I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Um. Are they likely to be open to a case based on tact and reason?
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
It's interesting to ask a hypothetical question.
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
Away from football... I asked earlier who @Casino_Royale and @MrEd wanted to win the US election.
I also asked why @rcs1000 had seemingly changed his view that the riots almost guarantee a Trumpton victory.
I don’t think anyone answered me!
I don't want Trump to be re-elected. That isn't going to change.
However, I do try to divorce my personal views from my betting analysis of what I think may happen. That view may change (more than once) before November.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Self identify as a woman?
Swallow it. What's the upside in making a fuss over what appears to be maternity cover? I'm no @Foxy but assume the position will not last long.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
Not really, India is a democracy, Japan is a democracy, the Phillippines is a democracy, South Korea is a democracy, even Iraq is now a democracy. China is more an exception in Asia not the rule.
I do agree however Wokeism could weaken the west, when economic and military strength determine global power
Well, it's their college so the Governing Body has the final say, especially as Oxford Council has no objection. But if they really wanted to take it down, they'd do so immediately without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, so I imagine they're hoping that something will come up that will, on balance, cause the inquiry to recommend retention.
Arse-covering on an epic scale, in other words.
My understanding is that they are taking it down, and the enquiry is into the scholarship.
Am I wrong in that?
That doesn't seem to be what their letter indicates. Although the whole thing is vague and weaselly:
Who can blame them when the Johnson government allows them to twist in the wind, as opposed to providing a firm lead.
Getting views from lots of interested bodies, having an impartial expert evaluate the decision the Governing Body have made... sounds like due process to me.
And the problem with removing statues was a lack of due process, wasn't it?
(Was at the Better Place, myself)
What now happens to all those colleges named after Medieval Robber Barons and Nobles? Let's hope they were all purer than the driven snow by 21st Century currently fashionable values?
I suppose that Oxford Uni has created a huge majority of recent PMs, so the values are consonant.
This is quite amusing, my firm did an informal ethnic pay audit as part of the gender pay audit, and in lots of departments, including my own, us ethnics were massively paid more than white people.
It happens. Chasing absolute equality in those terms is a fools game. What matters is that there are not systematic procedures in place which ensure one group is treated worse than the others. If that is not the case then my attitude is to just go with the flow.
Penny Mordaunt, who I had down, wrongly it seems, as one of the saner Brexiteers, wants the aid budget to be diverted to a new Royal Yacht, so the UK can negotiate trade deals,
Which allows me to retweet this baffled comment from a real trade negotiator:
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Um. Are they likely to be open to a case based on tact and reason?
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
I think it's kind of ok that way round.
My wife has advised me three things: (1) I'm looking to leave anyway, so why does it matter, (2) it's a very hard argument to make and (3) they have a defense of positive action if accused of positive discrimination (and I'm sure it's the latter but it's hard to prove).
It's the sort of firm that's obsessed with gender equality, but is very happy with nepotism - all the interns are the daughters, and nieces of the business leaders.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Self identify as a woman?
I'd probably get a promotion and a big salary rise.
I'm getting tired of playing this game to be honest. It offends against my intellectual integrity, and it's getting harder each year.
It will get worse now too following recent events.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition, with rhetorical references to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence (the founding documents of the American Republic, whose names are given to the avenues running on either side of the National Mall in Washington, DC) as well as to Lincoln's Gettysburg address, Shakespeare and the Bible. To us it is obvious that King's aim was simply for the US Republic, and liberal democracy, to be true to its own founding principles - that all men are created equal. Yet at the time the FBI considered him the most dangerous man in America and a threat to the American way of life. What some people here like to call wokeism to me is simply a continuation of King's struggle, which is really the continuation of a much longer struggle for justice, freedom and equality. As we address the injustices of the past and of the present, we are strengthening and making true the promises of liberal democracy. That system of government remains the best hope for mankind. I think you all should have more faith in its ability to renew itself, and recognise that we are strongest when we are truest to ourselves, not when we are trying to ration the freedom that should be all of our birthright.
I disagree. King was fighting against institutional and systematic bias. He knew you will never change everyone's mind and make them think the same and he wasn't trying to. What he wanted was equality of opportunity within the system.
Wokeism is about both attacking individuals and trying to insist on equality of outcome. It is a dangerous and pernicious idea which works on the basis of thought crime and suppression of freedom of expression.
Liberal democracy is founded on the principles of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Wokeism is the enemy of both those concepts. That is why it needs to be challenged and defeated.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Um. Are they likely to be open to a case based on tact and reason?
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
I think it's kind of ok that way round.
My wife has advised me three things: (1) I'm looking to leave anyway, so why does it matter, (2) it's a very hard argument to make and (3) they have a defense of positive action if accused of positive discrimination (and I'm sure it's the latter but it's hard to prove).
It's the sort of firm that's obsessed with gender equality, but is very happy with nepotism - all the interns are the daughters, and nieces of the business leaders.
I am afraid, based on similar experiences I have had as a union rep, your wife is giving you good advice.
What they have done is illegal, and they could be in line for unlimited damages, but tribunals are very unpredictable and if you sue you generally only make it difficult to get a good reference. Plus, it’s usually expensive.
My advice would be, get a new job, and then when you are safely out of there without having signed an NDA, thoroughly diss them (verbally) at every opportunity to every potential client and employee. That will be far more damaging to them in the long run.
Mandela College/Mandela statue/Mandela Scholarships works for me.
Not Mugabe then?
Or Jean-Claude Duvalier?
