[COFFEE] Bar fight about woke culture

[Gesk]

Apparently UBS is also getting too woke according to some people

[Artana]

Why is it a “huge problem”?

[Artana]

I understood the “what?”, my question was the “why?”

[Myfirstme]

We as a society are degenerating into a something pre-enlightement. Instead of equal individual rights for all in theory and in practice it’s more and more about following a set of dogmas, enforced by zealous extremists. Collective rights trump individual rights.

And if that were not bad enough, the dogmas themselves couldn’t be more idiotic. The UBS list @Gesk is linking to above is a great example thereof. Not only are they decrying masculinity as something bad, which is gender-discrimination. Their list of “bad, masculine” words also don’t make sense. Have a guess which words of the following pairs are forbidden and which ones are deemed ok:

chief - lead
vigorous - active
determine - decide
rationality - logic

Maybe it’s just me, but in my view the first ones are all at least as “masculine” as the second ones, if there is any difference at all. Thing is, as per UBS the first ones are all ok, it’s the second ones which are deemed too “masculine”.

[Artana]

And you think this issue would warrant curbing capitalism/free-market to mandate that companies do not adopt a behaviour that they assessed is beneficial to them?

edit to reply to Patron as well: same consideration as above, do you have data to determine that adopting this behaviour is less beneficial to the shareholders than not adopting it?

[Myfirstme]

I’d prefer companies to stay out of the culture wars, yes. There are here to make money, not propaganda.

Furthermore, I’d wish we would all agree to uphold individual rights and freedoms and abstain from discriminating against anyone, including - gasp - the new bogeymen - pardon - bogeypersons, white old men. What UBS, Neon and others are doing is gender discrimination, so I don’t care if they make money from it, it’s wrong.

That this is even in question or needs to be discussed is a sign how much we already have degenerated as a society.

[Artana]

Again, your first point relies on the same assumption as Patron: do you have data to demonstrate that adopting this language or “propaganda” does not translate into them making more money? I wouldn’t lightly assume that, as an outsider, I am more qualified to define how a bank could make more or less money.

Regarding your second point and gender discrimination, I’m not sure I understand where exactly the discrimination is, for instance in the article about UBS. Could you refer me to a specific example?

@Patron: again, same question: do you have data to determine that adopting this behaviour is less beneficial to the shareholders than not adopting it (be it for Neon or UBS)? “Overdoing it” might also be Neon committing more to a specific approach because they believe they are maximizing their profit?

[ma0]

@Myfirstme

determine - decide

determine is clearly wrong. it shoudl be deterours

[Myfirstme]

Clear case of gender discrimination by Neon: My forum post above

And you don’t find defining one gender as bad, and declaring words associated with that gender forbidden, as discriminatory? Would you approve if words like mother, sister, daughter were forbidden? Oh wait, they all actually are, as per SwissRe’s language rules… Also the word “woman” is increasingly seen as discriminatory (women are to be called people who menstruate, which clearly is much shorter, more elegant and completely encompasses what it means to be female).

[Artana]

I feel like “absence of data” should result in “I don’t have enough data to question the approach they have taken, given that they probably have internal data I don’t have access to” rather than the opposite. But then again, I’m no expert on this matter.

But anyway, if this is “unethical”, does it mean that they should refrain from maximizing shareholder value for ethical reasons?

@Myfirsttime As to the discrimination question: I didn’t understand the UBS news as “defining one gender as bad”, but simply that certain words carry an undertone (that you might define as “woke”) and that those undertones as not desirable to maximize profit. Might boil down to a difference in interpretation though… Also, legally, they are not held to the same standard as the government for instance. That’s why if you go clubbing you also sometimes see parties where the entrance fee is waived for women. Might be a lack of taste, but I’m not sure that’s illegal. If they maximize their profit that way, is it still an issue?

[ma0]

I was offended - steve hughes (linkto him in description)

[aroom]

it seems to me that some people are easily offended by inclusivity or the attempt to. anyway could we stay on topic here please? feel free to start a thread about the good old days of systemic oppression or how to monetise social movement in your business.

[Jagermeister]

@Artana

Why is it a “huge problem”?

Did you see the picture on the article the OP linked? Isn’t that enough to understand WHY it is a problem?

[Jagermeister]

Honestly I think the picture is fake. It cannot be so immensely stupid. I refuse to accept it

[Jagermeister]

It is absolute non-sense. And very, very scary.

[nabalzbhf]

@Myfirstme

women are to be called people who menstruate, which clearly is much shorter, more elegant and completely encompasses what it means to be female

women != people who menstruate, that’s the whole point of using inclusive language. If for some reason, menstruating is relevant, you can say people who menstruate, which will be the most precise way (because there are women who don’t menstruate and people who menstruate who are not women).

If you’re talking about women (because somehow that’s the group you want to address), you can say women.

[Jagermeister]

@Patron

Also, the Neon example where they paid 30 CHF sign-up bonus for women and 10 CHF for men speaks for itself. It is sexist, discriminating and unethical.

I think this should be illegal in many european countries. Shouldn’t it? Anticonstitutional to discriminate for reasons of sex, race, religion, etc.

[Jagermeister]

@Patron

At the same time, in many companies lots of people are actively discriminated exactly because of their gender or nationality in the name of equality and inclusion because ‘it has to be a women who gets the job’ or ‘we already have 2 Swiss guys so it has to be an now’. This is nonsensical too and completely the opposite of what those fanatics preach, it is racist and sexist behaviour. Candidate selection should be entirely based on merits and not on gender, race, nationality, etc.

It is so, so, SO fucked up… that blows my mind how people can get along with that.

When are they going to enforce 50/50 male/female quotas on:

• Construction workers
• Sailors and fishermen
• Army
• Bus drivers, truck drivers
• Mechanical garages
• Security guards
• Professional Divers
• Etc.

Oh, wait, no. Only on office jobs and public jobs like police, firemen, etc. which are super comfortable jobs compared to the ones I mentioned above. For that, yes, 50/50. For the rest, fuck off men (they should have studied something). So, so, so criminal and unfair.

[Broth]

That’s not really true. There are few studies that inclusion and diversity improve the company revenues and increase loyalty.

Another matter is the language and some of these questionable actions are really …

[Artana]

@Patron

The point is, you cannot and should not enforce it using unethical methods and discrimination.

Just to reiterate my earlier question: should a company refrain from maximizing shareholder value for ethical reasons?