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.
Fixing this mess entails dealing with leftists who engage in wokeism groupthink.
There are solutions to prevent groupthink from happening in the first place by fostering the importance of listening to different viewpoints but it is extremely difficult to do this after groupthink has spread and already taken root in many institutions.
We already know how the left generally deals with opposing voices. It doesn't listen, it attacks them via ad-hominems, silencing them and finally deplatforming them.
We are dealing with the majority of the corporate world already engaging in woke groupthink.
You are right that a solution is very difficult to implement in these conditions.
James Lindsay of New Discourses presents atleast a few ideas on how to start chipping away at wokeism.
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.
Oh okay I get what you are saying.
Fixing this mess entails dealing with leftists who engage in wokeism groupthink.
There are solutions to prevent groupthink from happening in the first place by fostering the importance of listening to different viewpoints but it is extremely difficult to do this after groupthink has spread and already taken root in many institutions.
We already know how the left generally deals with opposing voices. It doesn't listen, it attacks them via ad-hominems, silencing them and finally deplatforming them.
We are dealing with the majority of the corporate world already engaging in woke groupthink.
You are right that a solution is very difficult to implement in these conditions.
James Lindsay of New Discourses presents atleast a few ideas on how to start chipping away at wokeism.
Check out his New Discourses.