Is wokeness the remedy to fascism?

With fascism being far more real in imagination than fact, and wokeness being the epitome of nonsensical imagination.....

Common sense is the remedy for both.

 

Superb.

 

Superior performers can acquire and use knowledge more effectively than mediocre ones.

Some of them are and some of them are not

Primitive

The cancellation of AP classes and the dismantling of elite high schools. It is unfair to deprive superior performers of the education they need to reach their full potential.

The intelligence I am referring to is the ability to acquire and use knowledge.

The race is not always to the swift, not the contest to the strong, but it pays to bet that way. I would always chose the high MCAT doctor over the low one.

I think China and Western European countries to a good job at discovering and nurturing talent.

What logic tells you there are billions of highly educable people?

 

That presumes that only the top credentials are qualified. It also presumes that race is not a qualification.

 

Race is not a qualification and it can’t be by law unless it’s affirmative action of course. I do hope the courts strike it down

 

That is the problem. Race IS made a qualification too often.

 

It depends on the knowledge you're speaking of. It may be knowledge that is academic in nature, but have little to no utility or productive value.

Good. I'm glad you acknowledge that wealthy people are not necessarily productive members of society.

I was speaking of how you view them in terms of 'mediocre' or 'superior producers'.

That's not what I'd call 'resources'.

But since you mentioned it, what's wrong with AP classes?

Elite high schools are private institutions. They can do whatever they want. It's up to the public to make the necessary changes in the education system that they need.

Which essentially describes all people, as the ability to acquire & use knowledge is a human trait. What you're specifically referring to is one's aptitude for academia.

It pays only if it serves a specific goal. A brilliant/high-IQ valedictorian who aces every test will be sought by any university & offered a full scholarship. It may be good for the college & its image, but will it necessarily be good for the nation? Will that individual be worth the high cost of education provided to them?

That's the risk that comes with making students endure years of school & exams. They tell us nothing about how the person will turn out, especially when the time from start to time of finish is so long.

There's a much better alternative to years of schooling & test-taking.

Perhaps because these cultures place a greater emphasis on what's practical, and less on image & divisive rhetoric.

I was referring to any form of education/training (eg, non-degreed education/training), not only degreed/book-centered academic education.

I've lived in different countries & visited many more. I've encountered people from all walks of life all over the world, and observed how intelligent, creative, and resourceful most of them have been, no matter their educational level. And being one who tends to avoid the touristy areas, I spent most of my time in the countryside & villages. I could quickly sense that, if given the educational opportunity, these people could accomplish anything.

My sister once visited Cuba decades ago and remarked how so well-educated, articulate, intelligent, and aware everyone was----from a street sweeper to a manager. Unfortunately for Cubans at the time, the nation's leadership failed to match its population of gifted individuals with the necessary freedoms.

A simple youtube search for "creative workers" will even reveal how ubiquitous & naturally (and brilliantly) creative people are all over the world. Imagine if these people had the opportunity to channel that creativity towards advancing society rather than enriching a company or the state.

One should also keep in mind that being educable on an academic level doesn't mean one will choose to pursue anything relating to that field of education. Eg, people have often been known to abandon high-paying, high-skill jobs for what would be considered a low-level or low-skill job. Eg, a CEO earning a high six figures leaves his job to become a semi truck driver. I once met a member of MENSA who worked at a factory doing menial labor. What we could potentially excel at will not necessarily be what we wish to pursue. The degree to which one is willing to pursue one's preferences will determine whether one actually pursue

In fact, surveys indicate that most people wouldn't mind taking a pay cut for a more favorable work-life & more free time.

9 Out of 10 People Are Willing to Earn Less Money to Do More-Meaningful Work
https://hbr.org/2018/11/9-out-of-10-people-are-willing-to-earn-less-money-to-do-more-meaningful-work

Staff willing to take pay cut to gain more free time
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/staff-willing-to-take-pay-cut-to-gain-more-free-time/

One-third of job switchers took a pay cut for better work-life balance
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/14/one...k-a-pay-cut-for-better-work-life-balance.html

Most Americans would take a pay cut over going back to the office, survey finds
https://nypost.com/2021/08/04/most-americans-willing-to-take-pay-cut-to-work-remotely-survey/

Workers say they’re willing to take a pay cut to stay remote
https://www.worklife.news/culture/pay-cut/

Workers Care More About Flexible Hours Than Remote Work
New survey of more than 10,000 knowledge workers found 95% want to set their own hours
https://www.wsj.com/articles/workers-care-more-about-flexible-hours-than-remote-work-11643112004

Remote workers are happier in their jobs—and get 105 hours more free time a year than office employees
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/ceb...s-get-105-hours-more-leisure-time-a-year.html

“We may gain back the money we've come to waste, but we cannot gain back the time we've come to face.” —Ben Freya

 

What 'resources' are you referring to? And how do we know those 'resources' will be 'better used' (whatever that means) on those with higher scores?

 

Resources of teachers, books, room space etc. and if you can’t figure out how an individual with better Credentials can better use those resources you may need to try throwing your biases out the window.

