How Will We Be Judged?

[Harmony]

I've been having lots of very good conversations with my kids - who are in fact adults now - about (for lack of a better word) cancel culture and judging past decades by today's standards.

I know you are sensing that this thread belongs in P/R but it doesn't have to be.  This isn't about any one thing.  But I'm going to give a couple of examples.

I finished the documentary on Hemingway and it is easy to judge the man using the lens of today.  Judging him by the standards of today I would call him a womanizer.  Some of his writings were nothing less than overtly racist.  He was a bully in every sense of the word.  And he was also alcoholic, mentally ill, and likely suffered from what we now know of as CTE.  It is hard for me to imagine that if we transplanted this man into 2021, his behavior and his work would simply not be tolerated and he certainly would not be celebrated.

I just learned today that the US had a plan to nuke the moon (Project A119) and that one of my heroes, Carl Sagan, was in favor of it.  I know I'm probably late to this party but my brain is stunned.  How could anyone think detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon is something good?  How does this knowledge change my thinking of one of my heroes?  Should it?  He was a man of his time and times were very different.

My kids are very passionate as many young adults are.  As I once was.  They are energized to make the world a better place and they tend to look down on the generations that came before them as very unenlightened.  And I've had to ask them what the generation of the 2070s and 2080s think of their generation?  I mean, we have people - children - dying of hunger in a world that has the capacity to feed every human in need and yet we do not do that.  Collectively we see the problems that we have and we can't stop arguing with one another long enough to fix them.  Maybe the question isn't what those who came before us got wrong.  Maybe the question is how will we be judged by those who come after?

[darkshade]

I find that this current form of "cancel culture" we are seeing throughout society, while some may not think this, is a form of Marxism, and needs to be eradicated.
It is not much different than "Me Too". The intentions might be well-meaning, but that doesn't mean it isn't a cancer on society.
No man is perfect.

[Harmony]

I find that this current form of "cancel culture" we are seeing throughout society, while some may not think this, is a form of Marxism, and needs to be eradicated.
It is not much different than "Me Too". The intentions might be well-meaning, but that doesn't mean it isn't a cancer on society.
No man is perfect.

Eradicating is a form of cancel culture.

[MirrorMask]

I guess we will be judged mainly on:

- Climate change. We'll be those suckers who could have stopped it and didn't care to implement solutions and technologies that in 70-80 years will be availaible, more widespread, or looking easy in retrospect.

- The digital era. Whatever the situation will be with the digitalization of the world, social media, internet and the likes, our shortcomings in this sense will be frowned upon. But then again Black Mirror might be right and we might elect Mickey Mouse as planet overlord so who knows.

- Attitude towards gay people. We're slooooooowly and finally going towards a society that finally realized that what you do with your own genitals is your own business, so probably just like we "Lolwut" about people owning slaves, probably people will consider us turn-of-the-millennium folks as a bunch of homophobic people.

- I'm also a bit curious about religious issues will be seen, at least christianity might be on the decline and once the previous generation of older people will be gone, we might expect a significant drop of religious people. The political debate in too many countries is often dominated by the views of religious people, once a bunch of them will die of old age and politicians will no longer have to pander to them, who knows how we might be viewed.

[Lonk]

I think we will be judge as a time period where we were still learning to work with each other.

We are still learning to work with technology, and how to properly use it. socially, we are on a good path of learning to work with each other. It doesn't seem like it at times, but I am a bit optimistic of the next 15-20 years and where we go. There will be setbacks (like 2020), but overall we are on a good path. We will see, but I am of the mindset that as dark as times seem now, they are (undoubtedly?) better than previous generations. Just my opinion.

[Chino]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks. 

[Stadler]

It's a phenomenal question, and I think it's cool that you are having what I call "strategic" (that's to say, long term) conversations with your kids.  I'm trying to do the same with my three oldest (two stepkids, for whom this kind of thinking is almost completely foreign, and my natural daughter, who's a chip off the old Stadler block in this case).   

