The End of Woke
In his new book 'The End of Woke: How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to Expect from the Counter Revolution', Andrew Doyle offers a sharp critique of what is commonly referred to as woke culture. Based on a dichotomy between liberalism and authoritarianism, he contends that wokeness has evolved into an authoritarian inversion of the liberal tradition and becoming an anti-liberal ideological orthodoxy. For Doyle, it employs rigid, oversimplified frameworks of social justice, such as systemic oppression, intersectionality, white privilege, and patriarchy. From this perspective, a zero-sum struggle between oppressing and oppressed groups defines society, prioritizing a collective identity over personal freedom. Furthermore, the woke ideology often operates through the strategic capture of institutions, including schools, corporations, media, and even government agencies. Policies shaped by this ideology, particularly those involving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training, supersede traditional liberal values such as merit, freedom, and neutrality.
Doyle argues that mainstream wokeness is currently losing momentum, resulting in a general retreat of woke culture. However, he warns of a counter-extreme: the emergence of the "anti-woke right," which he sees as similarly inclined toward censorship and ideological control. To avoid replacing one form of tyranny with another, he advocates for a renewed commitment to liberalism and a revival of Enlightenment principles such as free speech, open debate, and individual liberty.
.
All in all, Doyle frames wokeness as an illiberal ideology leading to authoritarian policies. Yet, this framing overlooks the fact that wokeness resists precise definition and its meaning varies depending on the chosen perspective. Rather than a coherent ideology, social, technological, and epistemic conditions determine wokeness as a complex constellation of affective orientations, moral intuitions, and discursive practices.
Currently, an emotional expression and personal experience increasingly substitute for rational deliberation and shared ethical frameworks. There is an epistemic shift in the grounds of justification, so that the conventional norms of rational discourse yield to the immediacy of subjective experience. Expressions of identity and marginalization become sufficient proofs of truth and moral authority. Thus, the sincerity of one's story often becomes more persuasive than the coherence of one's argument. So, emotional authenticity has been elevated to the status of epistemic foundation of identity politics and online discourse.
The structural logic of digital media platforms further reinforces and maintains this tendency. Thus, ones visibility and engagement rely on metrics such as likes, shares, and views as well as simplification and visual appeal. Accordingly, users tend to express identity and values in emotionally resonant and consumable forms. In this environment, moral and political expressions often function as a performative display intended to attract attention and an immediate response. Importantly, these digital conditions systematically blur the borders between contemporary forms of moral speech, identity performance, and woke cultural patterns. The emotionally charged, identity-centred discourse of wokeness aligns perfectly with the logic of optimizing engagement, traffic, and monetizable data. As a result, wokeness becomes affected by the same forces that shape identity and visibility in public life.
Certainly, Doyle's critique mistakes the symptoms for the underlying structure. Wokeness is not simply an ideology or a belief system. Instead, it reveals the irreversible transformation of the
autonomous, rational subject of liberalism into a digitized, emotive, and aestheticized form of subjectivity.
Doyle argues that mainstream wokeness is currently losing momentum, resulting in a general retreat of woke culture. However, he warns of a counter-extreme: the emergence of the "anti-woke right," which he sees as similarly inclined toward censorship and ideological control. To avoid replacing one form of tyranny with another, he advocates for a renewed commitment to liberalism and a revival of Enlightenment principles such as free speech, open debate, and individual liberty.
.
All in all, Doyle frames wokeness as an illiberal ideology leading to authoritarian policies. Yet, this framing overlooks the fact that wokeness resists precise definition and its meaning varies depending on the chosen perspective. Rather than a coherent ideology, social, technological, and epistemic conditions determine wokeness as a complex constellation of affective orientations, moral intuitions, and discursive practices.
Currently, an emotional expression and personal experience increasingly substitute for rational deliberation and shared ethical frameworks. There is an epistemic shift in the grounds of justification, so that the conventional norms of rational discourse yield to the immediacy of subjective experience. Expressions of identity and marginalization become sufficient proofs of truth and moral authority. Thus, the sincerity of one's story often becomes more persuasive than the coherence of one's argument. So, emotional authenticity has been elevated to the status of epistemic foundation of identity politics and online discourse.
The structural logic of digital media platforms further reinforces and maintains this tendency. Thus, ones visibility and engagement rely on metrics such as likes, shares, and views as well as simplification and visual appeal. Accordingly, users tend to express identity and values in emotionally resonant and consumable forms. In this environment, moral and political expressions often function as a performative display intended to attract attention and an immediate response. Importantly, these digital conditions systematically blur the borders between contemporary forms of moral speech, identity performance, and woke cultural patterns. The emotionally charged, identity-centred discourse of wokeness aligns perfectly with the logic of optimizing engagement, traffic, and monetizable data. As a result, wokeness becomes affected by the same forces that shape identity and visibility in public life.
Certainly, Doyle's critique mistakes the symptoms for the underlying structure. Wokeness is not simply an ideology or a belief system. Instead, it reveals the irreversible transformation of the
autonomous, rational subject of liberalism into a digitized, emotive, and aestheticized form of subjectivity.
Comments (975)
Quoting Number2018
I would put it this way. Wokism is a loose constellation of political positions drawing from a range of philosophical worldviews heavily indebted to Hegel and Marx, but also extending into postmodernist territory expressed by anti-Marxist thinkers like Foucault. Specific interpretators of Wokism have undoubtedly been responsible for excesses and infringements on personal freedom, but Doyles shrill, blanket critique of wokism and identity politics suffers from the fact that he doesnt understand the basic philosophical grounding for them and ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. At the same time, his relative conservativism blinds him to the greater dangers from the far right, leading him to claim that accusations of fascism toward Trump are unjustifiable and untethered from reality. You wont find many thoughtful writers in America these days who still deny that Trumps playbook comes straight out of the school of autocracy perfected by pols like Putin, Orban, Erdogan and Bolsonaro.
When we engage in contemporary online or identity politics discourse, the very act of speaking subjects us to the same conditions that shape what is commonly called wokeness. In that moment, we are often not reflecting on our deeper philosophical or political commitments. Therefore, it may be useful to distinguish between our discursive practices and their deliberate interpretations. Michel Foucault remains highly relevant hereboth for analyzing our immediate behaviours and for constructing a broader philosophical perspective on wokeness. From a Foucauldian perspective, wokeness can be understood not only as an emancipatory gesture but also as a mode through which power is reproduced via identity. Identity politics thus operates within the current digital power/knowledge regime, simultaneously enabling recognition and reinforcing normative expectations of being 'woke.' As Foucault put it, 'It is a form of power that makes individuals subjectsthat subjugates and makes subject to '"
Quoting Joshs
Dont the regimes of these rulers represent distinct modes of exercising power? For instance, Orbán and Erdo?an were democratically elected, while Putin maintains only a façade of electoral legitimacy. So, what exactly constitutes this so-called 'school of autocracy'? As for claims of 'Trumps fascism,' such assertions depend entirely on how fascism is defined. Without a well-developed and nuanced theoretical framework, labeling Trump as a fascist may become an example of a political slogan or ideologically driven discourse.
Edit: In essence it is a denial of the constitutional right to join witch-hunts.
Seems like a rather rosy and narrow interpretation of what "woke" has become.
Quoting Number2018
I dont think we can distinguish between them. We dont need to reflect on or theoretically articulate our philosophical commitments in order to enact them, because the commitments only exist in their continued discursive enactment in the partially shared circumstances of a normative community.
Quoting Number2018
The above analysis applies to any normative community in any historical era. The OPs critique of Doyles attack on wokism misses the fact that he sees the myriad varieties of wokism through a perspective that gets its intelligibility from discursive practices that belong to an older era. Through his Kantian perspective, anything woke is simply marginalized. What is emancipatory within wokism is therefore invisible to Doyle. When Focault analyses identity politics , he does so from a vantage which understands identity and subjectivity as effects of the circulation of power. When Doyle criticizes identity politics, has has no intention of deconstructing the concepts of identity and subjectivity. On the contrary, he is interested in reifying them.
Quoting Number2018
What these regimes have in common is rule by the arbitrary edict of one man rather than by law, constitution and judicial process. In each of these countries, the independence of the judiciary, the press, opposing parties , universities and civil organizations are systematically dismantled so that they wont present a challenge to the authority of the leader.
If you're interested in the topic, I thought Musa al-Gharbi's We Have Never Been Woke was a good treatment. His main thrust was that the "Great Awokening" following the Great Recession was the result of (relative) elites feeling the need to justify their own rapidly growing wealth and privilege in the face of declining standards of living for the rest of the country (also declining life expectancy). Social justice became a way to justify one's own position in society. It also became a means for those already positioned near the top, and who had been raised in a pressure cooker environment focused on accomplishment and securing one's own spot in the elite, to secure elite status, by positioning themselves as representatives or allies of victimized groups. However well-intentioned though, these movements often tended to slide into (largely unreflective) self-serving behavior. That is, the empirical case for the positive benefits of the "Great Awokening" for its supposed beneficiaries is weak.
His point was that the movement was, at least largely, genuine. So, the analysis is supposed to help with formulating a sort of better attempt to address these sorts of issues.
The Great Awokening largely focused on sex, race, and sexual orientation. The sort of inverse, the right-wing's own wokeness, has largely focused on ethnicity, regional culture (arguably a sort of ethnicity), religion, and to a lesser extent, class. I don't think this is any accident. It reminds me of a good quote I saw on this:
Or as James Stimson crystalized this sort of idea a few years ago:
Unfortunately, I don't think it's going away. I think it is merely having a sort of recession on the left, due to political defeats. However, I think it's metastasized on the right.
Ta-Nehisi Coates and others have claimed that Trumpism represents a sort of "identity politics for White Americans." I think this is partially accurate, but not really the full story (for one, it misses Trump's wider appeal). I think there is actually an even deeper affinity between "Woke," Trumpism and the "nu-right" than merely the utilization of identity politics. Nietzche is one strong common thread here. Obviously, the Trump coalition is quite broad, but it's newest, and arguably most defining camp is best represented by the idea of a "tech-broligarchy," i.e., by Elon Musk, Peter Theil, etc., or by thinkers like Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, Costin Alamariu, etc. This is largely a "post-Christian" conservatism, although sometimes it adopts a highly aesthetic, almost re-paganized "traditional" Christianity as its mantel. In many ways, this new movement hasn't just borrowed the language, arguments, and strategies of the "post-modern" left, but has imbibed at least some of their philosophical ideas (obviously in transformed form).
John Millbank's Theology and Social Theory (and David Bentley Hart's 2003 extension in The Beauty of the Infinite) seems to be very prescient here. The main idea there was that the "ontologies of violence," and "metaphysics of power" developed through Nietzsche and his descendants has its logical termination, not in far-left politics, but in fascism and a sort of "neo-paganism." The "Dark Enlightenment" is a sort of concretization of this (I mean, Millbank appears to have been at least spot on in predicting at least this sort of ideology).
Re fascism, people have tried to smear Nietzche with his adoption by the Nazis, which is unfair, but sometimes it seems that this goes too far in the other direction, towards denying that anything other than a totally radical misreading could have intrigued Nazi-philes. I don't think it's an accident though that many of those who rescued Nietzsche from obscurity where, at least initially, as Kanye puts it: "Hitler fans." The logic of power is there to follow.
Al-Gharbi has a thing about selfishness. Since he is really an old fashioned moralist at heart, he sees everything in that light. Nice touch there, reducing the good intentions of wokism to underlying base motives ( in spite of good intentions). Ive read al-Gharbi, and if I were convinced he understood the ideas swirling around beneath the catch-all term of wokism I would be more enthusiastic about his analyses. No doubt the inertia of the status quo within a normative community exerts a powerful restraining force on reform, but it will not be solved by pointing fingers at individual weak will. Besides, if you put tighter a list of the top 5% by wealth you will find very few true wokist in that group. The core of the movement is to be found within academia, a cohort which is significantly less prosperous than your typical Manhattan professional. Paying lip service to wokist slogans is not the same thing as understanding the meaning of intersectionality or critical race theory.
This is patently untrue. I think its more likely this stems from those who share views not noticing what it looks like from the outside. For instance. many will claim that "woke" is:
Quoting unenlightened
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is obviously, to anyone who has the patience to pay attention, untrue and an explicitly rejection of almost everything that 'woke' (in Doyle's sense - which is not something one would actively claim, obviously) encompasses. Most 'woke' behaviour, in the relevant sense, is destructive, narcissistic and clearly illogical not to mention hypocritical, historically ignorant among other things. I imagine what unenlightened wants to say is that this is what 'woke' should be and roughly, I agree. It even used to be that. I used to be actively, proudly 'woke'. But it is simply not true to claim that anymore. I can't, in good conscience, claim the area of ideology that has harmed almost everyone I know constantly for years, has caused more civil unrest than any competing ideology over the last two decades and has supported murder, street-level violence, clear and disgusting crimes if carried out by someone sufficiently 'marginalized', attacks on civil servants and the general acceptance of incredibly distrusting and discriminatory personal beliefs. It borders on McCarthyism except more people are being hurt.
Almost all 'woke' academia has a whiff of performance art to it. Look at this disaster of a paper I was just alerted to. The abstract reads like a Dr Seuss paragraph:
"The parasite, in blurring the distinctions between active subjects and passive environments, poses a problem for western epistemology. By thinking the parasite, I try to re-member precolonial M?ori discourses of what being means. Helped by new materialist thought, what I uncover is an oblique and ecological model of relations in which nothing is quite separable from anything else. Through the parasite, this paper explores posthuman pasts and futures, and gestures towards the potential for a radical revision of how we understand ourselves as subjects."
As it turns out, I've interacted with this writer several times over the years. She is not capable of explaining what she writes effectively, or answering questions that pose any challenge, whatsoever, to her view points. She is also unable to understand simple concepts like "crime" (she is a strict abolitionist about prisons). Confused, buzz-word-laden work like this is a perfect exemplar of why 'woke' is so incapable of upholding either it's own tenets or those which are considered, generally, to be the 'morally correct' ways of being: non-discrimination, non-hypocrisy, honestly and accountability.
I think probably people who see themselves as part of 'woke' will be unable to accept the facts about its manifestations and so will clamour about how Woke represents something they are comfortable copping to. By way of example, the idea that half the country is racist usually isn't accepted despite indirect claims of the same. Like "Trump lovers are racist". This is acceptable to the Wokist as 'trump' has to be ipso facto bad-causing, in any association he is found. Ignoring that this condemns half the country, incl much of the productive (in terms of industry) population.
Another is the claim that 'nobody is illegal'. Well, they literally are, if they've entered the country illegal. The 'woke' wont acknowledge things like illegals committing crimes, and then being removed, is actually fine. They also routinely attribute to their enemy that which their allies have done. Obama's walk-through of his detention centres are being touted as Trump-era offerings. This is a lie, and one they buy. Then when confronted, claim "Oh well Trump is worse" because it avoids the embarrassment of being entirely wrong, over-emotional and incapable of conversing with the other side effectively. If any of this seems untrue, or you need examples please do ask. There are thousands out there. I'm being purposefully high-level in my descriptions.
I add a final note that its probably not going to be accurate that you understand "wokism" over professionals writing about it. You are claiming so, it seems, so worth noting that this is extremely unlikely. It will also be unlikely that I understand better than many, but I am certainly able to see merits and failings on many levels. The above is just what I'm currently feeling about this particular thing.
T Clark below, I think, is saying this more succinctly. I just attacked many more aspects of the playing field.
Patently untrue? Lets put it to the test, shall we? My thesis is its a collosal waste of time to critique wokeness on the basis of specific practices that call themselves woke , and that are felt by many as totalitarian, repressive or McCarhyesque. Im interested in your knowledge of the underlying philosohies that these practices are drawn from. You see, the practices can change and become much less repressive without significantly altering the underlying worldview that generates them. Im not a fan of woke overreach either, but I know two things. The fundamental philosophical insights guiding it are here to stay, and will become accepted by the mainstream within the next 50 years. So Im talking about two sorts of critiques, a critique from within which accepts and is indebted to the innovative philosophical grounding of wokism , but wants to take the next step , which involves transcending the moralistic finger-pointing which Wokism has inherited from more mainstream political theory. The second sort of critique is a critique from without. This critique has no clue what the underlying philosophies are talking about, and just sees wokists as bossy moralistic people who want to act like dictators.
To find out whether Doyles ( or your) critique is from the inside or the outside wont be too difficult. Doyle has written a lot about wokism, and it wouldnt take me very long to demonstrate that he never even attempts to analyze the underlying philosophy, except by repeating one-line cliches he picks up from others who havent bothered to carefully read the authors they cite.
Well I do imagine that Trump and his followers are anti-woke because I hear them say so. So then I look at the policies being followed and the institutions being dismantled, and assume that 'woke' is the opposite. But you're right, I am no expert in what to me is a mere derogatory epithet, and no doubt the experts in derogatory epithets have the right of it And there's grades of horseshit n'all. I'll leave you experts to it.
That is partially correct. However, the defining feature of our contemporary condition is that we can no longer rely automatically on the continuity of discursive enactment grounded in a shared normative community. We must continually renew and reinvent both our discursive practices and our conception of community. This aligns with what Nietzsche called the 'untimely'a becoming that diverges from historical continuity. Foucault expressed a similar idea: 'The description of the archive unfolds its possibilities; its threshold of existence begins with the break that separates us from what we can no longer say and what falls outside our discursive practices; it begins with the outside of our own language; its place is the distance from our own discursive practices.
Quoting Joshs
In the OP, the main points aim to highlight the singularity of our current structural conditions. There are two major factors: first, a profound epistemic shift that has transformed the foundations of normative argumentation, particularly in relation to identity politics and online discourse; and second, the unique dynamics of contemporary digital environments. Both factors are distinctly modern and together make 'wokeness' not only possible, but in some ways inevitable.
To examine the emancipatory dimensions of wokeness, it is useful to revisit Foucaults critique of sexuality. For Foucault, moments of sexual liberation are often quickly penetrated and absorbed by power. From this perspective, the institutional recognition of non-binary identities can be seen as both a progressive step and a reconfiguration of power through identity. For instance, many countries and institutions have recently adopted policies allowing individuals to identify as non-binary or select a third gender category ('X') on official documents. While often celebrated as a form of recognition or liberation, such measures also serve to classify, regulate, and normalize difference. Non-binary identity, in this sense, becomes a 'manageable form of deviance': now it can be tracked, and integrated. As a result, individuals may find themselves bound to fixed identity categories (e.g., 'X' or 'non-binary') that constrain fluid self-conceptions and impose new norms. Thus, contemporary configurations of power can quickly neutralize and absorb emancipatory movements, turning them into administrable forms of identity within broader regimes of control. Doyles critique of wokeness ultimately misses its deeper, more concealed alignment with newest forms of power. The history of contemporary liberation movements shows how swiftly they are neutralized, incorporated, or institutionalized.
Would women's suffrage activists have been called woke back in the day? Who knows. Anti-segregationists?
There are conservative reactionaries raising radical examples and denouncing them as woke.
After having yelled from the rooftops for some time, they've stigmatized the word for their purposes.
[quote=woke person?]Wake up sheeple![/quote]
The outrage. :fire: :D
In Australia, the only people who use the term 'woke' are Murdoch journalists and oddly discordant right-wingers, from what Ive seen. It doesn't seem to have captured peoples imagination as widely.
There is a bit of a culture war here too, but its essentially a diluted one, riffing off American Republican talking points about political correctness, minority rights, and the usual anti-trans bigotry. But I suspect youre right. Most of these ideas that are hated or feared by some now will probably be standard worldview in a few years.
Quoting Joshs
Can you throw us a few dot points about the philosophical insights?
What's the objection here aside from him being a "moralist?" It seems like you could describe his basic thesis just as well in the amoral language of classical economics (which just assumes that everyone is always "selfish"). That is, that reforms that sprung from the movement tended to direct benefit upwards, and that much of the movement tended towards the performative; it didn't produce much of an effect from the perspective of economic, health, etc. metrics.
Sure, but he's quite clear about what he means here. It isn't just about wealth, but also about status, cultural influence, and political power. A plumber with a few assistants might earn more than the mayor of a decent-sized city or the head of an influential cultural institution, but they are hardly the same in status and power for instance.
I don't think that's true (although I guess it depends on what a 'true' wokist is), particularly among their children (who are largely destined to stay in that income bracket). You would certainly find less than in academia though, that's fair.
Or it can make old identities new targets of power. In the context of the Great Awokening, gender seems most relevant (although religion is important too, "Evangelical" sometimes gets used almost like a slur). In the US context, the Democratic party seems to have a "young male" problem, with voters under 20 being more likely to vote for Trump than those over 75, and Trump winning the male Latino vote. This goes along with the marked "gender gap" in political ideology that has been observed across developed countries. I cannot help but think that this is because broad aspects of male identity have been deemed "problematic" by some vocal social reformers. That is, presumably "toxic masculinity," is just about the toxic parts of masculinity, which certainly exist, but there are obviously very important disagreements about which aspects these are.
I am not very big on the whole "War on Boys" narrative, although it does seem to touch on some real issues. I'd prefer to frame it as more an issue of the "education of the chest," that C.S. Lewis speaks of in The Abolition of Man, i.e., the training of the passions and the "spirited part of the soul," thymos. The problems Lewis identified only seem to have gotten worse, and they obviously affect women as well. My point would be that men raised to be "men without chests," become desperate for some sort of thymotic influence. Thus, they end up being easy prey for precisely the sort of "toxic masculinity" reformers want to abolish. So it ends up being a sort of self-reinforcing cycle.
Edit: note the timing
You raise some of the most difficult and thought-provoking questions about wokeness. Why do so many intelligent and educated individuals deeply believe in something that may lack solid epistemic grounding? In my OP, I proposed the hypothesis that we are undergoing a profound epistemic shift. There is the transformation of the foundations of normative, intersubjective argumentation, particularly in the realms of identity politics and online discourse. In this emerging framework, factual accuracy and logical coherence are increasingly overshadowed by emotional expressions of identity and marginalization, which come to serve as autonomous validations of truth and moral authority. As a result, so called wokepeople may become fully absorbed in the self-perceived authenticity of their feelings. Still, this phenomenon likely calls for a deeper philosophical framework to better understand the contemporary affective landscape.
Quoting Number2018
We can and we cant rely on the discursive continuity of a normative community. For Deleuze we must rely on such stability for a time. We spend most if not all of our lives within relatively stable systems. Territorialization is as necessary as deterritorialization. What we cannot do is assume any one social formation as sovereign.
Your OP covers a slew of issues and connects them in a particular way. It begins with Doyles critique of wokism, and then lays out a Foucaultian analysis of wokism, from which vantage Doyles own thinking is itself a symptom of wokist power relations. This seems to drive more from Deleuze than Focault, since Deleuze insisted that only revolutionary change could break one free from the hegemony of discursive regimes, such as Capitalism. Foucault, on the other hand, was more open to compromise with the dominant cultural , since unlike Deleuze he didnt see regimes like capitalism as monolithic entities but as already slowly transforming themselves from within their own power dynamics. This allowed him to accept a critique of Doyle from a wokist vantage that was itself open to its own transformation through its own dynamics of power.
A fair point, but from their perspective woke is expressly not what you say it is. That's sort of the issue - the two groups are either seeing, or pretending to see 'woke' as capturing different behaviours. I, personally, think neither side has this chess move open to them.
Woke is a cultural phenomenon which has superseded an older cultural phenomenon under the same name. I think its possible OP's response to me lays out what that is, in it's current form (and thus, by inference, pretty self-defeating).
Otherwise, yes, it's grey and greyer. I can only give perspectives and note where facts come apart from them, as best I can tell.
Quoting Joshs
I agree wholeheartedly with both of these positions. As noted, I used to claim Woke as it used to be a useful catch-all for some genuinely helpful social activities that did not harm anyone, basically. Now, as noted in a previous post, those activities are both self-defeating, and dangerous in a lot of cases on my view (and, the wider view from outside the bubble that 'woke' is intended to capture).
Quoting Joshs
This is a rather tricky question. If you me Crenshaw et al.. stemming from Marxist thinking, then yes. I am versed (though, some time ago now - don't ask me to cite lol) in what those 'structures' are. This is not what 'woke' captures.
If you mean the actual underlying philosophy held by those currently in the bubble? Largely white man bad, minority good, disparity = bigotry, oppression=social status. This explains most of the hypocrisy, ignorance and self-aggrandizing we see (and no, this is not an over-simplification. The only thing I am missing is the wording those people use to justify it - which is identity and emotion. There is no further argument made by hte group in question - it seems perhaps not hte group you want to defend). A prime example is Karmelo Anthony. We've seen a decidedly woke response to a cold-blooded murder by an emotional dysregulated dickhead. But, it's white people's fault, he's black so can't be racist, and should have been given more money on go fund me.
To be sure, these beliefs and behaviours exist in a certain group. That is the group Doyle is talking about. Setting yourself aside, and still claiming ot be 'woke' seems incoherent.
Quoting Joshs
It is not possible to know this. It is also contrary to the actual reality which is that the underlying tenets are rejected by almost all structures and authorities once hte harms are made obvious. Happy to revisit in 50 years.