 

French rejection | The New Criterion
The New Criterion › issues › french-rejection
Sartre, Derrida, Foucault: the very names of those forerunners of wokeism should send a shudder down the spine of any sensible person. Who knows how many ...

The truth about wokeism seems to be invisible to the denizens of that madhouse. Take a step outside, though, and its preposterousness, as well as its malevolence, is shatteringly obvious. This is something we were reminded of recently when the French President, Emmanuel Macron, took a forthright stand against that toxic American import. There is some irony in this, since the flow of that ideological cloaca maxima had for decades moved in the opposite direction, from France to the United States. Sartre, Derrida, Foucault: the very names of those forerunners of wokeism should send a shudder down the spine of any sensible person. Who knows how many American minds they corrupted? But now the garbage scows steam mostly from West to East, hauling a smelly cargo of poisonous race- and gender-obsessed clichés. As a story in The New York Times put it, the French regard wokeism as an “existential” threat: “It fuels secessionism. Gnaws at national unity. Abets Islamism. Attacks France’s intellectual and cultural heritage.” Indeed. Macron’s education minister zeroed in on the source of the problem. “There’s a battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities.”. . . .

 

But I thought those 'resources' were essential for those with NO credentials. Why would someone want any of that if they already had credentials? lol

Kidding aside, you said earlier that "Giving college seats to people based on race rather than credentials is literally giving away resources that would otherwise be better used on qualified credentials."

Although I don't necessarily view affirmative action as an effective means of distributing educational opportunities to minority communities, one cannot assert that a minority with a lower entrance exam will make poor use of the school resources they're provided. In fact, the minority student might actually work harder than the white student so that they are accepted, in order to prove themselves, to break the cycle of poverty or lack of education in their family, because they feel it's a privilege to have been admitted to the college, or whatever the case may be. A white student, even if they score higher on the entrance exam, may not take their education as seriously----or they may. Who knows.

But my point is made that accurate predictions cannot be made as to how appreciative or serious a student will be of their educational opportunities, or, more importantly, how they will impact society following school.

The best way to administer education is to remove exams and years of boring grade-school education. Teach students the three R's and some basic math very early. Then, allow them to begin exploring & pursuing their interests as soon as they know what they wish to do in life, even if they're still as young as 5 years old. This way, every student will be an eager, serious, and interested student because they're learning, training, and working in the very field they wish to pursue in life, and can do so at their own pace. And imagine how experienced & skilled they're already be at an age when students (in today's society) are normally just entering high school.

It's a no-brainer.

 

Higher GPA’s should get those resources because they show the best ability to use those resources to become better for society. They will make better and more proficient individuals in said work field which will benefit everyone else as well. I’m surprised this need to be explained to you. I would suggest reading Thomas Sowell’s “Black Rednecks And White Liberals”

 

If they work harder then I’m sure they don’t need affirmative action to get admitted. anyone who scores high on an entrance exam, has higher GPA’s, higher SAT scores is much more more likely to do better and excel better than the one with lower scores. They proved that they can and are willing to learn already, and are a better candidate to use those valuable resources without wasting them and will be put to better use.

 

Is this another example of wokeism run amok:

 

You're talking about something that's in short supply.

 

Well said. A minor quibble though is that from my perspective inequality is a basic aspect of human nature. Sure we are more likely to be equitable with our in group/s, but not so much with out groups that we feel are a threat to our own. Personally I love liberalism. Realistically though I see massive problems when it comes to human nature and equality as it tends towards inequality and self deception.

 

????

Liberals should speak against begin aware of social inequality?????

I don't think it's a good strategy for the left to become the right just to avoid being the target of an absurd Tucker talking point.

 

If it has changed, SHOW IT! Don't wait for me to ask. If you expect to be taken seriously, that is. Read my sig! Don't expect me to make your point for you.

 

So the next step is to make people aware ("woke"... or whatever word you prefer) of this so we can start "remedying" them.

 

I should clarify that the main point of this thread is not about eliminating inequality or becoming some utopian "Brave New World" in which everybody is equal. It's about being aware of inequality. Especially of the kind that can be, if not eliminated, at least mitigated or remedied.

 

Is that really what you think I wrote? Because it isn't what I meant to say, at all.

I was trying to distinguish actual liberals from "woke" illiberal authoritarians who push for things like censorship, cancelling people, racial discrimination while calling themselves "anti-racist", to etc.

I truly hope you can see the difference. The latter has much more in common with the far right authoritarians (though they constantly fight each other) than they do with liberals or libertarian conservatives.

 

Yes, well said. And we need to not allow our movements and what we care about to be hijacked by others who don't represent us. That goes for "woke" trying to equate to liberal, white supremacists trying to equate to conservative, and even Islamists trying to equate to Muslim.

 

Authoritarians of any type are a bad thing. But I fail to see what that has to do with anything I wrote.

 

So, there is no cure for today's DNC Let me be the first to offer my sympathy and condolences

 

You literally cannot make this up: