Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Extreme anti-Woke among the young

ste14w

Old-Salt
"Two Tribes...?" No - you're thinking of "Relax (Don't Do It)."
Sorry, I meant the film, Threads was banned.
 
It seem that while it is about our colonial cousins, in "defund the police Minneapolis" and who insist in voting in 'the woke' are finding out some it will eventually have consequences. The comments are very telling.


Obviously Andre Conley's black life didn't matter to some other blacks. We know he wasn't murdered by whites, as if he was, they'd be screaming from the rooftops about it.
 

ste14w

Old-Salt
Obviously Andre Conley's black life didn't matter to some other blacks. We know he wasn't murdered by whites, as if he was, they'd be screaming from the rooftops about it.
And kneeling down everywhere.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
And that is why I hope that at least some of the younger generations see that being 'Woke' is, ultimately hopelessly utopian in nature and thus will always fail, and when it does its the less well off who suffer the most, be it economically or sociality.

Too my mind the very worst is there is a call from the 'Woke' many who proclaim their 'wokness' think its acceptable that encouraging a return too some racial segregation should be a thing again. And at the same time are quick to call the majority white supremacists. Baffling

Fundamentally the problem, in all of the awkward squad ideologies, is the concept of equality..

Whilst it has become a buzzword for really stupid politicians it is fundamentally moronic.

Take identical twins, born into the same family, achieve the same grades at school, go into the same job. Eventually one will be promoted above the other. Ergo they haven't been treated equally. Could be merely down to one having a better sense of humour, anything... Extreme and daft example but you get the idea. It's a mathematical construct and no two humans can ever be treated equally.

Even more moronic is thinking that the state is responsible for how humans are treated by other humans. I can't intrinsically even think of a religion in which equality is a thing. You are judged by who you are and how you act tends to be the way. Even Buddhists believe that you come back as a rat, spider or scouser if you are a shit bloke.

From the state's perspective the concept, at most, should be one of sufficiency. Life isn't fair, never will be, but providing the bare bones minimum to keep someone alive is about the limit.
 

ste14w

Old-Salt
Fundamentally the problem, in all of the awkward squad ideologies, is the concept of equality..

Whilst it has become a buzzword for really stupid politicians it is fundamentally moronic.

Take identical twins, born into the same family, achieve the same grades at school, go into the same job. Eventually one will be promoted above the other. Ergo they haven't been treated equally. Could be merely down to one having a better sense of humour, anything... Extreme and daft example but you get the idea. It's a mathematical construct and no two humans can ever be treated equally.

Even more moronic is thinking that the state is responsible for how humans are treated by other humans. I can't intrinsically even think of a religion in which equality is a thing. You are judged by who you are and how you act tends to be the way. Even Buddhists believe that you come back as a rat, spider or scouser if you are a shit bloke.

From the state's perspective the concept, at most, should be one of sufficiency. Life isn't fair, never will be, but providing the bare bones minimum to keep someone alive is about the limit.
Ha, as a Scouser I'd disagree, if you're a div in this life you're more likely to come back as a Manc. Apart from that you're post is spot on. People will like or dislike another person based on that persons actions, not what a politician or pressure group tells them. People will progress in life based on their ability, not on what they feel they should have. Simple enough really.
 

ste14w

Old-Salt
Well played sir, I suspect unless they Google it, that probably went over most people's heads
Ha, thank you, I realise unless you're a certain age that one goes straight out the window.
 
I remember going to see a film-show of The War Game at a local CND meeting, around 82 or 83. They were showing it at a nearby school hall, with the hope of recruiting new members. As we settled down to watch, some lass was passing around a petition for unilateral disarmament. As an "I will if you will" kinda guy, it's gotta be a two-way thing or not at all. I refused. She got a right strop on, asking, "Well, why have you come here?"
"Just cos I don't agree, doesn't mean I won't listen. This film is your chance to convince me."
They failed. I reckoned if I was gonna get killed, then so should the other side.
I saw Threads around 1984 or 85, on the tv. How depressing was that? It didn't matter how rich or important you were, you still died. Even my gf couldn't cheer me up, when we met up later on.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I remember a few of 'em giving me a severe dose of the screaming heebies, too.