Quoting Joshs
Once again, obviously not true and a weird trick to avoid accepting third party critique. If your position, as noted here, amounts to "only we can critique ourselves" then that's absurd. If this is just to sa yyou have seen a critique outside the bubble which you agree with, then that stands exactly in line with my entire response. You will not be emotionally capable of doing so if you claim to be woke.
Quoting Joshs
For for it. Review his entire output on this topic, including books, podcasts, lengthy posts and articles. I'm not going to claim to hav ea citation to hand, but he has explicitly spoken about the Marxist, and then Frankfurtian bases through Critical Theory and on into CRT - running that through the milieu of the 60s-70s civil rights activations and then making his conclusions from there. He is not an idiot. I do recall him going relatively deep into this in The New Puritans.
It seems you've rejected his position without knowing it. Odd.
Sounds eminently sensible to me. One of the founders of the Australian Greens, Drew Hutton, was interviewed recently about woke ideology (hate the misuse of grammar by the way) in respect of trans rights. He says since he left the party (around 2009), it has developed a stance where even discussion of the issue warrants sanction (implication being that there is nothing to discuss). He says that many dedicated conservationists who should be involved in the Green Party have left or even had their membership terminated for questioning the emphasis on the issue. I suppose it is one of the issues that green left politics tends to constellate around.
Sociologists have come up with a decent enough theory called Social Categorization (or self-categorization). Its the process through which we group individuals based upon superficial information, such as age or race or class and so on. The quick mental trick of dissolving the targets individuality into the soup of our social categories is supposed to shape downstream evaluation and behavior by providing prewritten judgements in the form of stereotypes and assumptions. Its a way for the abstract-minded to better deal with the concrete complexities and diversity of life. But it is also the impetus for in-group/out-group dynamics, hierarchies, discrimination, andas we always see with this stuffracism, injustice, and tribalism.
This is largely Fukuyama's answer in his recent "Liberalism and it's Discontents," which treats the same issue, but also the excesses of neoliberalism (which he sees as taking classical liberalism to an extreme, largely due to assumptions borrowed from economics).
Fukuyama is, at first glance, pretty open to critiques of the most popular forms of modern liberalism. He allows that the difficulty for Rawls and Nozick (major figures for progressive and conservative liberalism respectively) is that they have extremely "thin" anthropologies. Man is something of an atomized appetite machine who needs to be controlled by contracts and systems of "nudges and prompts," so that his inherent selfishness and gratification-seeking doesn't conflict with other's similar behavior (John Millbank's point, which is more radical, is that this is really just the Reformed theological tradition's view of man and nature, only with grace and God removed).
Fukuyama famously adds thymos back into the equation, arguing that people also seek a sense of honor and recognition, and that this is why identity fails to simply dissolve despite the pressures of capitalism and liberalism. He even makes an abortive appeal to virtue in the book. He compares a young woman going to school, supporting her sick mother, who is still actively politically involved, with a wealthier young man who spends all his time on video games and pornography, and is completely checked out of political life and any "common good." His point is that, pace earlier liberals, we can judge the former better, because we are judging based on their character, not based on immutable facts about them. He thinks we can make some judgements about the human good, even if only those goods that support liberalism itself. However, he doesn't really address the real issue, which is that a denial of human telos (or our ability to know it), makes virtue impossible to define.
Anyhow, I bring up Fukuyama because he is one of the better, fairer attempts to defend the view that what is needed is a return to classical Enlightenment liberalism. It's a short book too.
I think it is wrong though. I think Fukuyama errs because, while he finds a role for thymos, he ignores logos, that people want to do what they think is "truly best." Thymos alone doesn't explain rich men in the Roman empire giving up all their status and wealth and becoming celibates to pursue the monastic life or philosophy. It doesn't explain Marxist revolutionaries who were willing to take on suicidal missions to further what they saw as a path to a truly better society. Self-interest doesn't explain athiest martyrdom.
Fukuyama makes the Wars of Religion out to be entirely battles of thymos, when in reality they were, above all else, wars over logos. Likewise, even on smaller scales, people don't abandon good careers, status (thymos), and consumption to do things like care for sick parents as a means of pursuing thymos or epithumia (pleasure), they do it because it agrees with logos, i.e., what they believe "a good person should do." One need not even suppose any "objective good," for this to be true, one only need allow that people's notion of goodness is often the deciding factor in what they choose to pursue, and that it often trumps pleasure and status seeking.
This is a big miss because the classical liberalism Fukuyama defends is arguably most choice-worthy precisely because the "marketplace of ideas," and universal education it fosters allows people to best fulfill the desires of logos by allowing them to explore goodness and virtue. Arguably, this oversight could actually be used to support "classical liberalism" against its competitors.
I am more skeptical. I think that classical liberalism is largely defined by its anthropology, so that any system with an appropriate role for thymos and logos probably becomes something quite different. However, this doesn't mean it jettisons the things Fukuyama thinks are most valuable about liberalism, namely:
1. Accountable government (normally through some form of elections)
2. A strong, independent, professional civil society
3. A centralized state monopoly on force
4. Rule of law and property rights
So, whether you'd want to call a reform based on a "thick" anthropology "liberalism" or not seems besides the main point to me.
To bring it back to Woke though, the post-modern thread Fukuyama objects to likewise suffers from this thin anthropology because it is an outgrowth of liberalism itself. I think it's also unable to take logos seriously. The "metaphysics of power" normally tends to dissolve the subject possessing logos, and to make logos merely an illusion of power, or nothing but power itself. However, I don't think the foundations of this movement are actually philosophically sound, and even if they were, their logical conclusion will be fascism (what we are indeed seeing), not some sort of radically left egalitarianism.
Makes sense to me. Counterpart to Webers Protestant Work Ethic.
I assume that your particular distillation of wokeism helps you to better deal with the concrete complexities and diversity of life.
There is nothing amoral about the classical economic notion of selfishness, which is why al Gharbis thesis is so compatible with it, and in fact depends on the same Enlightenment-era notions of the autonomously willing subject.
Just philosophically speaking, we may be mixing a few things together. Presumably, we want to have a discussion about something on which we might all not agree, nor agree what to do about, nor even be able to value together as an issue. I take these to be moral claims.
But the main thing I see being noticed, objected to, and perpetuated on both sides is superior, righteous judgment, criticism, shaming, and condescension, which I would differentiate as moralizing (e.g., on terms of, say, "good" and "evil"). Unfortunately, any actual discussion of these issues is getting buried under this pile of mutual indignation, claims/denials of authority and rationality.
But in a moral moment there is no authority to claim what is right, thus the importance of understanding the issue from the inside, on another's terms. To make the "strongest" case for them, which is not to say the one we ourselves would make (based on our standards), but respecting that they might have legitimate interests that we don't yet know. Thus a moral discussion is putting ourselves in the place of the other; digging deep to understand (not assume) what they value and want, and not dismissing them out of hand (as we too often do in philosophy, looking first to refute).
Quoting Number2018
It is easy to find ways to close this argument, shut out or moralize the other, but a moral claim puts this responsibility on us, to find its ineligibility, its "rationality" as another's reasons. Of course, these conversations fail all the time, and of course there is not any guarantee of resolution, but I would think the point is to learn what is at stake in a way that is deep, explicit, and wide-ranging.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, he has made his way through some Marxist and Frankfurt school texts. If his critique were based on a perspective inside of the relevant philosophies, he would be comfortable with the following ideas:
Languaged discursive conventions shape the meanings of concepts, so any attempts at ascertaining objective truth cannot look for a position outside of all normative cultural configurations from which to ground truth absolutely. These normative structures and their associated linguistic concepts can ossify into an entrenched status quo, and as a result become repressive in relation to marginalized individuals and groups. But one must be careful in how one points attention to these repressive, self-entrenching tendencies. One cannot simply demand that others change their vocabulary. They should instead attempt to demonstrate the benefits of alternative intelligibilities. This would be a positive use of power rather than a punitive use.
A critique from the outside, as I believe Doyles is, rejects the Kuhnian implication of critical theoretic approaches to objective truth, in favor of something closer to Poppers Kantian notion of falsification. Truth isnt just a culturally negotiated pragmatic way of knowing ones way around the world ( although Kuhn doesnt reject the idea of scientific progress in toto), languaged concepts hook up to objective truths which transcend cultural dynamics. I suggest that Doyles rejection of this crucial philosophical underpinning of wokism motivates his rejection of it. Even if wokists no longer tried to impose their notions of discursive openness onto others, he would still find it wanting in comparison with his non-relativistic liberalism. He would simply pivot from an attack on wokism as too repressive to one in which it becomes too permissive and anything-goes, ungrounded in the objective facts of the world.
Quoting Number2018
Are you placing factual accuracy on one side of a divide and emotional expression on the other side in order to deconstruct and overturn this metaphysical dualism, as Nietzsche, Focault, Deleuze, Heidegger and Derrida have? Or do you seriously want to justify such a reason-privileging split? Or is emotional expression as Deleuzian desire, Heideggerian attunement and Foucaultian power the very pre-condition of factuality?
Fukuyamas desire to restore classical liberalism underestimates how thoroughly power has migrated away from the institutions and norms that liberalism depends on. Wokeness is not merely a cultural trend. It reveals that legitimacy, moral authority, and social control now flow through different channels. Reinvigorating liberal institutions without addressing this shift risks treating the symptoms without grasping the underlying transformation in how power and politics operate today. A return to classical liberal neutrality or abstraction deeply implausible in todays affective, fragmented political landscape.
Indeed, I have attempted to analyze wokeness through the lens of Deleuze and Foucaults theories of power. Contrary to your point, however, I do not believe that I have departed from their intellectual projects. On the contrary, I see my approach as the beginning of a modified DeleuzianFoucauldian framework for thinking about wokeness.
But I still do not know whether this undertaking is even possible in principle. Deleuze and Foucaults approaches are not entirely compatible, and our current digital reality tends to resist forms of theoretical inquiry altogether. Both thinkers emphasize the omnipresent, diffuse, and immanent nature of contemporary powerpower that resists representation and totalizing frameworks. This implies that assuming a neutral, detached position that claims to be outside the field of power in order to conduct objective or universal researchis likely a mistake. As Foucault shows, and Deleuze echoes, the very act of representing pre-given realities risks reproducing the territorialities one seeks to critique.Where Deleuze diverges from Foucault is in his conception of resistance. For Deleuze, resistance lies in following a line of flightcreating a new reality that, in the moment of its emergence, escapes the capture of existing power structures. As Ray Brassier puts it:
So long as practice is subordinated to representation, it can only more or less adequately trace a pre-existing reality, according to extant criteria of success or failure. But machinic pragmatics is not geared towards representation; it is an experimental practice oriented towards bringing something new into existencesomething that does not pre-exist its process of production. It decouples performance from competence. It does not engage in a utilitarian tracing of the real; it generates a constructive mapping (and as we shall see, a diagramming) of the real: What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real. The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious.
This outline of machinic pragmatics is especially relevant to the project of interrogating wokeness. Wokeness can be understood as a desiring-machine. Without mediation, conditioned by power, it prompts and modulates our human emotions: shame, guilt, pride, vulnerability, and anger. So, the Deleuzian project of creating lines of flight becomes a philosophical undertaking to produce autonomous, intensive machines that map reality rather than trace it. These machines are not about representing the already-given, but about experimentation that escape the dominant power formations.To enact a line of flight, a philosophical machine must activate and intensify its own internal dynamics, rather than remain entangled in the representational circuits of identity. This means breaking with the fixed, lived identity produced by the wokeness desiring-machine, which operates through affective capture and the reinforcement of socially legible forms of subjectivity.
Whereas the wokeness machine induces emotions like shame, guilt, and vulnerability to generate moral authority and political legitimacy, the philosophical machine must resist this affective economy by refusing to be coded within it. Instead, it amplifies its own intensity and its capacity to think and feel. In this sense, the line of flight is an experimental process that exceeds the coordinates of recognition and representation. It constructs an autonomous plane of consistency where thought is no longer mediated by identity, morality, or social function, but engages directly with the real.
Your position likely aligns closely with Slavoj ieks perspective on wokeness. iek argues that wokeness operates as a form of ideological displacement: it presents itself as a libertarian or emancipatory movement, but in reality, serves as a mechanism through which neoliberal capitalism maintains the appearance of moral progressivismwhile evading any real confrontation with deeper structural or economic injustices. As he puts it, Wokeness is a form of moralization that leaves intact the system of exploitation.
In ieks view, the focus on language, identity, and symbolic inclusion enables neoliberal systems to evolve and entrench themselves further. While he does not deny the existence of racial, gender, or cultural oppression, he contends that the contemporary lefts preoccupation with personal identity fragments solidarity and undermines the universalist ambitions of the leftist project.
ieks post-Marxist critique of wokeness is compelling in many respects. However, he falls short of fully disclosing the nature of wokeness or accounting for its emotional appeal and social power. His framework remains confined to traditional ideological critique and thus may overlook a crucial dimension: wokeness is not purely ideologicalit is affective. It is about the desire to feel seen, safe, included, or conversely, excluded. Through wokeness, underlying structures of power can engage with and regulate deeply human emotions of shame, guilt, pride, vulnerability, and anger. It operates without the mediation of ideology, class struggle, or systems of political representation.
1. I think much of the above is self-involved wittering in the style of the Continentals, and I do not think you will be surprised by my position; HOWEVER;
2. You are not wrong. This, for example:
Quoting Joshs
and
Quoting Joshs
I think are true, regardless of Kuhn (though, obviously one of the best to articulate it). I think you're simply over-playing the hand this gives you, I guess. Not a massive objection but I think it means our approach to what Doyle is saying will necessarily come apart.
Quoting Joshs
To some degree that's going to be unavoidable: If we do not believe language creates structures "in the world" then we cannot assent to an ideology which takes this as fundamentally inarguable (which it is - Iand thats the main problem I have with Wokists. There is no discussion to be had. Its a brick wall. Contrary to their fundamental positions). I think Doyle is grokking this and it is almost impossible to see from inside the bubble. From, i expect, your perspective, these are simply "the way things are" type of statements you're making. I don't take them as such when considering them. They are arguable.
Quoting Joshs
That is also, possibly, true, but something peculiar to Doyle and his own outlook - not his reasoning and research skills. I think I, too, would probably want to critique many views and beliefs thought of in this category despite not being asked to participate (which is what wokists do, generally usually with threats) the way I used to critique Vera constantly. Not because she wanted me to believe what she did, but because much of what she had to say was patently irrational, historically inaccurate or incoherent within her own worldview. These aren't critiques of a category, per se, but critiques of bad thinking. I suggest this is what Doyle is doing, but his current purpose is firmly embedded in taking to task the bolded items above as they appear to be features of those carrying the Woke ideology currentrly
Perhaps. If true though, I can't say I'm upset, as woke is a poison pill for ideology. Hopefully if the GoP doubles down on identity politics, this will swing us back to the middle again as they fracture their growing coalition.
I understand and respect your position. Yet, contemporary moral discourse has undergone a dramatic transformation. The imperative to understand others from the inside and to take their experience seriously on their own terms often becomes an impossible undertaking. How can one distinguish between authentic expressions of suffering and their strategic imitation? We are often caught between the necessity of listening and the danger of being manipulated. In the context of this thread, wokeness often transforms vulnerability into a source of ultimate moral authority.
But if we agree as to what moral discourse is, we can differentiate it from simply moralizing, which, as you say above to @180 Proof, leads to self-affirmation for being a good person without actually doing anything or adding to the conversation, identifying ourselves by our judgment of others as good or bad, etc. But I dont see the justification to dismiss any actual interests and needs because Im pretty sure we dont understand those yet.
Quoting Number2018
It is hard not to be inclined to judge others as irrational or unintelligible. I would still argue our responsibility is not to give up and simply moralize in return because others cast the first stone, as any dismissal based on characterization, the existence of worst cases actors, and presumed ends does not take the other persons interests seriously.
And what I suggest is not to understand the others experience, which has been philosophically pictured as ever-present and always mine, which manifests as the desire to remain misunderstood (or be clear on its face), or be special by nature (always unique). But it is also used as a justification to ignore the human altogether in only recognizing fixed standards for knowledge and rationality. I take these as a general human desire to avoid responsibility to answer for ourselves and to make others intelligible.
Quoting Number2018
The possibility we may not ultimately agree or understand the others interests is not a reason to assume irrationality or disingenuousness. Sometimes attributing a serious person to some things that are said and done takes more imagination and generosity than you may receive. We may have to set aside our feelings, our desire to react, our inability to understand instantly, in order to not jump to the first conclusion, to paint the other in the easiest light, to deny their human interests because they dont come to us on our terms, maybe dont even live in our world of norms and practices.
Quoting Number2018
But each of us does have the authority to make a claim on others, even our culture as a whole. Now I understand that you probably mean that just because they say it (are in pain) doesnt make it right, which of course is true. All there is when someone is making an appeal of this kind for us to change our actions is that it can be done well or poorly, say, appropriately (as Ive tried to draw out). Plato will call this persuasion and rhetoric because he wanted to only consider pure knowledge. Wittgenstein makes the analogy that we dont know someone elses pain (their experience) because the way it works is that we react to it (PI p. 223); we accept them as a person in pain, or ignore it. There is an appropriate way to see an aspect of us in the other; to take an attitude towards them (perspective). Wittgenstein will say we are not of the opinion they have a soul, because we treat them as if they do, or not.
In the case of wokeness, the issue is not one of disagreement or misunderstanding. Rather, it lies in the complete blurring of boundaries between the authenticity of identity performance and the sincerity of moral expression.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
What is your take on this video about contemporary fascism?
It highlights the stance of critical intellectuals against authoritarian regimes that are increasingly targeting academic freedom. They are completely genuine while expressing their concerns. The video constructs a stark us vs. them narrative. In fact, its moral binary and emotional framing reflect characteristics often associated with woke culture: strong normative certainty, oversimplification, moral urgency, and an appeal to identity and belonging. This resemblance suggests that the crisis revealed by wokeness is not merely cultural or political. Also, it reveals a deeper epistemic, ethical, and moral rupture.
I'm not sure if it will play out the same way. The noxious "White nationalist" faction notwithstanding, the fact that the GOP has embraced an identity politics of culture and tradition means that one can "convert" and be taken into the fold much more easily. One is not forced to sit outside the core of the movement as a mere "ally," but can become a leading protagonist in its story, which in turn spurs on more evangelical activity. The similarities lie more in the focus on identity, grievance, narratives of power, skepticism of institutions (instruments of power), and as Doyle puts it, "admission of spectral evidence," (i.e., personal feelings of grievance as indicative of moral wrong). There is also a similar distrust of scientific, journalistic, academic, etc. institutions as mere instruments of power, a sort of epistemology of power to go along with the metaphysics of power. The "nu-right" is a heavily aesthetic movement, drawing a lot from ancient epics and art, and so you also have an "aesthetics of power." The preference for classical art styles for instance, is not mere reactionary preference for the old, but obviously because these are taken to by symbols of imperial power and warrior spirit.
Sun and Steel is incredibly popular here for example, as well Jünger's Storm of Steel. Indeed, I think Musk has advocated both.
It's interesting to note too how much this bleeds into the "empirical sciences." The core anthropology still largely assumed for political economy (now economics and political science) was developed long before the statistical methods that helped the social sciences assert themselves alongside the physical sciences as "properly scientific." A lot of it was closer to armchair speculation (although obviously informed by powerful insights and observations). Yet the legacy has remained robust.
You can also see this in narratives in biology, or even the way nature documentaries get narrated. The reception of Darwin has remained ideologically charged. Consider the Lion Kings harmonious Circle of Life versus the famous 56th canto of Tennysons In Memoriam A.H.H.:
[i]Man, her last work, who seemd so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who rolld the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creations final law
Tho Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriekd against his creed[/i]
One can hardly choose between the two simply on the basis of "scientific data."
Time is a predictable cycle on a large enough scale. It will destroy them too in time. The question is how much damage will be done before that happens.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It is essential to separate questionable political applications of wokeness by individuals and groups who call themselves woke from the mix of underlying philosophical ideas they claim to be drawing from (and in many cases misinterpreting). This is important because I believe many of what are now seen as repressive excesses of the movement will likely be eliminated as the movement becomes more conversant with the most rigorous and forward-thinking philosophical elements it now engages with in an often superficial manner. As a result, far from fading away as another regressive fad alongside far right thinking, the substantive grounding of what we
now call wokism will remain and eventually become the dominant political thinking among mainstream cultures around the world.
In order to separate the superficial from the substantive, it is necessary not to settle for surface comparisons like the following: both the far right and wokism is concerned with narratives of power, skepticism of institutions (instruments of power), and as Doyle puts it, "admission of spectral evidence,".
While the Frankfurt school of critical theory understands the concept of power in terms of a willed force concentrated within , controlled and wielded by individuals and groups, this is not at all the case for poststructuralists like Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida. Foucaults notion of power, for instance, is a relation of mutual affecting connecting each individual to other individuals within a community rather than hierarchical weapon of domination. For him power isnt something to overcome or control, it is the motivational and valuative basis of the reciprocal interactions from which our institutions of ethics, politicos and knowledge emerge.
Quoting Number2018
Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley appear in the video. They are completely genuine in expressing not just their concerns about fascism, but also about wokism. In The Road to Unfreedom and On Freedom, Snyder critiques identity politics and the politicization of group-based grievances. He explicitly criticizes identity politics as a divisive force that fuels cultural polarization, framing it as part of authoritarian memory politics. He warns against narratives driven by victimhood and us vs. them thinkingstructures often associated with woke discourseeven if the label isnt used. In sum, Snyders critique overlaps with what critics call wokism particularly around moralism, identity-based politics, and the erosion of shared facts.
Meanwhile, Jason Stanley offers a theoretical critique of political language and propaganda. Stanleys work discusses woke moral language, examining woke discourse as a phenomenon that has peaked. He has also strongly condemned book bans and restrictions on speech tied to identity-driven moral politics, framing them as authoritarian and illiberal.
I think youll find moderate religious conservative like David Brooks and Peter Wehner making exactly the same points as the contributors to this video.
Does this fact make them woke? If so, then it seems to me the concept becomes meaningless.
Quoting Number2018
Btw, you never responded to my question to you:
Are you placing factual accuracy on one side of a divide and emotional expression on the other side in order to deconstruct and overturn this metaphysical dualism, as Nietzsche, Focault, Deleuze, Heidegger and Derrida have? Or do you seriously want to justify such a reason-privileging split? Or is emotional expression as Deleuzian desire, Heideggerian attunement and Foucaultian power the very pre-condition of factuality?
I would say in the UK the woke term has been extremely and enthusiastically taken up by right wingers. The Daily Mail newspaper uses it it nearly every article they print. Piers Morgan loves saying it last time I would see clips of him presenting daytime tv, which was some years ago. I hadn't heard of this author the OP discusses before but just a quick search and the first results show he is aligned with GB News and that said it all for me. It has proudly self styled itself after Fox News.
I am not going to blanket claim all his views are trash because of that, like 'woke' person would :), but I will say I am heavily de-incentivized to explore him further due to that association.
I am no fan of wokeness either but I think there are more careful considerations and critiques of it from the likes of Sam Harris to name one, or Zizek, from the little I watched of the latter, but I doubt this guy will fall into that category. I suspect it will just be the usual right-wing dog whistles of cultural marxism and such.
Quoting unimportant
To effectively critique wokism you have to understand its philosophical underpinnings. As someone drawing from Freud, Lacan, Hegel and Marx, Zizek is actually a lot closer to these underpinnings than you might think. On the other hand, I dont think writers like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker are in a position to do so, given their embrace of conventional aspects of their own field of psychology. Harris and Pinker may be limited by their empirical/rationalist frameworks, which arent well-equipped to grasp the continental philosophical roots of woke ideology. Zizek is just as likely to defend wokism from the likes of Harris and Pinker as he is to take their side.
The problem with this is that basically "woke" and "Wokism" is defined by those who reject the whole thing. It already is a critique. Many of those then accused of being "woke" never have thought to be "woke" and don't understand what is meant by it. Hence starting to look at the underpinnings is a bit difficult.
For example, Zizek isn't in my view at all woke. Yes, he may be close to post-structuralism in some views, but basically he is just a leftist intellectual who obviously totally clear about the negative aspects of Marxism-Leninism as he was born in Yugoslavia.
Wokism is just a collection of leftist overreactions and eccentricities. That's the actual punchline.
Anyway, when wokism is officially attacked by the Trump administration, the whole issue is beyond stupidity just like with the so-called culture wars. Good luck having an intelligent discussion about the culture wars.
:smirk:
Quoting Joshs
I will answer. Btw, I would appreciate your response to my previous post:
Quoting Number2018
It appears that your critique misrepresents the intent and scope of my argument. I do not attempt to re-inscribe a metaphysical binary between reason and emotion, nor am I blind to the epistemological critiques offered by Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, Heidegger, and Deleuze.
