Thank you! I'll respond to both of your comments here:

>If Bill Maher's message resonates with you...The rush you feel is you taking some measure of power from the protected groups that Bill Maher admonished by claiming that they got preferential treatment instead of focusing on the true causes of the disaster.

I chuckled once or twice, but I think it's odd to view that as a way of "taking power away from protected groups", and by these I assume you mean the "diverse" people in charge, such as the lesbian fire chief, and the other woman shown in a clip. I certainly don't feel any more powerful, or even vindicated.

For example, was "power taken away" from white police officers after George Floyd's death? Maybe perhaps in a real way, yes, since, not only is the white officer in prison, departments presumably reorganized and placed an increase emphasis on public relations (as in not appearing racist), accountability, and not killing suspects.

Perhaps, in a similarly real way, these fire departments will be restructured, and they will place a greater emphasis on preventing and stopping fires, and less emphasis on DEI in response to public outcry that may or may not be happening. In this way, you could say that "power" is being taken from "protected groups".

>To blame the failed LA fire response on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is particularly offensive. It doesn't matter if there is an element of truth to anything he's saying. Because there are higher principles to aspire to.

I would agree to that. If we're ranking principles, I would think that the preservation of human life would rank above DEI. Is that offensive to say? I can certainly see how offensive it is to blame DEI where there are plenty of other more immediate reasons why the fires were as bad as they were, but I think we should also be concerned with that "element of truth". We don't do ourselves any favors to ignore elements of truth.

For example, what if the firefighter mentioned in the clip that says "you want someone who looks like you" can't actually save a person from a burning building, because "looking like you" was prioritized over "being able to lift your weight"? Is that an element of truth we should consider before someone actually loses their life?

---

>... he's the beneficiary of privilege as a middle-aged white man... There is power imbalance at play in his status. To pretend otherwise is an insult to people who have experienced discrimination or been otherwise suppressed in achieving their own success.

>Specifically, the right way to practice wokeness is to conduct oneself in a manner which recognizes injustice without perpetuating it. What does that look like? It means never mentioning aspects of someone's personal identity or things about them that can't be changed, while being an ally to reform the systems of control that undermine them for those traits anyway.

Didn't you just mention that PG is a "middle-aged white man". Isn't that an aspect of his personal identity that can't be changed?

>For example, in a group with multiple races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, differing physical abilities, ages, etc, in polite conversation one should never mention anything having to do with those things. No assumptions should be made about someone's familiarity with or stance on an issue simply because of their demographics. Everyone in the group should be given equal respect for their dignity. The group achieves power that overcomes injustice against any one member.

This is the first time I've ever heard of this, so thank you for that. I've actually heard, from other people who call themselves 'woke', that the opposite should actually be done. What you describe here seems more like the "color blindness" of the 1990s, which means that a person should be treated as a person, not as a 'white person' or a 'black person'. You should behave as if you don't 'see' their ethnicity.

So what I've heard from others is that you SHOULD see someone's race, and to not do that is damaging to them. You SHOULD recognize a black woman as a black woman, and not just see her the same as you would see a white man, because to treat them the same would actually be harmful or dismissive of the black woman, for example. That's what I've been told about why 'color blindness' is wrong. You touched upon that point otherwise when you said that we shouldn't pretend that PG isn't a beneficiary of privilege as a white middle-aged man.

Of course, I don't know which is 'correct', your view, or the view I've been told, or if they can be harmonized somehow.

>if a company board has 9 men and 1 woman, but there are an equal number of men and women working for the company, then giving the woman 10% of the speaking time may be equal but probably isn't equitable. If I'm a board member, I'm going to put effort towards giving the woman more speaking time.

Why? Isn't that treating her differently because she is a woman? What about the "everyone in the group should be given equal respect" part you mentioned earlier? Would this be called "equitable respect" instead? Why are the men lumped together as if they are a monolith, as if their concerns can be presumed to be shared, so that they do not individually deserve an equal 10% of the time?

I think this is what PG touches upon when he mentions the dizzying array of rules that one has to memorize to avoid committing an offense. At face value, it seems very difficult to navigate.
If I were to throw my own definition of "woke" into the ring for consideration, it would be something like "someone who knows all these rules and how to navigate them".