues could be part of your blood pressure issues.
I’m offended by the horrifically gendered nature of the second syllable of “person”, in saying which you have literally harmed me and made me feel unsafe. In future, please use the phrase “birthing peroffspring”. Do better!
I’m offended by the horrifically gendered nature of the second syllable of “person”, in saying which you have literally harmed me and made me feel unsafe. In future, please use the phrase “birthing peroffspring”. Do better!
No, this is just evidence that you are taking yourself too seriously. On the other hand, you are giving the practice staff something to lighten up their dismal pursuit of clinical bureaucracy, which evens things out.
The collection of ethnicity data in a health system (along with age, sex, smoking status and the rest) is a critical factor in making sure NHS money is spent effectively (don’t snigger), and you should just respond honestly and accurately and let everyone get on with the job. You can balance out any momentary issues with your BP by taking 2 x 125ml glasses of red wine for it, daily. I think that’s right, but the guidance may have changed.
“No, this is just evidence that you are taking yourself too seriously.”
You clearly have very little understanding of the seriousness of hypertension.
“The collection of ethnicity data in a health system (along with age, sex, smoking status and the rest) is a critical factor in making sure NHS money is spent effectively”
They specifically said that they collected ethnicity data for DEI purposes when they wrote back to me. NHS England presently spends £40m annually on DEI.
Not heard about that ‘red wine therapy’ although i practise it. Can it be provided via free prescription? (Only good quality of course, although apparently the active ingredient – resvesterol – is just as effective whatever the vineyard.)
Also, why 2x125ml? Do they have to be separate ‘doses’ or will 1x250ml do the job? Perhaps taken with food?
Wonder if a GP practice will obliged to provide said resvesterol as a medical procedure? Worth a try!
Seriously though I have difficulty in seeing how a presumed skin colour and/or a geographical location as currently measured provide meaningful information upon which any policy decisions can be made, medical or otherwise
Indeed. Perhaps a Practice located adjacent to a Whine Merchant could oblige?!
Indeed. Perhaps a Practice located adjacent to a Whine Merchant could oblige?!
Wonder if a GP practice will obliged to provide said resvesterol as a medical procedure? Worth a try!
Seriously though I have difficulty in seeing how a presumed skin colour and/or a geographical location as currently measured provide meaningful information upon which any policy decisions can be made, medical or otherwise
“No, this is just evidence that you are taking yourself too seriously.”
You clearly have very little understanding of the seriousness of hypertension.
“The collection of ethnicity data in a health system (along with age, sex, smoking status and the rest) is a critical factor in making sure NHS money is spent effectively”
They specifically said that they collected ethnicity data for DEI purposes when they wrote back to me. NHS England presently spends £40m annually on DEI.
Not heard about that ‘red wine therapy’ although i practise it. Can it be provided via free prescription? (Only good quality of course, although apparently the active ingredient – resvesterol – is just as effective whatever the vineyard.)
Also, why 2x125ml? Do they have to be separate ‘doses’ or will 1x250ml do the job? Perhaps taken with food?
I was asked this at the optician recently, I just looked at him and said “make a guess”; he looked rather chagrined and said that he had been instructed to ask this. I asked him why it was necessary, and whether they believed that people of different ethnicities had different eye problems, to which he replied that he wasn’t aware of any. So what is the point.
I think that from now on the correct answer just has to be “I don’t cooperate with DEI questions.”
Or even ‘is that question relevant to my treatment or for statistical purposes?.. If the latter then I don’t cooperate with DIE cultism’.
Or even ‘is that question relevant to my treatment or for statistical purposes?.. If the latter then I don’t cooperate with DIE cultism’.
I think that from now on the correct answer just has to be “I don’t cooperate with DEI questions.”
Wonderful, wonderful,wonderful! I’m a great believer in personal anecdotes especially over academic scripts dutifully littered with quotes from appropriate ‘party line’ sources for even the most banal of observations.
I appreciate your concern/irritation but ethnicity is relevant in a healthcare situation.
And while I despise the ‘are you a man’ type question it has to be admitted that some women do look like men and vv. And sex/gender is very relevant to appropriate healthcare.
So did they ask you how your birthing person partner was feeling lately, as maybe home issues could be part of your blood pressure issues.
No, this is just evidence that you are taking yourself too seriously. On the other hand, you are giving the practice staff something to lighten up their dismal pursuit of clinical bureaucracy, which evens things out.
The collection of ethnicity data in a health system (along with age, sex, smoking status and the rest) is a critical factor in making sure NHS money is spent effectively (don’t snigger), and you should just respond honestly and accurately and let everyone get on with the job. You can balance out any momentary issues with your BP by taking 2 x 125ml glasses of red wine for it, daily. I think that’s right, but the guidance may have changed.