Instead, I attempt to diagnose a shift in discursive practices, particularly in the domains of identity politics and online activism, where affective expressions of marginalization have begun to function as sufficient sources of epistemic and moral authority. My argument is not a metaphysical claim about truth; it is rather a phenomenological observation about a shift in rhetorical argumentation in public discourse. You rightly point out that for thinkers like Foucault, Deleuze, and Heidegger, knowledge is always situated in structures of power, affect, or ontological attunement. However, those thinkers are engaged in an epistemic inquiry, rather than describing contemporary discursive practices. What we are witnessing today is not the philosophical deconstruction of rationalism, but a normative inversion in the public sphere. Thus, emotional experience and perceived marginality are not retained within rigorous ontological framing. Instead, they assert themselves as affective self-reference of truth and moral authority, becoming resistant to questioning, nuance, or deliberate reflection. Therefore, one needs to differentiate the rigorous epistemic critiques of the mentioned thinkers from the description of todays affective politics of visibility and recognition..
Quoting Number2018
I think Im understanding a bit better the points youre making about the discursive structures within which affect is captured in wokist thought, but in the case of the contributors to the video, dont we need to extend that critique to normed practices that I would argue are little changed from what they were prior to the emergence of wokism? And then wouldnt it be useful to make distinctions between the sorts of affective stratifications you associate with wokism and those that are applicable to moderate conservatives and centrist liberals, both of whom disavow most aspects of woke practices?
For Deleuze, Foucaults philosophical project started within epistemology:
He actually started with an epistemology, or with an attempt to construct a doctrine of knowledge, and it was this doctrine of knowledge that literally pushed him towards the discovery of a new domain, which would become that of power.
Deleuze, Foucault seminar, Lecture?8 (17 December 1985)it.wikipedia.org+7deleuze.cla.purdue.edu+7theanarchistlibrary.org+7
We understand clearly that in experience, we always find ourselves confronted with mixtures of power knowledge. But that does not in the least deny philosophical analysis the right to disentangle two heterogeneous axes, a knowledge axis and a power axis What we have seen is how Foucault began by studying the forms of knowledge on their corresponding axis Not that power was ignored, only that it is posed implicitly, presupposed It is Discipline and Punish that marks the first break in Foucaults oeuvre, passing from the knowledge axis to the power axis.
https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/lecture/lecture-13/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Quoting Joshs
"Concrete Rules and Abstract Machines: Form and Function in
A Thousand Plateaus"
Ray Brassier
In "A Thousand Plateaus and Philosophy", pg.262
But what is your assessment of the academic content of this videoespecially considering that Snyder is a leading scholar on fascism and Nazi Germany?
We know that Murdoch and his flunkies like to label progressives as out of touch and deluded, so the term "woke" works well for them to describe a supercharged from of progressive thinking that they consider close to madness. But that doesnt actually say anything about what "woke" is or isnt. Generally, if Murdoch's crew is eager to sell a particular frame, it's probably safe to ignore it.
It seems to me that "woke" is just an umbrella term for a diverse range of ideas in our public discourse that some people fear and choose to describe pejoratively. And no doubt there are some zealous left-wing activists who go too far, just as there are young, zealous right-wing ones who do the same.
Fancy wording but I think this is certainly a widely held belief - perhaps that some people weaponise their lived experience. Can you provide a specific example you are thinking of here - one with broad repercussions?
Quoting Number2018
This builds on the aboveI'm keen to understand specific instances.
If I grant you there are real concerns about mere performance and whether a claim is an expression of a persons actual interests (on top of social media grandstanding, moralizing, etc.), these objections are still only to the form of the claim (though, yes, something that needs to be addressed). Even judging the grounds we take (or are presented with) for a moral claim does not get at the reasons it is made, nor discharge our obligation to find the need for it. Is the extent of your OP that there are legitimate objections to these methods? That rational discourse has become lost? This is of course a serious issue (deeper and more wide-spread than even these concerns I would think). But do your objections to these methods include (and wish to refute) the underlying interests?
Because these failings do not preclude our ability to attribute (even if imagining) genuine, authentic interests and needs to others if we treat them as serious moral agents. To try to theoretically explain why they are doing this or why we are justified in dismissing them, is to avoid our moral responsibility. To speak frankly, not trying is a cop-out that reflects on us, on our part to bring back rational discourse (though again, I sympathize with the difficulty). I would even argue this is our duty as a citizen in a democracy (as I explain in my discussion of John Dewey - Democracy as a Personal Ethic Democracy is respect for the capacity of each other (as if we do not yet know the terms on which to judge).
In an attempt to provide an example of that kind of inquiry/discussion: If we look past the demonstrations we take as (somehow completely) reflecting woke culture, can we brainstorm what might be the circumstances involved, the necessity of the claim, even the need to make it in a fashion we might misinterpret or not know how to make intelligible? Dont these claims have a history? Here I am not enough of a social critic to know the answers, but, if we are to be woke, what is it we were asleep to?
Critics argue that emotional discomfort has become a trigger for restricting speech, displacing debate with moral claims based solely on feeling hurt or offended. https://ncac.org/resource/ncac-report-whats-all-this-about-trigger-warnings?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.britannica.com/story/trigger-warnings-on-campus?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Also, #MeToo was important in addressing longstanding injustice. However, it was noted that the movement advanced trauma-based disclosures, establishing a cultural norm where a testimony of harm received moral and epistemic authority. Even in ambiguous cases, this framework often elevated belief in the speaker to the status of the primary epistemic standard.
I had edited the post you responded but apparently too later for you to see it. Heres the edited post:
The analyses of Focault and Deleuze are not critiques of affect per se, but of how affect is disciplined and made legiblesubsumed into power/knowledge formations. Critique is aimed at sedimentation, normalization, and instrumentalizationnot at affects foundational role. Deleuzes entire philosophical project (especially with Guattari) can be read as a critique of how desire/affect is captured by molar systemsOedipal structures, the State, Capitalism, Signifiance, etc. Not a critique of affect as suchbut of affect when it gets captured by stratifying assemblages that block lines of flight. When it is allowed to become via lines of flight, affect is liberating. When it becomes stratified within epistemological logics, it becomes repressive. It sounds like this is your point, also:
Quoting Number2018
Some young people and profs at universities have used this mechanism. What's the evidence that this is a broader social problem of significant concern? Universities have always been subject to value-based stunts. That's kind of their thing.
Quoting Number2018
What do you suppose elevates the role of feeling to the status of sovereign arbiter of justice for wokists? Is the affect doing all this ethical work by itself, or is it the interpretation of the discursive context within which the affect arises which grounds the supposed moral authority of feeling? Im suggesting it is a certain moral absolutism associated with the attribution of causes for the sources and triggers of pain which is the culprit here, not affect in itself. If I address you with the wrong pronoun and you respond with pained moral outrage, it is because your feelings are expressing your assessment that I am culpable for my slight, even if I insist that it was inadvertent. There are no accidents or innocent mistakes when concepts like while privileged and implicit bias judge us guilty in advance. It is this assumed culpability by association, birth and ingrained use of language that is at the bottom of the hyper-moralism attributed to wokism, not a blind reliance on the authority of affect.
But is there not something of value to be gained from concepts like implicit bias? Do they not act as a corrective to the metaphysics of the autonomously willing subject? What such wokist memes could stand to learn from Focault and Deleuze is that there is no privileged moral vantage from which to judge whose community is more or less biased. What we want to do is to continually follow lines of flight away from the entrenchment within any particular bias, not reterritorialize on a transcendent objectivity beyond all bias.
Does the wokist reliance on a sovereign ground of moral truth amount to an abdication of factual accuracy and logical coherence? On the contrary, the most secure, emancipatory Hegelian logic can be located as an important thread within many strands of wokism, fueling their moralism and providing the metaphysical support for their objectivity. What they need more of factual accuracy and logical coherence but Deleuzian paradoxical nonsense, a logic of sense.
I've wondered about this process myself. Simple question: do you think wokism is a significant and growing issue in society?
Well, ssu pointed out that wokism tends to be used by those hostile to practices they associate it with, so right from the start the term defines behaviors deemed problematic. But I think what makes them problematic is fascinating. If you introduce a new way of thinking about social and political interactions which has not had time to be absorbed into the general culture, and then you proceed to demand that everyone whose behavior doesnt conform to its standards be cancelled, you will be vilified as a tyrant (or as privileging irrational affect over logic).. Its not the demand for conformity by itself that produces the hostility, its that what it is in service of is incoherent to most people, so your efforts will be explained as a desire for power and control. We already live in a society controlled by strict norms of conduct, but there is a general consensus of understanding about the nature of those norms and standards. My own critique of wokism is that it keeps too much from traditional societal norms (righteous moralism).
I'm not saying there aren't issues, but what Im looking for are concrete, institutionalised examples, something with real substance, that's meaningfully different from, say, right-wing identity politics where people view all of life through the lens of gun ownership, MAGA, or Christian nationalism, where ridicule and debate are also used to silence dissent. We know this group censors libraries, for instance. Everyone wants to control the narrative, if not the world.
Quoting Tom Storm
You mean examples where people got hurt , had careers ended, etc, because they were on the wrong end of wokist politics?
About 10 years ago the U.S. news media was filled with stories about how the me-too movement ruined the careers of celebrities like Senator Al Franken and tv journalist Charlie Rose. In academia, professors were fired over the innocent use of words like spook. It seemed as though administrators were letting a small group of students dictate policy based on arbitrary grievances and the policing of language. Invited speakers were uninvited or prevented from speaking based on their conservative views. Meanwhile, trigger warnings and safe spaces protected students from even the suggestion of uncomfortable ideas, or micro aggressions.
What was new about wokism was that a huge domain of speech suddenly became the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
A number of incidents that were reported in the press had in common a small, loud, aggressive, vanguard group that bullied everyone that got in their way. There's nothing new in that either, but it seemed to work especially well in good-mannered academic settings.
In the short run, woke gang tactics are successful, but in the long run, not so much. Administrators resent being bullied. Most people resent it. The vanguard group goes to extremes, making absurd claims and demanding unreasonable solutions. Later on, after the vanguard group has graduated, found different jobs, moved away, died, or gone crazy, the long-term bed rock institution reasserts itself.
Woke-gang crap doesn't fly in corporate settings. A group of disgruntled employees trying to bully the boss are likely to find themselves on the sidewalk without jobs, and persona non grata.
:(
I, for one, would rather it worked and didn't result in homelessness.
Getting fired isn't the end of the world (usually).
Quoting Number2018
Quoting Number2018
But this seems to fall into very, very old frameworks of reason vs. emotion, or abstract vs individual, which are as old as philosophy. We demand rationality and view anything else as personal, but our requirement to only allow abstract reason is what blinds us from seeing any other criteria as rational at all, including that some claims require consideration of individuals, their pain. Setting that aside, there are still some attempts to guess at the desire of this claim.
Quoting Number2018
Isnt this just to acknowledge that how someone feels is important in these kinds of claims, but then dismiss it out of hand before understanding why? You add authenticity but I think you mean the demonstrative, performative display (or outrage on behalf of others), but I would point out again that the possibility of playing up our emotions does not get at how they matter here.
Quoting Number2018
Taking a smaller step than this very tidy number of generalizations, I would think we could agree that one concern is suffering. I take you to postulate that the claim is for retribution against those that caused the suffering, and Im sure there is that. I think, however, the more fundamental claim is the desire to be seen as, treated as, an ordinary person** (otherwise like anyone else) whose pain has so far gone unnoticed (and, yes, perhaps dismissed, undervalued, etc.) With this, it is now easier to see that: just being seen, in the sense of popular, is simply the superficial version of that larger claim.
**the marking of the just and unjust is a matter of moralizing, as is any demand powerless to make you accept any part of these claims (after actually getting to the real need here). You would, as it were, have to see this for yourself for it to have any weight.
Quoting Number2018
I do think that part of this is about having power, and that there is a corrupted version of that as well, but, again, I take it there is a more serious claim to accept, which may be: there is no power to avoid the pain, or that it should not have to be a matter of power. Thus I think the circumstances are important to this kind of claim, in that we are being asked to look closer, specifically, for something we have been missing, which we would miss in generalizing the grounds, evidence, situations, etc. This makes me think we are perhaps skipping forward to assume ends, goals, enemies, etc., when the claim stops before all that.
I'm not sure how wokeness is different from an agenda of conserving grudges, as if we lost the momentum and are now losing all the gains from the Civil Rights Movement. We've landed back in the 1960s and the only way forward is to demand corporate virtue signaling. I'm detecting a lack of underlying meaning.
What the Civil Rights Movement in the US fought for or labour laws in my view isn't anything to do with woke or wokeism. Just as isn't the shortly lived protests against Israel's actions in Gaza. The proponents of DEI surely might see them as the continuation or those that continue to further these past political struggles, but in fact they are not.
The US has a real political crisis with Trump's actions and is on the road for an fiscal, monetary and economic crisis ....sooner or later.
Wokeism, as it's related to identity politics, is specifically not about addressing economic instability. It's about uncovering sources of social injustice.
In its original development, maybe not, although key figures there tended towards a view of morality as mere sentiment (although sometimes divinely authored mere sentiment!). However, it developed towards the idea that people behave mechanistically, at least in the aggregate. People are "rational agents" only in the sense of utilizing data computationally to achieve their ends; however, morality is excluded from this (wholly instrumental) "rationality" and rolled into the black box of utility instead (i.e., essentially marking it under "tastes"). Morality, to the extent it shows up, comes into play in the ultimately irrational preferences agents rationally attempt to fulfill. Anything more substantive is bracketed out to a special "normative" sphere, outside the purview of positive economics.
Hence, work in political economy can speak of supply and demand curves for terrorism, fatalities, or suicide bombings. Campaigns of gang rape can be reduced to "costly signaling" and "hand tying" as a sort of rational, game theoretic maneuvering exercise to maximize utility payouts. Man, as described in reality, functions amorally. Morality, when it shows up again in normative political economy, is superadded onto a presumably complete description (obviously, there is a sort of presumption here, in that it must be assumed that the part, economic and political life, can be properly described without reference to a whole that presumably includes morality and value).
Nietzsche's descendents are far from the only ones who think they have ascended [I]above[/I] good and and evil. There is also certainly a strong view that clear-eyed analysis looks at efficiency and optimization, and that when one steps into the realm of explicit values one has in a sense stepped [I]downwards[/I], into "doing politics" and not "political science." Consider the opinions of some "effective altruists" towards "morality" versus efficiency.
But, it seems to me that in all these cases the very claim that it is better to have risen "above" morality is:
A. Itself a moral claim; and
B. Self-delusion.
One can place oneself above the intellectual plebeians who still think in moral termsin terms of righteousness (as the some partisans of the positive over the normative often do)but this ends up being itself a value-laden dismissal. To turn against moral judgement is already to have made oneagainst what is seen as simple-mindedness, absolutism, false universality, etc. Such a move is not actually free of values, but rather simply committed to different values, such as irony, distance, subversion, or procedural neutrality.
Yet, we might just as well argue that man is a moral creature and indeed that this is precisely what elevates him above the brutes or the status of a mere machine. Indeed, perhaps we [I]ought[/I] to hold such a view. That is, to try to erase value from one's considerations of politics and the world is not to "rise above" good and evil, but simply to become evil. It is a sort of intellectual and moral degeneracy that is then locked in place by an overweening pride in one's own superiority and capacities. It's the result of the distinctly modern pathologies of a straitjacket intellectualism that makes the current limits of man's systems and language the limits of being (and the possibility of union with being) and a volanturism that makes the will curve in on itself and becomes its own object, the Augustinian [I]curvatus in se[/I], which reaches a limit in a sort of black hole-like event horizon of total self-absorptionDostoevsky's Underground Man and Nietzsche's unstable late work being prime case studies here.
I am not even sure if Nietzsche would agree with his post-modern descendents here. Almost no philosopher spends more time blaming other philosophers or hurling value-laden invective.
Nor do I think the progenitors and partisans of Woke necessarily misunderstand their sources. Since we have no dyed in the wool Wokelati here, let's consider what their response might be to the criticisms in this thread:
They would probably say something similar, that the claim that their ideology/movement is flawed because it focuses too much on "moralizing," is itself a value judgement in line with cis white male normativity. Indeed, your list of names turned into adjectives proves their point; these are all cis white men of a past epoch who have failed to fully transcend their privilege. They are most useful in terms of the inspiration they gave to later feminist, indigenous, etc. thinkers, [I]not[/I] in themselves.
They have not "failed to understand" by engaging in moralizing, they have simply rejected a cis white patriarchal normativity that pretends to oppose itself to value while also privileging its own hegemonic values. They would reject claims about spectral evidence or any "error of moralizing." Consider the language of anti-colonial revolutionaries or of figures like Malcom X and Martin Luther King. These are loaded with value. It has been this discourse that has helped liberate the oppressed. That fields dominated by white men find it to be, in a sense, "distasteful" or a "misunderstanding," is only due to their own biases. Understanding is constitutive, and identity is constitutive in the very possibility of understanding.
Hence, they are not misunderstanding the way knowledge and truth claims are constituted. Rather, their claims to epistemic priority on issues related to marginalized groups are based precisely on this understanding. It is why they have a privileged epistemic perspective. Intelligibility only exists within systems of discursive discourse. The idea that they are dealing primarily in emotion or "spectral evidence," or that they are engaged in inappropriate "moralizing" would itself be an attempt to privilege a white and male view that is uncomfortable with the assertiveness of values in feminine, indigenous, etc. terms.
Second, the claims in this thread that they are going "too far," or are guilty of alienation also itself privileges entrenched cis, white, patriarchal systems of dominance. The person facing systematic racism, systematic sexism, aggressions, etc. is being asked to simply accept that they suffer them longer, even after a lifetime of having suffered them, so as to not offend the sensibilities of the dominant group. The very focus on "productivity" in calling their methods "counterproductive" is white and male biased. Critics are also "on the wrong side of history," their criticism being akin to demands that Civil Rights Era activists or those struggling to overthrow colonialism "settle down" and "wait patiently." S
Since intelligibility is inherently bound up in community membership, those outside a community should practice good allyship by listening and being receptive. Certainly, they cannot point to a standard of "proper understanding" as set by a list of "canonical" old, cis, white, men, all from philosophy, a discourse totally dominated by whiteness and patriarchy, while calling extensions of those thinkers in much more diverse fields a sort of "error." This would be to miss that intelligibility only exists within those discourses and identities that lie external to their standards, which is a tyrannical attempt to absolutize their own normative standards (even if these are claimed to be "non-moralizing.")
Or, in summary, critics need to: Check. Their. Privilege. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Well, it isn't wrong about some things. But a problem here is that "experts on fascism" have been ringing the tocsin about immanent fascism for decade after decade. The Tea Party was immanent fascism, W. Bush was a fascist, the Clinton pivot to the center, Reagan, Nixon, 1950s consumerism and consensus, all a step from fascism. So, that takes some of the wind out of it. At the same time, the "Long March Through the Institutions" was in some sense a stunning success, but in other ways it was a failure in that it simply collapsed faith in/support for key institutions, particularly the justice system, media, and academy (in part because the ideology suggested just this sort of outcome).
It's certainly true that every Presidency now seems to involve unprecedented new acquisitions of power by the executive branch, and to a lesser extent the judiciary. This is because the legislative branch has become an extremely dysfunctional, and in many ways hated, institution. This is a phenomenon that goes beyond the particularities of US politics. Trump's second term might be exceptional in this regard, but it follows a long pattern. The centralization of power and lawlessness are longer term trends, but the video puts all the emphasis on Trump. I don't think that's necessarily off base. There are many issues more specific to Trump. But it's worth recalling that Marius, Sulla, etc. had to trample institutions and norms before there could be a Caesar or an Augustus. The "left" and "right" took turns destroying the Republic, and who ended up in control when all of the illusions finally broke down was largely an accident of history. The late Roman Republic strikes me as the right analogy here for a host of reasons.
Quoting ssu
Certainly Marxism and post-colonialism were elements of 60s activism, but It tends to be the psycho-social aspects of wokism that some surviving participants of 1960s activism object to. The focus on the power of language and material structural aspects of social practices to create and sustain implicit bias derives from Critical theoretic and poststructuralist sources. Critical theorist Herbert Marcuse was the intellectual darling of the 60s Berkeley intelllectual scene, but didnt have an influence on the theoretical wing of the civil rights movement. Writers like Foucault were writing in the 1960s but their work didnt make its way into the playbook U.S. political activists until at least the 1980s. While 60s figures like Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky are avid supporters of the pro-Palestinian cause, the anti-zionism associated with it is anathema to some 60s social justice veterans, and I suggest this may be due to the wokist belief that even if one is a well-meaning zionist who espouses equal rights for all citizens of Israel, nonetheless one comes up against ones own ineradicable implicit bias owing to the religious or cultural nationalism zionism enacts.
I wouldn't knock their contribution, but slogans like I am somebody come from the experience of the oppressed with the devasting effects of a negative identity. This was a theme from at least the 1940s onward. I don't think there's any reason to try to locate the wisdom in it to one set of actors.
Well I would say once the term woke is used then it has gone too far. In this sense I would not say there is a 'healthy' form of wokeness. :) I would say the term itself is always pejorative. Like for instance there is not a healthy form of crazy.
There are healthy Leftist views and social justice advocates but I would not call them woke.
It is funny when I hear that word because I seem to recall waaaay back in around 2006-8 or so it used to mean the conspiracy theorists. I mean when conspiracy theories were kind of intriguing to people and before the age of debunking that came after. So from what I remember woke just meant someone who looks into those kinds of things and somehow remember Jo Rogan using it in this context when his podcast was still in its infancy and niche. Have I remembered it right?
It is like the Pepe frog thing, which started as something totally innocent and got co-opted by the alt-right.
Quoting Number2018
Great posts and thoughts. What would you say to the objection which says that wokeness is a transitory phenomenon? That given its affective character it will never be more than a bridge between more stable and rational cultural epochs?
On the one hand I do not think it will go away quickly. On the other hand I do not think it has the wherewithal that is traditionally needed for durable staying power. I suppose the question is then whether the new social media technologies have altered the landscape to such an extent that affective movements will become more permanent.
Thank you for your responses. Btw, Ill respond to your second point about the role of affect in the context of wokism later. However, I disagree with your claim that Foucault and Deleuze do not offer a full-scale critique of affect. Your statement that the analyses of Foucault and Deleuze are not critiques of affect per se, but of how affect is disciplined and made legiblesubsumed into power/knowledge formations is only partially accurate. While insightful, it risks downplaying the ontological commitments both thinkers make toward affect and desire.Foucault, for instance, interrogates the bodily, emotional, and relational dimensions of power. Power, in his view, does not merely repress; it incites, induces, and seduces. His concept of the microphysics of power within disciplinary regimes becomes a theory of affective modulation. His method reveals how affect is produced, channeled, and governed. In this sense, his theory of power becomes a philosophy of affect, in the sense that is thoroughly conditioned by and entangled with power relations.Regarding your point about Deleuze and Guattari, youre right that desire- affect is always embedded within social, historical, and material strata. Yet, desire is fundamentally affective. Despite their insistence that desire only exists in relation to molar structures and historical plateaus, it remains affective at its core. It is non-psychological, impersonal, composed of flows, intensities, and blockages. Desire, in their framework, does not stem from lack; it produces and generates reality through bodily and collective flows and assemblages. Their conception of desire-affect is ontologicalit constitutes the very fabric of social, psychic, and material life. Ultimately, their work is grounded on affect in the Spinozan sense: the capacity to affect and be affected.
Quoting Antony Nickles
@Leontiskos Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting Antony Nickles
Thank you for your posts and for sharing your reflections on my OP and other posts in this thread. Id like to clarify a few of my personal moral beliefs and intentions to address the concerns you raised. I do not believe that our contemporary circumstances negate our moral responsibilities or undermine our capacity for moral judgment. Nor do I reject the rights of minorities or subjugated groups. Also, I do not see what Ive written here as a comprehensive theory or a set of universal claims. It seems your critique may have misrepresented the scope and intent of my argument. I just want to raise a few concerns, and I remain open to modifying my views. In this thread, Ive noticed that many contributors either misunderstand what wokeness entails or dismiss it as a marginal and negligible phenomenon. To illustrate why I believe this is a mistake, I want to bring a widely recognized and deeply resonant public event of the 2018 Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. The confirmation process was significantly impacted by Dr. Christine Blasey Fords testimony. I cannot and do not claim to know whether her allegations were factually accurate. However, it is likely that her testimony derived its power from the emotional credibility and perceived sincerity with which it was delivered. Despite the absence of physical evidence or eyewitness corroboration, her visible fear, trembling voice, and hesitant speech were interpreted by many as signs of epistemic and moral authority. To be clear, I do not question the sincerity of Dr. Fords account or the possible significance of her experience. Rather, I wish to draw attention to the discursive conditions under which her narrative was received. It was not primarily treated as a legal or evidentiary claim, but as a form of emotional sincerity, gaining credibility through affective resonance and social identity. Her testimony was framed and understood within broader narratives of gendered violence, which in turn shaped the publics moral response. Consequently, efforts to critically assess or scrutinize Fords claims were often interpreted as acts of misogyny or trauma denial. Again, my intent is not to diminish Dr. Fords pain, marginalization, or trauma, but to highlight the discursive and affective patterns that underpinned the public reception of the case.