Being in school in the '70s/80s and within blast, heat and "secondary effects" (read; radiation) range of any instant sunshine unleashed on Portland (which was still a major naval facility back then) we had lessons on The Bomb. We thus spent the years that should have been the best ones of our lives s***ting bricks over the - conditioned into our impressionable heads - imminent prospect of Andropov and subsequently Chernenko MIRV'ing us at any moment.

Life was easier living near Portsmouth - counting likely SS-20 aim points in the vicinity left teenage me relaxed that I'd be ionised vapour if anyone decided to play a full-contact game of "Global Thermonuclear War", so if it kicked off I'd have three minutes to try (and probably fail) to persuade something female to have sex with me before being obliterated.

Left me deeply cynical of the CND mob who were claiming that GLCM at Greenham Common, and Pershing II in Europe, were "escalations" - no, they were responses to Soviet capability, and how come you could protest outside Greenham with impunity, but nobody was reporting on any 'peace protests' around Soviet IRBM bases? (were there no protests, or were the protestors merely hauled off for a ten-year sentence for 'hooliganism'?)

Interesting, with hindsight, to see how capabilities like TLAM (especially the -A version with really long range and a warhead full of instant sunshine) and Pershing II really had impact on the USSR back in the day.
 

Tyk

LE
Fundamentally the problem, in all of the awkward squad ideologies, is the concept of equality..

Whilst it has become a buzzword for really stupid politicians it is fundamentally moronic.

Take identical twins, born into the same family, achieve the same grades at school, go into the same job. Eventually one will be promoted above the other. Ergo they haven't been treated equally. Could be merely down to one having a better sense of humour, anything... Extreme and daft example but you get the idea. It's a mathematical construct and no two humans can ever be treated equally.

Even more moronic is thinking that the state is responsible for how humans are treated by other humans. I can't intrinsically even think of a religion in which equality is a thing. You are judged by who you are and how you act tends to be the way. Even Buddhists believe that you come back as a rat, spider or scouser if you are a shit bloke.

From the state's perspective the concept, at most, should be one of sufficiency. Life isn't fair, never will be, but providing the bare bones minimum to keep someone alive is about the limit.

Equality has 2 fundamental aspects, one is valid, the other is absurd.

Equality of Opportunity - Give people an equal chance to achieve, to learn, to excel and people will find a level they can attain irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, religion or other characteristic. Tends to result in happy people on the whole.

Equality of Outcome - This is completely artificial, frequently ends up in disaster and it's the pet attitude of certain lefties that have no concept that it's mostly a race to the bottom or at the least requires a vast investment for a mediocre result and constant complaints of "it's not fair!".
 

NSP

LE
Life was easier living near Portsmouth - counting likely SS-20 aim points in the vicinity left teenage me relaxed that I'd be ionised vapour if anyone decided to play a full-contact game of "Global Thermonuclear War", so if it kicked off I'd have three minutes to try (and probably fail) to persuade something female to have sex with me before being obliterated.

Left me deeply cynical of the CND mob who were claiming that GLCM at Greenham Common, and Pershing II in Europe, were "escalations" - no, they were responses to Soviet capability, and how come you could protest outside Greenham with impunity, but nobody was reporting on any 'peace protests' around Soviet IRBM bases? (were there no protests, or were the protestors merely hauled off for a ten-year sentence for 'hooliganism'?)

Interesting, with hindsight, to see how capabilities like TLAM (especially the -A version with really long range and a warhead full of instant sunshine) and Pershing II really had impact on the USSR back in the day.
I think the fact that we (as in NATO) had permanently parked a submarine or two with enough MIRVs to take out their entire C&C and fixed missile fields close enough to the targets for the "x-minute" warning to be moot with little interference whilst their equivalent effort was invariably intercepted and shadowed by an HK boat and thus would have been on a one-way vertical trip downwards the moment the duty sonarman called, "Control, sonar. Silos flooding on contact sierra," kind of put any first-strike notions firmly into a cocked hat, once they knew about it. One of the reasons Gorby opened his arms, wasn't it?

I've read an account somewhere from one of the SALT inspectors on the Russian version of North Dakota whereby he turned up with the team about to start decommissioning a field and was introduced to the base commander who was waiting for him at a silo hatch, grinning in an ironic way. Hand-shakes done and the Soviet says something about how the west was fretting about nothing, still grinning, signals on his radio and the hatch opens. The inspector looks in and sees that the silo lights are all on and he is thus able to see that it is half-flooded and the ICBM within is half-rotten. Commander shrugs and says, "No money from Moscow - no maintenance. Damn things couldn't fly if we wanted them to."