I struggle though; the world goes in cycles.   Advancements are made, and yet at times we backslide.  I think this moment in time will ultimately be judged in terms of the reaction and the backlash to it.  I think it's easy to look at a month, a year, a Presidential term, and think it's going to resonate in all it's glory independent of what happened before and after, and that's a mistake.  Was Bush, Jr. a good or bad President?  In the context of Bill Clinton, probably not good.  In the context of Obama and Trump, the answer is possibly not the same. 

I would like to think this age - characterized by an unprecedented leap in technology - will be seen for what I think it actually was:  objective, scientific advances that far out-paced our psychological capacity to keep up.  We are the teenager that just got their driver's license, and doesn't quite know what to do with it yet.   I think along with your nuclear example (and you can use the industrial revolution here as well), our social media will be seen as an advancement that we didn't react to fast enough.   I would hope that the future is kind to us; kinder, perhaps, than we are to our past, and would recognize that many of us - not all, but many, even those we don't agree with - did the best we could with the tools we had.   I know for me, I would hope that in 30 years, mental health wellness will be as common as treadmills and diet books, and we will be generally more equipped to handle these changes that I would imagine are still coming at a rapid fire pace.  That in and of itself will color the assessment of our current state, much like advancements in virology and bacteriology color our assessment of, say the late 19th century, or the early 20th century.

[jingle.boy]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

Sadly, I fear this is most accurate.  Once all the old rich white people/nations die off, the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.

[Stadler]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

Sadly, I fear this is most accurate.  Once all the old rich white people/nations die off, the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.

It all depends though.  We don't know where the road is heading.  World War I was, in it's time, "The Great War" or "The War To End All Wars", and yet, it didn't.  World War II - which actually had it's origins IN WWI - dwarfed it in size, scope, and consequences.  I think the odds are better than 50-50 that there is someone in the next 15 years that will make Trump look like Nixon in comparison.

EDIT: And of course, all of this assumes measured progress on the China Ascendancy. 

[PetFish]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

This.

[Dublagent66]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on.  So yeah...

[Adami]

How do selfish people having kids dumb down society?

How do we know which people having kids are selfish pricks and which aren’t?

[TheCountOfNYC]

As society advances, certain things that were once seen as harmless it turns out were harmful to groups of people who were afraid to speak up about their pain. As long as you acknowledge your past ignorance and grow with the times, the future generations should trust you as an ally. If you stay stuck in your ways, stuck in the past, then the future generations have every right to judge you. There seems to be this romanticizing of preserving tradition, but if that tradition doesn’t work in modern society, it’s better for the entire world to let it go.

[XJDenton]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on.  So yeah...

I really wish more people realised Idiocracy was in fact a comedy film, and not a documentary.

[Skeever]

Our descendants are going to rake us over the coals. We have more data and certainty at our fingertips than any other point in history, yet we do very little to mitigate certain disaster. We're going to be viewed as a bunch of selfish pricks.

Our descendants will be a much more dumbed down version of society because of all the selfish pricks having kids now and so on.  So yeah...

[gmillerdrake]

the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.

you're placing entirely too much faith and credibility onto the 'woke' generation. That pendulum won't come to rest anywhere near the center.

[Stadler]

I feel like there's a subtle, implicit "well not ME, of course" in this entire dialogue, and that's part of the problem for me.   The future isn't going to see the "us and them" as clearly as we feel it, and as such they are going to have a perspective we don't have.    That perspective is going to be the deciding factor as to how they ultimately see us, not anything that's actually happening now.   

I'm getting the sense that there's more than one person here that sort of views the current "us" versus "them" as a war in which there will be one winner (the "them", unless I'm misreading you all and you think YOU'RE one of the idiots) and that fact will be lamented.  Except in the most rare of cases, that's not how history plays out.  I can only think of one really glaring example over the last 120 years where it has, in fact.   History has a way of tamping down the emotions; JFK is far more human and real than he was perceived then, and the notion of "Camelot" seems almost quaint in today's terms.   That is not to say, however, that the affairs, the drug use, the physical limitations have tarnished his reputation, or diminished those things he did accomplish.  History has a way of lurching to the middle of the road, too; there is another JFK in our future, and likely another Trump.   When they come and in what order will have a lot of say in how that "war" ultimately pans out, and while I can't tell which direction we're going to go in, I can tell you, with some certainty, that we aren't staying stagnant, at least not in the moment we're in.  it's unsustainable.