Likely, the Kavanaugh hearings exemplify the extent to which public life is structured by affective discursive formations of contemporary woke culture.
I agree with you that wokeness is not a transitory phenomenon, and it is not about traditionally understood durable power. What matters more are the underlying structures of power, which show a remarkable ability to rebrand and adapt their affective grip. As we become increasingly conditioned by digital infrastructures, our dependence on affective patterns within society only deepens.
Sure, and that seems uncontroversial. But is that which is structured by affective realities durable? Are affectively grounded systems ever more than transitory? I want to say that in the past they have not been, and that movements which do not rise above the affective tend to implode or simply lose momentum with time. So based on such precedent I would expect wokeness to go by the same road. If this is right then in 7-12 years it will have transformed into something rather unrecognizable. In a lot of the responses I am seeing this same idea, namely the idea that wokeness is a kind of tremor that is primarily a symptom of deeper tectonic shifts. So I don't mean to make light of it, but I guess I am wondering how it is best situated among other cultural movements, some of which have been very long-lasting.
Of course the caveat is that our age of social media may be different, and may be capable of sustaining affective phenomena far beyond what would have been possible in the past.
Okay, good. That is the sort of claim I was wondering about, and it relates to my "caveat" above. I can definitely see merit in such a claim, and if this is right then I would surmise that wokeness is but one possible determination of a culture which is becoming increasingly dependent on affective patterns.
Quoting Number2018
You may be wishing to qualify your argument with the above somehow (its not emotion but power), but a variation of this is happening on multiple levels. I would offer that it avoids making the actual interests, or does not allow them to be, intelligible on their terms. Case in point:
Quoting Number2018
Quoting Number2018
I take this as guessing that these claims do not attack rationality on its terms, but rather pull the ground out from under it, which I would again argue is only to understand rationality a certain (impersonal) way, assuming that those claims are not expressions of any serious interests. You have judged certain methods to be illegitimate, but I am suggesting we set that determination aside to first understand the concerns themselves (as reflected in the desired criteria). I take one interest to be the acknowledgement that (among other things) our shared terms of judgment make us unaware of certain (various) concerns, and thus unaware of what the unexamined conditions, criteria, consequences, and recourses are currently in place surrounding and affecting those concerns.
Quoting Number2018
Quoting Number2018
The characterization of a claim only as a desire for power again overlooks any underlying interests. Characterizing the claim as escaping to a new domain is denying the possibility of making those interests intelligible to us, relegating power (or persuasion) as the only option (giving up on actually getting to the bottom of them). And having an interest in adding to, or changing, the dominant formations of our practices, our judgments, does not necessitate that the only means are power (unless violence is the only avenue allowed).
I take the claim that identity be elevated to an important consideration, is to want the valuation of the human (but not just an individual, or an accounting of its exclusion, to be a necessary part of this type of claim, not just an abstract argument about what should be the case. I would think the initial interest in power would merely be to have what is important in these situations be made explicit and accepted; to be allowed to make claims and provide evidence in a discussion of a situation where and when no one has more authority to know or decide what is right.
Quoting Number2018
It seems like what these are should under consideration. I have suggested that perhaps these claims and those making them have been historically not considered legitimate (that we were asleep to them as to people with important concerns), that we have not given them the opportunity to matter to us, not given these issues the importance, say, to impact our society, our practices, our judgments.
Quoting Number2018
Quoting Number2018
Quoting Number2018
So it appears you are claiming that representation, identity, and marginalization are the interests that are being asked to be criteria for our judgments about what exactly? (I would venture maybe what we should reconsider of our current practices, the assumptions, what is being ignored, how we attribute value, the basis for response, etc.) Apart from even having that correct, the question is whether these are the most generous, accurate descriptions of the interests taken as seriously as possible.
Im not sure what these would look like as criteria, but assuming representation is someone being a representative of a certain group, that implies that the interest is that the response should not be decided outside of all the aspects of a life.
Quoting Number2018
Valuing that someone is representative does mean that not every persons evidence will carry the same weight as just anyone else. This is a hard pill to swallow for someone that believes one earmark of rationality is that it should be the same for all of us. Here, questioning perhaps becomes doubting the importance of their life as a practice; bringing up nuance and reflection is maybe to suggest we dont trust that the foundation of their testimony is, ultimately, them (that at a point we become powerless; that rationality at times must cede to other criteria).
If we are interested in identity as an issue, I would think it would be the desire to have control over who I am (how I am to be defined). Marx, Emerson, Nietzsche, Rousseau, etc. would point out that we are already defined, by outside means or conformity to culture or the terms of society, and suggest ways we could assert ourselves. Now even if we dont believe that we are someone, inherently, we might still appreciate that some of us are unfairly unable to assert ourselves at all. The desire not to be marginalized seems pretty clear; not to be systematically ignored, sidelined, not allowed a voice, or not shown respect, etc.
Quoting Number2018
My expression of pain is the best case for our knowing pain (to the extent pain is related to knowledge). Wittgenstein will point out that you can just as equally know my pain in the same way. But I am the only one able (with the authority) to express my pain (in that I own the responsibility for that), but the standard to judge its authenticity is just as much yours, thus the possibility to judge the credibility of a witness. The thing is that knowledge is not our only relation to pain; when I say I know you are in pain, the way it works is that I am accepting (or rejecting) you as a person in pain, the claim your pain makes on meto take you seriously. Perhaps the interest here is to point out that some testimony is being dismissed because of the inability to see (or trust) the witness as a person, as in: one who it is important to listen to to begin with. Perhaps because wed rather deny its authenticity than reconcile that amount of pain to a person, I dont know.
Quoting Number2018
Well this seems impossible to avoid now; the expression of pain (writhing on the ground), solely, by itself, makes a claim on us, to respond. Now, as part of how it works, we can ignore someones pain, ignore them, for any number of reasons. We can refuse it as a claim on me to do anything. Perhaps we are scared to, or resent being forced to, accept the claim someone elses pain makes on us.
Quoting Number2018
I take this as the fundamental misunderstanding, placing rationality as the sole resource. This is not a matter of understanding through philosophy, but (maybe even philosophically) realizing that the job is understanding people and their interests better.
Curious that you only look at one side of the spectacle. The testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh was emotional and lacked the explicit language or rhetorical style that typically marks woke or anti-woke discourse. Ford was adopted by the woke and Kavanaugh by the anti-woke, and the anti-woke won.
In principle, you are correct. However, the 2018 Kavanaugh hearing is a paradigmatic example of a triumphant woke spectacle. And it perfectly illustrates an epistemic shift in the grounds of justification so that the intersubjective norms of rational discourse yield to the immediacy of subjective experience. Only recently has anti-woke discourse begun to gain momentum and take the lead. Yet this turn also reveals how underlying structures of power can rebrand themselves and adapt their affective grip with remarkable resilience.
Quoting Number2018
Obviously the criteria for judging the credibility of a witness can come off at first glance as . vague, inconclusive; but, if we think about it, there are actual things that are important to us in (correctly, doing a good job of) judging whether someone is believable, and that they are not, say, just making a show of emotion. We can decide someone is faking it (an emotion, a ruse), We can judge whether someone is playing for sympathy. We might realize we were being charmed and that, in the cold light of day, they were trying to pull a fast one, etc. (thus feeling betrayed when someone does get away with it; the amazement at having a poker face).
I take you to be claiming that someone being upset shouldnt convince us of anything; sure, granted. But being upset is not always just an expression of emotion, as if detached from someone, their larger situation, the result of a history, evidence of important concerns.
Only attributing power to expressions of emotion denies the intelligibility of a person for whom they would be a serious matter (even our duty to imagine it). We judge whether a witness is sincere and believable in order to decide whether to trust their word, not just treat it like another opinion.
Quoting Number2018
I would offer that the powerful thing for people was not that she was upset, but that testimony (from, as you concede, an otherwise credible witness) of an assault was not going to seem to matter in confirming someone to the Supreme Court.
Quoting Number2018
Well we have practices for impeaching a witness, attacking their credibility, say, providing evidence contradicting their testimony, but sometimes this is (done poorly) just slander. Some will say that the desire for abstract reason is a form of violence (Heidegger? someone French?). I would merely say it is not everywhere appropriate.
My law firm does work for large corporations, and one application seeking that work required a very detailed break down of the number of each gender (as chosen), race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and the percentage equity each had in the company. That was the most extreme, but they all had these sorts of things to various degrees.
As if I were going to ask each employee their sexual preference.
In this environment, the entirety of one's business structure has to be modified to remain competitive, and many were hired and not hired based upon this structure.
That is an example of "wokism" dictating, displaying its full force of having become politically successful.
The anti-DEI pushback has been refreshing and feels like proper comeuppance honestly.
The ideological / affective distinction is really good to note.
Wokism turns legitimate individual rights concerns of safety, recognition and unjust exclusion, into transitory identity-based ideological fabrications less concerned with individuals than they are with groups and generalizations, and emotional effects.
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree with that. The legitimate concerns underlying the urges of woke political correctness will need to be addressed if any real cultural progress is to become of these urges, but the manner by which the proponents of wokeness have been trying to cause progress has allowed their passions and emotions to over-power rational assessments and discussions. Certain groups are not allowed to challenge other groups about anything, and certain other groups are not allowed to be challenged by anyone when it comes to their own group - this is rationally untenable and will not hold up in time (without a dictator and force, which never seem to hold up in time either).
The internet allows groups to build a solid bubble world that effectively shuns outsiders and creates a flourishing online community of like-minded people. But its more like-feeling people and less minded.
We all give group identity too much influence in our arguments and our thinking. Any one single individual has more reality and force to them than any notion of the group we might temporarily assign that individual too for sake of some argument. Individual people are always more than examples of some generalization. People who argue for and against rights for some newly defined group never seem to mind overlooking the particulars of individual human beings that would resist whatever identity political arguments so crassly limit people to.
There are no two conservatives or liberals or gay men or immigrants or Chinese people, alike. We all know this. We give up sound reasoning when we ignore this fact. We need to resist the urge to think individual people fit neatly into the boxes we create for them to make our arguments. Wokism seems to focus more on the boxes, the identities of groups, than it does the individual people in those boxes.
Quoting Hanover
And it is self-defeating on at least two levels. First, it is incoherent to say that all people are equal (equity inclusion) and then say we need less of this race and more of that gender (diversity) - if all are equal, then it will not matter what race or gender or sexual preference sits and does not sit on the board and owns the company. Period. Second, the company that seeks DEI compliance will inevitably be faced with the decision - do I do what I see is best for the company and hire this particular best candidate, or do I do what is best for DEI goals and not hire the person I think is most competent? Ideal candidates can come from any DEI category, but on your particular list of candidates, the ideal may only be one of them and those DEI categories must be damned if thinking of what is best for the company. The appearance of diversity is shallow and will always be - and those people who look for the appearances first, having a shallow sense of what a good appearance looks like, will be led into bad business decisions over and over.
Quoting Hanover
Prejudice and racism have always been wrong, wasteful of time, and bad for business. Political correction needed to happen to open markets up, but DEI, the new prejudice and racism, has always been doomed by its own incoherence and internal contradiction.
Quoting Number2018
You mentioned Ray Brassier as one interpreter you read Deleuze through. His treatment of Deleuze has been described as realist, rationalist, and deflationary, and he appears to embrace an eliminative scientific realism beyond human experience (He was considered one of the founders of speculative realism, although he disavows this movement now). Do you think this is a fair assessment of Brassier, and would you say that you are in general agreement concerning his reading of Deleuze, and his philosophical outlook in general? I ask this because it would help clarify for me where youre coming from with respect not only to Deleuze but to Foucault, especially concerning the possibility and sense of a critique of affect. As you know, there are anti-realist, or if you prefer, radically relativist postmodern readings of Deleuze and Foucault which strongly disagree with Brassiers take on Deleuze.
A succesful woke spectacle but triumphant? Due process prevailed over woke mob justice. And I think it could be argued that the long-term backlash resulted in strengthening the perception that social justice activism had become censorious, reckless, and morally absolutist.
Good points, and I think that if we want to look at the foundations of what is happening with wokeness we will find that it stems from a morally robust culture combined with increased leisure. Or in other words, you have a morally conscious population of busybodies.
Whenever a group of people find more leisure time, they tend to become more involved in cultural and political issues. They wish to extend their influence into these areas. When such people are morally charged, and morally charged in the particular direction of identity politics, you get wokeness.
I think the increasing leisure is going to produce all sorts of similar phenomena going forward, even though the particular determination of wokeness will not be the inevitable outcome.
I think the phrase luxury beliefs coined by commentator Rob Henderson encapsulates some of the psychology and dynamics. These are beliefs and activities that seek to confer a certain status and halo upon those that express them, while damaging those who they claim to support.
The defund the police phenomenon a few years back is a prime example. It was largely expressed by the affluent and well-educated, who were insulated from the consequences of that movement, but their activities negatively affected the lower classes who were then subject to more crime in their areas. And, like luxury apparel, it eventually became unfashionable. They could easily dispense with that belief while the less-affluent were left to live in their consequences.
I wouldn't suggest that support for their grievances is unwarranted.
Youll never get anywhere in understanding the origin or purpose of these beliefs by dismissing them as personality defects (status-seeking on the part of the economically privileged). If I introduced you to non-affluent woke activists who have sacrificed personally for the sake of their social justice aims would you try to poke holes in their sincerity, or make an effort to accept their ethical intent and try to understand why they think their approach is superior to more conservative politics?
It is an interesting hypothesis you posit @Number2018, that the woke movement is predicated on the same "forces that shape identity and visibility in public life" as those that celebrate success. The implication is that both movements, the celebration of the marginalized, the victimized, is dependent on the same subjectifying forces that have characterized the postmodern age, social media, pop culture on steroids. I think that is true, but I think it is dependent on some other force too, the disenchantment with progress.
Understood in aesthetic terms, woke culture is the opposite of the aestheticization of violence and conquest. The violent aesthetic goes back to time immemorial. The jousting matches of old were little more than the aestheticization of violence. The Olympic Games of old and maybe sports in general is nothing but the aestheticization of violence. It is the celebration of activity, of subjugation and conquest. In this aesthetic, the victim had no place. The victims were always the masses, they had no face. They were like the nobodies in the wrestling matches of the 80's. The woke movement arose out of an identification with the marginalized, be it women, people of color or the environment. People in the thread here have explained it as a kind of celebration of victimhood and I think they are right in a sense. It is an aesthetic of identification with the victim.
As such it harkens to an undercurrent that has always had appeal. We find an aesthetic of the victim, potentially very powerful, in the figure of Jesus Christ. The aesthetic of the victim personified. However, this aesthetic was never dominant. The cross quickly turned into a symbol of dominance itself. In its name crusades were fought, witches were burnt, and churches were erected. All of these were never in the spirit of the victim, but always of the victor. Churches were erected on the burial grounds of the vanquished, trials were inquisitive, treating the suspect as an object and the crusades were little more than an excuse to plunder. Nietzsche wrote about the herd mentality cultivated by Christianity, but this herd was only a herd because it had a leader. The herd never led itself but always embraced the principle of the strong man. In short, the aesthetic of victory always dominated. So, for 2000 years we have lived with an aesthetic of violence, conquest, and growth.
The question is, in such an atmosphere of superiority of the aesthetic of victory, how could another aesthetic ever come to rival it? My answer would be the onset of the age of risk. We learned after the Second World War that our scientific progress and our conquering abilities could be self-defeating. The most destructive weapon of conquest ever conceived could wipe the entire human race out altogether. Insights of the science of ecology taught us that by vanquishing species, we might end up eradicating ourselves. Overpopulation, that biblical exhortation of conquest, could lead to ecological collapse and a miserable struggle for survival, doomed by resource depletion.
Two lines then converged here: the increased aestheticization of everyday life through social media and the critique of the aesthetics of victory and conquest. This created room for another aesthetic to play a more dominant role, the aesthetic of the victim, the aesthetic of marginalization. This aesthetic draws on a different register than that of growth. It draws on the notions of compassion, on the cry for justice, on leaving each other in peace. The aesthetic of 'small is beautiful', an aesthetic of innocence, an aesthetic of the loser as the one treated unfairly.
This aesthetic that was already gaining in strength from the 70s onwars, allows another perspective to seriously rival the growth paradigm of 'creative destruction', and that is a paradigm of harmony. This paradigm is described in the sociological work of Aaron Wildavsky, but was considered impotent by him. However, in an age in which we have seen and experienced the dark side of progress in the atom bomb, in the gruesome pictures of My Lai, in acid rain and in Covid19, harmony might be considered a serious alternative to progress. 'Woke' then, is nothing but a backlash against the symbols of the growth paradigm, denunciation of colonialism, of racism, of the market economy, of the state and of education, now conceived of as inculcating 'traditional' values. It is no wonder that it targets the aesthetic symbols of the old order, the statues of the heroes of old, the language of the old order, its role models of classic literature and cinema.
What happened next is what always happens when a new challenger emerges, the challenger faces the wrath of the old order. What to make of the recent backlash against 'woke'? To me it is no coincidence that the right aims its arrows against all symbols of harmony, the acceptance of refugees, recognition of climate change and recognition of institutional racism. Its mantras are closing the border, or better, conquering more land, 'drill baby drill' and that woke is an enemy of freedom. In sociological terms, it is nothing but the mobilization and banding together of the forces that see their hegemony threatened. When there was no alternative to industrial capitalism, in the 1990s, they could afford to show nothing but a benevolent face. However, now they face opposition from a worldview that is gaining momentum. That is I think what @Joshs means when he says that in 50 years the ideas now espoused by 'woke' will be mainstream. I think he is right to intuit that its perspective chimes with the tide, but I doubt his prediction will come true. It depends on the political power of the backlash. I think that the resources at the disposal of the traditional order currently far outweigh the resources that 'woke' may mobilize.
To me, it seems rather far-fetched to see woke as more powerful and more authoritarian than the backlash against it, if only because it can marshal far fewer resources of power, for now at least. Being too vocally anti-woke might get you vilified and cancelled in certain circles, but it will not get you expelled from the country. Being too woke nowadays might. The point is that I am not sure if philosophy matters a great deal in this struggle. It is political more than philosophical, and a matter of mobilization and counter-mobilization of resources of power. On the side of woke, we may find academia and a plethora of NGOs. That might be highly troubling for academics who feel more inclined towards a growth perspective, but in society at large, institutions that see woke as an enemy far outnumber academia and NGOs. Nationalist and populist parties win; they are not losing, nowhere in the world, actually. Yet, the old order, dominant for now and for a long time to come, will run up against its limits. We are in an 'unstoppable force' meets 'unmovable object' kind of situation. This clash will release a lot of societal energy.
Ive read only one work by Brassier on Deleuze, in A Thousand Plateaus and Philosophy, so Im not familiar with his overall perspective on Deleuze. However, I read a few works by Brian Massumi, who is an affect theorist. I think your questions about the relationship between affect and wokeness are interesting and important. Ill try to respond by applying Massumis theory of affect as well as Deleuze and Guattari's 'Anti-Oedipus' framework. It may take a few days.
The only thing I'd say is that it seems to me we're still in the middle of all this. We're not really past, or prior to 'peak' anything. Things are just moving as they always have, in hte face of both the increase in technology (this could mean reporting, live-streaming, accessibility issues, presentation issues, networking issues, misinformation... anything technologically-driven that relates to our topic) and in turn, the increase in leisure (as mentioned earlier in the thread).
These both lead to people capable of doing things out of boredom and becoming convinced it's meaningful. This, it seems, hasn't peaked.
I definitely agree. It's also worth thinking about the way in which "morality from on high" is doomed from the start. For example, suppose the beliefs and activities of the affluent helped rather than hurt the lower classes. That's the best case scenario, but it is also quite limited given the way in which it inevitably becomes class patronization.
To be very concise, morality cannot be coerced, and this is what the woke movement seems to most misunderstand. If you coerce rather than persuade someone to act "good" you end up subjugating them in a way that will be inimical to truly moral outcomes. Furthermore, the people who are aided by the coercion inevitably feel inadequate and patronized, such as those who are haunted by the possibility that DEI quotas are the only reason they have their job. As an example, Martin Luther King Jr. was remarkably prescient in understanding that coercion and enmity are dead ends if the goal is the long-term improvement of race relations.
Have you read John Protevis work on political affect?
Protevi, J.: and Christian Helge Peters. (2017). Affective Ideology and Trump's Popularity. http://www.protevi.com/john/TrumpAffect
If we are going to call these both means of discourse, they are not competing, opposing methods, as if, for power, or at the expense of the other. They are categorically different, with their own ways they work, separate, specific criteria, and different contexts. Norms and practices form our lines of judgment, terms of valuation. They set the criteria we are familiar with including what is right and wrong. I understand the philosophical objections to subjective experience, but I think this is a straw man misconstruing our necessary part in the moral area where we are all at a loss what to do, how to decide what is rightwhen our norms and practices no longer apply (say, to a novel situation; maybe something until now unseen). Then we move forward based on what we (each, all) are willing to stand for (be responsible for, inteligible to), we further or change our practices, we modify our criteria to reflect our new interests in an unknown landscape. This is not something we feel (or believe), but the actual extending or pushing back against conformity to our standing society. I can understand objecting to specific claims (and of course tactics), but to deny individual moral authority at all, to argue it is without legitimacy or rationality, is either a philosophical misunderstanding or maybe the rationalization of a fear of how democracy actually works.
That said, I'm not standing behind that - it just explains, I think, what's being unseen in the exchange above this.
This said, i think the most intuitive problem is that, generally, the 'woke' claim that morality is rational, but relative. If so, they have absolutely no place to make moral commands of others, even in their own culture. That is to say: one ought not throw stones once one denounces stone-throwing.
What I meant was that an individual can make a moral claim that is legitimate, in the sense of intelligible, able to be defended, worthy of being taken seriously as a claim on us, not in the sense of legitimized, as if justified, simply by them making it.
I think you may be using irrational as in something like unpredictable, but also claim reasons are irrational when maybe they are just not understood.
Quoting AmadeusD
I think we might be able to do better in drawing out the interests of relying on someone having lived through something. Perhaps part of it is like carpentry, which you cant just tell someone how to do (well, sorry DIYers), so it is learned through apprenticeship. And it may have something to do with only certain types of situations (it couldnt always help), such as constructing policies that would change things that affect how people live, as it were, not deciding abstracted from all the aspects of a life. As I said above Valuing that someone is representative does mean that not every persons evidence will carry the same weight as just anyone else. This is a hard pill to swallow for someone that believes one earmark of rationality is that it should be the same for all of us. Analogously, everyone can have an opinion, but there are actual reasons we prioritize their value.
Thank you for sharing this article. It looks interesting and relevant, and Ill definitely read it. As far as I know, none of the known contemporary scholars in political philosophy (such as Butler, Brown, or Massumi) have directly engaged with the phenomenon of wokeness. Is that correct?
I agree. The relativity that would support valuing diversity, undermines the absolutivity necessary to support equity. To be diverse, inequality must be valued; to be equal, uniformity (not diversity) must be valued.
Wokeness and political correctness have always been full of contradiction.
There are nuances and perspectival particulars that allow one to value both diversity and equity, but to make those arguments you have to defeat relativity. And you cant value diversity and equality equally. All things being equal is an ideal, and a political criteria, not a physical condition. We have to fight all physics to uphold equal due process for instance. Diversity is a physical condition, that requires much more humility and respect to value - we cant force the opinion that all diverse cultures are good and equal.
At root, it is the misunderstanding and misapplication of equity that seems to be the problem to me.
It is easy to to understand we should value diversity and inclusion of the diverse. It is hard to do this while recognizing there is an essential human nature that all humans equally must have (essence/ideal), and that equity is only something that comes to bear in relation to the government. All get one vote; all are equally subject to the law and constitution; all is adult irrespective of race - these are where equality as an ideal is fought for. There is no equal opportunity or equal productivity or equal pay - these are specific particular, diverse conditions that will never be equalized, and it is to the detriment of all of us to pretend otherwise.
Quoting AmadeusD
Started around the year 1776 in America.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Life - equity - most natural of natural rights, same thing for all living people, most ideal, most absolute;
Liberty - diversity - the particular individual is now the ideal;
Pursuit of happiness - inclusion - all free living people are playing the same game and must play together;
That is all a stretch but yes, we are in the middle of some swell and wave called what is woke on the larger ocean of history.
I would never dismiss anyones beliefs and concerns so long as he was talking about them. But activism is not conversation. It is anti-social, ill mannered, and unethical behavior, in my view, no matter the intent, no matter the politics. I would likely dismiss it and ignore it.
At any rate, the phrase luxury beliefs is narrow enough to exclude the marginalized.
Elaborating on this a bit, the coercion engaged by woke culture and the left in general has to do with manipulation of the Overton window. The natural effects of the natural Overton window are not properly called coercion (and neither are, for example, laws which are democratically recognized). An example of coercion proper is the manipulation of the Overton window, or the claim that someone's view is outside the Overton window when in fact it is not (and then the astroturfing of consternation on top of that).