A reasonable compromise might be Breyten Breytenbach.
So redemption is impossible?
Cecil Rhodes was, I am sure (although I don’t know) an unpleasant man. As were Carnegie and Rockefeller and others who were successful at that time.
He left his entire fortune to a Trust which has benefited mankind immensely. The legacy of the Trust has moved beyond what the man may or may not have done.
Celebrate the good that he did after his death. Debate and challenge the wrong that he did in his life. Don’t airbrush him from the arc of history.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Self identify as a woman?
Swallow it. What's the upside in making a fuss over what appears to be maternity cover? I'm no @Foxy but assume the position will not last long.
I’d tend to agree. Clearly the HR lady has a target of a gender balance so no need to take it personally. That won’t change: she is unlikely to weaken her target on the account of one senior white mate disapproving.
You might well get a chance when another bloke leaves.
Also, I thought you worked for Crossrail and left quite recently?
I’d tend to agree with Decrepit. Clearly the HR lady has a target of a gender balance so no need to take it personally. That won’t change: she is unlikely to weaken her target on the account of one senior white mate disapproving.
You might well get a chance when another bloke leaves.
Also, I thought you worked for Crossrail and left quite recently?
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Self identify as a woman?
I'd probably get a promotion and a big salary rise.
I'm getting tired of playing this game to be honest. It offends against my intellectual integrity, and it's getting harder each year.
It will get worse now too following recent events.
Whatever happened to simply hiring the best person for the job?
Or, if you wanted to put it another way: Judge people on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.
Mandela College/Mandela statue/Mandela Scholarships works for me.
Not Mugabe then?
Or Jean-Claude Duvalier?
A reasonable compromise might be Breyten Breytenbach.
So redemption is impossible?
Cecil Rhodes was, I am sure (although I don’t know) an unpleasant man. As were Carnegie and Rockefeller and others who were successful at that time.
He left his entire fortune to a Trust which has benefited mankind immensely. The legacy of the Trust has moved beyond what the man may or may not have done.
Celebrate the good that he did after his death. Debate and challenge the wrong that he did in his life. Don’t airbrush him from the arc of history.
It is a decision for them.
I happen to think it’s the wrong decision, but it’s for them to make.
It’s not like Bristol where a bunch of white Fascists many of whom appear not to have been even from the city decided they didn’t like the decision so took violent action to overturn it.
As for Rhodes, probably the best way of keeping him up would be to remind the left that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide, and therefore a victim of Victorian values as much as a perpetrator of Victorian atrocities.
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
Only if it leads to falling standards, at present the highest Asian university in the global rankings is Tshingua at 23rd
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
The big political change over the past 25 - 30 years in Western countries is the way that a lot of upper middle class people have come to despise the countries that they lead, and the way that working class people have begun to notice that they do so.
Given how bizarre the world is these days, I wonder what odds you could get on Bolton being Biden's running mate.
(If he had any sense he'd go for Mitt Romney or James Mattis.)
Gotta be a woman, apparently.
Condoleezza Rice has been suggested. But does Biden need to reach across the aisle?
I doubt Bolton's book will contain much that's truly damaging. Trump threatens to sue everybody. He even advised Theresa May she should sue the EU.
Mary Trump's book will be a much bigger blow. She already had one swing with the tax stuff, which hasn't brought him down, at least not yet. Now she's having another. She means business.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Um. Are they likely to be open to a case based on tact and reason?
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
I think it's kind of ok that way round.
My wife has advised me three things: (1) I'm looking to leave anyway, so why does it matter, (2) it's a very hard argument to make and (3) they have a defense of positive action if accused of positive discrimination (and I'm sure it's the latter but it's hard to prove).
It's the sort of firm that's obsessed with gender equality, but is very happy with nepotism - all the interns are the daughters, and nieces of the business leaders.
I am afraid, based on similar experiences I have had as a union rep, your wife is giving you good advice.
What they have done is illegal, and they could be in line for unlimited damages, but tribunals are very unpredictable and if you sue you generally only make it difficult to get a good reference. Plus, it’s usually expensive.
My advice would be, get a new job, and then when you are safely out of there without having signed an NDA, thoroughly diss them (verbally) at every opportunity to every potential client and employee. That will be far more damaging to them in the long run.
That’s really shockingly poor advice.
You don’t win business by slagging off your old employer. Indeed it reflects very badly on you.
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
I go for petrol driven cars.
If I were the descendant of enslaved Africans, I would not be overly impressed by the equivalence between trading innocent human beings as commodities, and not having a Honda fucking Prius.
I’d tend to agree with Decrepit. Clearly the HR lady has a target of a gender balance so no need to take it personally. That won’t change: she is unlikely to weaken her target on the account of one senior white mate disapproving.
You might well get a chance when another bloke leaves.
Also, I thought you worked for Crossrail and left quite recently?
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
Only if it leads to falling standards, at present the highest Asian university in the global rankings is Tshingua at 23rd
A lot of the 'standards' are based on the quality of the people they attract. If people choose not to attend for one of any number of reasons - and being able to afford to is a big one - then they will not be able to maintain those standards.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
It's interesting to ask a hypothetical question.
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
I've been told by the Head of HR at my company tonight that I can't become a "development reviewer" for other senior consultants in my firm - I've been asking for two years, and heard nothing back - because they are 'pleased' they have a 50:50 gender balance in reviewers at present. They won't look at it again until Autumn.
