It’s been a long time since I read Ayn Rand, but what’s going on with the Seattle police department seems very Randish.
Seattle tests prospective fire lieutenants on woke ideology, critical race theory: report
Prospective fire lieutenants are also tested on the entirety of “Both Sides of the Fire Lane: Memoirs of a Transgender Firefighter: by Bobbie Scopa, according to the exam bibliography obtained by the Free Beacon, as well as the 800-page memoir “A Leader’s Guide to Unconscious Bias and Fighting Fire” by a female firefighter.
It isn’t just the firehouse brass being tested on woke ideology — fireboat engineers in Seattle are being tested on Robin DiAngelo’s book “Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education” as well as handouts covering “structural interplay between all oppressions.”
Retired Seattle firefighter Wayne Johnson told the Free Beacon this “stuff has nothing to do with firefighting.”
In Rand’s book, industries died because they focused on stupid social theories instead of on such basic things as competence and productivity. You were rewarded for your views, not for your capability of producing anything of value.
Wokeness will destroy this country unless we destroy it first.
First, given the untrustworthiness of the media, can we trust they are accurately reporting about this story…without bias?
Second, what is the definition of “woke”? . Seems that rarely gets defined for those who like to use it.
Third, it’s unclear what’s “really” happening. As it applies to those who have to lead/supervise others…concepts relative to bias makes sense given that type of role. Yet, it may not be necessary for “all” roles. So, I’d like to understand “what’s” being required and “who’s” required to do it, “why” it’s being required and “how” it’s being applied before drawing a conclusion. Just because a partisan media source talks about it being “woke” doesn’t really mean much…especially given it seems anything they don’t like tends to be labeled “woke”.
Any bias that would compromise the effectiveness of fire fighting should be addressed by focusing on the need to always choose the most effective strategy to fight the fire, and inculcate that belief so well that biases against persons cease to matter. Train the team leaders to understand that as fire officers, *nothing* is more important than choosing the person with the right skills and tools at the right moments for the right tasks, above all. Hold people accountable for poor tactical decisions regardless of internal motivation. Then all the bias-oriented navel-gazing and theoretical constructs about oppression become irrelevant. The lieutenants will learn that they have to make the best choices every time based on their working knowledge of their team, not conditioned by untested beliefs about group-based individual characteristics.
QUOTE: Train the team leaders to understand that as fire officers, *nothing* is more important than choosing the person with the right skills and tools at the right moments for the right tasks, above all. Hold people accountable for poor tactical decisions regardless of internal motivation.
Are team leaders consistently trained to understand the importance of appropriate staff selection? Do people with the best skills consistently get chosen by their leaders? Are leaders held accountable for their decisions?
It’s easy to say what “should” happen but “IS” it really happening in this situation? Do you know of a source that gives accurate insights to these issue? These are the issues I’d like to see the media address in it’s reporting. Without it, it’s not clear as to if the actions being taken are legitimate or superfluous.
As well, it would be “ideal” if tactics were always separate from motivation. Yet, in the real world, humans are often driven by their motivations in decision-making. Given that, in some situations, internal motivations need to be addressed (as they pertain decisions being made and the impact within the organization).
Like I said, if they’re held accountable for bad tacticaln decisions, they’ll learn to separate tactics from motivation. People learn to avoid things (even biases) that cost them promotion or even their jobs, and if they don’t, they get replaced by people who know how to do that.
I’m not imagining some pie in the sky world where we just *assume* people will make the best decisions without regard to bias, I’m imagining a world where they learn that it’s in their interest to do so. Real, tangible welf-interest generally trumps dearly held or unconscious beliefs, particularly in people smart and skilled enough to be in leadership. And if they can’t learn that lesson, someone who does, will get their job. The trick is to make sure the self-interest is really being brought to bear, which is way *more* effective than sitting them down and lecturing them about how they should think.
QUOTE: I’m imagining a world where they learn that it’s in their interest to do so. Real, tangible welf-interest generally trumps dearly held or unconscious beliefs, particularly in people smart and skilled enough to be in leadership… The trick is to make sure the self-interest is really being brought to bear, which is way *more* effective than sitting them down and lecturing them about how they should think.
How do you know this? Is this assertion based on research? If so, I’d appreciate you sharing resources that verify this.
QUOTE: And if they can’t learn that lesson, someone who does, will get their job.
Ideally, that would be great. In practice, this isn’t necessary what consistently occurs.
In looking directly at the Seattle Fire Department’s online resources, there seems to be a stark difference from what they focus on relative to training and what some conservative media outlets focus upon. The department’s training resources “seem” to primarily focus on “technical job skills”…especially in recruit training. Yet, when it gets to supervisory roles, they begin to focus on skills that help them effectively lead their workforce…which can sometimes be diverse. Shocker! It doesn’t appear to be the bastion of “wokeness” (whatever that means) that some conservative media outlets intimate.