These coercive and tyrannical tactics have largely backfired. The common people have rebuffed the woke attempt to forcibly shrink the Overton window and impose a highly idiosyncratic morality on the entire population. This is the manner in which the woke version of "morality from on high" has failed in our sociologically-inclined culture.
Well, al-Gharbi traces it back plausibly to early 19th century American politics, particularly in the context of abolitionism (which was also a quite religious context, although that's true for most American politics in that century, but it's even more true for abolitionism). Back then though it was being "wide awake." "Woke" in its current format seems to date to 1970s African American activism. It wouldn't surprise me if it was being used, somewhat ironically, for more outlandish conspiracies in that period.
On a related note, there is a broad irony here in "intellectual histories of Woke"those created by both critics and allies alikelargely or wholly consisting of "dead white men." Whereas the various waves of feminism (predating post-modernism), abolitionism (from whence it gets its name), liberation theology, or, particularly in the European context, the blend of Pan-Arabism to Islamic feminist, to even Salafist thought that flavors their version, etc., all seem to play larger inspirational roles. I don't think it would be unfair to say that Woke has been more Dworkin, less Derrida, or more Huey Newton, less Nietzsche, and more Malcom X, and less Marcuse.
The prophetic and evangelical language comes in because Woke springs from movements (fairly recently and sometimes still) grounded in Christianity and Islam. Sometimes this gets traced back only as far as Marxism, but the whole idea of the Marxist "conversion" is a self-conscious adaptation of the Christian frame it emerged in (early early-modern communists having been Christian radicals whose main inspiration was the Book of Acts). The heavy focus on embodiment is also arguably more a legacy of this other tradition that has made it into broadly post-modern academia, and not vice versa.
That's also why I don't think [I]some[/I] of the behavior is going anywhere. It has a 2,000 year legacy in the West. And some of the issues related to demographic tensions are only likely to get more acute in coming decades. Yet the philosophical underpinnings are not unimportant. They helped to unmoor the evangelical and prophetic approach from any philosophy of proper authority and from values themselves. In this, the prophets become their own standard, whereas the tradition of prophetic critique is that the standards the prophets appeal to lies beyond them. This is what allows for a witches' brew where Salafi clerics from groups with members who speak openly about beheading gays and driving "Jewish filth" from the Middle East can be invited to speak under pride banners.
As noted above, I don't disagree with the relationship here between the prophetic tradition and Woke, although I am not sure about Woke somehow being a more authentic and successful transcendence of the pagan celebration of force (which was itself always contained by a fatalism and sense of piety that modern forms of neo-paganism tend to lack). I'd argue that Woke is largely different from the earlier social justice movements that it takes as its main sources of inspiration precisely because it has shifted to a philosophical underpinning that [I]embraces[/I] the post-modern "ontologies of violence," and notions of difference as inextricably bound up in warfare.
I don't think this point isn't ancillary. It seems to make it impossible to articulate why Woke should be embraced above any other ideology. If all ideologies are historically situated power grabs, why support one over the other? Any appeal to standards and values here will itself simply be just another attempt to hold one set of values above all the others, a move of domination.
This brings to mind the responses of John Milbank, David Bentley Hart, and others. Their claim is that it is only through an aggressive misreading and highly selective account of Christianity and Christian history that post-modern critics are able to support their genealogical narrative of Christianity as "just another face of power," their point being that, if this narrative is itself merely "one more interpretation," then the ontologies of violence don't end up being unavoidable. Rather, they themselves simply represent another possible [I] choice[/I] in interpretation, one among many open to us.
In line with that, I'd take qualms with the word "quickly." Christianity only stopped being an (at times quite aggressively) persecuted minority and became a legal religion over three centuries after it began. Compared against the history of the United States, with 1776 as our starting point, today we'd still be more than half century from Christianity even becoming legal (and still by no means hegemonic, Julian the Apostate would lie in the future). Indeed, we would be lined up with a particularly brutal persecution, an attempt to exterminate the faith. The First Crusade is almost 1,100 years after Christ's ministry. It is closer to our time than to Christ's or Saint Peter's.
The cross no doubt became a "symbol of dominance," but that is not all it has been. Rather, it functioned according to Maritain's best law of history, drawn from the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:24-30), that the good is sewn with the bad, and that the two grow up alongside one another. Each historical phenomenon, be it the industrial revolution or Christianity, has had positive and negative effects. That's how Christ chose to describe the fruits of his own mission. But against the view that reduces this to something like the Will to Power, I'd recommend something like Solovyov's view of history as the threshing floor on which falsity is paired away from truth. In history, we come to know ideals by their fruit.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes. Although I think @AmadeusD was right to say we are somewhere in the middle of this struggle. Despite the current rebuke of wokeness, all kinds of tyranny still loom (either from the right, or from the boomerang when the right loses power again).
Meaning, the current rebuke against wokeness shows fairly well what NOT to do (I think), but the anti-woke crowds arguments in favor of what TO DO were the reason wokeness arose in the first place - so we are destined to continue further struggle.
If we are seeing the end of wokeness, without something truly new to replace it, we are likely (at least to many) simply back to a place that gave rise to wokeness. Where is the Hegelian synthesis?
We dont know how to train ourselves to respect (and love) diversity while simultaneously building common ideals that call us all to change.
Wokeness told us that (except for white men) we are all good enough, and all should accept me and my truth. This led to a tyranny - a tyranny of the majority, a headless group-think bubble. But with this rebuked, the bubble burst, must we all think we are all the original sinners, almost hopeless without some leader to carry us to the promised land? Is a rebuke of the relativistic commune of DEI, an automatic promotion of the fascistic absolutism that begs for a king? Are those opposed to DEI really saying they need a Trump-type Hitler-type, Putin-type, Khomeni-type ideal maker, agenda setter, aspiration definer?
I think in a way, the right is more willing to follow a strong leader, but the more rational of these folks realize there is a smaller pool of such leaders to choose from. Nevertheless, wokeness will never cure anything.
Humility needs to be the overlap. That means white supremacists need to be taught to love black people, and lesbian Jews need to love white male patriarchs. Sorry folks. I must humbly accept and include and tolerate those who are just different than me, despite apparent failings and weaknesses, because ultimately, who am I with my own weaknesses to judge anyone elses failures before my own?; and I must humbly accept that I can do better and must change myself first if I am to build and emulate a truly good ideal for me and for the community. I must seek help forming my ideal. So must we all.
And forgiveness before correction. Seeking mercy before justice.
So in humility, we all respect the others despite their shortcomings while accepting we ourselves are not good enough either, so we can help each other reach some new ideal together. And in humility, we find there is much to love about the differences as well, which we are slowly coming to learn in America (despite what the politicians build power saying, and what the media makes money selling.)
DEI helped some avoid the reality, which is, we all need to promote respect, and humility, and all need to resist identity politics and ideology over actual humanity. And ultimately we need to learn how to love. Respect, humility and love. Imagine trying to have a Chief People Officer teach those. Need a RHL initiative, that has nothing to do with business or the work place, but has to do with opening our mouths to talk to anyone ever.
We need humble leadership.
It's this part that I think falters. For the person who rejects your moral position, you wont be taken seriously. There are plenty of 'woke' 'commands' (land acknowledgements, pronoun use etc..) which are routinely not taken seriously on expressly moral grounds. Again, i'm not saying anything moral about the two possible outcomes, but I'm trying to show that most 'moral' positions cannot be made to be sensible to others who don't intuitively get the point of the moral claim being made.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I see that this is something I've not accounted for, but I wasn't using it that way. When i say 'irrational' I mean not something "the right-thinking person" would actually engage in (vigilante justice is a good example here, where there's good self-interest and perhaps even community interest, but it is irrational to put one in the position of potentially facing life in prison for front-footing the law). Rationality would be something where you've assessed your goal and made a good faith deliberation about what might get you to your goal. This speaks, again, to the inability to legitimize one's moral positions to others. Some would say vigilante justice is 100% rational and its worth a life in prison to, say, remove ten child predators from the world. I can't understand that, but I don't call it irrational, once I know the person's position. I have no place to judge it that way, unless their actions expressly forego achieving their goal.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I agree, but our reasons are incoherent (when read acorss several avenues of application). We do not accept that 'lived experience' is a good metric for an accurate appraisal of anything, until it comes to how one has been victimized. But this may be the most skew-able reactionary device in the human mind. Over-reacting, post-hoc rationalization among other things seem to make this type of data-crunching immune to being helpful.
I pause here to make a carve-out for what's called Epistemic Injustice. In those cases, the lived experience and the reportage thereof is all we could possibly use to move ourselves forward in the sense wanted by the one reporting. This isn't the same as taking D'3'Vyon (de-tray-vee-on) at his word when he claims he found a noose on his school desk and that's why he robbed a store and punched a pregnant woman (or whatever - many such stories) and requires much more of, I think, what you're getting at. The former concept (i.e policy considerations, or instantiating social norms) doesn't seem to accept this type of assessment without falling into totally irrational nonsense in fairly short-order.
The final thought there, is that "valuing" opinions is insane, on a policy level, unless we're talking expertise. Life Experience is not expertise, in any sense, to my mind. Maybe there's a disconnect there.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is the nail being struck, I think. The wishful thinking about wanting to remove disparities has been, and I think will continue to be, wholly destructive. People do different shit. Grow up.
You've done much more which I commend in the post below this one (not all, but I don't want this reply to go on and on).
Well, there was no "anti-woke crowd" before wokeness, and wokeness ironically created much of the sentiment that it claimed to oppose, such as racism. I actually think wokeness is largely self-generated. I think it has to do with a "civil rights warrior" mindset that had largely run out of issues to champion, and so it had to start conjuring them in the form of "micro aggressions" and whatnot. Since at least World War II we have created a sort of internal righteousness monster that needs to be fed. If there are no obvious injustices then injustices must be conjured up or else minor issues must be magnified, even at the cost of great collateral damage.
I agree with that. I dont know how best to characterize the anti-woke. Its like a tradition-first crowd. Its not that they are pro-badness conducted in the past, but pro-the goodness that got us to the present.
Wokeness sees the dirty bath water and wants to throw out the dirty water while overlooking the baby.
Traditionalists want to preserve the baby, but overlook the dirty water and would rather keep it all.
Wokeness is worse, which is what I hope the current moment in history teaches us.
But the bath water is still dirty..
Yup.
Absolutely. I wrote an article a while back that World War II has become the "founding mythos" of modern liberalism. In doing this, it has made (generally manichean) conflict and struggle a bedrock part of identity formation in a way that is unhelpful.
But then there is also the disparagement of custom that is so obvious in thinkers like J.S. Mill, which has become almost a heroic virtue in contemporary society. It's a sort of trope of modern hero narratives that the heroic protagonist has no time for custom and "paves their own way." This can be seen all over the Marvel movies, or in hit shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. The antagonist, by contrast, often represents a sort of stereotyped, medieval, authoritarian archetype.
It's made for plenty of great media, but the problem comes when transgression is valued for transgression's sake. That's how you get caustic, counter-productive, purely performative activism. I'd also argue that it's how we got a real resurgence in unapologetic fascism and neo-Nazism. Hitler became the face of evil, the ultimate taboo, and so of course those who value transgression cannot keep themselves away from Hitler, even if only ironically at first (e.g., the Sex Pistols used to parade around in swastika shirts). But the "taboo appeal" of Hitler and fascism seems to have actually transformed into a potent recruiting tool for unironic Nazis. I'd argue that at least some of the continued appeal of the Confederate flag has similar roots.
I don't think I'd say that we necessarily ran out of issues to champion. I'd say the larger issue is that every issue tended to take on the urgency and Manichean dimensions of the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, migration has obviously often been reframed as simply a continuation of the Civil Right Movement, where opposition to a maximalist immigration policy becomes a sort of explicit racism in the way Jim Crow was. Or Ta-Nehisi Coates (among plenty of others) looks at the Arab-Israeli conflict, and sees the Civil Rights Movement as the obvious analog. Some environmental issues disproportionately impact some minority populations, and so it becomes a Civil Rights-style issue, etc.
Right. :up:
I tried to delve into this sort of issue in fdrake's thread.
I'm not really convinced an overly rational account of what wokeism is reacting to is possible, because I think @Number2018 is correct that the movement is more affective than rational. But I think wokeness is correctly construed as wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fdrake's posts in that thread are perhaps the best attempt I know of to characterize the issue from the woke(-ish) perspective.
Edit: I say "woke(-ish)" because steelmanning wokeism runs a severe risk of transforming wokeism into something it is not.
...it is also worth noting that wokeness is not inherently reactionary, at least in one particular sense. The name conveys this, "woke." "Awake." It is styled as a project to awaken the slumbering, not to chastise the aberrant. Obviously that didn't last long, but it does point to the idea that the genesis of the movement was not a reaction to something like the "anti-woke."
I agree, and I still find the article I mentioned here useful:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Interesting. I don't really disagree with any of that, but I want to say that the problem comes even earlier. It is a disproportion akin to C. S. Lewis' idea of "putting second things first." Quoting from the thread of fdrake's I mentioned above:
--
Quoting fdrake
Quoting Leontiskos
--
...That is something like the confrontation between the progressive instinct and the conservative instinct. The question is something like this: How promising is this or that progressive ideal, and what cost should we be willing to incur in order to achieve it? My view is that to value every newfangled ideal above the status quo is to put second things first. Why? Because the novel ideals aren't worth much, and they are a dime a dozen. They need to be tested rather than trusted.
A terrible line has been crossed when transgression is valued for transgression's sake, but I want to say that the precursor is the undervaluation of the conservative instinct, or the status quo, or tradition (or whatever else one wants to call it). I don't think that line ever gets crossed without this preliminary error.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, spot-on. :up:
Most concisely would simply be what the term implies: asleep or unaware.
Take the controversy surrounding Bud Light and transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney for example. The anti-woke reacted unconsciously to reassert cisnormativity and the status quo. They didn't concsiously realize that their status or power was being challenged and yet reacted with shows of power, perhaps most famously with Kid Rock blasting cases of Bud Light with a semi-automatic assault rifle. Of course it could be that Rock was also acting in bad faith (like Bud Light) and capitalizing on the culture war, but either way the anti-woke drank it up heartily, the video having been viewed over 11 million times.
And I think the superficial characterizations of the grounding presuppositions of wokeness im seeing in this thread are also wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water. And what is the baby? if one remains at the surface level of things wokists do that annoy us, the baby is nothing but these arbitrary and wrongheaded actions. In the hands of the better journalists delving into this socio-political phenomenon, the baby is a spectrum of philosophical positions, bookended on the right by Hegel and on the left by 1960s French thinkers like Foucault. Throwing out the baby then means that one refuses to accept that reform of wokist excesses can take place within the bounds of these philosophical grounds, that these philosophies were unnecessary in the first place given that there are already perfectly workable, intellectually superior ethico-political frameworks to guide action. Much of the critique Ive read so far ranges from ad hominem attack on character flaws in the activists ( status seeking) to historical regressiveness ( its a return to fascist thinking or a twisted variant of Romanticism.
But lets say for the sake of argument that wokisms roots contribute nothing innovative or valuable to the canons of philosophical thought. Arent development and innovation qualities to be expected of political thinking? Doesnt progress in thinking about justice move in continuous cycles from counterculture to mainstream culture? Isnt it a sign of progress that what was once deemed
socially acceptable is now considered cruel and unnecessary? And if so, what contemporary counterculture would you point to as superior to wokism? Or are we supposed to rely on tradition rather than evolutionary transformation in considering how to think about justice?
Quoting Leontiskos
Antonys contributions to this thread I think exemplify the kind of thinking that doesnt throw the baby out, but instead occupies a position (later Wittgenstein) within the philosophical spectrum that includes wokism, from which vantage he can reform and moderate its excesses.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Thus the importance, which I discussed above here and here, of our making the others claim as intelligible as possible by getting at their interest in it on their terms (getting at why different criteria are important). The responsibility to make that effort is each of our duty as moral agents, as citizens of a democracy, even the work of philosophy. Merely having a reason to dismiss the other, even on moral grounds, because you dont believe they are rational, dont meet your requirement for justification, etc. is to shirk that responsibility.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree with this need to go deeper; I would only suggest that we have not drawn out and made explicit for consideration these urges (I would say taking them as legitimate would be to treat them as the concern of a serious, intelligible person; not just a feeling, or fleeting desire). The fact that they are underlying is because we have not yet made the effort to look past our own criteria and (perhaps also unexamined) interests to see theirs, treat them with the respect of being able to be different but equally able to be considered once understood. In this way, they are unexamined, still hidden by our current practices, culture, language, and, philosophically, because of our desire for only certain kinds of (criteria for) rationality (generality, abstraction, etc.)
To even get to where we can decide what to do, what we have to address is that we do not yet understand, or even recognize, these concerns, their interest in them, how they are important to them (make explicit the criteria that would matter), and that claiming they are irrational is judging them before this work, and dismissing them because of the worst case, bad actors, resorting to force over the equal duty to answer for themselves, choosing coercion as you say, over a persuasive description, etc. is to despair of a rational society and forego our duty to it. Ergo:
Quoting Tobias
Quoting AmadeusD
This is to put the responsibility on them to meet our (societys) requirements and criteria, when the whole point is that those are what are up for discussion because of interests and reasons we do not yet understand (and fear, belittle, dismiss, claim are irrational, destructive, etc.) or even made explicit; as you say, without which we cant even get started I have no place to judge it that way.
Now, as I have said, doing a poor job in presenting the claim, refusing as well to explain the interests in changing criteria or practices, engaging in moralizing, power struggles, coercionover etc., is of course equally detrimental, thus why we may even have to imagine for them, take them as someone with serious, important interests not currently recognized in our society. If we grasp at something like this with our terms for judgment, we only see what we want.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
It is not a matter of being a metric (a criteria for accuracywhich is judged differently), but an expert as a valued source of evidence of what matters, perspective on our current criteria. An attorney is an expert, but only gives us advice, suggested criteria (factors to judge on, like risk). You can still decide to do whatever you want based on whatever you feel is important (like accuracy). I believe the claim is that in certain situations (as I discussed), it matters to have input from someone who has lived through something. It is a claim for us to re-evaluate our interests, what we consider important (not definitive) in a decision.
The Philosophical Roots of Wokeism with Bishop Robert Barron
Left and right with Andrew Breitbart:
https://youtu.be/ftZfdrqVpOk?si=2ZxxQ3vVX16y4xwW
Hence awoken.
But your analysis of why you think the anti-woke didnt like what Budweiser was doing is not precise.
Quoting praxis
I dont think it was unconscious what happened there, nor about any cultural/ideological status quo. Thats university-speak, or secular church speak. There are times and places for everything. Time for preaching and a time for not-preaching. We all need to read our audience. Budweiser leadership was willing to overlook the average Bud consumer and his reasons for purchasing Bud, to basically ignore the obvious shock of their cultural/political/ideological lesson. Fine. If they think that is good business for Budweiser. Fine. Turns out it wasnt. Was it unconscious disdain for their own consumer demographic by an enlightened and awoken upper leadership? Probably not that either - just a bad idea for an ad campaign. (Now a bad idea for a political campaign.).
Quoting Antony Nickles
I agree - racism, sexism, and many societal ills championed by the proponents of wokism are true ills. Those who want to utterly downplay and de-prioritize them (from the right) should not get away with it. But those who want to destroy perfectly good institutions because they arent improved enough for them (from the left) should not get away with it either.
Both sides of the issue are disrespectful and over-confident in their righteousness.
Take the heat and venom out, and look for the facts and the arguments - and most of all, show good-faith and assume good-faith in others first (until proven otherwise - sort of due process for a respectful disagreement).
I think most people fear giving the other side of the argument any points or even admitting their facts because in doing so, they will lose some perceived ground - so we all cant simply be reasonable and go where the facts and arguments lead us. Instead we all have to frame and reframe the issues to keep control of the conversation and force our own conclusions. Its all coercion first and well sort out the facts later. (For many not all.)
Like just above, @praxis had to make sure there was nothing productive and positive to learn about the Budweiser affair, because you cant give deplorables like Kid Rock an inch or the slippery slope will take us all down. The reverse is true for me, I cant assume there is nothing for me to reassess about Kid Rock and Bud drinkers whatsoever because they were unwilling to support a transgendered Bud representative.
There are legitimate points to be made from all different perspectives and directions. I risk sounding like a relativist saying this, but its true, and that is the point - we need to admit the truth both sides see between them. Its not relativism to recognize diversity has value; but it is not equitable or inclusive to assume Kid Rock didnt have a point about what Bud is supposed to be if you want the average Bud drinker to pay you for it.
I was attempting to adopt woke-speak or what the anti-woke decidedly don't speak. I thought that was clear.
How would you view the incident through the lens of wokeness or critical theory?
I, again, am wholly convinced you're trying to have a different discussion, and save the term from what is clearly a current actuality under its banner. I do, fully agree with this, though:
Quoting Fire Ologist
The issue is that plenty of points on the 'woke' side are clearly illegitimate and I think that's what's being discussed. Even if we (those of us who are clearly critical) were to accept the underlying basis for "woke" as it was throughout the 70s and 80s, we can still make all of the criticisms we're currently making. That there's some coherent underlying idea doesn't change anything about these critiques. We're talking about what is/is happening - not what should be/be happening.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I do not thikn I agree there's any responsibility to interrogate prima facie irrational positions in hopes to find something interesting to the other person. But i understand that there's a moral/co-operative dimension to this which I agree with.
Quoting Antony Nickles
The seems to be hte exact opposite of what, in practice, occurs. I do not (almost ever) see rejections of calls for parity, equity, inclusion etc.. on emotional grounds.
I see the reverse constantly, in the face of rational argumentation.
The other problem is this(anecdote):
I have spent years trying to get rational, well-grounding and intelligible responses from the 'woke' about why they do what they do, or want what they want.
"injustice makes me feel bad" seems to be the bedrock of 90% of these people's thinking. I spent years (a decade maybe) in that exact headspace: My feelings matter. They are reasonable. They are important. Others need to take me seriously.
I then realised that was horsecrap. No one needs to take me seriously. No one has to respect my positions.No one needs to even hear my positions. If the urges are to be heard/seen etc.. then they are misguided. If they are to ameliorate ones emotional distress, they are misguided. If there are, in some sense, to do with a high-level discussion of justice, then they are misguided. Anecdote, definitely. But I have since then, approached the 'woke' with extreme sympathy because of my journey, as it were. I have never been met with reasonable discourse or sympathetic interlocutors. They notice I am not the same as them, and its over, in terms of respect. Its higihly ironic, hypocritical and gives the distinct impression the "underlying urges" are as irrational as the manifestations (wholly reasonable and expectable that they would be).
Quoting Joshs
They can't, it appears. Theory isn't particularly of any moment here. Those frameworks are what drives the more ridiculous of the manifestations some would critique (like a lot of University administration behaviour around DEI). I think it might a "You just don't understand" to take this line, myself. We are not ignorant to this and the surrounding development of thought - we just reject that this saves anything, i'd say.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes, and that is because we actually do understand
Quoting Antony Nickles
by speaking to these people and reviewing what they cite as influences. This can easily be done, and regularly is done by critics. It is not a reflection of reality to suggest we don't understand their motivations, desires or needs. That is special pleading of a kind.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I disagree. You might. But besides this, I see no problem. That's their problem at this point of the journey. If they refuse to become either explicit, rational and intelligible, I can't do anything with that. I can only do something with what I am given. This isn't to dismiss the point you've actually made - it may well be hte crux of the tension. I just don't see this as at all incumbent on my or my "side" as it were.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I can't make heads or tails of this. It is a metric for valuing those opinions. And the metric is amorphous, indefinable and obviously impossible to arbitrate in that lane (lived experience). There is no way to value an opinion over another outside of actual expertise, as you then go on to outline. A "legal opinion" is not a personal opinion.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes, i understand the claim. I largely reject it. It is almost entirely impossible to give a reasonable, helpful account of osmething one lived through because we cannot extract ourselves from the effects we are experiencing. People experience things so radically differently, there's simply no way to choose which opinions can be called "important" and to what end. I think.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yet, a company like Jaguar has conscious disdain for their consumer demographic and reduced their sales by 90%. Because no one likes the product. No one wants a can of Bud with a clear male dressed as a woman(i'm happy to call Dylan she, I'm just making the point). That's odd, irrelevant and off-putting, even if you're fine with transwomen. Dylan, particularly, appears to be a mentally ill narcissist. Nothing to do with cisnormativity. That type of claim (made by praxis, not you) is tantamount to saying "the reason I need to support my position is the one which is true". But given praxis wasn't in the boycott group, that seems a little off. Someone in the boycott group can easily give explicit reasons, and they mostly amount to the above (when asked by me, or what i've seen online, anyway).
Quoting Fire Ologist
They don't. They say they are not the problems the Woke present them to us as. Is racism extant? Yep. Is it systemic?? Almost certainly not. The law doesn't allow it. Yet, any perceived disparity will be held up as an example of it. We can play that game in the reverse, and support hte idea that hte USA is highly sexist against Men, for instance.