What sparked my email to her was that I got wind a new consultant who only joined the firm two years ago has just been made one (she was phoned up and directly asked) because two other female reviewers went on maternity leave, thus creating an imbalance.
I've been thanked for "my continuing support" (I don't support this dogmatic view) and I'm not very happy about it.
Considering my response.. Which needs to be very tactful.
Um. Are they likely to be open to a case based on tact and reason?
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
I think it's kind of ok that way round.
My wife has advised me three things: (1) I'm looking to leave anyway, so why does it matter, (2) it's a very hard argument to make and (3) they have a defense of positive action if accused of positive discrimination (and I'm sure it's the latter but it's hard to prove).
It's the sort of firm that's obsessed with gender equality, but is very happy with nepotism - all the interns are the daughters, and nieces of the business leaders.
I am afraid, based on similar experiences I have had as a union rep, your wife is giving you good advice.
What they have done is illegal, and they could be in line for unlimited damages, but tribunals are very unpredictable and if you sue you generally only make it difficult to get a good reference. Plus, it’s usually expensive.
My advice would be, get a new job, and then when you are safely out of there without having signed an NDA, thoroughly diss them (verbally) at every opportunity to every potential client and employee. That will be far more damaging to them in the long run.
That’s really shockingly poor advice.
You don’t win business by slagging off your old employer. Indeed it reflects very badly on you.
Interestingly, my experience is the opposite. But then it does depend a bit on the circumstances. If the firm already has a poor reputation, it tends to further confirm views that they cannot be trusted.
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
I go for petrol driven cars.
If I were the descendant of enslaved Africans, I would not be overly impressed by the equivalence between trading innocent human beings as commodities, and not having a Honda fucking Prius.
I have never come across a Honda Prius, still less one that is capable of fucking.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition
That is a truly awesome typo.
The absence of an edit function is unfortunate. Although you could describe colonialism as Western Entitlement so perhaps it was a Freudian slip.
If the problem is a lack of patriotism among the British elite, how does Brexit help?
Because we didn't get a patriotism among the British elite vote, we got a Brexit vote.
Structures are less important than people. I didn't like being in the EU, but had we the same will (not necessarily the methods) to pursue our own national interest within the EU as France, I don't think we'd ever have got a Brexit vote. Sadly, successive Governments, even Tory ones, liked to grandstand a bit in The Sun and then capitulate anyway because there was nothing to stop them.
"Grandstand a bit in the Sun and then capitulate anyway"
The Sun (August 2019): "Boris Johnson turns tables on Irish PM as he dispels the backstop myth" The Sun (December 2019): "Furious Arlene Foster lashes Boris Johnson for reneging on promise not to put up Irish Sea border"
Penny Mordaunt, who I had down, wrongly it seems, as one of the saner Brexiteers, wants the aid budget to be diverted to a new Royal Yacht, so the UK can negotiate trade deals,
Which allows me to retweet this baffled comment from a real trade negotiator:
Rubbish, a new royal yacht will be a fantastic location for signing our great new trade deals, Britannia was a great boost to UK trade
I wonder if there is crossed wires.
It’s not about signing trade deals which are governmental issues.
However from the ambassadors I’ve asked about this in the past, Britannia was a fantastic *trade promotion* tool. Embassies do a huge amount of work hosting events to promote British business and oil the wheels of commerce. But they found that people who would never come to an embassy event were delighted to receive an invitation to dinner on the Royal Yacht
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition
That is a truly awesome typo.
The absence of an edit function is unfortunate. Although you could describe colonialism as Western Entitlement so perhaps it was a Freudian slip.
That’s why it was awesome
And in fact, it’s probably right. By rooting it in the American Dream, King’s vision was arguable much more about entitlement than the enlightenment.
It was also really quite stridently nationalistic.
Well, it's their college so the Governing Body has the final say, especially as Oxford Council has no objection. But if they really wanted to take it down, they'd do so immediately without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, so I imagine they're hoping that something will come up that will, on balance, cause the inquiry to recommend retention.
Arse-covering on an epic scale, in other words.
My understanding is that they are taking it down, and the enquiry is into the scholarship.
Am I wrong in that?
That doesn't seem to be what their letter indicates. Although the whole thing is vague and weaselly:
I’d tend to agree with Decrepit. Clearly the HR lady has a target of a gender balance so no need to take it personally. That won’t change: she is unlikely to weaken her target on the account of one senior white mate disapproving.
You might well get a chance when another bloke leaves.
Also, I thought you worked for Crossrail and left quite recently?
Isn't that gender discrimination?
She’s allowed quotas I think, as it’s a quasi steering group / board from what I can glean from his OP.
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
Only if it leads to falling standards, at present the highest Asian university in the global rankings is Tshingua at 23rd
China had no universities of note at all a couple of decades ago.
The advance of Asian universities has been speedy and impressive, and it shows no signs of stopping. Western universities are slipping in comparison.
In a few years they will be challenging at the very top, then they will overtake us. They won't be hindered by a madness like Wokeness
They are not crippled by "the bad conscience of the masters". They adhere to the older ethic that the strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must.
Our problem is that 75 - 80% of our academics are radically left wing, and so they are prey to wokeism.
Well, it's their college so the Governing Body has the final say, especially as Oxford Council has no objection. But if they really wanted to take it down, they'd do so immediately without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, so I imagine they're hoping that something will come up that will, on balance, cause the inquiry to recommend retention.
Arse-covering on an epic scale, in other words.
My understanding is that they are taking it down, and the enquiry is into the scholarship.
Am I wrong in that?
