Nope what? It’s the same topic.
I propose to split the thread in two:
- The Peak Woke Crazies (just for laughs)
- The Peak Woke Crazies (discussion about their mental health)
The same argument could be made for covid.
But in this case, we’ve already generated 62 posts. If I went back and moved over all the other times you have brought up this point (including the other one i moved, and flogging woke horses), there would be hundreds. Clearly, this topic deserves a dedicated thread.
1 Like
Most of it is complaining about me posting in the first place, but go for it.
You know, a dog was born with one big eyeball in my middle of its head the other day. There should have been a dedicated thread to that!
But this?
Anti-racist, anti-woke? gtfooh
Oh victim! Cry victim! It’s been a whole two weeks since we had a 60 post off topic discussion about youyouyyouyouy 
Not helpful, @jdsmith
We don’t have to engage if we don’t want to, and now people have the option of just muting the thread (except me and @mick, such is our cross)
1 Like
Exactly. Have the victims been notified?
Which makes the sense of splitting off this stuff and creating a new thread, what?
Culture Wars happen. They are interesting and I’d say necessary. Splitting discussion off because someone is hijacking the thread is a reward system. 
Consider yourself on notice
So we don’t have to listen to you complaining about @Malasang88’s posting. Just mute it, thanks
Nobody is being censored. If you have something to contribute to the debate (seriously,
did you read the article that kicked it off this time), please go ahead. If you just want to taunt posters or discuss moderation, the flob has been feisty tonight and I’m running out of tact
He could have started a new thread, he’s already complained about me doing this, I have already explained my reasoning above. Dude, did you even read the thread?
1 Like
Noted.
Already done. It works better than, say, giving the guy his own thread. lol haha
Clearly. They are being amplified.
Is this woke modding? 
OK, sigh, what’s this thread supposed to be aboot then?
I read the Beast article. It’s stoopid because it asks me to give a shit about celebrity idiots who get cancelled without losing either their celebrity or money. I don’t care enough to want anyone cancelled. That whole article is a display of elitism. Elites and the softheaded plebes who care about them!
So, when anti-woke wins, it’s via intimidation. Well, yeah, because it’s fascist, inn’t?
The climate on campus—and increasingly in the corporate world—that brings Whartonites such trepidation can be seen in a recent missive against the “anti-ESG” or “anti-woke investment movement,” written by the vice dean and faculty director of Wharton’s ESG Initiative, Witold Henisz. In it, Henisz is adamant: “Climate risk is investment risk. There is no credible other side, only an ideological opposition cynically seeking a wedge issue for upcoming political campaigns.”
When asked to clarify his statement, Henisz doubled down, telling me: “I believe that the science on climate risk as investment risk is settled. I do not see substantive academically grounded debate on this point.”
To this, one of the few interview subjects willing to speak on the record and by name, Isaiah Berg, replied that there are “good-faith disagreements that exist around ESG topics,” and that if Henisz’s “intent was not to persuade, but instead to intimidate those who might otherwise speak up and disagree, he likely achieved his goal.”
The intimidation seems to have indeed worked. What my sources evidently feared were the recriminations they would face on campus, or among alumni in the private sector, for holding positions at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy on right, just, and virtuous ESG/DEI. This is seen as a third rail—one of an ever-growing number of areas where no dissent is allowed. You wouldn’t want to be branded a “climate-denier”—or worse, a bigot—for having the gall to raise objections to ESG/DEI of any kind, would you? One can imagine that if such pressures are felt at Wharton and on environmentalism, then that the same goes for virtually every other prestigious school, and significantly more so on matters of race and sex.
Fascism is your word but there is money to be had.
The term “woke,” which dates back nearly a century, was initially used in Black communities to describe a raising of consciousness and has since become a catchall denoting awareness of a range of social-justice issues. In recent years, “wokeness” has also become, in conservative circles, a subject of suspicion and ridicule: shorthand for performative righteousness, like “political correctness” before it. Opposition to woke principles has become a business opportunity, too. A former Green Beret has found success with a “patriotic” coffee brand, Black Rifle, based in Salt Lake City. The conservative commentator Sara Gonzales founded American Beauty, a cosmetics company “for women who love America.” (Lipstick shades include Freedom Fighter and Triggered.) Vanessa Santos, who runs a right-leaning public-relations firm called Red Renegade PR, told me that the market for anti-woke goods is niche but ardent. “People want to buy something that’s patriotic,” Santos told me, and “they want to know the kind of person who’s behind the product.”