I was asked this at the optician recently, I just looked at him and said “make a guess”; he looked rather chagrined and said that he had been instructed to ask this. I asked him why it was necessary, and whether they believed that people of different ethnicities had different eye problems, to which he replied that he wasn’t aware of any. So what is the point.
Wonderful, wonderful,wonderful! I’m a great believer in personal anecdotes especially over academic scripts dutifully littered with quotes from appropriate ‘party line’ sources for even the most banal of observations.
I appreciate your concern/irritation but ethnicity is relevant in a healthcare situation.
And while I despise the ‘are you a man’ type question it has to be admitted that some women do look like men and vv. And sex/gender is very relevant to appropriate healthcare.
I have direct evidence that woke is bad for my health. On Monday afternoon I attended my GP’s surgery for a blood pressure test. Before performing my BP test, the clinician questioned me about my ethnicity. I immediately felt myself becoming agitated and said something along the lines of “put down what you like, but for God’s sake please don’t ask me about my gender or you’ll send me round the bend.” When she took my BP, it was sky high. Thankfully, it was back to normal when I tested myself at home that night and the following morning. Yesterday I wrote to the practice managers telling them what had happened, and they have agreed to put a note on my file to the effect that I am not to be subjected to DEI-based questions.
Superb article! As the author says the two sides are engaged in an attention economy. Both sides are as bad as each other!
Yes. Sometimes when I read the really whacky “anti-woke” it’s almost enough to make me sympathetic to the “woke” enterprise; so I can imagine that for someone who is still trying to make his mind up, these extreme “anti-woke” commentators could tip him into the pit.
I’m not sure I understand. Because of many awful anti-woke comments, are you now going to accept that teenagers should get puberty blockers or surgery? Or you will now divide the world into oppressor or oppressed groups?
Did I say that? I was pointing out that if the “anti-woke” contingent sensationalise too much, become over-dramatic and bad-mannered, hurling abuse at their opponents, then then they come-over as badly as that which they are criticising and will lose the uncommitted that they want to win away from the “woke”. It can be difficult, but to stop this nonsense, a sense of humour and irony is required, as well as a reasoned and polite argument.
Did I say that? I was pointing out that if the “anti-woke” contingent sensationalise too much, become over-dramatic and bad-mannered, hurling abuse at their opponents, then then they come-over as badly as that which they are criticising and will lose the uncommitted that they want to win away from the “woke”. It can be difficult, but to stop this nonsense, a sense of humour and irony is required, as well as a reasoned and polite argument.
I’m not sure I understand. Because of many awful anti-woke comments, are you now going to accept that teenagers should get puberty blockers or surgery? Or you will now divide the world into oppressor or oppressed groups?
Exactly this. The vast majority of “anti-wokeness” I stumble over is easily as insane as what they protest. “SJWs Under The Bed” and a claim that every non-white or non-straight representation anywhere is “proof” of the conspiracy to turn all the frogs gay or whatever.
Unfortunately, a measured approach rejecting both extremes doesn’t usually generate the outrage clicks that creators live on.
Stupid Article!
”Anti-woke activists and journalists operate in an attention economy that is every bit as hungry for clicks and clout as its woke counterpart.”
This reasoning is the product of the very useless modern education system where all are morally equivalent. All must have blame and praise in equal measure.
Woke is sociopathic self hate and a desire to destroy all which is decent in revenge.
Fighting this sick, woke, pathology is not equivalent. It is not from the same cause, base, and ethical position.
Ignorant writer’s relative morality and situational ethics
‘Good and bad are both the same, they just want clicks’. No wonder the education system is a social harm instead of help – if it produces writers like this…
Did you miss this sentence? “Furthermore, it’s not enough to be tough on woke, we must also be tough on the causes of woke.” Or this “That doesn’t mean giving up the fight against wokeness, but taking it more seriously”
The author is clearly against woke, but simply claimed that anti-woke warriors like clicks as much as woke warriors. He did not say ‘Good and bad are both the same’, you misread the article. Your uncouth rudeness is misplaced.
Did you miss this sentence? “Furthermore, it’s not enough to be tough on woke, we must also be tough on the causes of woke.” Or this “That doesn’t mean giving up the fight against wokeness, but taking it more seriously”
The author is clearly against woke, but simply claimed that anti-woke warriors like clicks as much as woke warriors. He did not say ‘Good and bad are both the same’, you misread the article. Your uncouth rudeness is misplaced.
Yes. Sometimes when I read the really whacky “anti-woke” it’s almost enough to make me sympathetic to the “woke” enterprise; so I can imagine that for someone who is still trying to make his mind up, these extreme “anti-woke” commentators could tip him into the pit.