That doesn't seem to be what their letter indicates. Although the whole thing is vague and weaselly:
Who can blame them when the Johnson government allows them to twist in the wind, as opposed to providing a firm lead.
Getting views from lots of interested bodies, having an impartial expert evaluate the decision the Governing Body have made... sounds like due process to me.
And the problem with removing statues was a lack of due process, wasn't it?
(Was at the Better Place, myself)
What now happens to all those colleges named after Medieval Robber Barons and Nobles? Let's hope they were all purer than the driven snow by 21st Century currently fashionable values?
I suppose that Oxford Uni has created a huge majority of recent PMs, so the values are consonant.
Well quite. Having been at a part of the Better Place whose founders had more sense than to name themselves after a single benefactor (and have been, by Oxbridge standards, church mouse frugal throughout their existence), I'd like to offer these observations.
Yes, if you have made a fortune in a bad way, it's right to seek redemption by doing good with your ill-gotten riches. But the classy thing to do is to sink (or slink) into the background.
Name the scholarship after your aunt, your mother's maiden name, or your favourite saint. Otherwise you're still trying to justify yourself, and that's not classy.
Have a portrait in Hall, or better still in a corridor. Have the chapel choir sing prayers for the (hopefully only slightly uncomfortable) repose of your soul. But don't expect people to walk under a statue of you on a regular basis, just because some of your riches are supporting their studies. That's not polite.
American Confederate statues, Edward Colston... the statues generally came long after the death of the people they commemorate. Bluntly, they've always been fairly unpleasant power moves. And smart conservatives in history have always recognised that reform is better than revolution. Wokeism may be embarrassing, and I won't try to justify all of it. But if people can't show the manners or empathy to think that the hurt caused to living people by statues of slave traders might be a problem, they can't be shocked if there's an overreaction.
Penny Mordaunt, who I had down, wrongly it seems, as one of the saner Brexiteers, wants the aid budget to be diverted to a new Royal Yacht, so the UK can negotiate trade deals,
Which allows me to retweet this baffled comment from a real trade negotiator:
Rubbish, a new royal yacht will be a fantastic location for signing our great new trade deals, Britannia was a great boost to UK trade
I wonder if there is crossed wires.
It’s not about signing trade deals which are governmental issues.
However from the ambassadors I’ve asked about this in the past, Britannia was a fantastic *trade promotion* tool. Embassies do a huge amount of work hosting events to promote British business and oil the wheels of commerce. But they found that people who would never come to an embassy event were delighted to receive an invitation to dinner on the Royal Yacht
The Queen is head of state, no reason it cannot also be used for negotiations on trade deals and make a great backdrop for the final signing
Mandela College/Mandela statue/Mandela Scholarships works for me.
Not Mugabe then?
Or Jean-Claude Duvalier?
A reasonable compromise might be Breyten Breytenbach.
So redemption is impossible?
Cecil Rhodes was, I am sure (although I don’t know) an unpleasant man. As were Carnegie and Rockefeller and others who were successful at that time.
He left his entire fortune to a Trust which has benefited mankind immensely. The legacy of the Trust has moved beyond what the man may or may not have done.
Celebrate the good that he did after his death. Debate and challenge the wrong that he did in his life. Don’t airbrush him from the arc of history.
It is a decision for them.
I happen to think it’s the wrong decision, but it’s for them to make.
It’s not like Bristol where a bunch of white Fascists many of whom appear not to have been even from the city decided they didn’t like the decision so took violent action to overturn it.
As for Rhodes, probably the best way of keeping him up would be to remind the left that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide, and therefore a victim of Victorian values as much as a perpetrator of Victorian atrocities.
Of course it’s a decision for them
My comment was aimed at @foxy who I thought believed in the possibility of redemption.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition, with rhetorical references to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence (the founding documents of the American Republic, whose names are given to the avenues running on either side of the National Mall in Washington, DC) as well as to Lincoln's Gettysburg address, Shakespeare and the Bible. To us it is obvious that King's aim was simply for the US Republic, and liberal democracy, to be true to its own founding principles - that all men are created equal. Yet at the time the FBI considered him the most dangerous man in America and a threat to the American way of life. What some people here like to call wokeism to me is simply a continuation of King's struggle, which is really the continuation of a much longer struggle for justice, freedom and equality. As we address the injustices of the past and of the present, we are strengthening and making true the promises of liberal democracy. That system of government remains the best hope for mankind. I think you all should have more faith in its ability to renew itself, and recognise that we are strongest when we are truest to ourselves, not when we are trying to ration the freedom that should be all of our birthright.
I disagree. King was fighting against institutional and systematic bias. He knew you will never change everyone's mind and make them think the same and he wasn't trying to. What he wanted was equality of opportunity within the system.
Wokeism is about both attacking individuals and trying to insist on equality of outcome. It is a dangerous and pernicious idea which works on the basis of thought crime and suppression of freedom of expression.
Liberal democracy is founded on the principles of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Wokeism is the enemy of both those concepts. That is why it needs to be challenged and defeated.
I think you have chosen to latch onto a caricature of people's views rather than engage with the substance. It's not about policing people's thoughts, it's about challenging systems of power that keep other people down.
Shall we cheer ourselves up with a gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) sweepstake on Which Statue Will Be Next
I'm going for Kitchener. Or maybe Cromwell
Robert Clive, outside the FCO.
Yes, good call.
Clive was India. BLM do not care about India.
A more plausible target would surely be Charles Gordon on the Embankment, although there would be a certain irony in that given he at least temporarily disrupted slaving in Sudan and the Horn of Africa.