[kirksnosehair]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, when nearly half of the people around us are willingly engaging in self-delusion at the behest of a known scam artist we are one step away from fucking doom.


So how will be be judged?  Pretty fucking harshly, I reckon. 

[Ben_Jamin]

Learning about our history and the history of humanity in general is a great start to this discussion.

There's a lot of psychology that plays into our history and our past generations problems and issues, and how Society and Life was.

What I noticed is that the past generations had to work for things, if people wanted something, it requires putting in work and effort, and that work was physically and mentally demanding. People didn't just sit in an office, people were actually outside in nature, doing the work that needed to be done.

That is the mindset of the people of the past.

Nowadays, that mindset has shifted. And this is what I consider the Generational Shift. Where the mindset of the past no longer applies to the present. And where these issues and disagreements of the new mindset and old mindset collides. This is where the old mindset has to learn, and accept the change, and hand over the reigns to the upcoming mindset. If they're gonna be greedy about it, and not hand over that reign, then issues begin where Life shows that the old, just won't and can't work, because The Peoples mindsets are changing and shifting from that old mindset.

What I myself see is exactly this. The old mindset not wanting to hand over the reigns, they're being greedy and stingy with that power, and they need to accept that fact, that their mindset isn't where the current mindset is heading to.

But, this doesn't mean the current mindset can't learn from the old. The old mindset should hand over that reign, but also, be there to guide the new, so these issues of the past don't end up being repeated.

These issues of today are still the same issues of the past. Only in the present, what we have is how it evolved and became in the now. This is our generations turn to actually realize these things and actually come together to solve it.

The new mindset and new generation needs to understand, they need the knowledge and wisdom of the old, because the old has the experience and actually lived it. There is nothing that can replace that wisdom that is earned from living and experiencing it.

That's how traditions and knowledge is passed down orally, from the experiences of the old. Listening to the stories and experiences of the old tells a lot.

[Stadler]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.

But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting.   To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest".  "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth.  To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way.  There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke".  For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe. 

History will see through that.    History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus.  It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them.  Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

[Skeever]

Is "wokeness" really new? It just seems like a rebrand of ideas that have been around since the 60s, and actually, a watered down version of it a that (which might explain why Corporate America is so eager to be woke).

[TAC]

[jingle.boy]

the 'woke' (I'm not using that derogatorily) generation will swing the socio-economic divisiveness pendulum closer to center.

you're placing entirely too much faith and credibility onto the 'woke' generation. That pendulum won't come to rest anywhere near the center.

I was being mildly facetious in using the term "woke".  I don't mean the FAR woke people, but the generation that includes the jingle.kids, the little millers, the Stads and TAC Jr's etc...  Also, I didn't say which side of center the pendulum would settle towards.   

[kirksnosehair]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.

But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting.   To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest".  "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth.  To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way.  There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke".  For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe. 

History will see through that.    History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus.  It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them.  Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

Why is that a problem for you?  I'm pretty comfortable.  No check that.  I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.

Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.

[Stadler]

Is "wokeness" really new? It just seems like a rebrand of ideas that have been around since the 60s, and actually, a watered down version of it a that (which might explain why Corporate America is so eager to be woke).

Being socially aware isn't new; that is a rebranding.  It seems to me to be more exclusive and militant.

Corporations are going to sell their awareness any way they can.  It's almost funny to watch commercials up here (Connecticut) for things like cable TV and cell phones.   The vast majority of couples in the commercials are mixed race or same sex.  No problem; that's just being inclusive.  That to me isn't woke.  That's reflecting our society (even if the numbers are misleading).   