I'm going to give praxis' challenge a go from the post below also:
I would say that the only "woke" way of looking at this is that there's a tension in language, and that the cis-normative men were threatened by a feminine spokesperson, and particularly a male who is so feminine, she's a woman, representing them. That discomfort must be borne of homophobia and transphobia because there aren't other rational reasons (or, alternately, they are all what's called "dog whistles").
Just so you're aware, this is what I was told. Not what I am imagining.
I missed it.
Quoting praxis
Through the lens of wokeness - probably exactly like you did. Maybe add homophobia to the analysis. I dont know if bud light is sold at Disneyworld, but if so, it was probably all part of a planned conspiratorial attack
I guess part of my point is that neither side will hear the other, certainly not hear arguments against their own position coming from the other, unless and until they perceive a good-faith willingness of the other side to accept points in favor of their own side.
But its a small point I guess, and is not really any different about any discussion between entrenched sides on any issue, so maybe not needed.
Another problem is that many of the woke claim that everything is just a power game, a jockeying for power. The wokeness of such a person is apparently just a power game, just a jockeying for power. There is good independent evidence for this too, for example in the way that reasons run short when one wants to know why something like inclusion should be elevated above all other values.
So I think that if we read such people according to their own hermeneutic, then we also come to the conclusion that their philosophy is a power grab driven by primarily emotional factors.
Quoting Leontiskos
Seems to me to be true, empirically. That is to say, not a comment on Joshs' position. There may well be underlying reasons that support that type of behaviour without it being a power-grab.
However, like Terence McKenna once said "There wasn't much Stalin could do about Stalinism once it got going".
Probably a lot of ground-team type personalities reject current "woke" but still stand ten-toes deep on the original concept. Which I think its "correct" morally.
Im watching the Bishop Barron video. The first factual error I noticed is that he claims Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault belong to the Frankfurt school of critical theory (he says Derrida is the patron saint of critical theory) , which is not true. Instead, they were critical of Marxism and the Frankfurt school. Deconstruction overturns the assumptions of Marxism. The second one is where he says that critical theory privileges the subject over the body in a radicalization of Descartes. On the contrary, critical theory moves away from Cartesianism by showing the subject to be formed through structures of bodily, material and social interactions. Postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault go much further, making the subject nothing but an effect of these worldly interactions. Barron also claims that gender theory privileges subjectivity over the body, as when someone claims that they were born in the wrong body. But at least some within the transgender community accept the biologically-based theory that psychological gender is a function of brain wiring that one is born with. Furthermore, as someone who is apparently so concerned about protecting the truths concerning the body, Barron should know that many of todays leading theorists associated with the new synthesis approach to evolutionary biology as well as embodied approaches to cognitive science are sympathetic to critical theory.
Barron also argues that Critical theory is radically relativistic. It isnt. It adheres to a form of realism and as a result believes in the notion of social progress and emancipation. Only postmodern writers like Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida reject realism and grand narratives of emancipation, but wokism embraces these narratives and their accompanying moralism.
Barron blames Derridas use of binary oppositions for the sorts of black and white oppositions used by wokists (oppressor/oppressed, master/slave, privileged/marginalized), but unlike in Crrical theory, Derridas binaries are not dialectical oppositions. Deconstruction shows what continues to bind together groups on either side of an oppositional divide, so one can never simply overcome what one opposes.
Finally, he asserts that for Critical theory power is the central principle of society, and that it supersedes truth (such as that 2+2=4). But there is no central tenet of wokism arguing that 2+2 can equal anything we want it to (in spite of a handful of wokists who may or may not have made that claim), because critical theorists are realists, not radical relativists.
I think you may be missing a trick wihch is implicit in all our comments here... These are not synonymous. At all.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then youll need to inform Bishop Barron of your tricks, because apparently he hasnt gotten the memo. Its clear from the video that he believes Critical theory is, if not synonymous with, then the basis of wokism. He specifically states that Critical theory has expressed itself as wokism (24:54). If what is implicit in all your comments is something contrary to this, then Im not sure why Leonstikos directed me to this video.
I almost added homonormativity but thought it superfluous to the point. Anyway, wokeness critiques visible social structures. Youre employing culture war rhetoric, not CT.
That is my experience too. Anti-woke people who want to discuss these issues with the other side have to be practiced in tolerance and always looking for the best light possible just to have conversations that last longer than 4 minutes. Otherwise, there is no actual conversation that ever happens. I have close friends and family that are fully woke and liberal, whereas I am more libertarian/independent but leaning conservative. They think because I want to enforce immigration law I must simply be a racist. They are basically waiting for my true racist colors to show and dont really understand how I might not actually give a crap what race people might be. We love and respect each other (on other grounds and because I dont mind people who are ironically intolerant and uncritically prejudiced), but mostly steer clear anymore of real conversations. Ive spent hours in conversations about politics and we maybe come together on one small point about the media, or about Chinese freedom of speech - like the lowest hanging fruit. Thats as far as it ever got.
Quoting Joshs
I just wonder why this process which sounds like it should be neutral as to outcome always yields the same political conclusions. Liberal wokism is the only result of postmodernism - how is such uniformity of outcome possible given such undefined unformed clay as bodily, material and social interactions. Why is there no legitimate facist dictator, but there can be a legitimate woke pontificator?
Thought experiment - if all maga, all racist, all conservative, all anti-woke people just left the planet, and all rich people (top 5%) all gave away all of their money and property to the poor and left the plant too - how long before the remaining population became divided along the same lines as it is today? How long before the upperclass formed and oppressed the rest? How long before inequality and injustice werent as ubiquitous as they are now? A month? 5 years? How long before there was a war?
How many thousands of years will the self-reflective creature that we are ever really admit that it is mercy and forgiveness, not justice and equality, that are our only hope of progress? How many times will we hear the word fight from every single political leader before we realize we have no idea what peace would look like anyway? Trump gets shot and stands up and says fight (maybe give him a pass because he just got shot); Harris just gave a speech to youth this week and in her concession speech after the election, she said fight - everyone always says it. Like jihad - thats our basic modus operandi - jousting with words.
Quoting praxis
I went to college too long ago I guess.
True, and that seems to be one of the elephants in the room. I wonder if any within this thread would say that wokeness never got off the rails?
Rather, your unwillingness to to employ CT expresses your anti-wokeness.
Quoting Joshs
Where does Barron claim that power supersedes truth for Critical theory? He points to the way that it can do that, and does do that for some Critical theorists. You seem to agree but want to dismiss that "handful of wokists."
Read more charitably, his point is that the broad genealogical lineage of wokismespecially its voluntaristic rootsis ordered towards the very things that we see in wokeism today.
Quoting Joshs
Now apply that to your post, because you transgress this principle multiple times. You say, for example, that Derrida was critical of Marxism and therefore Marxism cannot be used to explain his thought. On the contrary, a critic of Marxism is by that very fact informed by Marxism - especially one who holds that one can never simply overcome what one opposes.
Quoting Joshs
Here's Wikipedia, which sort of sums up the way in which your post is filled with half-truths:
Quoting Critical Theory | Wikipedia
As someone who began studying for his doctorate in Paris in 1989, Barron knows a fair bit about figures like Foucault and Derrida. He is probably not as up to date on your wheelhouse of "enactivism" given that that is a more recent movement, but I doubt his genealogy requires such a thing.
It's good of you to watch the video, and I would be interested to know if you think he identifies a philosophical root of wokeism that is inaccurate. But the things you are bringing up now read like quibbles, such as the idea that Derrida is not central to Critical theory because he did not formally belong to the Frankfurt School.
Edit:
Quoting Joshs
This seems highly inaccurate to me, so after finding no evidence of this I queried Perplexity.ai:
So my intimation that your claim is highly inaccurate is now stronger. Note too that the folks on TPF who gravitate towards Critical theory generally do not consider themselves realists.
Another rejection is in limiting what counts as rational argumentation. Wittgenstein points out that there is not one standard but that each practice has different criteria for what counts, with a discussion of norms different from a point at which there is no given authority for the determination of what is right, different from a political debate, etc.
Quoting AmadeusD
I dont think it is valuing one opinion over another, but valuing one person over another. We are not at this point judging their evidence in the decision but their value at the table. However, to call what someone says an opinion is to miss that we do have criteria for judging what is said based on the situation, type of decision. etc.; and calling (just some?) opinions personal is to imagine the world of rational discourse (already) exists apart from our efforts in making it so.
Quoting AmadeusD
It is not the account of their lives that is valuable, it is their having lived in the context, been affected by the current criteria/practices, etc.
You got me.
You said anti-woke means asleep and unaware.
I guess as analogously (because I mange to wake up, and navigate the city streets). Or what exactly do you know I am unaware of? Should we both just assume the rest about me? Do you have all you need to know already now that I failed a CRT test?
I am not unwilling.
I may be unable. But I willingly tried. I wrongly, according to you, brought in homophobia much like self-described formerly woke @AmadeusD did, after my post. So you accused Kid Rock of bad faith - are you hinting at some sort of bad-faith on my part because of my unwillingness?
Could there be anything you are unwilling to do or say towards me, the now anti-wokist?
I willed an attempt in good faith.
Quoting praxis
Now its not clear to me. Are you pro-wokeness? Or are you something else, and just attempting to adopt for sake of argument, someone elses speak? I am not accusing you of bad faith, I am just saying I am not sure about you being woke-leaning or not anymore.
And if you are woke, what do you think, personally. In any speak. Since you raised Bud Light, who were the good guys and bad guys, if any - whats a better CRT answer if that is what you think?
Cf:
Quoting Leontiskos
From the moment I heard about "woke" I thought about the way that Buddhists use the same metaphor of awakening. Yet with time the gulf between a Buddhist approach and a woke approach has proved remarkably wide, and I think the Buddhists leverage the metaphor much more consistently. The repudiatory nature of wokeness is inconsistent with the metaphor of waking from slumber.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting Leontiskos
A breath of fresh air to have actual political philosophy come up (even if peripherally). Mill, Emerson, and Rousseau (even Nietzsche, more controversially) all define the political as a relationship between the individual and our culture. Emerson will say we at times need to be adverse to it, Rousseau that we withhold our consent to the social contract. What gets overlooked in the push back and distance is that we push from our current practices and judgments; our new claims are intelligible in relation to our present culture. Wittgenstein will discuss this as extending a series. A moral claim is in an area we are at a loss as to how to continue, and I argue that we do not yet understand the criteria and interests for moving forward, but where we go is structurally tied to our history (despite my call to see the other on their terms). Nietzsche criticizes the stasis and implementation of deontology, but he does not abandon norms and morals, only pointing out their death and bringing life to them, that they exist in time, subject to our revision.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is going to be tricky so grant me some leeway (if I havent asked enough for philosophers not to jump to judgment). Ill caveat that no one wants discourse to break down into, say, worst case, violence, and this also will not be a justification of what Ill just call poor manners. However, to take the extreme example, although violence is unintelligible on its face, we canonly in that it is possible todiscover interests that we may not recognize as our culture stands (even if we have to imagine those for others). Just to say that seeing what is important to the other may not be given to us, handed to us on our terms. We may not first understand how to see their interests, but that does not preclude us methodologically, epistemically.
@NOS4A2 said that activism is not conversation. I think that's basically correct. Activism is focused on an outcome:
Quoting Cambridge Dictionary
Quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Generally activism is not an attempt to rationally persuade others to adopt a particular view. So if the wokist is an activist, then their activity is not aimed at rational persuasion. What follows is that to try to agree or disagree with an activist is a category error. The "game" that the activist is playing requires others to either support and ally with them, or else to oppose them (and because of this activism has a lot to do with "material positions"). The activist wants to achieve an outcome, and they aren't overly scrupulous about how that outcome is secured.
The question arises: Should we attempt to understand and sympathize with activists? And, supposing we want to play their game, should we attempt to understand and sympathize before we choose to either support or oppose them? I think some will say, "Yes, because we should always try to be compassionate and understanding, and therefore we should try to be compassionate and understanding towards the activist."
This gets complicated, but with @NOS4A2 I would say that the act of activism precludes this response to one extent or another. The activist is treating everyone, friend and foe, as a means to an end. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that we should prefer compassion and understanding, the advice that we should treat everyone with an equal amount of compassion and understanding turns out to be false. It is false because it is fitting to treat those who are attempting to use us as a means to their end with less understanding and compassionand more suspicion!than those who are treating us respectfully, as autonomous persons. It is no coincidence that everyone tends to treat activists with less compassion and understanding than those who engage them as equals, utilizing forms of persuasion rather than forms of coercion.
So I see 's response as appropriate. We can of course treat the activist as if they are not an activist, or ignore the activism that they are currently engaged in, but it is eminently reasonable to treat the activist as an activist and to recognize that they are attempting to use you as a means to their end. Incidentally, this is why one with the virtue of modesty will be averse to publicizing even true virtue, much less virtue signaling or engaging in activism. They will not be comfortable with achieving an end via improper means. Cf. Matthew 6:16-18.
It's about the dynamics of power.
Woke-ism cleverly shifted the spotlight from the elites, which are the actual problem, in favor of scapegoating average (white) Joes.
Gee, I wonder why the political class loved woke-ism so much.
I said that I almost included it myself but didn't think it necessary to make the point. That's not saying you were wrong.
Quoting Leontiskos
Awareness is the precondition for both rejection and liberation. You cant reject what you dont know exists, just like you cant escape a cage you dont realize youre in.
The same reason the political class loves anti-wokeism.
Is that a way of saying you can be woke, but I wouldnt know it?
Just like I can be anti-woke and not even know what that means?
You could just talk to me like Im talking to you, saying what you think yourself about the value of wokism and the situation with bud light.
Another non-conversation underway.
You have no idea if maybe wokeness is a type of sleep. Do you? I mean, how could you, right?
I am unaware to the extent you havent said what you think. Thats for sure.
Here, Ill give you one more opportunity to tell me what you think - Ill show you how speaking your own mind is done. I hear Cisgender versus transgender bud light drinkers? And I think that is not as meaningful as what Kid Rock said with a gun and a case of beer - which had more to do with people not wanting to make every single thing a political statement. Maybe CRT is misguided, fetishizing the political too much.
Everything does not have to be that deep - have a few beers once in a while and you might wake up to what Kid Rock was saying to all you serious politicians who know what is best to to be aware of.
If you know better, I want to wake up.
You can still be the bigger man here. Im not that hard to talk to. All you need to do is extend half amount of thought on the issue than Ive shared. You said the response to a transgender bud representative was unconscious reaction to a power challenge. You said a few other things. Is that it?
Is there anything at all that if made into a political issue would annoy you? Is there anything positive at all one such as yourself might draw from opposition to Buds ad campaign? Maybe this opposition might have less to do with cisgender normativity, and more to do with being forced to learn the meaning of cisgender normativity from a beer ad? Are you getting the other side at all, or must we talk about what you want to talk about only, after the beer ad plays.
You are making @AmadeusD point about how hard it is to talk to proponents of wokism (which Instill have to assume you are one, because you wont just talk to me and tell me what I asked.)
Again, without having any actual knowledge of what woke is, couldnt our current cultureour interests in the judgments we share, what matters, even what is rationalbe asleep, as in unaware, of the world as it is, the overlooked importance of others interests, say, others pain, as with Wittgensteins recognizing an aspect of something (or not, being blind to it; in one way, because we want them to meet our criteria, to know their pain, PI p. 223).
Descartes will ask if we can be aware that we are dreaming in much the same way we recognize others as not automatons (in just seeing hats and coats moving past a window). We judge that they are [people]. 1st Med. p. 8 (my emphasis). It takes an effort to see someone as a person, as someone different than me, perhaps with competing interests, different measures of importance. In being asleep, perhaps we are not making that effort, perhaps in only looking for, or considering as valid criteria, hats and coats.
Or maybe we are lulled into sleep, staring at Platos shadows, trapped in Rousseaus chains, not seeing Thoreaus dawn because it is midday. If we are to wake, or judge that we are awake, we would have to become aware of what we had overlooked, say, that black people were being killed by police for reasons claimed to be unexamined, not yet deemed to matter. We may need to reconsider our criteria for judgment, say, of how we value (evaluate) people (though Im sure someone else could come up with better examples).
Philosophically this first looks like turning back, reflecting on our current criteria that have been unexamined, fallen into presumption; to remember them Plato says; draw them out explicitly, their assumptions, implications, etc. I would think its not hard to accept that, at times, we have not, and need to, question our culture, our slumbering conformity to it, to give it life and incorporate new situations, overlooked concerns, say, the interests of strange people as Wittgenstein says, which I discussed is possible here and here.
Quoting Leontiskos
I knew this was going to get sticky. I am not arguing for activism as a means of persuasion, nor am I even arguing that activists deserve a discussion; only that, despite all that, we can make their interests intelligible (before agreeing/disagreeing to them), even if only by imagining them (as, analogously, we can read people)as we might with someone blowing up beer cans. To claim we cannotto judge the other as irrational or otherwise dismiss intelligibilityis, categorically, a decision we make, rather than an impossibility (as with lions, which I get into here).
I agree with you fully about persons. Each of us are worth the effort to be seen and taken as unique and individual persons. Period.
I also think we dont have a country without a border and we dont have a border without telling the world to honor our rules at the border, and we are not honorable if we dont seek to lawfully enforce those rules fairly, with no regard to race or religion or gender.
How is all of that unaware and asleep, at least how is that any more unaware than thewoke person who thinks America will always be here for the immigrants of the world seeking to better their lives.
That is just one issue to put some minimal flesh on a bigger complex conversation. But one step at a time.
Am I deplorable and not even worth talking to? That has been the first question for the past 15 years or so before engaging any anti-woke argument. Did Trump make it all worse for those who never wanted to argue anyway, or is there anything the woke need to learn that they do not seem to be aware of?
People's resentment and inner conflicts are cultivated and projected on a scapegoat.
It's an opium for the people - rather than facing and taking responsibly for one's struggles, one gets to absolve themselves, claim a moral high ground, and blame everyone else. One then gets to act out and destroy with good conscience - another addictive, psychological delicacy.
The harder people keep doubling down on this rejection of personal responsibility and using it for a sense of moral superiority, the harder it will be to reverse course. The resulting cognitive dissonance forces people to get even more radical, resentful, etc.
Like I said, classic stuff.
But this is different in that we have a known issue, a clear view of the interests, and are just debating what to do. And yes, we do need to also conduct such a discussion ethically as I have suggested, but I dont take the description to be about your reasoning, as if you are unaware as in uninformed. I think it is just a different kind of moral issue when our culture is overlooking something, like we wouldnt recognize it (not even have the opportunity to be interested in it) analogous to when we dont have the words (nobody in California cares whether rain is spitting, misting, pouring, sheeting, dumping, etc.just: its raining! as in, not a drought).
Do you think of support for trans youths as something that was previously overlooked? Many (both right and progressive) now see it as a problem created by woke culture.
I'm certainly not committed to the idea that all philosophy is good, and that all philosophical "progress" is necessarily part of some sort of providential unfolding. It seems to me that some philosophies are bad, having a largely negative impact on philosophy itself and culture in various epochs. That is, the good is sown alongside the bad in history, and the history of philosophy has been no different. So, prima facie, I'm not necessarily looking for some sort of theodicy of reason whereby all ideologies will necessarily lead towards a better future (except as perhaps an example of which paths [I]not[/I] to follow). Hence, a properly broad view doesn't need to find a silver lining in every cloud.
That said, I do have a hard time thinking of influential philosophies that are wholly without merit. As respects individual thinkers though, and on the balanceI'm not sure if Ayn Rand or "Bronze Age Pervert" represent any sort of teleological advance, let alone Richard Spencer. If they result in "progress" it will be accidently.
Appeals to status seeking can be merely descriptive as well. It doesn't seem they are prima facie wrong. If they were categorically off-base, then it would also be the case that segregationists and white nationalists cannot be acting to defend their own status and interests. Yet that is, quite explicitly, what they claim and understand themselves to be doing. In their newer forms, they just claim that everyone else is also doing the same thing, covertly or not, and that they're at least honest about it. However, earlier defenders of segregation were much more covert about their ends, and yet I hardly think we can avoid the conclusion that these too were also partly motivated by defending their status and control over resources.
Second, I think I'm the only one who mentioned fascism and the idea (Milbank's, although the seeds can arguably be found in Dostoevsky) is that the logical conclusion of the ontologies of violence is fascism. That is, when there is no transcendent order of peace, goodness, or truth, instead only contingent systems of power, difference, and conflictwhen truth, law, and morality are not a participation in Logos, but are rather constructed through acts of force (e.g., discourse, statecraft, capital, language games)then violence is original, and there can be no counter-violence which truly transcends violence. There is only ever assertion over and against counter-assertion, will to power against will to power (plus or minus some post hoc rationalization, which is itself merely another assertion of value). This is precisely the spiritual logic of fascism.
Now, against this, I suppose are the "natural selection meets whig history and Hegel" accounts of the superiority of liberalism, where liberalism is superior because it is more stable, wins wars (through the promotion of technological and economic innovation and growth), and is better at both non-violent (physical violence) coercion and positive conversion, and kinetic struggles in the long run. But even if this were true (and the growth/power trajectories of China and the US versus say, Northern Europe, suggest it isn't) this isn't a normative justification of liberalism, but just an endorsement of it as a strategy of power. Plus, if liberalism entails democracy and liberalism cannot be electorally successful, that's an internal contradiction in the strategy. It might be that liberalism simply represents a bundle of "self-replicating, persistent strategies" that could be even better assembled under a fascist technocracy (e.g., "neo-feudalism.")
The other point is that the philosophies of critique can only tear down, often due to an obsession with ideological purity and negative liberty (Hegel's charge against French radicals). So, they themselves don't pivot towards fascism. Instead, they tear down existing norms, narratives, and institutions, but lack the wherewithal to replace them with anything viable. This opens of an ideological power vacuum where more robust discourses of violence can flourish, which is, I would argue, precisely what we have seen. If the left continues to meet political failures, which I think is very likely due to technological and economic changes, even if they have some merely electoral successes, I wouldn't be surprised if more explicitly ideologies of power rise to the top there as well, as characterized by the "ironically unironic" embrace of neo-Stalinism in far left online spaces, where Kulak memes might prove to be what "ironic" Nazism was to right wing spaces a bit over a decade ago.
As for Woke becoming the dominant ideology the way Neoliberalism has been in 50 years, in 50 years China and India will be the world's largest economies. The EU in particular is on a growth trajectory to become increasingly irrelevant, and the war in Ukraine has shown that it seems likely to continue to underperform its economic standing in both hard and soft power. It would take a radical sea change for these ideologies to be allowed to get anywhere in China, even if they were popular there (whereas they are popularly ridiculed on Chinese social media). I don't think India will prove exceptionally fertile ground either. Whereas sub-Saharan Africa will be to that epoch what Southeast Asia was to the 90s-2020s, the main target for new investment and consumer markets, and there are a lot of reasons to suspect Woke would need to be radically transformed to have an appeal there too. I'm just not sure that it will make sense in these settings, and a look at how Woke analogs have developed in Japan and Korea might be a good indicator here. In particular, the Sexual Revolution seems key to Woke, and yet this is probably the number one area where thought indigenous to the developing world has said: "no thanks," and "please stop trying to force this on us."
It was hard to decide on a product. This was the funniest:
And I mean no disrespect by not engaging more. I dont want to trash the topic further with useless bickering.
I appreciate the recognition that I could feel disrespected. A gesture of respect would have worked too, but telling me what you dont mean by your disrespectful posts says maybe there is hope in the future for an actual conversation.
Quoting praxis
But you just did.
You could have cleaned it up by offering something of substance.
Enjoy yourself and your woke jokes!
Im not sure anyone imagined trans as anything but a funny preference adult men had (Bossom Buddies?), and that it had something to do with wearing womens clothes and padding a bra, so Id say no, the interests and needs of young trans wasnt in the cultural awareness
I think the problem is that the interests and needs of young trans people was created by woke culture. We now know that gender dyphoria is not a sign that a child needs puberty blockers and surgery. That both the UK and the US tripped over themselves providing that kind of "therapy", without research, was a result of the power that wokism had for a minute. That minute has now passed, I think. This is not a backlash from the right. It's just a recognition that we screwed up.
The question is: was this catastrophe just the cost of progress? Or is it a sign of something gravely wrong under the hood of wokism?
And then what are the interests of trans youth? What are our parental interests in them? Support appears to be a need; what that is to look like may be, as you say, a matter of knowledge (which is a different debate than an investigation of the judgments society historically made and what interests they overlooked).
I dont have answers to your questions, but I would agree that cultural reassessment comes with costs, as does the time before it.
It comes with a cost if it's joined to aggressive social engineering. The cost is unnecessary pain and suffering as we learn from our mistakes and try to back up. I think the tide is turning against wokism because much of it was never tested for reasonableness before it was established as the bar we all need to be reaching for.
I offered it as an example of how I reason. Maybe you personally dont take it as a sign of me being asleep and unaware, but generally, people who talk like me are seen to be driven by unconscious fears. We are unaware of the real and whole persons affected by my policies. I dehumanize humans, by default. I am therefore a sub-human class of sorts - just deplorable. This is all packed into someone who reasons we need stronger borders and to deport illegal immigrants. This is packed into statements like DEI doesnt work.