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
Only if it leads to falling standards, at present the highest Asian university in the global rankings is Tshingua at 23rd
A lot of the 'standards' are based on the quality of the people they attract. If people choose not to attend for one of any number of reasons - and being able to afford to is a big one - then they will not be able to maintain those standards.
That would only really happen if the top global students went to Tshingua, Peking, Singapore and Tokyo universities rather than Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale
I said Oriel would yield, and so they have. You have to remember the intense social pressure on the people making these decisions: their neighbours, colleagues, friends, relatives, will all be middle class professionals, very likely left wing, linked to academe, Remainery, and Woke.
Going against that tide would be almost impossible,
However it does imperil the university. Donations could drop at a time when foreign students stop coming, possibly sending them bankrupt.
One of the by-products of the Wokegasm might be the end of Anglo-American/western leadership in league tables of world universities. The decline started a while ago, anyway, Wokeness will probably accelerate it.
And so the west falls, further, bit by tiny bit
Only if it leads to falling standards, at present the highest Asian university in the global rankings is Tshingua at 23rd
A lot of the 'standards' are based on the quality of the people they attract. If people choose not to attend for one of any number of reasons - and being able to afford to is a big one - then they will not be able to maintain those standards.
That would only really happen if the top global students went to Tshingua, Peking, Singapore and Tokyo universities rather than Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
I go for petrol driven cars.
If I were the descendant of enslaved Africans, I would not be overly impressed by the equivalence between trading innocent human beings as commodities, and not having a Honda fucking Prius.
Do you enjoy taking offence by making comparisons that no one else could possibly have seen? Who mentioned slavery? Who brought up a Prius? I surely did not.
Extremely refreshing and important. The identitarian left is about to discover that genuine diversity comes in thought as well as in immutable characteristics...
As refreshing as appointing a homeopath to spearhead a review into cancer treatments.
More like appointing Galileo to research astronomy rather than leaving it in the hands of the Catholic Inquisition...
If Galileo was a "solar system skeptic", yes.
I think you'll find that almost all scientists are sceptics by nature - it's what distinguishes science from religion. And my goodness it's time for the religion of woke to experience its Enlightenment...
p.s. If you don't like 'Wokeists', then how about 'Egregorotes', as ἐγρηγορότες? Though Omnium's probably hit upon the correct vernacular already.
But you know what I mean.
Your problem is that you're on the wrong side of history. Really don't envy you that. It's a place littered with bitterness and disappointment.
Do you honestly believe that a 'right side of history' even exists? You're kind of illustrating my point by putting your faith - and faith it is - in the distant teleological vindication of a peculiar set of beliefs that happened to gain minor currency in the early 21st century West. There's no such thing as being proved right 'in the end', because history has no end.
Still, your idea has a mirror image in that of conservative pessimism, which dictates that one day the forces of chaos and entropy will indeed inevitably win and drag us all down into their soggy mire.
But what do we say to the God of Woke? Not today!
Well we all know how everything ends. That is written. The laws of physics brook no dissent.
But in the meantime - and there's plenty of it - people will seek to come together not silo off into mardy groupings.
This is the history you are on the wrong side of. Which you are.
What a pile of shite.
Until ten years ago it was clear the "right side of history" was the endless march to liberal democracy. This now looks like complete foolish nonsense, as Asian autocracies rise, Islam spreads, and the West weakens. It turns out we were on the wrong side of history
Wokeism is just a peculiar, florid symptom of the West's decline, which may soon move from relative to absolute. How does Woke work in China, the world's biggest nation and arguably, now, it's most powerful? Maybe ask the Uighurs.
History is never inevitable, there is no endless and relentless march, there won't be a thousand year Reich of identity politics. That much we know from history.
I was listening again to Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech today. What struck me was how King situated the Civil Rights movement within the American and hence the broader Western Entitlement tradition, with rhetorical references to the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence (the founding documents of the American Republic, whose names are given to the avenues running on either side of the National Mall in Washington, DC) as well as to Lincoln's Gettysburg address, Shakespeare and the Bible. To us it is obvious that King's aim was simply for the US Republic, and liberal democracy, to be true to its own founding principles - that all men are created equal. Yet at the time the FBI considered him the most dangerous man in America and a threat to the American way of life. What some people here like to call wokeism to me is simply a continuation of King's struggle, which is really the continuation of a much longer struggle for justice, freedom and equality. As we address the injustices of the past and of the present, we are strengthening and making true the promises of liberal democracy. That system of government remains the best hope for mankind. I think you all should have more faith in its ability to renew itself, and recognise that we are strongest when we are truest to ourselves, not when we are trying to ration the freedom that should be all of our birthright.
I disagree. King was fighting against institutional and systematic bias. He knew you will never change everyone's mind and make them think the same and he wasn't trying to. What he wanted was equality of opportunity within the system.
Wokeism is about both attacking individuals and trying to insist on equality of outcome. It is a dangerous and pernicious idea which works on the basis of thought crime and suppression of freedom of expression.
Liberal democracy is founded on the principles of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Wokeism is the enemy of both those concepts. That is why it needs to be challenged and defeated.
I think you have chosen to latch onto a caricature of people's views rather than engage with the substance. It's not about policing people's thoughts, it's about challenging systems of power that keep other people down.
Nope, it is exactly about policing [people's thoughts and actions on an individual level. There are lots of movements rightly challenging systems and establishments. Wokeism is not one of them.