Rinse and repeat across all their fixed launch sites, apparently.
 

NSP

LE
Sorry, I meant the film, Threads was banned.
Seemed very unbanned when I was allowed to watch it on BBC1 back in the '80s.

I've got it on DVD now. Might dig it out for a re-watch tomorrow...
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Equality has 2 fundamental aspects, one is valid, the other is absurd.

Equality of Opportunity - Give people an equal chance to achieve, to learn, to excel and people will find a level they can attain irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, religion or other characteristic. Tends to result in happy people on the whole.

Equality of Outcome - This is completely artificial, frequently ends up in disaster and it's the pet attitude of certain lefties that have no concept that it's mostly a race to the bottom or at the least requires a vast investment for a mediocre result and constant complaints of "it's not fair!".

Neither are valid...

Equality of opportunity misses that the basis of most opportunities, fundamentally, is luck. Some realise this, and also realise that with nothing at stake most opportunities merely require lots of applications. You have to be in it to win it.. Which is otherwise known as work. Some don't and then assume the lucky person must have been unfairly advantaged... Usually when they didn't even apply themselves.

Even if you attempt to exclude luck, and multiple applications then you either have meritocratic opportunity, or enforced opportunity.

Meritocratic relies upon an individuals idea of merit. Taking the example above the identical twin with the better sense of humour might be considered the better condidate, orthe identical twin with the lesser sense of humour might be seen as more serious and therefore more merit. Luck in other words that your characteristics fit the bias of the decision maker.

Enforced, the route to hell which we have been on since Blair, argues that all races, sexualities, genders, handedness, hair colours and penis sizes are equal. And therefore you MUST have an equal number of each in every position.

However only intersectional feminists believe the above.. Doubt anyone with a decent sized cock would go near em so... Hence unless you are an adoring acolyte of intersectional feminism you do not have merit.
 

Tyk

LE
Neither are valid...

Equality of opportunity misses that the basis of most opportunities, fundamentally, is luck. Some realise this, and also realise that with nothing at stake most opportunities merely require lots of applications. You have to be in it to win it.. Which is otherwise known as work. Some don't and then assume the lucky person must have been unfairly advantaged... Usually when they didn't even apply themselves.

Even if you attempt to exclude luck, and multiple applications then you either have meritocratic opportunity, or enforced opportunity.

Meritocratic relies upon an individuals idea of merit. Taking the example above the identical twin with the better sense of humour might be considered the better condidate, orthe identical twin with the lesser sense of humour might be seen as more serious and therefore more merit. Luck in other words that your characteristics fit the bias of the decision maker.

Enforced, the route to hell which we have been on since Blair, argues that all races, sexualities, genders, handedness, hair colours and penis sizes are equal. And therefore you MUST have an equal number of each in every position.

However only intersectional feminists believe the above.. Doubt anyone with a decent sized cock would go near em so... Hence unless you are an adoring acolyte of intersectional feminism you do not have merit.

What a load of hogwash!

Equality of Opportunity is purely meritocratic, by definition anything enforced is Equality of Outcome.
You either do not understand the central concepts or are being wilfully ignorant in your post.

There are NEVER two exactly equal candidates except on paper, then you tie break with an interview process, one will always come out ahead, but both candidates have had an equal opportunity to outperform the other.

Give it a little thought and it's very easy to understand the fundamental difference between Equality of Opportunity and Outcome. There's no luck involved.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Equality of Opportunity is purely meritocratic, by definition anything enforced is Equality of Outcome.
You either do not understand the central concepts or are being wilfully ignorant in your post.

A sufficiency of opportunity is very desirable for social mobility, but demanding complete equality of opportunity is moronic.

Meritocratic in 1930s Germany was having blonde hair and blue eyes... In ancient Greece it was being from the right family... In Hollywood it means being particularly good on the casting couch...Meritocratic depends upon culture.

Someone born into wealth is always going to have more opportunities than someone born in a slum. On average everything from their health to educational outcomes will be better. So to enforce equality of opportunity you have to hobble them, which then verges towards equality of outcome.