What I am saying is, part of the woke methodology of reasoning seems to be avoiding anything on its face that appears anti-woke, and instead analyzing for sub-text, the dog-whistle, looking for virtue signaling or lack thereof. Maga types and conservatives and tradition-lovers, are objects of incredulity, whose behavior and speech can only be examined from the outside, not engaged with directly, (as we are engaged here so you are the exception).
See my conversation with Praxis - that is how it typically goes.
Woke doesnt clarify what their virtues are. Not to anyone perceived as anti-woke.
Woke doesnt address what a border is and why it exists.
It doesnt believe that the race and nationality of an illegal immigrant has zero to do with the issue. Such notions are lies and cover.
The woke person knows immigration policy is about white nationalism, racism and oppression - its about winning political campaigns. No need to say border at all.
This is one example to demonstrate what I (and others here) see as a pattern, a way of woke argumentation and thinking.
Maybe, over time, and with much more discussion, it will help Mexico and Mexican people if we secure the border. That is an insane and insensitive statement to a woke person, a lie to hide hatred and fear, a careless indifference to the suffering of human beings. End of discussion. Before any discussion starts.
I am willing to debate and be educated, but such debate almost never, in good faith, happens. My opinion is discounted by the woke from the start. That has been the case all of my adult life (since the 80s). Trump and Trumpism hasnt fixed any of this - hes just shown the world how there has been no conversation at all before so many changes, wanted by a few, have been forced upon everyone. And to show that, hes forced changes on everyone - using a bludgeon, like Kid rock used gun, to restart the conversations.
Lets pretend we are all reasonable human beings who want what is good for all human beings. Even Trump. Even Maga. (Imagine that!!). Wokism, generally, wouldnt allow any discussion on such grounds. By definition, if I dont already agree with what is woke, I am asleep and unable to have a reasonable conversation.
That is the problem with wokeism to me - its inability and unwillingness to debate and address reasonable challenge. (Thats what praxis said about me, as he shut down the discussion.)
Yes, of course, and I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. The question is not whether we can but whether we should:
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Antony Nickles
Sure, but do you generally repudiate people who are sleeping or who are unaware? Negligence and sleep can go together, but they generally do not. So if someone is committed to repudiating others, then they should probably call them "negligent" rather than "asleep" or "unaware." In that case there would be less linguistic "violence" involved. It also explains why Buddhists don't go around repudiating everyone who is not awakened.
What if that theory appreciates, as Antony appears to, that rationality cant be separated from whats being dichotomously treated as merely feeling -based and emotional? Lets say one articulates what arises incipiently in the guise of an intuitive feeling into a system of logically coherent assertions amenable in principle to empirical test. How far does that articulatory effort go toward alleviating the need to do what Antony is prescribing, making oneself responsible for stepping outside of ones system of rationality in order to have the chance of glimpsing anothers affective-rational system from their own perspective? Or should one only be responsible for anchoring discourse to some overarching meta-rational facts of the matter?
As I mentioned earlier, wokism, to the extent that it can be connected with Critical theory, is realist in outlook. So it shouldnt be surprising that it is not neutral concerning what is real and true with respect to material or political structures. The situation is quite different for post-realist postmodern writers such as Foucault and Derrida. Unlike wokists, they do not point moralistic fingers at those who fail to take the right course, and do not articulate social and political change via a legitimate/illegitimate binary.
Theres a lot that needs to be absorbed in order to situate the various positions within and after wokism. For instance, among Critical theorists, why does Habermas reject Adornos negative dialectical realism in favor of a positive hermeneutic model of communicative action? Why does Rorty believe that Habermass reliance on Kantian categorical norms of rationality is too metaphysical? Why does Deleuze attack Rortys pragmatism as platonic dogmatism? Which of these positions is most or least compatible with the moralistic blamefulness of wokism?
Credit where credit is duethat's a real product. I photoshoped this however:
It illustrates a protest against political messages appearing on commercial products. Shoot'n up half woke and half anti-woke equally. Powerful message, right?
Anyway, another CT insight is that even resistance (wokeness or anti-wokeness) can be turned into a commodity in late stage capitalism.
Quoting Leontiskos
Congratulations. You have just summarized a a central feature of deconstructive reading. it can one be informed by and at the same time move in a wholly other direction? Derrida say yes. Even repetition of the identical meaning
returns the same sense differently. Absolutely other but at the same time informed by what it differs from.
I wouldnt say even wokeness - I would say clearly wokeness is a money maker. It is highly funded, lobbied, commercialized, packaged, tee-shirted, gas-masked, etc etc .
Is that a CT insight? Or just an insight? Or even just a disinterested observation?
Interesting you said wokeness is resistance. Can you elaborate - is resistance essential, like awareness is?
Imagine that we decide to become woke about the issue of vaccines. There is controversy. It's being said that we've slept long enough, allowing these substances to be injected, even though we all knew big pharma was raking in the profits from it. We'll take that as a sign that we need to reassess this.
How would you want to start this reassessment?
Do you think there is something internal to Critical Theory that would adjudicate between these many divergent views? Can CT tell us whether Rorty or Adorno or Habermas is the better way? Or is indeterminacy inherent to CT, and we will always need to wait for something even better, and/or always return to something left unfinished?
Quoting Leontiskos
Based on the video, I would say he knows next to nothing about them, but in order to demonstrate this, I would have to locate a more extended text of his on the subject and compare through it line for line with actual quotes from the authora.
Quoting Leontiskos
Based on the video, I would say he knows next to nothing about them, but in order to demonstrate this, I would have to locate a more extended text of his on the subject and compare through it line for line with actual quotes from the authora.
Quoting Leontiskos
Run Adorno through Perplexity. I ran him through ChatGPT and found this:
Postmodern relativism (as seen in thinkers like Lyotard or some interpretations of Foucault) often claims that truth, meaning, and values are socially constructed, contingent, and plural, with no overarching meta-narratives or objective standpoint. Adorno rejects this kind of relativism. He believes that there is an objective world and that truth matters, but that our conceptual frameworks and societal structures distort our access to it.
Habermas, a member of the Frankfurt school born a generation later than the original group, endorsed a hermeneutic approach influenced by American Pragmatism. According to ChatGPT:
Habermas does not endorse naïve or metaphysical realism (the idea that we have direct access to objective truths independent of any interpretive framework). Like many post-Kantian thinkers, he acknowledges the linguistic and intersubjective mediation of knowledge and meaning. In this sense, Habermas shares some insights with postmodern and pragmatist thinkers: all understanding is mediated, contingent, and historically situated. Despite this, Habermas explicitly and repeatedly rejected postmodern relativism, particularly as found in the works of Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault (at least in his earlier interpretations of them).He argued that postmodernism undermines the possibility of rational critique, normativity, and consensus, leading to epistemic and moral relativismwhich he viewed as self-defeating and politically dangerous.
The points Im trying to make concerning Crrical theory are twofold. First, that regardless of how unconventional their realism was, they should not be in danger of being accused of an anything goes relativism. Instead , they beleive that material and social formations are grounded i. truth , and truth is grounded in metaphysical certainties. Rorty had endless debates with his friend Habermas ( one of which I attended) over the latters insistence on Kantian rational norms. My second point is that, to the extent that wokists draw form critical theory, their moral absolutism gets its justification from theblatters realist stance.
Quoting Leontiskos
First, denial and refusal are obviously not the first steps I am advocating for. But, as I say above (hopefully better) there is a part of a moral claim that is structurally about acceptance or denial; if we have a person in pain, we dont reach a point we know their pain, but we look past judging their pain to see them as having serious needs and concerns (or reject them). Wittgenstein calls this seeing an aspect, accepting them as a person in pain (or we ignore itare asleep to those deeper concerns).
This is going to sound strange, as Ive just said we need to see someone as a person in developing their terms of importance, but I also dont think this is about judging individuals, just accepting or rejecting them. What I am talking about is humanizing (as in respecting)the claim as if it is made by a serious person. So that is confusing, but really what we are talking about are the integrated terms and judgments of our culture, as the criteria we have for our practices codify our societys interests. This is why judging someone as a racist is to philosophically misunderstand that we share a language and culture; are complicit in its interests and judgments (comprised of it and so compromised by it), and, yes, in that way, responsible for it, but this is structural, not personal, perhaps the point of seeing it as institutionalized.
Quoting Fire Ologist
My belief is that to critique CT from the vantage of Rorty, Deleuze or Derrida one must step outside of it in the direction of an alternative stance. Their questioning wont make sense from within the confines of Frankfurt school CT. But I do think there is reason to hope that the most noxious totalitarian tendencies of wokism can be moderated or even eliminated as more activists discover Habermass hermeneutical, communicative brand of CT and begin to leave behind the violently oppositional language of folks like Adorno, Fanon and Gramsci.
I forgot to include anti-woke, which is also quite influential.
Quoting Fire Ologist
If Bud Lights gesture didnt feel like a push there wouldnt have been pushback.
Awareness is essential when navigating from a weak position. I understand the origins of woke was from an old song with a cautionary theme.
Im not sure how to answer if resistance is essential. I think awareness is essential because it can be a matter of life or death, or some form of ruination, for those in a weak position.
If the Bud Light gesture is a form of resistance, is it essential to push back?
Continuing the point of my assessment of the sleeping metaphor, isn't it simply an equivocation to say that ignoring X and being asleep to X are the same thing? It is these untruths that are creating the problems. If ignoring X and being asleep to X were the same thing then my argument would fall to pieces, but they are not the same thing. The wokists can't decide whether the problem is lethargy or ignoring, and although it would help their case if we claimed that lethargy and ignoring are the same thing, they aren't the same thing.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Isn't it confusing precisely because it involves lying to ourselves? Because it involves treating someone who we believe to be unserious as if they were serious? Ergo:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think that if you try to develop these ideas you will find that they break down rather quickly. Specifically, you think that to judge someone to be a racist is to misunderstand, failing to recognize that one is complicit in the systemic structures that caused their racism. That looks to be deeply mistaken, and again, if one attempted to develop or defend it I believe it would break down. Like anything else, if one does not attempt to develop, defend, or assess it then it can of course be maintained.
:up:
Right. :up:
The most acute woke vs. anti-woke discussion I have witnessed was the dialogue between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein mentioned <here>.
Quoting Leontiskos
Now the intellectually honest person who notices that every male finalist since 1980 has been of West-African descent will erect a thesis explaining why, and then consider evidence for or against that thesis. Not so for the woke. The woke immediately turns to post hoc rationalization, insisting that the outcome is due to racism. The only question the woke will ask is, "What forms of racism contributed to this racist event?" Anyone who questions the assumption that it is a racist event will be met with gaslighting and coercive behavior.
It doesn't always. There are right-wing descendants of Nietzsche who also draw from Derrida, Deleuze, etc. as well as critical theory, although they tend to also mix in influences no one else pays attention to, like Evola and Spengler. For example, there is Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin, Costin Alamariu, the whole Dark Enlightenment Crowd and the various "Neoreactionary" projects. Dugin and some other Russians might count; indeed people who are deep into this stuff tend to point to a lot of people who aren't writing in English. They are obviously vastly rarer and not particularly welcome in the academy, but they have been influential through other avenues, particularly in the right wing media space and through their evangelism of Big Tech leaders. Here, the groundlessness of hierarchy and values are precisely why they need to be forcefully asserted (not made known, but constructed and endorced).
There are also some eliminitive materialists (analytics) who pick up on post-modern theory. The science they rely upon to ground their eliminativism is for them a social construct, subject to all sorts of caveats and anti-realist arguments. Nevertheless, reality is at root difference, adaptation, conflict, and natural selection. Their theories are "adaptive." These folks seem to tend towards something like the "natural selection meets whig history" defense of liberalism.
Note however that a denial of "moralizing" is hardly unique to this area of thought. Nozick, as an exemplar of conservative liberalism, and Rawls as an exemplar of the progressive variety, both differ from politicians expressing either ideology in that they deny any role for merit and virtue. The "Good" is privatized and what is left is a procedural "right." The desire to bracket away the "normative" and a tendency to see the Good as both a private issue and ultimately irrational or subrational (if even real), as well as a distaste for moralizing, is more a generic Enlightenment idea, at least in the Anglo-empiricist tradition.
This actually brings to mind the epithet "social justice warrior." There is a bit of truth here, in that conflict and crusade are part of the ideological framing. Warrior societies tend to generate wars, and I'd argue that "activist" societies will tend to likewise generate social conflicts. If these are the arenas where status is won and identities are built, than one must "take to the field."
60s radicalism gave birth to a generation of yuppies, and the co-option of the hippie movement into a sort of consumerist hedonism. Perhaps something similar will happen here. I sort of doubt it though. 60s radicalism could follow this path because the academy still represented a viable career path for those more attracted to radical critique, and other pursuits like the priesthood still attracted a fair number of people who were oriented towards either the "spiritual" or "active" (charitable) life, while the path towards an individualist hedonism also remained easy to follow and hadn't proved itself to be "insufficient" within the larger cultural and artistic context to the same degree.
But median wage growth stagnated in 1979, almost half a century ago now, and economic mobility began to decline. The path to hedonistic consumerism closed up. I would argue that increasing earnings [I]within a lifetime[/I] and a sense of "personal progress" are much more important to this way of life than absolute earnings. Meanwhile, academia and traditional non-profit roles filled up (and academia is now facing a catastrophe, as enrollment will actually start to dramatically decline). 1990s depression and angst replaced 70s and 80s hedonism (grunge and gangster rap versus hair metal and new wave). Secularism and relativism make building a life of meaning difficult. "Find a career that is [I]meaningful for you[/I] is terribly open ended, especially when given to someone raised in the context of secular moral anti-realism and modern consumerism.
New Age and secularized Eastern religions offered one escape path here, but the Christian ethic of social justice and the ideal of freedom and perfection as the communication of goodness to others (agape descending, not just eros leading up) is pretty hardwired into Western culture, such that secularized Buddhist mindfulness can be found lacking in a certain degree of outwards focus.
So, there is a closure of other outlets, which funnels people towards social justice activism as their "worthy aim." At the same time, people are shut out of lives spent pursuing these higher ends because academic and non-profit jobs becomes extremely coveted and scarce, and the rise of the low paid adjunct and unpaid intern make the "life of meaning" increasingly class-based, in that one needs wealthy parents to (comfortably) support such a career. This pushes people aligned to activism as a "way of life" or "source of purpose" into all sorts of other areas of the workforce, from boring local government jobs, to medical research, to K-12 education, and particularly Big Tech. And then these become a site for conflict, because they are actually often set up precisely to avoid such issues, while social media reduces the cost to begin and organize activism (while also creating echo chambers).
That's at least how I heard a Silicon Valley CEO describe his and his peers' journey to Trump. A lot of these were younger CEOs, big Obama supporters, and tended to initially be quite open to the post-2008 "Great Awokening." But as it picked up steam (and because they tend to hire from its epicenter in elite universities) they began to face an actively hostile workforce who saw their employers as "the enemy" who needed to be wholly reformed from the inside. Or at least, this is how the experience felt to him, and he described a lot of hostile meetings, internal protests, etc. that ultimately soured him on the left.
And this is perhaps where mainstream responses to Woke are most deficient. Because of the anthropology that dominates modern thought, there isn't much acknowledgement of the rational appetites. Yet I'd argue that people's desire to "be good" or "do what is truly right," is, when properly mobilized, the strongest motivator of behavior, trumping safety, pleasure, or even thymos. When this desire becomes aimless or frustrated, trouble will arise (which reminded me of another article on the parallels between Woke and Evangelical Christianity).
And I am admonishing that clarifying the underlying interests is a process that is being skipped and is possible.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am pointing out we start arguing what to do before we understand what is at stake.
Quoting Leontiskos
And that is a legitimate question. If I can take it down a notch, what I am trying to address is the judgment Ive seen that these moral claims are irrational, emotional, personal, etc. to point out that it is possible to get at the so far unexamined interests and different criteria, apart from judging the means or even judging what we are told on its face (on our terms, or, abstractly), as we do not yet understand the terms on which to take it.
:up:
Mark Fisher has a charming explanation of this in Capitalist Realism. But other theorists see this not as a property of late-capitalism, but of reality and discourse itself. There is no "escaping capitalism" because it is simply the structure of realitya rather terrifying thought.
Quoting frank
Is that any different than the interests and needs of gay people being created by gay culture? Onencould apply a Foucaultian genealogical analysis and trace concepts of sexuality to the formation and transformation of discursive systems. When did the Western concept of homosexuality emerge? When and how did it change to gayness, and then Queerness?
Quoting frank
Lobotomy was once a thing. But it led to progress. After all, we still use ECT.
Sounds like you are saying fruitful discussion needs to first level set the playing field. Bring all the assumptions to the surface. Or that there is a pre-discussion about unknown interests and different criteria and the terms on which to take it.
That sounds right, but would also require good-faith.
Because it also sounds like a search for dog-whistles and unconscious shortcomings and ill-motives. We have to assume good-will in a person even like Trump (because hes president, probably should be especially like Trump), when seeking to uncover the so far unknown interests and different criteria, apart from judging the means or even judging what we are told, as we do not yet understand the terms on which to take it.
Is that something like what you mean?
Quoting Joshs
We aren't going to be making progress on transitioning youths. Both the US and the UK (the two countries that mysteriously became manic about it) have realized that it's a bad idea.
At this point progress means waking up to how idiotic we were.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
-
Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting Leontiskos
-
It seems that a fundamental disagreement here is over the question of whether humans are capable of bad ideas. The woke, as well as @Antony Nickles and @Joshs, seem to lean into the idea that humans are not capable of bad ideas.
Consider an analogy. Human beings and human culture are, in part, ideational. In part, they are collections of ideas. In both cases the ideas are domesticated into a sort of garden. Now gardens have lots of weeds, and require weeding. The camp that leans into the no-bad-ideas direction is effectively claiming that weeds do not exist, or that gardens should not be weeded, or that weeds can be pruned but should never be uprooted. I think that's crazy wrong. There are bad ideas aplenty, and they should be uprooted. Indeed, I would argue that the very idea that there are no bad ideas is itself a bad idea. This is true even though weeding requires energy and constant diligence, and even though it is possible to learn from bad ideas (because evil is a privation of goodness).
So backing up, do bad ideas exist?
:up:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That makes sense it has to be the case.
I still think it is worth considering why such pluralist sources such as CT and post-modernism, vastly lead to the same progressive conclusions. If it was even 59% it wouldnt be a good question, but it has to be more like 90% or more. Something is off about the PM and CT methodologies, where all of these more relativist/ pluralist thinking structures, like a funnel, yield the same societal conclusions.
(The pluralist/relativist baseline is why they avoid any sense of self-awareness of their own brand of facism and absolutism that can result when they have power and seek to impose these vastly uniform progressive conclusions.)
Yes it would be (a little sloppy of me). I think the distinction is that our culture may not be taking into consideration other interests (asleep to them), but ignoring them is part of how we address them, treating them as irrational, emotional, etc. without drawing them out, getting a clear picture of the grounds before judging them.
Quoting Leontiskos
I get you, but I take it as the gig, as a philosopher. There is other work to do: political discussion, discussion of facts, policy decisions, etc. And, again, I would shift it to taking the claim as if it were made by a human whose serious interests we might not yet understand.
Quoting Leontiskos
Well, Im not the best person to create examples (which I would take corrections to, or others), but I stand by the validity of the philosophy.
Quoting Leontiskos
Im suggesting setting aside judging whether a person is racist (on any terms) in lieu of unearthing the interests and terms of our language and culture and our relationship to them and our responsibility for them.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Concepts like status, self-interest, power and control can inform diametrically opposed positions depending on how the subjectivity, or self, they refer back to is understood. If we start from the self as homo economicus, a Hobbesian figure the attainment of whose desires need not have any connection with the desires of others, then we either settle for a Darwinian Capitalism or find a way to insert into this self an ethical conscience which we will not always be able to depend on. If instead we see the self not as an entity but as a process of unification, self as self-consistency, and desire as oriented toward anticipatory sense-making ( We dont desire things, we desire coherence of intelligibility), then there is no i werent slot between the needs of my own self and the needs of other selves. The unethical is then not a result of bad conscience but a failure of intelligibility. The unassimilable Other is found wherever injustice occurs (slavery, genocide).
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I have argued that the doctrine of nihilistic will to power is not a plausible explanation for the moral absolutism characteristic of wokism. Such absolutism can only justify itself on the basis of a realist-idealist grounding of some sort, which happens to be the stock and traded of Critical theory. I suggested in another post that the most noxious totalitarian tendencies of wokism can be moderated or even eliminated as more activists discover Habermass hermeneutical, communicative brand of Critical Theory and begin to leave behind the violently oppositional language of folks like Adorno, Fanon and Gramsci.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
When I said the philosophical underpinning of wokism would be mainstream in 50 years, I didnt mean necessarily in China and India. China would first have to find a way to institute representative government. However, one can use the popularity of Gay Pride parades around the world as a measure of the rapidity with which new social
movements spread internationally. The recent one in Budapest even served as an anti-fascist protest.
Quoting frank
Was lobotomy idiotic?
Yes. Have you read much about the advent of transitioning pre-pubescent people?
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the basis for what's called wokism is something legitimate, so we should trying to tease out what that is - yes, but that has nothing to do with understanding those wokist actors. To be clear about the type of things I'm talking about - Tiffany Henyard, Patrice Collours, Stacey Clarke, Corrine Brown, Tania Fernandes Anderson (i sincerely cannot find examples of males doing this same thing. If I had seen/found egs, I'd have balanced this list). These people are corrupt and justify a lot of their behaviour with recourse to the tenets of CRT - and no, not explicitly: that's sort of my point. I don't think you can say people who do not know CRT are carrying out urges based on those underlying theoretical considerations. The chances many of these people (beside maybe Collours) are particularly aware of CRT beyond the ways in whicih is emotionally agrees with them is very low.
Quoting praxis
Is this to note an irrational position? This does seem to be a line towed by the Woke. It isn't reasonable, imo.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Perhaps. I am happy with my use of irrational. I think I outlined it? If it not, its to do with goal-oriented behaviour. If you have the information to know your action will not achieve (or, is unlikely to achieve) your current goal, but you carry it out anyway (without some special condition) this is irrational. I can't quite understand how we can use it in other ways without, as you, i presume, are getting at, falling into total subjectivity. Luckily, I need not comment on whether your goal is rational (because this would be hte latter).
Quoting Antony Nickles
That's a lot worse, and less capable of a rational basis in my view.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Furthering my position above. If you are judging someone's worth based on either:
1. their claims;
2. your perception of them
I can't get on that train. If it's something else, please outline.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Where is the value going? If we don't actually care about the account they're giving, I cannot care about who they are. Because I can't possibly know.
The fact that people go through things isn't valuable at all, as best I can tell.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think it's more accurate to say these "needs" weren't actually an issue. We treated body dysmorphia as it appears - a mental aberration. This isn't to deny that 'trans people' exist. But it is to deny that there is any legitimate basis for the claims made by trans people about themselves.
I would temper this, because different claims get made, but the ideas that one can change sex, or is born in the wrong body (one of these has to be true for the position to cohere) seem empirically dead wrong. The idea there is no sex binary, while auxilliary, is another reason I wont temper that claim ( it is roughly, universal among discussions of the fact of trans people). These are all of them banal and incorrect.
Quoting Joshs
This may be a reason why it can't be done. This is a cop-out and a dismissal of that which rationality points towards: Decisions made in accordance with reason and logic. These aren't superficial or subjective metrics. You can reject them as premises of rationality but then i suggest you're the new Sisyphus.
If this isn't how you view rationality, that's fine, but it explains my position at least. Unfortunately, and again, with the utmost respect, the rest of this post reads to me like standard prevaricative, deconstructionist discourse which has never helped anyone understand anything (it results in a series of questions that can't be answered, and generally run into each other). If i'm not getting something, I apologize. But it just can't be responded to in a way other than "What are you even talking about?" so I guess I'll just eat that and assume I don't get it.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Isn't it the central question, even in your own posts? Look at what you said in this same post:
Quoting Antony Nickles
To say that someone is skipping something is to imply that they should do it. And when you the way that we can make their interests intelligible, aren't you really implying that we should make their interests intelligible? It seems like you keep insinuating the "should" question, and that is why I tried to tackle it head-on in .
Quoting Antony Nickles
It seems to me that you are venturing the argument that the moral claims are only irrational according to a certain set of criteria, and that once we understand the criteria that the other person is employing then we will no longer view their claim as irrational. Is that correct?
When I say that wokeness is irrational what I mean is that wokeness is reliant upon clear falsehoods. I don't mean that wokeness is incompatible with my own personal set of criteria. Indeed, "irrational" does not mean, "incompatible with some arbitrary set of criteria," which is why such a word is being used.
Of course it is possible that we are talking past each other. It is possible that when I talk about someone who is "woke" I am thinking of someone who is irrational, and when you think of someone who is "woke" you are thinking of someone who is rational but misunderstood.
