The same argument could be said of why should we pander to any minority. However I don’t feel like this action is pandering to anyone rather recognising that there is a small subset that this was arguably discriminatory against and why not change it to neutral terms so as not to be discriminatory against anyone.
You’ll get the usual rabid crowd with their delusional ‘but this means we can’t say male or female anymore’ tripe but for the vast majority of the playerbase it makes no real difference and may be inclusive to a small subset that felt they weren’t included.
Why didn’t they just remove the names completely? It’s the “body type” naming thing I don’t like.
I play Cyberpunk 2077 and you can choose far more in the creation screen that you can in Warcraft, it doesn’t bother me. They use Masculine and Feminine.
2022 and I still have to explain what “Woke agenda” is.
let me summarize it because there is much that can be said. The woke movement originally arose to combat social inequalities, but currently in the last years it has become a movement of resentment, hatred towards what they call “heteronormative”, towards the “white race” and everything they consider “opresive”. They deny biology, saying that this is a social construct, attack economic liberalism…
They also establish that the “historically oppressed groups” must now be above what they call “oppressors groups” by creating a series of positive discrimination as a “social debt”
This agenda seeks to carry out identity policies based on your race, sex, sexual orientation or how you feel.
Instead of seeing everyone as people, they separate you according to a series of “identity characters” and according to these identity characters they divide you into “oppressor group” or “oppressed group”
Remove everything that is considered as “heteronormative” is part of this agenda.
Blizzard has joined this woke movement, hence instead of creating a third gender and calling it “non-binary”, they simply opted to eliminate “male and female” because they start from the basis that “gender is a social construct”
They also currently address other issues such as “non-normatives bodies”, for example, promoting obesity “as healthy” all this carried out in a practically religious sense.
I am able to argue lots, I have plenty of discussions on these forums with people who I don’t agree with and who don’t agree with my opinion. You just bring up an agenda and yet fail to show said agenda.
No I point out that it sounds/looks like a boogeyman created to maintain the status quo.
I have yet to see anyone show what this agenda is. I consider myself woke and yet I don’t believe in any of that tripe you said was part of the woke agenda.
Would you care to point out a law that has been created not to protect a marginalised group but to actively oppress the majority.
Didn’t people have their little emotional breakdowns about this topic months ago and then quickly got over it when they found something new to be morally outraged by?
yes, because giving alot of privileges to these “minorities” like easy access to public work, socials aids (payed with public money from our taxes), reserved jobs, excluding people who may have had better results in oppositions just because they have to fill in a series of quotas based on a series of identity characters like skin colour, or sex orientation, is the best way to achieve a better society
Cuz you have no idea xD
This is happening in places like california, Spain, canada…
Again you’re saying a lot of things but how much proof is there that this is happening and has a negative affect on the world around us?
I mean most of what you have quoted is a way to try and finally root out long standing discriminations within most of those work forces.
I work in an industry that is >95% male. Not because the job is physically harder and requires people who are more likely to be physically stronger. It just has always been a male dominated field and due to that fact very few women apply. We have recognised this fact and a lot of the key industry players are actively trying to encourage more women to apply because the industry knows that it is cutting off it’s nose if it doesn’t close the gap.
Occasionally you have to slightly tip the scales one way or the other or you’re just left with the status quo and denying yourself talent.
I ask again. Please point me to a piece of legislation that wasn’t enacted to protect a minority position and was intentionally to oppress the majority position in the name of being woke.
In my country in public oppositions there are up to 20% places reserved for minorities, but they can still opt for the remaining 80%. The 20% mentioned must be occupied yes or yes “by some oppressed group”, the remaining 80% by those who get better results in the exam. So if you are white guy, and pass the exam, can anywya be excluded for someone that had worse result in the exam, because this person belongs to some oppressed group, since a minimum percentage must be occupied by any oppressed group regardless of your results of the exam.
Another example, here male pay more taxes as autonomous than women (Not minority, but also considered as oppressed group) BY LAWS created in the name of “Equality”, and if you are from some minorities you can basically living from social aids There have been cases of people who earn 2,000€ in social assistance, without working, while workers here gain 900-1200€.
Want more???
Explain me why being from some LGTBI, minority or opressed group does it have to facilitate you the access to public employment even if you get worse results in your access exam than any heteronormative person?
Shouldn’t everyone enter equally, according to the exam results, regardless of skin color, gender, sexual identity?
So the first is a ruling to level up a playing field which has previously been discriminatory against minorities in order to gain more parity for them. It’s not a great way of doing things but leaving most of these things as is, is a whole lot worse in my experience.
The latter, men paying a higher tax percentage than women, is this on the same earnings or the fact that men generally get paid more and so pay more tax on their higher earnings?
As for the social assistance, that is always a tricky one as there are always a few outliers which make the whole system look unfair where the vast majority are actually worse off than those in work. There are lots of issues when it comes to social assistance especially when the labour market/average pay makes it uneconomically viable for those on benefits to go back to work as they would be financially worse off.
None of that screams of a woke agenda to me but maybe that’s just me.
Edit: as to your last point historic social injustices mean that those of LGBT persuasion are underrepresented in a lot of workplaces and so the scales have been tilted in their favour. I am not going to argue that this is a particularly good system but to not do anything would just maintain the historical discrimination within the system.
The Times They Are a-Changin 