On their face a lot of these might be bad things, but my criticism is precisely that this "brand" of wokeness that he describes is an oversimplification on a lot of issues.
For example, let's take the claim that COVID vaccines were being prioritized by race instead of age. This is a big claim, in Australia for example I remember people from ethnic groups were considered priority; I don't recall them being prioritized over old people however so it's definitely an argument that I think needs to be treated with seriousness. Where was this, what were the reasons given for it, etc. I do recall certain races being more likely to have more serious reactions to the virus than others; there's socio-economic factors to consider as well (for example, black people tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, we could look at number of people per household, etc.).
So, although I appreciate the effort of actually giving some examples, my main point stands. We ought to contextualize and give a fair reading as to why these decisions are being made, provided that these examples are a fair representation of the modern scenario to begin with. Instead of simply labeling them as "woke".
I think there's a big reaction against diversity that fails to account the reasons, logical, philosophical, ethical that are behind it and why these people think we should have more of it.
I feel like if you want to have these kind of discussions it's more helpful for everyone to actually give proper respect to the opponent's arguments and strong-man their arguments when you take them down. As other posters have pointed out, it seems as though he is making a strawman and then writing a whole essay about it.
For example, let's take the claim that COVID vaccines were being prioritized by race instead of age. This is a big claim, in Australia for example I remember people from ethnic groups were considered priority; I don't recall them being prioritized over old people however so it's definitely an argument that I think needs to be treated with seriousness. Where was this, what were the reasons given for it, etc. I do recall certain races being more likely to have more serious reactions to the virus than others; there's socio-economic factors to consider as well (for example, black people tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, we could look at number of people per household, etc.).
So, although I appreciate the effort of actually giving some examples, my main point stands. We ought to contextualize and give a fair reading as to why these decisions are being made, provided that these examples are a fair representation of the modern scenario to begin with. Instead of simply labeling them as "woke".
I think there's a big reaction against diversity that fails to account the reasons, logical, philosophical, ethical that are behind it and why these people think we should have more of it.
I feel like if you want to have these kind of discussions it's more helpful for everyone to actually give proper respect to the opponent's arguments and strong-man their arguments when you take them down. As other posters have pointed out, it seems as though he is making a strawman and then writing a whole essay about it.