I wasn't being critical of Barry in my response, it's not about him.  I was trying to highlight that the two poles aren't capable of co-existing.  I consider myself tolerant, in the true sense of the word; whether I like or agree with a social position isn't important, only that I understand that others might disagree and they have every right to do so. And it's funny; that breakthrough actually made me more ACCEPTING and less likely to actually disagree with a social position.  There's room for you, and you, and you, and you and me in that world (quoting Ronnie Dio).   The "woke" world?  That's not inclusive; there's only room in that world for those that 'believe', those that pass the test.   I don't know how that's supposed to work, and I don't understand why those on the "outside" should accept it any more than the special interests that have fought for decades for inclusion should have.  In an open, free society of equals, there should be no moral criteria, or moral minimum cover for inclusion on a fundamental level, and for my money, that's the line at which we start talking about "woke".   

[Ben_Jamin]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.

But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting.   To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest".  "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth.  To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way.  There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke".  For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe. 

History will see through that.    History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus.  It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them.  Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

Why is that a problem for you?  I'm pretty comfortable.  No check that.  I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.

Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.

Not all PoC agree with "Wokeness", not all Homosexuals agree with "Wokeness". Not all people in Poverty agree with "Wokeness"....

As a matter of fact not many Gay people agree with the LTGBQ movement itself. The same that Black people don't agree with BLM....so are they traitors of their people? No.

And the future will determine whether you are on the right side of history or not. And you may never know...

[Stadler]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.

But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting.   To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest".  "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth.  To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way.  There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke".  For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe. 

History will see through that.    History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus.  It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them.  Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

Why is that a problem for you?  I'm pretty comfortable.  No check that.  I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.

Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.

It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance.  I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious).   I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history".  Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong.  Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered.   It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".

Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This and this.)  So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem.  They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups.   To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.

[kirksnosehair]

Hubris?   


So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.

Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me.  I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.

[Ben_Jamin]

We live in a time when the act of taking an interest in societal issues like institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty is packaged into the apparent epithet of "wokeness" and slung around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument.

But that's your point of view; there are many, many people that DON'T view "wokeness" in that one-sided way, but in fact use "wokeness" as an epithet to signify the very thing you're rejecting.   To me, "wokeness" isn't "taking an interest".  "Taking an interest" is just normal human evolution and growth.  To me, "wokeness" is exactly what you accuse others of: packaging that interest and slinging it around like some kind of rhetorical blunt instrument, morally bludgeoning any who don't see the world in the same way.  There are a LOT of people here on this board that have an interest in societal issues; I can only name maybe two or three that I would consider "woke".  For them, it's less WHAT they believe, but HOW they believe. 

History will see through that.    History will, like it always has, take your point of view, they will take my point of view, and they will take the points of view of the millions of variations on that from across our generation, and come to a consensus.  It won't be purely yours, and it won't be purely mine, but a compromise across all of them.  Not necessarily an EQUAL compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

Yes, we use "wokeness" as an epithet and a rhetorical bludgeon against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

Why is that a problem for you?  I'm pretty comfortable.  No check that.  I'm absolutely unequivocally comfortable being "woke" because I know I'm going to be on the right side of history.

Can you say the same without another paragraph of whatabout ______________ or false equivalence, because that's all I see here, sorry.

It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance.  I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious).   I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history".  Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong.  Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered.   It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".

Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This and this.)  So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem.  They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups.   To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.

What I am seeing is some of these "woke" people actually are turning into the very thing they're fighting against. It's the same shoe worn on a different side.

[KevShmev]

It's a problem because like any power it gets abused when there's no objective metric, or check and balance.  I'm glad you're comfortable (that's sincere, if not a little envious).   I don't have that hubris to think I can know who or what is on the "right side of history".  Most that fell by the wayside through out history thought that too, and they were wrong.  Or, like Margaret Sanger, their ideas were distorted and extrapolated in ways that they never intended but nonetheless fostered.   It's hard to argue that point about the fundamentals like treating people the same despite the color of their skin, but we're talking about something broader; we're also talking the "how".