Penny Mordaunt, who I had down, wrongly it seems, as one of the saner Brexiteers, wants the aid budget to be diverted to a new Royal Yacht, so the UK can negotiate trade deals,
Which allows me to retweet this baffled comment from a real trade negotiator:
Rubbish, a new royal yacht will be a fantastic location for signing our great new trade deals, Britannia was a great boost to UK trade
I wonder if there is crossed wires.
It’s not about signing trade deals which are governmental issues.
However from the ambassadors I’ve asked about this in the past, Britannia was a fantastic *trade promotion* tool. Embassies do a huge amount of work hosting events to promote British business and oil the wheels of commerce. But they found that people who would never come to an embassy event were delighted to receive an invitation to dinner on the Royal Yacht
The Queen is head of state, no reason it cannot also be used for negotiations on trade deals and make a great backdrop for the final signing
FFS why do you always think you have to make the final point? It’s not as if we are disagreeing anyway.
Of course it *could* be used as a backdrop but it is completely and utterly pointless. And trade deals are a matter for government not the Queen anyway.
Shall we cheer ourselves up with a gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) sweepstake on Which Statue Will Be Next
I'm going for Kitchener. Or maybe Cromwell
James II, National Gallery, to cries from the Yahoos on here of "Who is this Grinning (sic) Gibbon guy anyway? It's only a lump of metal. "
I reckon they will avoid the royals until the end. Royalty is popular.
Generals and explorers are much easier to depict as evil racists etc etc.
At some point they will over-reach, and the pendulum will swing again. But who knows when
If western voters start electing seriously hard right, nationalist governments in response, in which case Trump, Boris, Salvini, Morrison etc might even seem moderate in comparison
Well, it's their college so the Governing Body has the final say, especially as Oxford Council has no objection. But if they really wanted to take it down, they'd do so immediately without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, so I imagine they're hoping that something will come up that will, on balance, cause the inquiry to recommend retention.
Arse-covering on an epic scale, in other words.
My understanding is that they are taking it down, and the enquiry is into the scholarship.
Am I wrong in that?
That doesn't seem to be what their letter indicates. Although the whole thing is vague and weaselly:
Who can blame them when the Johnson government allows them to twist in the wind, as opposed to providing a firm lead.
Getting views from lots of interested bodies, having an impartial expert evaluate the decision the Governing Body have made... sounds like due process to me.
And the problem with removing statues was a lack of due process, wasn't it?
(Was at the Better Place, myself)
What now happens to all those colleges named after Medieval Robber Barons and Nobles? Let's hope they were all purer than the driven snow by 21st Century currently fashionable values?
I suppose that Oxford Uni has created a huge majority of recent PMs, so the values are consonant.
Well quite. Having been at a part of the Better Place whose founders had more sense than to name themselves after a single benefactor (and have been, by Oxbridge standards, church mouse frugal throughout their existence), I'd like to offer these observations.
Yes, if you have made a fortune in a bad way, it's right to seek redemption by doing good with your ill-gotten riches. But the classy thing to do is to sink (or slink) into the background.
Name the scholarship after your aunt, your mother's maiden name, or your favourite saint. Otherwise you're still trying to justify yourself, and that's not classy.
Have a portrait in Hall, or better still in a corridor. Have the chapel choir sing prayers for the (hopefully only slightly uncomfortable) repose of your soul. But don't expect people to walk under a statue of you on a regular basis, just because some of your riches are supporting their studies. That's not polite.
American Confederate statues, Edward Colston... the statues generally came long after the death of the people they commemorate. Bluntly, they've always been fairly unpleasant power moves. And smart conservatives in history have always recognised that reform is better than revolution. Wokeism may be embarrassing, and I won't try to justify all of it. But if people can't show the manners or empathy to think that the hurt caused to living people by statues of slave traders might be a problem, they can't be shocked if there's an overreaction.
Slave traders are one thing. But look at their ever-extending list of targets
Captain Cook, Lord Nelson, Oliver Cromwell, King Charles, Robert Peel, James II...
Basically it is all of British history. They want to erase it.
But that's the dumbmness of the "Save All Statues" argument.
If Oriel had said years ago, "We appreciate the hurt, so we are having a long conversation with the intention of moving the statue to a respectful place in the Master's Garden", it would have cut off the issue. It's the attempt to appear strong by not yielding at all that's given the issue legs.
Highest point on Earth I've ever reached - the earthquake was a real tragedy. Wonder if it made the tourist trade that much more careful.
I once climbed to 5546 metres in the Andes: reaching the summit of an extinct volcano next to San Pedro de Atacama. Not a hard climb technically - just a steep walk, but wow the altitude.
18,195 feet.
One of the most incredible experiences of my life. Also, one of the most shattering.
Ditto - on the way down I was passed by a group of stretcher bearers with a (self-inflicted) casualty from our group!
Penny Mordaunt, who I had down, wrongly it seems, as one of the saner Brexiteers, wants the aid budget to be diverted to a new Royal Yacht, so the UK can negotiate trade deals,
Which allows me to retweet this baffled comment from a real trade negotiator:
Rubbish, a new royal yacht will be a fantastic location for signing our great new trade deals, Britannia was a great boost to UK trade
I wonder if there is crossed wires.
It’s not about signing trade deals which are governmental issues.
However from the ambassadors I’ve asked about this in the past, Britannia was a fantastic *trade promotion* tool. Embassies do a huge amount of work hosting events to promote British business and oil the wheels of commerce. But they found that people who would never come to an embassy event were delighted to receive an invitation to dinner on the Royal Yacht
The Queen is head of state, no reason it cannot also be used for negotiations on trade deals and make a great backdrop for the final signing
FFS why do you always think you have to make the final point? It’s not as if we are disagreeing anyway.
