STEM management in Woke Capital is becoming the same way, except there's more Whites and Asians. But they have to be self-hating.
The engineers I've known who have gone into management start out sane and simply adopt Woke progressivism as a persona they can "turn on" when they need to and "turn off" when they're among friends. But over time they internalize it, and to the extent they dissent at all it's of the spineless "I agree with what they're trying to do but they take it too far" variety which provides no meaningful opposition.
I suggest using old technology simply as a survival tactic, for those who eg. want to drive a car with functional brakes or a fly in a commercial airliner with an expertly designed fly by wire system instead of one thrown together by "engineers" making $8/hr.
I stand up -- vocally -- but people don't really understand why; and they think I sound like a crazy person when I try to explain it.
I think one of the reasons my colleagues change is that they don't think the change is bad: they think it's simply a natural extension of the standard American liberal culture in which they were raised. So even when they intuit that something is "wrong" they lack the means of being able to meaningfully challenge that view or offer an alternative. "I agree with what they're trying to do but they take it too far" is them being honest.
The problem is that many people like your colleagues are sadly normies who still fall for the media indoctrination.
They think any change is good as long as the people in power tell them so.
The nightmare is that the people who understand the danger are scared to speak up due to cancel culture while the normies foolishly believe that any change borne out of progressivism is good.
I'm saying that once someone does decide to speak up, a whole new struggle of doing so while being taken seriously begins.
I've noticed that when someone speaks up and says "what we are doing is wrong" -- could be woke HR policy or even a design requirement or schedule estimate -- the first question they get asked is "what should we be doing instead?" The further away from the status quo the answer is, the less seriously it is taken; and the harder the battle is.
It doesn't matter if the status quo is only 6 months old and what you are suggesting was formerly the status quo for 100 years; you are now challenging the status quo and the burden of proof is on you.
Unless someone has put a lot of thought into how to incrementally reverse course on wokeness, they are not going to be taken seriously even if their reasoning is sound. And most people don't have sound reasoning; they simply intuit that what's being done is wrong. And that's not going to be good enough to convince an organization to do something different.
It goes beyond simple cancel culture and into some of the organizational issues that caused the Challenger explosion.
STEM management in Woke Capital is becoming the same way, except there's more Whites and Asians. But they have to be self-hating.
The engineers I've known who have gone into management start out sane and simply adopt Woke progressivism as a persona they can "turn on" when they need to and "turn off" when they're among friends. But over time they internalize it, and to the extent they dissent at all it's of the spineless "I agree with what they're trying to do but they take it too far" variety which provides no meaningful opposition.
Read old books, and use old technology.
You hit the nail on the head.
Woke Human Resources departments have forced this cancer on even technical background STEM managers in every major corporation.
Reading old books and using old tech is good but it does not even help stop the woke behemoth's march forward.
If everyone retreats or silently accepts wokeness, they will only continue to get more brazen.
Thanks to pervasiveness of cancel culture, no one stands up.
It is an utter nightmare.
I suggest using old technology simply as a survival tactic, for those who eg. want to drive a car with functional brakes or a fly in a commercial airliner with an expertly designed fly by wire system instead of one thrown together by "engineers" making $8/hr.
I stand up -- vocally -- but people don't really understand why; and they think I sound like a crazy person when I try to explain it.
I think one of the reasons my colleagues change is that they don't think the change is bad: they think it's simply a natural extension of the standard American liberal culture in which they were raised. So even when they intuit that something is "wrong" they lack the means of being able to meaningfully challenge that view or offer an alternative. "I agree with what they're trying to do but they take it too far" is them being honest.
That is the nightmare, not the cancel culture.
The problem is that many people like your colleagues are sadly normies who still fall for the media indoctrination.
They think any change is good as long as the people in power tell them so.
The nightmare is that the people who understand the danger are scared to speak up due to cancel culture while the normies foolishly believe that any change borne out of progressivism is good.
I'm saying that once someone does decide to speak up, a whole new struggle of doing so while being taken seriously begins.
I've noticed that when someone speaks up and says "what we are doing is wrong" -- could be woke HR policy or even a design requirement or schedule estimate -- the first question they get asked is "what should we be doing instead?" The further away from the status quo the answer is, the less seriously it is taken; and the harder the battle is.
It doesn't matter if the status quo is only 6 months old and what you are suggesting was formerly the status quo for 100 years; you are now challenging the status quo and the burden of proof is on you.
Unless someone has put a lot of thought into how to incrementally reverse course on wokeness, they are not going to be taken seriously even if their reasoning is sound. And most people don't have sound reasoning; they simply intuit that what's being done is wrong. And that's not going to be good enough to convince an organization to do something different.
It goes beyond simple cancel culture and into some of the organizational issues that caused the Challenger explosion.
You just explained Bryan Lunduke perfectly.