Science is starting to show that "exclusion" and "marginalization" doesn't solve the problem, but in fact might make it worse. (This and this.)  So while I'm not going to assume anything about you, personally, many on the "woke" side feel really good about themselves for arriving at the "what", but the "how" is perpetuating, even if inadvertently, the problem.  They're just forming different in-groups and out-groups; they're just creating a different "homogenization" of the individuals that belong to other, non-sufficiently "woke" groups.   To that extent, even without the benefit of time, it's hard to see how that puts them on the "right side of history" when they are already on the wrong side of science.

Great post!! 

[Stadler]

Hubris?   


So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.

Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me.  I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.

No, and please do not put words in my mouth.   The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period.  It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not.  I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there. 

I have no idea what your last sentence means, but it's not about me, and you REALLY don't understand me if you think I'm speaking for you. EVERYTHING I've been writing here is about exactly NOT that.  I am actively saying that not only do I not speak for you, but I CANNOT speak for you.  And vice versa.  What I did was give credible, defensible scientific sources regarding the tactics that are prevalent in today's cultural/social debate.  You make of them what you will, or will not.  I'm just saying there is evidence that contradicts the chosen strategy of many on the "woke" side, and therefore it's not a slam-dunk that 50 years from now that all the "marginalizing" and "intolerance of intolerance" that we're seeing is going to be so highly regarded.   

[emtee]

There's no way to know or predict. All we can do, as individuals, is be the change we wish to see in the world. Nobody can see into the future. We are flawed creatures who seem intent on killing each other and destroying our habitat. Our collective patience with each other decreases with each passing year. Tribalism reigns and opposition at all costs is our mantra. To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.

[Ben_Jamin]

To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.

...And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom... (Cheesy Simpsons Joke)

There's no way to know or predict. All we can do, as individuals, is be the change we wish to see in the world. Nobody can see into the future. We are flawed creatures who seem intent on killing each other and destroying our habitat. Our collective patience with each other decreases with each passing year. Tribalism reigns and opposition at all costs is our mantra. To me, we seem to be moving backwards not forwards.

Oh yeah, these flaws are what make us Human. Without these flaws, we wouldn't be the humans we are now.

The issue is recognizing these flaws and finding ways to fix them. To make them work in ways that are beneficial for us as Humans, and for our habitat we share with the Plants, Animals, Creatures, Organisms, Microbes, Etc... Everything involved within this Earth works together as one, and what one does affects the other. We humans do so much to the world, without realizing our actions affect everything within this Earth.

Because, if we realized this, obviously, things would be anything but this...

There are solutions, but the power in Greed, Lust, Authority, is so strong that humans end up being consumed by these, and use their power for their own benefit, gain, and interests, disregarding everything else within the Earth, and in turn destroy things that are beneficial for us Humans and the Earth. This has happened throughout history, since the dawn of time. The Greed for more, The Lust for control, and the Authority to justify.

[kirksnosehair]

This has got to be the only place on earth (except perhaps the southern part of the US) where "nobody knows" if being against racism will put one on the right side of history.  Holy fucking shit 


contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism is like pissing into the wind and saying you're taking a shower

[jingle.boy]

Hubris?   


So it's hubris to think I'm on the right side of history for being against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty

If that's hubris, you can call be Barry Hubris Thompson from now on.

Anything else is you projecting your shit onto me.  I speak for myself, you don't speak for me.

No, and please do not put words in my mouth.   The hubris is the presumption of your place in the historical record, period.  It matters not what your actual stance on the issues is or is not.  I'm generally against institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, police brutality and poverty, too (though we might disagree on the details), but I in no way shape or form believe I can even KNOW I'm on the right side of history (not least of which because it hasn't happened yet), let alone actually think I'm there. 

Generally?  Are you implying there are/can be circumstances where you are not against any of these things?