Exactly this. The vast majority of “anti-wokeness” I stumble over is easily as insane as what they protest. “SJWs Under The Bed” and a claim that every non-white or non-straight representation anywhere is “proof” of the conspiracy to turn all the frogs gay or whatever.
Unfortunately, a measured approach rejecting both extremes doesn’t usually generate the outrage clicks that creators live on.
Stupid Article!
”Anti-woke activists and journalists operate in an attention economy that is every bit as hungry for clicks and clout as its woke counterpart.”
This reasoning is the product of the very useless modern education system where all are morally equivalent. All must have blame and praise in equal measure.
Woke is sociopathic self hate and a desire to destroy all which is decent in revenge.
Fighting this sick, woke, pathology is not equivalent. It is not from the same cause, base, and ethical position.
Ignorant writer’s relative morality and situational ethics
‘Good and bad are both the same, they just want clicks’. No wonder the education system is a social harm instead of help – if it produces writers like this…
Superb article! As the author says the two sides are engaged in an attention economy. Both sides are as bad as each other!
I decline to get off the anti-woke outrage bus. My outrage is justified. I am dealing with people in the public sector who think that watching Great British Railway Journeys could be a symptom of far-right sympathies and with people in the private sector who think that characters in Roald Dahl stories should turn ‘pale’ rather than ‘white’. In other words, I am dealing with dangerous lunatics. I am not going to give them an inch.
Too bloody right. We have to stop being polite to the woke scum
Too bloody right. We have to stop being polite to the woke scum
I decline to get off the anti-woke outrage bus. My outrage is justified. I am dealing with people in the public sector who think that watching Great British Railway Journeys could be a symptom of far-right sympathies and with people in the private sector who think that characters in Roald Dahl stories should turn ‘pale’ rather than ‘white’. In other words, I am dealing with dangerous lunatics. I am not going to give them an inch.
Yeah, well. My son’s girlfriend is a software engineer for a ginormous video game company in LA. They just hired a “diversity” officer who goes around telling young, white kids on staff that they can’t use silly memes in emails because they’re racist or antisemitic or whatever. The kids are forming an alliance to fight back against this BS – they are, after all, the people who know how to build these games – but I won’t hold my breath. It’s a very strange contagion of corporate cowardice that infects the Woke West. I’d rather get Covid (still haven’t, and no jab for me!).
It won’t end with just a diversity officer. They soon will have a large bureaucracy with several layers of management. Then they produce videos to be watched and grades are assigned after the mandatory quiz.
They will be painted as far-right extremists. #Gamergate was pretty much about the very same thing: woke ideology being infused into computer games and gamers absolutely hating it and then they got called out by woke journalists for bigotry. It’s like some kind of mind-rot or something. All my old hobbies and childhood shows are getting infected by Woke too. Will only be a matter of time before old 80s cartoons get rebranded as ‘Transitioners: Strange Men in Disguise’ and ‘She-Man and the Mistresses of the Universe’.
It won’t end with just a diversity officer. They soon will have a large bureaucracy with several layers of management. Then they produce videos to be watched and grades are assigned after the mandatory quiz.
They will be painted as far-right extremists. #Gamergate was pretty much about the very same thing: woke ideology being infused into computer games and gamers absolutely hating it and then they got called out by woke journalists for bigotry. It’s like some kind of mind-rot or something. All my old hobbies and childhood shows are getting infected by Woke too. Will only be a matter of time before old 80s cartoons get rebranded as ‘Transitioners: Strange Men in Disguise’ and ‘She-Man and the Mistresses of the Universe’.
Yeah, well. My son’s girlfriend is a software engineer for a ginormous video game company in LA. They just hired a “diversity” officer who goes around telling young, white kids on staff that they can’t use silly memes in emails because they’re racist or antisemitic or whatever. The kids are forming an alliance to fight back against this BS – they are, after all, the people who know how to build these games – but I won’t hold my breath. It’s a very strange contagion of corporate cowardice that infects the Woke West. I’d rather get Covid (still haven’t, and no jab for me!).
Lots of ideas :
Take a long perspective as to likely future demand for different occupations
Favour subjects with real utility
Stop A level grade inflation so as to reduce numbers of low grade graduates
Stop taxpayer funding of courses in non subjects
Increase apprenticeships for practical skills and trades
So many more….
Lots of ideas :
Take a long perspective as to likely future demand for different occupations
Favour subjects with real utility
Stop A level grade inflation so as to reduce numbers of low grade graduates
Stop taxpayer funding of courses in non subjects
Increase apprenticeships for practical skills and trades
So many more….
“Ultimately, it is the State that underwrites the student loan system, …”
It’s actually the taxpayer, ultimately. Something that very smart people forget sometimes, including the brilliant author who recently suggested that her $14 trillion reparation program would not have to be paid by taxpayers. It would simply come from the Federal Government, just like the Covid payments.