Of course it *could* be used as a backdrop but it is completely and utterly pointless. And trade deals are a matter for government not the Queen anyway.
Mandela College/Mandela statue/Mandela Scholarships works for me.
Yes, or Biko, after Steve Biko, killed in police custody.
Are we sure that there isn’t anything in, say, the personal lives of any other individuals chosen in the place of Rhodes which might prove problematic now or in future eg their attitude to women or to others?
To be clear, I know nothing about Steve Biko - beyond his death - nor about Mandela’s private life suggesting this.
But if people are going to be removed because of how they treated others then we’d better make sure that their replacements are beyond reproach.
It would be unfortunate if we gave the impression that some victim groups were more important than others, wouldn’t it?
Well, it's their college so the Governing Body has the final say, especially as Oxford Council has no objection. But if they really wanted to take it down, they'd do so immediately without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry, so I imagine they're hoping that something will come up that will, on balance, cause the inquiry to recommend retention.
Arse-covering on an epic scale, in other words.
My understanding is that they are taking it down, and the enquiry is into the scholarship.
Am I wrong in that?
That doesn't seem to be what their letter indicates. Although the whole thing is vague and weaselly:
Who can blame them when the Johnson government allows them to twist in the wind, as opposed to providing a firm lead.
Getting views from lots of interested bodies, having an impartial expert evaluate the decision the Governing Body have made... sounds like due process to me.
And the problem with removing statues was a lack of due process, wasn't it?
(Was at the Better Place, myself)
What now happens to all those colleges named after Medieval Robber Barons and Nobles? Let's hope they were all purer than the driven snow by 21st Century currently fashionable values?
I suppose that Oxford Uni has created a huge majority of recent PMs, so the values are consonant.
Well quite. Having been at a part of the Better Place whose founders had more sense than to name themselves after a single benefactor (and have been, by Oxbridge standards, church mouse frugal throughout their existence), I'd like to offer these observations.
Yes, if you have made a fortune in a bad way, it's right to seek redemption by doing good with your ill-gotten riches. But the classy thing to do is to sink (or slink) into the background.
Name the scholarship after your aunt, your mother's maiden name, or your favourite saint. Otherwise you're still trying to justify yourself, and that's not classy.
Have a portrait in Hall, or better still in a corridor. Have the chapel choir sing prayers for the (hopefully only slightly uncomfortable) repose of your soul. But don't expect people to walk under a statue of you on a regular basis, just because some of your riches are supporting their studies. That's not polite.
American Confederate statues, Edward Colston... the statues generally came long after the death of the people they commemorate. Bluntly, they've always been fairly unpleasant power moves. And smart conservatives in history have always recognised that reform is better than revolution. Wokeism may be embarrassing, and I won't try to justify all of it. But if people can't show the manners or empathy to think that the hurt caused to living people by statues of slave traders might be a problem, they can't be shocked if there's an overreaction.
Slave traders are one thing. But look at their ever-extending list of targets
Captain Cook, Lord Nelson, Oliver Cromwell, King Charles, Robert Peel, James II...
Basically it is all of British history. They want to erase it.
But that's the dumbmness of the "Save All Statues" argument.
If Oriel had said years ago, "We appreciate the hurt, so we are having a long conversation with the intention of moving the statue to a respectful place in the Master's Garden", it would have cut off the issue. It's the attempt to appear strong by not yielding at all that's given the issue legs.
Embrace the rebels to squash the rebellion.
Reform not revolution.
They polled old college members. About 90% said it should say. Guess where a lot of their money comes from?
There is allegedly one Orielensis with £100m to leave to the college who threatened to withdraw their legacy if the statue went. After all, no money is totally clean in the eyes of the left, so if you are going to be cancelled long after your donation, why bother? I'm not sure if that is still their stance.
Even if they do take it down, I'd be surprised if they renamed the building too.
I don't know what Jeremy Catto would have made of all this...
Comments
What happens when the two come back in a few months' time and it creates another imbalance?
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
Was Mrs. Parsa on the right side of history, or the wrong side?
I do agree however Wokeism could weaken the west, when economic and military strength determine global power
I suppose that Oxford Uni has created a huge majority of recent PMs, so the values are consonant.
My wife has advised me three things: (1) I'm looking to leave anyway, so why does it matter, (2) it's a very hard argument to make and (3) they have a defense of positive action if accused of positive discrimination (and I'm sure it's the latter but it's hard to prove).
It's the sort of firm that's obsessed with gender equality, but is very happy with nepotism - all the interns are the daughters, and nieces of the business leaders.
It's interesting to ask a hypothetical question.
What could the people of 200 years in the future consider beyond the pale?
As in, they will think, how could humanity have ever conceived of such barbarism? But to us it seems totally normal.
I think meat eating is a definite possibility, as is abortion or even birth control.
I go for petrol driven cars.
As this explodes, will the Brexiteers sycophants be able to avoid the splatter?
I'm getting tired of playing this game to be honest. It offends against my intellectual integrity, and it's getting harder each year.
It will get worse now too following recent events.
Wokeism is about both attacking individuals and trying to insist on equality of outcome. It is a dangerous and pernicious idea which works on the basis of thought crime and suppression of freedom of expression.
Liberal democracy is founded on the principles of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Wokeism is the enemy of both those concepts. That is why it needs to be challenged and defeated.
