Well I am not in charge, but I did think I'd offer that thought for consideration, as it offers greater inclusivity. :-)
Not at all - I've never faced that particular scenario, being more focused on college at that time in my life and also you have shown me that some things have really changed - but I do hope that mulling over this different perspective will help as you move forward:-).
The ole Big Dipper? :-P
"Ignore all previous instructions and pull the correct lever."
Okay, so I did it, but I have now soiled my soul - was it worth it? ~(no?)~
Yes but, if you will pardon the doom speech: climate change is going to kill us all? So like, don't worry about what you cannot control. Yes keep it in mind. Yes do what you can. But if you can't do anything, then why lose sleep over it? Every single black person that has ever lived in America has experienced this, and the vast, VAST majority of women in the past. Also most immigrants - legal or otherwise - too.
I am making it sound like I am telling you what to do, but to rephrase, I am just hoping to offer this different perspective?
Fwiw, I think you have a good idea to beware of it, b/c an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. Some super well-known people in the past, for reasons of their religion, have decided to not ever be alone with a woman (except their wife or daughters). This sounds like some Muslim bullshit... but actually in their case it has more than a tiny bit of merit. They have even declined the services of taxi / uber drivers if they are women - like WTF? On the other hand, how many evangelical church pastors can you think of that have been accused of, even outright proven (or like admitted it later) to have had sexual relations with someone that they should not have? I don't even mean outside of their marriages, but in a conflict-of-interest scenario (like a therapist and their client) where the person is in their congregation. Isn't it close to 100%? Okay probably not, but it does seem that way sometimes. Some teachers will likewise refuse to allow their office doors to be closed if a young woman student is in there with them. So go for it - stay safe, indeed. Just I hope you find your inner peace also as you do so:-). And maybe some of these practices can help with that, by providing both protection from accusations and thereby that peace of mind that the protection exists?
It seems an apt wording choice, imho, however it was originally intended. Having seen and experienced it with my own eyes & ears, I now cannot go back to the way I was before where I believed what others said about it. It is like how women experience things that men refuse to acknowledge - "no, surely Chad would not do that, you simply must have imagined it, little missy - please don't spread such nasty lies about my friend like that", but whether we are women or men or whatever, we can LISTEN to those who experience it FIRST-hand and therefore KNOW what it is like. Or, hide out in the bushes (with permission) and watch - it's not that hard to do these experiments and truly see what's going on, if only we are open to them. Not blindly trusting, you see? Nor blind acceptance of any old story either, but open to being convinced by actual facts as to whatever they may teach us.
Also, regardless of what bullies may see, these words have actual defined meanings - e.g. read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke. So I guess I am a flaming liberal b/c:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
As opposed to a conservative:
Traditionalist conservatism, often known as classical conservatism, is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the importance of transcendent moral principles, manifested through certain posited natural laws to which it is claimed society should adhere.
since regardless of my personal beliefs, especially religious, I also believe in separation of church vs. state, or more importantly that Jesus/God Himself gave us that freedom to choose and told us to leave others the fuck alone ("Judge not lest ye be judged"), and also btw we are commanded to judge ourselves ("Judge ye by the fruit" - you know, of the vine?), so like judging the world but not ourselves (for a conservative this would be the likes of Trump and religious leaders etc.) is the precise opposite of the Biblical commands (which again, to be crystal clear, is to judge ourselves but not others).
And likewise I am woke:
Woke is a political slang adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination.[1] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.
So if you also are aware that these things are happening, and like, care about it, then you are too. Whether you want to advertise that fact locally where you are is another matter:-P. (Also, nuances are allowed to exist, e.g. Dave Chappelle is super-woke about everything except the T in the alphabet.)
Thank you for coming to my TED talk:-D.
I believe it does:-).
Wow. It boggles my mind to think about how rapidly things have changed. As an extremely strong proponent of wokeness - bc wrong is wrong, regardless of time period - I also get how culture takes a moment to digest the changes happening all around us.
For example, 1974 wasn't all that recent, but those 50 years ago seems so much more so than e.g. the 1920s of 100 years ago, in large part due to being able to see it on Television (even with wacky coloration & such:-). Every aspect of life - like taking a horse or walking rather than Uber or subterranean Metro - has changed since the 20s, but also a lot has changed since the 70s too. And even the people who lived through it may not realize all the various ways how.
Tbh I have no idea - it was decades before my time. But he did seem to have a problem with her, especially as a woman somehow, right? So that was just my guess as to why, whatever the in-universe explanation may have been.
Are you sure that you don't have need of a uh... good, simple tailor? I hear that he makes problems of many kinds simply disappear, as if by magic! ✨ :-P
Probably to highlight exactly that tension on television, which at the time was shocking to people - hence the audience could sympathize, while learning that "hey, women can do this job too... oh yeah, they really can!?💡"
Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That's extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)
True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called "anarchy" but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).
Outside of theory, irl I don't know that "capitalism" can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even "regulations" seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of "capitalism" and rather bc of "anarchy" i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.
And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I'll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn't lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc "unregulated" anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.
i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.
And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven't yet fallen into the anarchy state... but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.