Even if not wealth, someone born of a computer programmer is going to have far more opportunities to learn to code than someone who has never even met a programmer till they take some third rate IT course. How do you ensure that both have the same opportunity? Hobble the son of the spod or give more educational opportunities to the other?

Equality in general, in all it's guises, is a woke thing. If you want your brain surgeon to be from Somalia, your basketball player to be from Papua New Guinea and your soldier to be French then chances are you'll be a brain damaged loser who just surrendered.
 

Tyk

LE
A sufficiency of opportunity is very desirable for social mobility, but demanding complete equality of opportunity is moronic.

Meritocratic in 1930s Germany was having blonde hair and blue eyes... In ancient Greece it was being from the right family... In Hollywood it means being particularly good on the casting couch...Meritocratic depends upon culture.

Someone born into wealth is always going to have more opportunities than someone born in a slum. On average everything from their health to educational outcomes will be better. So to enforce equality of opportunity you have to hobble them, which then verges towards equality of outcome.

Even if not wealth, someone born of a computer programmer is going to have far more opportunities to learn to code than someone who has never even met a programmer till they take some third rate IT course. How do you ensure that both have the same opportunity? Hobble the son of the spod or give more educational opportunities to the other?

Equality in general, in all it's guises, is a woke thing. If you want your brain surgeon to be from Somalia, your basketball player to be from Papua New Guinea and your soldier to be French then chances are you'll be a brain damaged loser who just surrendered.

Do yourself a favour and instead of projecting what you want onto the two phrases (you're actually conflating the two) try to comprehend what each actually MEANS. You're also throwing in specious arguments to muddy the waters.

I suspect you're being deliberately dense, I do hope you actually aren't be so dim you can't understand the difference.

Equality of OPPORTUNITY example:-

5 equally qualified people with similar experience apply for a job, they are of different racial backgrounds, genders and sexual orientations, maybe one or more are disabled - The person who gets the job gets it because they're the best fit, NOT because they're the one legged black lesbian, but they had the OPPORTUNITY to all compete, it might be the unipod, melanin enriched rug muncher just as easily as the ordinary white bloke from Barnsley.

Equality of OUTCOME example:-

5 equally qualified people with similar experience apply for a job, they are of different racial backgrounds, genders and sexual orientations, maybe one or more are disabled - The person who gets the job gets it because they're the most "disadvantaged" or the right demographic to fit some quota, NOT because at interview and testing they performed the best.

The same scenario, radically different result.

It really isn't a difficult concept. Taking your example, it doesn't matter a hoot if the brain surgeon is a Somali or the basketball player is a pygmy if they are the BEST and have not been denied the OPPORTUNITY to compete to get the job and won it on merit.
It's true that the wealthy can afford private schools, but making an effort to provide all kids with a similar quality of education by improving teachers and facilities at state schools (not artificially farking with the results or forcing Oxbridge to take in less qualified kids) is about Equality of OPPORTUNITY not OUTCOME.
One of my mates at school was from a council estate, his dad was a binman and his mum a cleaner, he ended up at Liverpool Uni, got a Nuclear Physics degree (and a scouse accent that made me rip the piss out of him ever since) and is a professional designer of reactors. Another was the son of a Knighted civil servant and a wealthy socialite, huge house with a real tennis court in the garden, he's never worked at anything much past gardening and general labouring, he's far from thick, just bone idle. They both had the same educational opportunities, one took advantage of them, one didn't.

I've mentioned this before on ARRSE, one of the absolute best project team leads I've ever worked with was a Flt Sgt who was a self confessed utter scrote, numerous convictions for car theft, burglary and god knows what by the time he was 15, also more or less illiterate. Some youth worker talked him into trying out for the RAF (apparently he took a punt at all 3, but RN and Army told him to feck off) he had a tough time in basic which shook him a bit, got working with some grizzled old Sgt who wouldn't let him slack and he made something of himself.
He's retired as a WO1, but his ability to lead teams checking on priorities, but not needing hand holding, making suggestions to improve his team and the whole project, deal with paperwork, awkward customer types and just get shit done effectively with zero fuss was brilliant. The RAF gave him the opportunity as did the old bastard of a Sgt that made him stop being a useless scrote and made him a useful bod to the point he got promoted all the way as a noncom, he'd been recommended for Officer repeatedly, but he never wanted it which pissed off his CO's on a few occasions.
 

Latest Threads

Top