It does not come from the Government it comes from the Oppressors, as they pay the majority of taxes.
I think that there are a lot of Africans and Asians who pay high taxes too, but they probably oppressor-adjacent anyway.
I think that there are a lot of Africans and Asians who pay high taxes too, but they probably oppressor-adjacent anyway.
It does not come from the Government it comes from the Oppressors, as they pay the majority of taxes.
“Ultimately, it is the State that underwrites the student loan system, …”
It’s actually the taxpayer, ultimately. Something that very smart people forget sometimes, including the brilliant author who recently suggested that her $14 trillion reparation program would not have to be paid by taxpayers. It would simply come from the Federal Government, just like the Covid payments.
Interesting how entrepreneurs without degrees create businesses wealth and employment for those with degrees who expect other people to create businesses to employ them… and give them middle class security?
Ah, the charitable and high moral aims of entrepreneurs. Amazing all the resources at their disposal none of which they are solely responsible for creating. Must be really annoying though that those with the knowledge and understanding to make these sources available in the first place and/orto maintain and expand their value to society in general have to be kept watered in order to bear fruit. Rotten of God to say humans were put on earth to tend to the whole of creation . But how dumb of Eve and Adam to think eating the fruit alone would keep them going.
Ah, the charitable and high moral aims of entrepreneurs. Amazing all the resources at their disposal none of which they are solely responsible for creating. Must be really annoying though that those with the knowledge and understanding to make these sources available in the first place and/orto maintain and expand their value to society in general have to be kept watered in order to bear fruit. Rotten of God to say humans were put on earth to tend to the whole of creation . But how dumb of Eve and Adam to think eating the fruit alone would keep them going.
Interesting how entrepreneurs without degrees create businesses wealth and employment for those with degrees who expect other people to create businesses to employ them… and give them middle class security?
With notable exceptions, Universities are money grubbing businesses, often selling degrees in whatever the latest ‘cause’ or ‘ism ‘is trending and sacking /cancelling outstanding intellects (Kathleen Stock), often replacing them with lecturers who ‘think in the right way’, Never has the expression ‘give me the child and I’ll give you the man’ been more apt – and more destructive to our future economy.
With notable exceptions, Universities are money grubbing businesses, often selling degrees in whatever the latest ‘cause’ or ‘ism ‘is trending and sacking /cancelling outstanding intellects (Kathleen Stock), often replacing them with lecturers who ‘think in the right way’, Never has the expression ‘give me the child and I’ll give you the man’ been more apt – and more destructive to our future economy.
The Intelligentsia is not really that intelligent. As always.
The Intelligentsia is not really that intelligent. As always.
Do people here think woke means “aware of/awake to less obvious forms of societal injustice” (or some similar definition) or some approximation of “extreme enforcement of far-left views which advance minority groups’ interests over, and to the detriment of, majority groups’ interests”?
If your definition is closer to the latter, why is that? And what are some examples of ways you’ve been materially negatively impacted?
My property assets that I’ve worked hard to purchase, do up, and maintain are under serious threat of being confiscated by a populist and capricious left-wing government all in the name of housing injustice and spatial inequality. This has seriously screwed up my retirement plans.
Thanks for replying Brian. Is this an existing local government policy you’re referring to or a proposed national policy from Labour? And the policy is they can forcibly purchase your property from you in order to make available to unhoused people?
You are pretty much correct, although it’s a government policy by a very well-off country within the EU, not the UK. I wasn’t rich, but I worked hard and bought several properties in run-down areas in a popular capital city. I did the properties up by installing new floors, getting rid of damp and mildew, gardening, painting etc., and then put them up for rent. I don’t make much off of them, just enough to pay the monthly costs. Despite that, the rent is high because the properties themselves are expensive. The government has now decided that all rentals, regardless of whether they are located in expensive cities or not, must all adhere to a points system where the maximum rent that can be collected is a 1,000 euros. Unfortunately, my monthly payments are almost twice that which means I’ll be renting out properties at a deficit. Failure to comply and reduce rents can mean a 20,000 to 80,000 euro fine for landlords. Local municipalities will also be establishing special task-forces to actively monitor that renters aren’t paying more than 1000 euros.
The stupidity of this is immense. Instead of reducing rental prices, many landlords will be forced into selling their properties which of course means less rentals on the market, not more. There is also very little sympathy for landlords as the media paints them as greedy crooks who profit from the misery of others.
Housing corporations on the other hand are more than happy for private landlords to lose business. Many of these corporations are owned by the government, which basically means that many private rental properties will also become government-owned. The stupid thing is that this was also the case way back in the 1970s and it didn’t work very well. Many houses in the city back then were neglected and dilapidated.
I’m afraid this new policy will only benefit politicians and their friends who run the housing corporations.
NB: Avatar above was from an old handle.