In its “executive leadership academy” it references this concerning one of the selection criterion:
Diversity of Perspectives – do the applicant’s responses show willingness and ability to bring in significantly different points of view? Is the applicant able to engage with diverse groups and solicit a broad range of opinions to find common ground when making decisions? Are the responses supportive of and active proponent of an inclusive work environment, seeking to develop a positive relationship with all stakeholders and constituents?
As well, as it pertained to lieutenants, it seemed that diversity was “one” of a number of training focal points. Again, if the organization is activity recruiting and leading a diverse group of firefighters this just “might” help them operate more effectively.
From what I could assess from the department’s public resources, it wasn’t the five alarm fire conservative media outlets seemed to allege and “might” be more fodder for their culture war bon fire. It didn’t seem they took time to understand the context in which some diversity resource materials were being used and what concepts were actually taught. It seemed they saw the alleged “woke” resources and that was enough to set off the alarms. That said, it would be interesting to get a closer look before drawing conclusions.
QUOTE: Wokeness will destroy this country unless we destroy it first.
Candidate DeSantis declares he will “destroy Leftism in this country and leave woke ideology on the dustbin of history”.
So by destroy, does he mean destroy all things related to the Left so there will only be the Right remaining??? Does he mean that anything he deems “woke” he will eradicate? This rhetoric is sounding less and less democratic but one closer to autocracy.
Interestingly, it wasn’t the “woke mob” that stormed the Capitol Building, intent on overturning the US government, threatening government officials and attacking the police. The very ones that previously chanted “Blue Lives Matter”. It wasn’t the “woke mob” that sent “bombs” to Leftist leaders and media organizations. It wasn’t the “woke mob” that planned to kidnap/kill a Democrat governor. It wasn’t the “woke mob” that threatened the FBI/DOJ and called to defund them. What happened to abiding by the “rule of law”? It wasn’t the “woke mob” that committed to pardoning convicted criminals associated with the Jan 6 insurrection…if elected. It wasn’t the “woke mob” that marched in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us”…driving a car through a crowd, severely injuring some and killing one. The list goes on. So, when DeSantis “destroys” Leftism and wokeness…are the aforementioned the ones he wants to prevail…the alleged “patriots”?
BTW, it would be nice if DeSantis defined “wokeness” before it’s eradicated. Yet, I suspect he won’t because it’s likely that “wokeness” is “anything” he and his “basket of deplorables” deem it to be (even if it were things they use to support when it benefited them).
Well, the woke’s plan is more insidious. It’s definitely indoctrination.
“May the rage of this auditorium fill our elementary schools.”
I watched the whole video from CUNY Law School commencement speech. Send this bitch back to Yemen. She talks about oppression while wearing a hijab. Why don’t she go full burqa? If she really wanted to fight oppression, bitch would go back to Yemen.
Video
https://twitter.com/SAFECUNY/status/1662626491023208454
First, “what is the woke”?
Second, “if” the alleged woke plan is insidious…does that make DeSantis’ efforts of destroying Leftism justified?
Third, the alleged “woke” are not the only ones making moves to “indoctrinate”. Yet, those efforts don’t seem to get the attention of the “woke busters”. So, if “indoctrination” is the true enemy, the “woke busters” are woefully lacking in their efforts to eradicate all forms of it.
As for the video, now that I’ve had the opportunity to see it in its entirety….I was left with the following impression…
Albeit the sentiments expressed were controversial, it was a very American ideal being exercised… “free speech”. Despite the content being debatable, people are free to agree or disagree with the speaker’s perspectives. The speaker had no power to ‘force’ her expressed perspectives upon anyone. Yet, when DeSantis says he’s going to “destroy Leftism”(in the context of running for President)…it intimates he might use the power of government to do so.
That said, I didn’t find the commencement speech any more “indoctrinating” than some of Trump’s and DeSantis’ speeches or Tucker Carlson’s typical commentary. If the Charlottesville protesters’ “Jews will not replace us” march chant was considered permissible, this commencement speech would be also.
It seems this famous quote is apt in this circumstance… “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Water is wet. That’s very natural.
The sky appears blue. Also very natural.
Have no idea what repeating innocuous platitudes does…I’m just enthralled with my own words.
I think to call this “free speech” is sort of a joke. It was not free speech. It was captive speech. People were there to see their kid, grand-kid, cousin, spouse, significant other, etc, get their law degree. They didn’t come to see a political rant by some Marxist. They were a captive audience and had to sit through that bullshit. Even CUNY has denounced the speech as being inappropriate now. It was not appropriate for a graduation with a captive audience. If you want to have a meeting for your own Red Hijabs political group, sure, rant all you want. But, not for a graduation from law school.