Larry Fink, BlackRock’s C.E.O. and a proponent of E.S.G. investing, is a favorite target of Ramaswamy. As a shepherd of around eight trillion dollars in investor money, Fink has urged companies to adopt plans to become carbon neutral and ultimately transition to a post-carbon economy. Ramaswamy contends, without citing specific evidence, that Fink is collaborating with political élites on such matters: promoting environmental policies that they have failed to push through Congress. He has attacked Fink’s supposed liberal agenda so assiduously that a newcomer to U.S. politics might, after imbibing conservative media, mistake the BlackRock C.E.O.—one of the most powerful men on Wall Street—for a darling of the American left.
BlackRock’s business is more complicated than Ramaswamy suggests. For instance, not all of its funds are E.S.G.-based. (A company spokesperson notes that less than six per cent of its assets under management are in “dedicated sustainable investing strategies.”) Last year, BlackRock announced that it would allow investors in some of its funds to participate in company shareholder votes on matters such as executive compensation and climate policies, rather than BlackRock voting on their behalf.
At the time, a wave of anti-E.S.G sentiment was taking hold at the local level. States including Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Texas passed bills that allowed their officials to restrict the activities of financial institutions if they were determined to be limiting their dealings with the fossil-fuel or firearm industries. The lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, which has received funding from the billionaire Koch brothers and other allies of the fossil-fuel industry, is an enthusiastic supporter of such anti-E.S.G. endeavors. (Ramaswamy has appeared frequently at Heritage functions.) Heritage also has ties to the State Financial Officers Foundation, a group that includes conservative state treasurers and has promoted anti-E.S.G. efforts. Ramaswamy spoke to a gathering of the group this past February. A few months later, he was collaborating with one of its rising stars, Riley Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer, on a Wall Street Journal op-ed. The piece criticized the disproportionate power of the “big three” asset managers over public companies.
Are you sure about this one?
It is not my word. It is the most applicable word. But yes, the real paradigm is capitalism. Good bless these morons who get paid to generate this shit. Beats being a mailman, I suppose, although they have great benefits.
Am I sure about what? Have you read the article? There’s a lot in there and would take longer than you have responded.
Your article clips appear to lump a bunch of business people together and then equates patriotism to quasi-racism because “woke” was used 100 years ago by black communities.
I think your clips say a lot.
I’ve followed BRCC since its inception and the last thing I would say about them is that they are is racist.
I’ve also recently heard a long form interview that Vivek Ramaswamy was a guest on. I think he is not unique in his ideas but he does have a perspective I can agree with. BlackRock is not your friend.
Exactly who writes this drivel…
“But in recent years, Wall Street elites have tried to replace this system of free-market capitalism with the socialist cult of ‘ESG’ (Environmental, Social and Governance). Now, woke Wall Street money managers think that they should decide who wins and loses, based on politics not profitability.”
“It has far-reaching consequences. If ESG can force brands to change, how long before ESG forces people to change? That’s what ESG is ultimately about – the elites telling middle America what to do. They want to control everything, from where you invest your retirement dollars, to what kind of car you drive, and even which coffee you drink.”
This is what you mean by fascism right?
I think you need to read the article. Nobody said BRCC is racist, or Ramaswamy is racist. That is not the point of the article or anything I shared.
Must have been written by a team of lawyers, then. Say it without saying it in order to be able to later attest to not saying it.
I think you’re wrong, but that’s ok. I’ll admit my mistakes later if I’m proven misaligned, if I’m allowed.
1 Like
Wrong about what? You haven’t made any point. You’re just responding without reading the content and why I added those excerpts.
This is whats so frustrating with tribalism. Criticism against those who exploit the woke craze for political or financial gain is not akin to defending clowns as I said before. Just as pointing how people are profiting on a “patriotic” brand does not mean I or the author is calling them racist. You can’t have a conversation if you’re going to start with biased assumptions.
That’s silly. So you start a conversation with your unbiased conclusion without discussion or debate with the person or persons you’re speaking with?
Hence, my “it’s fascist” comment above.