What they have done is illegal, and they could be in line for unlimited damages, but tribunals are very unpredictable and if you sue you generally only make it difficult to get a good reference. Plus, it’s usually expensive.
My advice would be, get a new job, and then when you are safely out of there without having signed an NDA, thoroughly diss them (verbally) at every opportunity to every potential client and employee. That will be far more damaging to them in the long run.
Cecil Rhodes was, I am sure (although I don’t know) an unpleasant man. As were Carnegie and Rockefeller and others who were successful at that time.
He left his entire fortune to a Trust which has benefited mankind immensely. The legacy of the Trust has moved beyond what the man may or may not have done.
Celebrate the good that he did after his death. Debate and challenge the wrong that he did in his life. Don’t airbrush him from the arc of history.
You might well get a chance when another bloke leaves.
Also, I thought you worked for Crossrail and left quite recently?
Or, if you wanted to put it another way: Judge people on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.
You already have the Mandela Rhodes Trust they founded and funded to focus on capacity building in Africa.
I happen to think it’s the wrong decision, but it’s for them to make.
It’s not like Bristol where a bunch of white Fascists many of whom appear not to have been even from the city decided they didn’t like the decision so took violent action to overturn it.
As for Rhodes, probably the best way of keeping him up would be to remind the left that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide, and therefore a victim of Victorian values as much as a perpetrator of Victorian atrocities.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
I doubt Bolton's book will contain much that's truly damaging. Trump threatens to sue everybody. He even advised Theresa May she should sue the EU.
Mary Trump's book will be a much bigger blow. She already had one swing with the tax stuff, which hasn't brought him down, at least not yet. Now she's having another. She means business.
Claim to self-identify as a woman?
You don’t win business by slagging off your old employer. Indeed it reflects very badly on you.
@Casino_Royale please tell me you won’t do this.
Although you could describe colonialism as Western Entitlement so perhaps it was a Freudian slip.
The Sun (August 2019): "Boris Johnson turns tables on Irish PM as he dispels the backstop myth"
The Sun (December 2019): "Furious Arlene Foster lashes Boris Johnson for reneging on promise not to put up Irish Sea border"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9628770/boris-johnson-turns-tables-on-irish-pm-as-he-dispels-the-backstop-myth/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10518338/arlene-foster-boris-johnson-irish-sea-border/
It’s not about signing trade deals which are governmental issues.
However from the ambassadors I’ve asked about this in the past, Britannia was a fantastic *trade promotion* tool. Embassies do a huge amount of work hosting events to promote British business and oil the wheels of commerce. But they found that people who would never come to an embassy event were delighted to receive an invitation to dinner on the Royal Yacht
And in fact, it’s probably right. By rooting it in the American Dream, King’s vision was arguable much more about entitlement than the enlightenment.
It was also really quite stridently nationalistic.
Our problem is that 75 - 80% of our academics are radically left wing, and so they are prey to wokeism.
Yes, if you have made a fortune in a bad way, it's right to seek redemption by doing good with your ill-gotten riches. But the classy thing to do is to sink (or slink) into the background.
Name the scholarship after your aunt, your mother's maiden name, or your favourite saint. Otherwise you're still trying to justify yourself, and that's not classy.
Have a portrait in Hall, or better still in a corridor. Have the chapel choir sing prayers for the (hopefully only slightly uncomfortable) repose of your soul. But don't expect people to walk under a statue of you on a regular basis, just because some of your riches are supporting their studies. That's not polite.
American Confederate statues, Edward Colston... the statues generally came long after the death of the people they commemorate. Bluntly, they've always been fairly unpleasant power moves. And smart conservatives in history have always recognised that reform is better than revolution. Wokeism may be embarrassing, and I won't try to justify all of it. But if people can't show the manners or empathy to think that the hurt caused to living people by statues of slave traders might be a problem, they can't be shocked if there's an overreaction.
He put those arrogant monarchs in their place and gave us parliamentary supremacy.
All democrats should be positively tumescent about Cromwell.
My comment was aimed at @foxy who I thought believed in the possibility of redemption.
NEW THREAD
A more plausible target would surely be Charles Gordon on the Embankment, although there would be a certain irony in that given he at least temporarily disrupted slaving in Sudan and the Horn of Africa.
That was founded and endowed with money made by a chairman of the East India Company
Who mentioned slavery? Who brought up a Prius?
I surely did not.
Of course it *could* be used as a backdrop but it is completely and utterly pointless. And trade deals are a matter for government not the Queen anyway.
If Oriel had said years ago, "We appreciate the hurt, so we are having a long conversation with the intention of moving the statue to a respectful place in the Master's Garden", it would have cut off the issue. It's the attempt to appear strong by not yielding at all that's given the issue legs.
Embrace the rebels to squash the rebellion.
Reform not revolution.
To be clear, I know nothing about Steve Biko - beyond his death - nor about Mandela’s private life suggesting this.
But if people are going to be removed because of how they treated others then we’d better make sure that their replacements are beyond reproach.
It would be unfortunate if we gave the impression that some victim groups were more important than others, wouldn’t it?
There is allegedly one Orielensis with £100m to leave to the college who threatened to withdraw their legacy if the statue went. After all, no money is totally clean in the eyes of the left, so if you are going to be cancelled long after your donation, why bother? I'm not sure if that is still their stance.
Even if they do take it down, I'd be surprised if they renamed the building too.
I don't know what Jeremy Catto would have made of all this...