As for you quoting “indoctrinating”, please… The speaker wants to indoctrinate. She said, “May the rage of this auditorium fill our elementary schools.” You don’t think indoctrination is what she’s implying? She wants to fill young heads with her anger and bullshit.
I got nothing to say good about Trump or the idiots/racists in Charlottesville. Piss on them. But, they were in a place where people were free to go and didn’t have to listen to them. Someone’s Jewish grandma on the other hand, didn’t have that freedom.
Other things ridiculous… On and on and on about Israel. Hell, I’m not fucking fan of Israel…especially when they bulldoze homes of Christians in Bethlehem…but hey, Evangelicals tell us Israel is our friend….and besides, it was just dirty Orthodox that had their houses mowed down. But she goes on and on about Israel or the “investing class” (yeah, she’s talking about Jews)… She and her family are from Yemen. You’d think she’d rant about the crimes of Saudi Arabia against Yemen. But no… it’s the awful Israel/Jews and of course white people. Says all this crap while wearing a stupid hijab…Iranian women are fighting for the right not to be beaten/raped/imprisoned/killed for not wearing a hijab…and in other Muslim countries… women are forced into the burqa… but alas, it is the Jews. She and the idiots from Charlottesville ought to have a social hour where her girlfriends can meet all the nice skinheads.
Yep, sure did reference this as free speech. Those that disagreed were free to walk out and return after her speech…inclusive of the old Jewish grandmother. They could have heckled and shouted “shame, shame, shame!!!” They could have done what some did to other presenters, turn their backs. After the speech, they had the freedom to complain and get the administration to denounce the speech…as some likely they did, given the school’s eventual course of action.
So no, I don’t buy that the ones that didn’t like her speech were “captives”. This woman didn’t bulldoze her way onto the stage and under threat force people to endure her rhetoric. As well, by the sound of the applause, it didn’t seem all felt they were captives…such a response usually typifies agreement.
As for indoctrination, yes, she referenced elementary schools in one line of her speech but beyond making the statement didn’t have any power to alter, foster or force change in polices or laws relative to education. Do you think school administrators across America are now shaking in their boots based on her zealous declaration???….NOT! That said, it was her perspective and didn’t go any further than that.
Although I wouldn’t have endorsed this speech, I don’t see it as indoctrination. There’s stuff communicated daily on Fox News and in social media echo chambers that I would consider closer to indoctrination, given their massive reach and rhetoric to their daily audience. After all, that’s how we got some believing in “gems” such as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Obama wasn’t a US citizen, no second COVID wave and more.
QUOTE: Wokeness will destroy this country unless we destroy it first.
So, I wonder if this recent development is on the “woke busters’” radar given their grave concern for what could destroy this county? This is what the current leading Republican presidential candidate has promised to do on “day one” of his new term in office, if elected.
TRUMP CAMPAIGN PROMISE: “As a part of my plan to secure the border, on day one, in my new term in office I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship…”
US CONSTITUTION: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The former president of the US is planning to use an executive order to alter the US Constitution, if elected again. Isn’t the president sworn to uphold the Constitution…especially one that referenced himself as the “law and order” President? I thought Congress was the only authority that could amend the Constitution. I wonder if the “woke busters” will have any concerns about the impact of actions like this upon the country? It seems they once did when the 44th President was in office and governing by executive order. But, I digress.
That said, I’m curious…since this isn’t a new issue, if it’s so critical…why didn’t Trump do this during his first term? Likely another mystery for the “woke busters” to solve.
QUOTE: Wokeness will destroy this country unless we destroy it first.
In the “woke busters'” quest to destroy wokeness, there might have been an unintended consequence. In their efforts to create laws to ban books containing “pornographic or indecent” material from schools, a new book has been added to the banned list in Utah…The Holy Bible.
A Utah parent complained the Bible was inappropriate for elementary and middle school students because it contained vulgarity and violence. They referred specific scriptures to emphasize their complaint. What do you know, the school board agreed and now it’s off the shelves in elementary and middle schools…just like that! Next target…the Book of Mormon.
I think the “woke busters” forgot that knives can sometimes cut both ways.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-challenge
QUOTE: Wokeness will destroy this country unless we destroy it first.
Former President Trump said: “I don’t like the term ‘woke’ because I hear, ‘Woke, woke, woke.’ It’s just a term they use, half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is.”
Well, whadda you know…seems even Trump doesn’t know what woke means. Now that’s he called it out, maybe the “woke busters” will finally define it?
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4031584-trump-iowa-dislikes-term-woke/