Have We Turned the Corner on Woke?

Alan, you are probably correct that Tump may not know anything about this. No surprise. I didn't find it in other legacy news so maybe NPR is making more of it that it should be. Or maybe it's a revenge article with distorted facts to get even...wait that's the other side. I can imagine without making a project out of it that it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of Trump administration involved in scientific climate data suppression or denial without evidence, but that's my take. All said I couldn't find any error of facts in the article's opening statement. Whether it is cost cutting or information suppression is up for debate.


The Trump administration has asked NASA employees to draw up plans to end at least two major satellite missions, according to current and former NASA staffers. If the plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated, because the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere. Both missions, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, measure carbon dioxide and plant growth around the globe. They use identical measurement devices, but one device is attached to a stand-alone satellite while the other is attached to the International Space Station.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

Alan, you are probably correct that Tump may not know anything about this. No surprise. I didn't find it in other legacy news so maybe NPR is making more of it that it should be. Or maybe it's a revenge article with distorted facts to get even...wait that's the other side. I can imagine without making a project out of it that it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of Trump administration involved in scientific climate data suppression or denial without evidence, but that's my take. All said I couldn't find any error of facts in the article's opening statement. Whether it is cost cutting or information suppression is up for debate.


The Trump administration has asked NASA employees to draw up plans to end at least two major satellite missions, according to current and former NASA staffers. If the plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated, because the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere. Both missions, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, measure carbon dioxide and plant growth around the globe. They use identical measurement devices, but one device is attached to a stand-alone satellite while the other is attached to the International Space Station.

---

So are they pulling the shuttle out of retirement and spending a lot to refurbish it? That used to be a job of it to grab/repair/update satellites and bring them to an orbit to keep them from falling back to earth. Now the only shuttles we have, are the military ones that they don't publicize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

I don’t think it’s common sense at all actually. I think it’s overreach of governments legislating this and it’s been deemed necessary by many only because the medical community is entirely captured by the cult of transgender. If the medical community and therapeutic professionals were doing their job, they would not be prescribing puberty blockers and hormones and etc. after one visit. They wouldn’t be performing surgeries on sex organs on minors.

the medical community thinks they’re doing the right thing. The assistant secretary of Health and Human Services under Joe Biden thought it was all peachy keen.

Not to be unkind, but just to point out you would be considered a transphobe spewing hate by many people in the trans community.

---

In theory we should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies. Women should be allowed to choose abortions. Biological males should be able to choose to transition to females and vice versa. All this without a lot of brouhaha. But it doesn't work that way. In a way, I blame the fact that you can't legislate kindness, compassion, and respect, so we step in with laws--which is the most contentious and cumbersome way to honor the rights of everyone.

I also believe that because our ethical and moral codes are in shreds, we have to rely on laws. And, I also blame our anemic spiritual traditions and rituals. I'm not talking about the rigid rites and man-made commandments that make most people "the other"--I'm talking about a core of community with the proper structures to support our inclinations to help each other out of mutual concern.

So we have wokeness on both sides, and overreach by both parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

In theory we should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies. Women should be allowed to choose abortions. Biological males should be able to choose to transition to females and vice versa. All this without a lot of brouhaha. But it doesn't work that way. In a way, I blame the fact that you can't legislate kindness, compassion, and respect, so we step in with laws--which is the most contentious and cumbersome way to honor the rights of everyone.

I also believe that because our ethical and moral codes are in shreds, we have to rely on laws. And, I also blame our anemic spiritual traditions and rituals. I'm not talking about the rigid rites and man-made commandments that make most people "the other"--I'm talking about a core of community with the proper structures to support our inclinations to help each other out of mutual concern.

So we have wokeness on both sides, and overreach by both parties.

---

this is a really good summary of why laws are ineffective and are just second rate tools for guiding some behaviors in our society. And yes, for sure wokeness and overreach is performed by both political sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm not sure it's particularly kind or empathetic to segment people into groups by race, sex, education, net worth, social status, etc., and then demand special rules that everyone must follow in their daily interactions with whatever group is most favored. I'd rather stick with the tried and true method of judging people by their character and believing that we're all part of the same group with our own individual backgrounds and idiosyncrasies. Woke won't allow that.

---

I guess everyone has their own experiences on how this translates. My experience has been that "woke" isn't that sinister, race awareness notwithstanding. If you are sitting in a corporate meeting with 200 employees and none are black (or women, or gay), I don't think it's crazy to ask yourself why is that? I guess you could just say well obviously all the best smartest hardest working people are universally straight white men, so no surprise we are all straight white men. The numbers will change someday when the minorities get smarter and quit being lazy. Or you could ask yourself are there other reasons why those segments are underrepresented. Of course denying there are differences makes it convenient, you don't have to explain any gaps or shortcomings in outcomes. But my experience is that (and yes, just my experience) there are historic soft hurdles to non straight white males accessing some career paths, and trying to lower those hurdles for qualified people benefits the majority. Maybe we can all agree that equality of opportunity ought to be the goal, not equality of outcomes. But if you aren't getting the outcomes I don't think it's wrong to be reflective about why.

Well stated, Yossarian.