Quoting Antony Nickles
What if someone holds that we shouldn't adhere to systems which are reliant upon clear falsehoods, even if there is a great deal at stake? What if someone holds that the end doesn't justify the means? I don't see that the critique of wokeness depends on what is at stake, and therefore it is not clear why one would need to do a deep dive into the "stakes" before dismissing wokeness.
I think your basic position is, "You must understand the woke before you judge them." I would point out that understanding precedes judgment, and therefore everyone who judges something understands it (to one extent or another).
So the question is this: Why do you assume that those who judge the woke do not understand them? All of us who judge the woke believe that we do understand them. That's why we judge them. It actually appears as if you hold that anyone who judges wokeness unworthy has by definition not understood wokeness, which is a form of begging the question.
So I must pose the question: How will we know when our understanding is sufficient for judgment? How will you know when my understanding is sufficient for judgment? What makes you think that someone is mistaken who believes that their understanding is sufficient for judgment? Your own judgment is, "You think your understanding of wokeness is sufficient for judgment, but you are mistaken," and apparently you think that your own understanding is sufficient for that judgment. If I wanted to reverse roles and take up your own methodology I would simply say, "You must understand the anti-woke before you judge them," thus implying that your judgment is premature.
More simply, it is not a rationally substantive move to say, "What if you didn't consider enough evidence before drawing your conclusion?"
Quoting AmadeusD
Maybe we can find something to agree on here. Let me say that there are a lot of crazy-ass wokist actions Im not in a position to attach a CT pedigree to. But I will say that at least one Critical theorist, Theodore Adorno, espoused some positions that on their own merit are a bit crazy-assed, and whose interpretation by activists would predictably lead to the kinds of trouble weve been seeing.
So let me propose the following scenario: those wokists following crazy-assed doctrines fall to the wayside, and a new wokist moment arises based closely on the CT ideas of Habermas. No more pitting of power against power. Instead an emphasis on communicative rationality and hermeneutic consensus-building. Does this sound like a palatable scenario to you?
My aim, as I said, is to try avoiding useless bickering. My interest is something you brought up: looking into the character of the anti-woke.
You asked me if resistance is essential and I said that I wasnt sure how to answer. I think its a good question, if extremely broad in scope. I tried to narrow the focus to the Bud Light fiasco and asked, if you regard it as a form of resistance, whether or not pushing back on that was essential. I didnt think that I needed to say that the gesture was inessential.
Do you think the pushback was essential?
Quoting frank
Yes. Lobotomies were performed in the U.S. for 40 years, sanctioned by all the proper scientific authorities. Whats the point of calling them idiots? Do you call yourself an idiot whenever you agree to a medical procedure which has been approved for 40 years, because you cant know in advance which ones will eventually be discredited, just as lobotomy was.
Of course the difference between trans therapy and lobotomy was than the policies were rushed into place before the chance for any society-wide debate. Did this happen because of the decisions of idiots, or because this commonly happens when a new conception appears on the scene which blurs the lines between the medical, the psychological, the sociological and the religious and results in polarizing political debates which draw in the medical establishment when they are not prepared to navigate the political minefield.
Its not irrational to reject anothers perspective, no.
Hard to tell. Habermaas is one of the least-clear writers I've come across. In principle though, yes, that's fine and preferable.
Quoting praxis
The question was more to do with whether or not you genuinely held that view. I find it to be irrational, so I thought you were highlighting something you didn't hold to be hte case. All good.
Sure, you could describe it lots of ways. You could also think of it as a system of (perverse) incentives.
I'd place the main influence for the [I]appearance[/I] of absolutism within the earlier activist traditions, which were firmly embedded in Christian and Islamic contexts, and made use of prophetic language. However, is "moral absolutism" really characteristic of Wokism?
I know some pretty Woke folk, and I cannot think of a single one who would endorse moral absolutism if asked. Rather, you'd get epistemic relativism and meta-ethical anti-realism. I happened to be in an ethics class during the height of the Great Awokening and this was precisely my experience.
Generally, any absolutism is held to as a sort of performative contradiction; the absolutism of Woke is primarily [I] performative[/I] and volanturistic (indeed, both absolutism and negativity towards performative contradiction seem like the sort of things that are likely to get written off as a sort of cis-het-white-male-Western-etc. normativity, merely an assertion to be met with counter assertion, or even a sort of epistemic violence that tries to enforce a logical binary on expression).
Second, I'd be wary of conflation totalitarianism and moral absolutism. You can, and often do, see one without the other. Indeed, even moreso on the right, you see arguments for totalitarianism precisely because relativism and anti-realism are the case. Whereas plenty of quietist, pacifist, isolationist movements hold to a strong moral absolutism. Getting rid of absolutism doesn't necessitate a move away from totalitarianism; it can in some cases motivate the opposite move (indeed, I think the case in point is such an example).
Fair enough. Wasn't your point that lobotomy lead to progress, and so is to some extent redeemed by that? And likewise, the mistakes made while transitioning pre-pubescents should be seen as worthwhile? Or did I misunderstand you?
Quoting Joshs
I didn't say the activists who ran the transitioning facilities were idiots. I said we were. The whole society took a vacation from reason. It's a drama that echoes the eugenics craze in the US. That also started with pseudo-science that was caught up in a campaign to engineer a better human. If there is a Spirit of Progress, this is its dark side.
Prima facie, it didn't have to lead that way. Many of the early adopters of Nietzsche who rescued him from obscurity leaned to the right. I actually think systems of power, decentralized incentive structures, cultural biases, the systems of power inherit in careerism, and an oversaturated job market, etc. are quite good explanations here (which supports the original position). It's also worth noting that in the US context Christianity had held up remarkably well in comparison to the rest of the West until quite recently. Hence, it could remain a sort of "mainstream" custom to rebel against (even for foreigners, due to the outsized US influence), and our culture has a marked preference for iconoclasm. Anti-realism [I]can[/I] suggest the embrace of custom on aesthetic or other grounds, but this line didn't suggest itself.
However, note that the emergence of a right wing (post-Christian) post-modernism skews quite recent. I don't think this is incidental. In bourgeois coastal society, and particularly in academia, traditionalism finally became properly transgressive. (I happened to be reading Origen and Saint Maximus at the same time as Byung-Chul Han and Mark Fisher and it struck me that the former two were by far the more radical and transgressive in the current context, and not because of a traditionalist absolutism, but because of their radical optimism, aesthetic outlook, asceticism, and total lack of irony).
At the same time, a new post-Christian branch of the GOP coalition grew in size and influence, meaning such theorists would actually have allies and support to pull on.
Totalitarianism has to lock in, to totalize something. Doesnt it totalize a particular value system? If one says that a radical relativist acquiesces to totalitarianism
because they sanction an anything goes approach to values and ethics, how are the systems that are going their own way treated by these radical relativists? Doesnt anything totalitarian have to get going and then ossify into a self-perpetuating structure? Isnt the indefinite temporal repetition of the same system or structure a necessary condition for calling anything totalitarian? If so, then an anything goes relativist would have to embrace the proliferation of an unlimited multiplicity of diverse and incompatible totalitarian systems.
But is this way of thinking compatible with writers like Deleuze, Focault and Derrida? Decidedly not. Their method of analysis of texts, discourses and cultures is to
show that belief in the existence of monolithic systems are dangerous illusions that are nonetheless responsible for perpetuating all manner of social violence, repression and domination in the name of their preferred totalitarianism.
I suppose you could argue than the very claim that all supposedly totalizing, monolithic structures are composed of heterogeneous elements that dont venting to the identical structure is itself a totalizing claim. But if so, how does such a claim encourage or excuse the very totalitarianisms it is breaking apart?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, thank you. Wittgenstein will talk about investigating our criteria for judgment to get at our real need (PI #108), our underlying interests. This can look like destruction, as Nietzsches work is taken, of all that is great and important As it were all the buildings, leaving behind only bits of stone and rubble. we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand. (PI #108 my emphasis)Note: here he is looking at language, as it encapsulates our criteria, as a method (OLP) of seeing those interestsI take this as level set[ting] the playing field, to get at the actual stones and rubble of the situation before deciding what to do.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, tough ask. All I can say is I am claiming that is our job, as philosophers, as citizens, is to bring about Platos city of words, to work to make the concerns of others and those of our existing culture intelligible, explicit. The gist of all this for me may be: we do not decide what rational discourse is, we create it, make it happen.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Just to say again, I am not saying we are judging people, nor judging their expressions. I am suggesting we do not yet (have not done the work to) understand the grounds on which to have a discussion. That is to say, we have to give the claims of the other the good-will of a person whose expressions reflect what matters to them (and in this sense, rational, for reasons). Our first impression is to skip to judging what we assume those are without, as I have said, making the strongest case for what those interests could be. And, as you say, a politician is representative of our society, our culture, and so it is even more important to look past (judging) the individual, and also a different opportunity to draw out our cultures terms of judgment and interests.
Quoting frank
I think it is the eventual fate of all our best ideas to appear from the vantage of hindsight as the ravings of idiots. As my favorite psychologist, George Kelly wrote:
If it's inevitable, we should value all the more the restraint our conservative nature gives us: first, do no harm.
Relativism, even in its extreme forms, does not need to imply that we prefer or will all possible eventualities equally. Indeed, extreme forms of relativism are most coherent (perhaps only coherent) in the context of volanturism. "Anything goes," and "all assertion involves violence" does not imply "so we ought do nothing, ought not tip the scales in any direction." It can suggest this (e.g., ancient skepticism) but it need not. Any such endorsement of neutrality or "live and let live" would itself prove to be insubstantial, merely another assertion of one value over others. Thus, nothing precludes totalitarianism or recommends tolerance and pluralism.
As Hannah Arendt famously put it: "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." Orwell riffs on a similar insight throughout 1984, and Soviet writers have gone into depth on how this was applied as praxis.
Why? Are they committed to some sort of inviolable principle that leads from the truth of relativism to this sort of open-ended tolerance? I don't see why they would be.
To wit:
Or also:
Quoting Leontiskos
Let me use your analogy of the garden. It is a human-constructed niche, and like all of our built niches, what constitutes a proper or improper garden, a weed or a non-weed, is subject to criteria that change over time as a result of our ongoing interactions with gardens, people and other aspects of our world. So we can say that for a given person within a given time and culture, there will be specific criteria for the goodness or badness of a garden. What are such criteria of goodness based on, and can we generalize these criteria across persons and historical eras? I do believe in a certain notion of cultural progress, both empirical and ethical, so my answer is yes. But since the criteria I thinking are fundamental have to do with the concept of sense-making, it will be less clear in the case of aesthetic phenomena like gardens and works of art how this applies than in the case of the sciences or political systems.
Our understanding of the world is amenable to an unlimited variety of alternative interpretations. Any of these interpretations can work , that is , be predictively useful. Thats why we shouldnt wait until an scientific theory is invalidated to search for alternatives. It work beautifully in its way , with an underlying mathematics which is accurate to the millionth decimal, and yet we can come upon an alternative framework that we prefer because it reveals the relationships between the elements of the world in a more integral and intimate way. What the previous mathematically precise model assigned to randomness the new model organizes in a more meaningful way.
The one price one pays for abandoning the old model for the new one is that the new doesnt simply correct the mistakes of the old and supplement it. It changes the sense of the old models concepts. As a result, in order to gain entry to this new approach, one must be persuaded to view the world in a different way.
Because the observations and facts are reliant on the overarching interpretive framework of the model for their intelligibility, it is. or necessarily a simply matter to be converted to a new way of seeing. Especially if that new way has nothing to form a bridge between it and ones familiar ways of thinking.
Therefore, our overarching systems of interpreting the world , empirically, politically, ethically, spiritually, have a certain necessary inertia to them. I may have happened on a theoretical or ethical or political model which I find better than the previous one I held, but I cannot foist it on you if your own system of interpretation does not have the resources within itself to form the necessary bridge to allow it to modify its organization to accommodate the new model. I may believe my way of thinking is better for me than your way of thinking, but thats not the same as believing that my way of thinking is better for you than your present way of thinking.
I believe that all of us are continually evolving within our systems of thought, but at a pace that is determined by the limits of that system. My goal in debating with others is to understand their system of thought from their perspective as well as i can, and to test the validity of my efforts by attempting to plug into the leading edge of their own thinking. If my thinking doesnt find them where they are at, I will just get the equivalent of a glassy eyes stare of incomprehension or outright hostility. If I am successful in plugging into their cutting edge, they will respond enthusiastically, seeing me as a partner in thought rather than as a threat.
Quoting frank
Id rather audaciously stumble into the unknown. It beats a lobotomy.
Im not exactly sure if you are asking this of the woke or anti-woke ideologue.
One could say that Bud Light using a trans spokesperson was an act of pushback against a cisgender status quo, but I dont think you are talking about that.
I think you mean whether the pushback from Kid Rock and all he represented was essential. So now I have to ask essential to what - is pushback essential to a traditionalist, anti-woke position? Id say no. Traditionalists are the ones who dont move and so they are the ones progressive movement pushes up against.
Kid Rock was pushing back, but I think that was a sign of frustration that nothing else was working - no laws, no politicians, no arguments or discussions - just frustrated people showing off in their own bubble. Im not sure it was activism or true policy making push back.
But you could also see it (and I think you did) as a reaction to seeing wokism as the institution and the entrenched position, so entrenched it took over Bud Light drinking - on that case, it was activism and pushback.
Last though, if you just look at what is at the essence of woke, I think activism and pushback are essential to it. Woke is more of a negative deconstruction, than it is a positive construction. We dont need to know what gender means or is or can be, just that 3000 years of male-female binary dominance is over. We dont need to know if African or Asian or Middle Eastern cultures belong on a hierarchy, just that White European culture should be on the bottom. Pushback is essential to how wokeism seems to express itself. It needs the big bad wolf first, to then mount its attack.
Maybe?
The human race needs that too. We temper one another.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
According to one way of reading Nietzsche on Will to Power, he is advocating the creation of values systems which , in themselves and in terms of their structure, may act in totalitarian fashion. My point about the radical relativist was not that they must tolerate all and sundry systems of power , but that what it means to be a value system is to constitute, for a time long or short, a monolithically self -perpetuating normative totality.
According to Deleuzes way of reading Nietzsche, heterogeneity and difference inserts itself into every moment of the unfolding of any system of values, such that it is never the exact same system which unfolds itself every moment. As I said earlier, the idea of categorical identity is an illusion, but the most dangerous one. Deleuze writes:
Deleuze doesnt deny that values systems are produced out of this riot of differentiation, but these systems are only totalitarian from the illusory perspective of distance.
Why not let Bud Light drinking be taken over? According to Anheuser-Busch most their market segment didn't care, and there are many other brands to choose from. Modelo Especial took the lead after the incident, if I remember correctly. It's good, at least compared to Bud Light.
They saw a 28.2% y on y drop in sales at the highest effective point in June 2023 and 20% stock loss by the end of May that year. That's about 26 Billion. That continued until quite recently, where sales have stabilized. I'm not sure how more disingenuous a statement could be made on that specific issue.
Fortunately for me, almost all mainstream beers are terrible (Miller, Bud, Modelo, chinese Corona (now that it's not made in Mexico) among others. But that's not the point. Neither is this:
Quoting praxis
This leapfrogs the point and reflects a meme about liberal responses:
No, it didn't happen ->
Ok, it happened, but it's a good thing ->
Ok, it happened and is bad, but who cares?
Not saying you're doing this. Just getting a little meta about what's being discussed.
Seriously, why not, as Fire put it, let Bud Light drinking be taken over?
"There is no Nietzsche-the-self, professor of philology, who suddenly loses his mind and supposedly identifies with all sorts of strange people; rather, there is the Nietzschean subject who passes through a series of states, and who identifies these states with the names of history: "every name in history is I. . . The subject spreads itself out along the entire circumference of the circle, the center of which has been abandoned by the ego. At the center is the desiring-machine, the celibate machine of the Eternal Return. A residual subject of the machine, Nietzsche-as-subject garners a euphoric reward (Voluptas) from everything that this machine turns out, a product that the reader had thought to be no more than the fragmented oeuvre by Nietzsche . No one has ever been as deeply involved in history as the schizo, or dealt with it in this way. He consumes all of universal history in one fell swoop." (AO, pg 21)
This D&Gs perspective on Nietzsche and eternal return could also help resolve the problem of wokenesss moral absolutism. Likely, the subject of wokeness also is a residual product of affective, hyper-intensive processes. The subject receives those intensities and translate them into ultimate truth. Feeling of ultimate moral certainty resembles the return of all names and intensities of history. It is the result of hyper-intensified machinic affect.
So yeah, not sure what you mean. You could mean a few things:
1. allow Bud drinking to move over to a different demographic (feminine men? Idk);
2. allow Bud's marketing strategy be taken over by the same group (aesthetically, not identity); or
3. allow Bud to go broke because its demo doesn't understand social justice properly.
Allowing for some case-specific nuance, the answer should be roughly the same:
Its disrespectful to the existing market demo, severs no economic purpose and obviously sews social division. It tells the demo the producer doesn't care to retain their custom, that they do not care to make money from their product particularly, and that they do not mind causing easily predictable social dis-ease.
You could say "yeah, that doesn't matter because 3." but this, again, leapfrogs the issue: Why would you even get into the headspace of wanting to run this experiment, other than to upset people? And hte answer, in context, is virtue signalling in order to pick up market share (so, we can probably both drop this example - it was cynical regardless).
And hind-sight is 20/20. The biggest reason is because it wont work. It'll either tank the company, or make people vastly more abrasive to the "trans agenda" such as it exists (i'm a happy to sya it does in terms of marketing, at least).
Quoting Leontiskos
What I am suggesting is that we do not, as yet, understand the underlying interests, needs, judgments, and criteria, and that that is important before we judge what to do (or whatever idea represents here) or even before we agree or disagree on those interests, etc., before we have them fleshed out. I am not suggesting we naively attribute the most altruistic interests, just ones that take the claim seriously. Now do our interests ultimately conflict? Sure, but at least we now understand each others terms and so our disagreement is, in that sense, rational as in: explicit, intelligiblenot talking past each other.
For example, people often dismiss or try to solve skepticism, but Wittgenstein investigated why we do go there, and, attributing real concerns to it, found a truth hidden there, though it is easy to immediately judge it as a mistake, or wrong, or silly, or bad.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes, I am saying we should, while I do acknowledge all the ways in which it fails through no fault of our own, and understand that it is ultimately a decision and there may very well be other considerations to not do what I am suggesting, but I am only asking we consider the ways we get in our own way, especially philosophically.
Quoting Leontiskos
Well, Kant sets out and requires a certain standard for what he considers rational, and precludes any other criteria (as does Wittgenstein in the Tractatus, leading to his silence; as Plato excludes poetry); that exclusion is what I am saying is what philosophy sometimes labels as irrational. I am arguing that label and exclusion come before looking into the underlying interests. Now I see you are using irrational as in a persons actions are contradictory, hypocritical, that we have grounds to dismiss their argument (not factually correct @Amadeus), etc., but, again, I am saying we have work to do apart and before that judgment about their claim.
Quoting Leontiskos
Setting aside rationallets call it: possible of being serious about their interests and capable of having those be intelligible, explicitI am not saying their argument is better, say, if we could only understand it (if it were expressed better, more rationally etc.) Im saying that we are not yet aware of those interests, before jumping into the argument. I take this as needed on both sides of our culture as it stands as well as those of the moral claim.
Quoting Leontiskos
All legitimate concerns; but these are discussions about deciding what to do, and the reasons for them. All Im saying is this is an abstract discussion without knowing what the interests and criteria are of our current systems, what matters about this reliance, what IS at stake?
Quoting Leontiskos
One does not need to; dismissing something is the easiest thing. Just look at how some of the philosophy here is done: find a weakness, throw out the rest, dont learn a thing. I would just say we (all of us) can and should do better. I realize this is an argument for ethics, but, philosophically, the stratification of rationalemotional is where I started here.
Quoting Leontiskos
Im tripped up on to one extent or another. Isnt it the easiest thing to judge something without understanding it (even at all)? I, mean, isnt there a scale of understanding? presumption, prejudgment, prejudice, jumping to a conclusion, on and on, etc.?
Quoting Leontiskos
All I was trying to point out is that we should not dismiss a claim before understanding, not the argument, but what is at stake, what the interests are, what are the actual/proposed criteria, the shared and new judgments, etc. Im just trying to draw attention to how and maybe why everyone misses that step.
Quoting Leontiskos
I need to split a hair. I am not making a claim about wokeness as if to argue against your judgment of it, that it is mistaken, say, claiming that you dont yet have justification (grounds), evidence. I am asking us to stop the judgment, turn, and draw out the terms and criteria., etc. To look at our history, to attempt to see something perhaps overlooked in or by our current culture, etc.
Quoting Leontiskos
But I absolutely agree with that; we must understand all interests, our current criteria and the reasons they show us about the judgments we currently make, etc. I am not saying I understand those concerns nor am I judging the arguments, nor the people.
Quoting Leontiskos
Well, good question. I would argue that our goal is not judgment. In a moral situation like this, it comes down to whether we see that our (once drawn out) interests are more alike than apart, that we are able to move forward together, extend or adapt our criteria, reconsider our codified judgments, etc. Obviously the feeling here is that all went out the window through politics, moral bullying, etc. but the promise of justice is only ever good-enough.
I meant trans promotion had taken over bud light promotion. It wasnt clearly stated. But not too important. @praxis is kind of running with it.
Quoting AmadeusD
It was a predictably stupid business decision.
Quoting AmadeusD
If we make drinking alcohol legal and socially acceptable, do we have to push alcohol to all people of all ages in all settings, or is there any value to arranging a decorum and propriety surrounding alcohol consumption? Same thing with transgender. Time and a place, and read the audience. If bud light started marketing to kids and heavy machinery operators you might see kid rock shooting up cases of beer too.
Quoting AmadeusD
At least we (me and praxis included) should be more clear about what we are trying to use it for.
Thank you for the clarification. Ive read books and articles that are critical of trans activism, so Im familiar with some of the negative aspects.
I understand how some people might feel that the negative impacts outweigh the positive gains made for the trans community, and therefore see resistance to trans activism as necessary. Personally, I dont know enough to say that such resistance is essential, down to the last beer can anyway.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Antony Nickles
I don't think anyone judges something without understanding it at all. When we speak that way we are apparently involved in hyperbole. It is easy to judge something prematurely, but it is impossible to judge something without understanding anything about it. If we understood nothing about X then there could be no judgment about X. So yes, there is a scale of understanding and that has to do with the "extent" to which it is understood, but there is no such thing as judging something that is understood to zero extent.
More simply, people who make judgments obviously think their judgments are rooted in understanding, and therefore it does not further the rational discussion to simply call into question their understanding without providing any argument for why.*
Quoting Antony Nickles
I understand that, and my post was responding to it. When I said this:
Quoting Leontiskos
...by "understand the woke" I meant, "understand their argument/interests/criteria/stakes/etc." That is what my post was about. You seem to simply be presuming that we do not understand the woke. Many of your posts seem to reduce to the assertion that, "You guys don't understand the woke. You need to understand them before you make judgments." It may be worthwhile to revisit with this in mind.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I mean, if you really don't think you are implicitly claiming that my understanding of wokeness is insufficient (and that this is why I need to improve my understanding of interests/criteria/stakes/etc.), then what's the problem? If my understanding of wokeness is not insufficient, then what is wrong with judging wokeness on the basis of that understanding? If my understanding of wokeness is not insufficient, then why do I need to improve my understanding?
Quoting Antony Nickles
But isn't it coercive to tell me what my goal is? The reason many of us have judged wokeism wanting is precisely because we have judged that our interests are not more alike than apart; that we are not able to move forward together, etc. If we thought that our interests were more alike than apart and that we were able to move forward together, then we wouldn't have judged wokeism wanting in the ways that we have.
It's as if you see someone critiquing wokeism and you tell the person, "Our goal is not critique; it is such-and-such." But obviously the (proximate) goal of the person critiquing wokeism is critique. It seems very strange to walk up to a person providing a critique and tell them that their goal is not critique.
* Edit: A good example of an attempt to demonstrate an inadequate understanding can be seen by looking at post. That sort of thing is precisely what is needed in order to go beyond a mere assertion of an insufficient understanding. For a post like that to succeed would be for it to show that the understanding in question is inadequate.
Spitballing here, but it seems the individual has an interest in whatever negatives there are in getting vaccinated. We could say a society has an interest in the expense. The pharma companies have an interest in continuing the status quo? Then theres the interest of society to avoid the effects if it allows for individuals to choose not to get vaccinated.
Does that sound fair? What would be the criteria each would use to decide? Individual liberty, economics, influence on contracts?, the common good
Who wants to go first? Dig up an interest or set a criteria.
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree. If I say I know nothing about brain surgery I am exaggerating the fact that I know very little. If I knew absolutely nothing about it, I couldnt even call it brain surgery. And I would argue that I used judgment to admit I know very little about brain surgery - judgment of what I do know, and judgment of what brain surgery is.
So part of our initial criteria cant be not to judge at all. We need some judgment to progress through a discussion, to define, to identify, to finish with a thought and judge its safe to move on to the next.
Quoting Leontiskos
It is time for some meat on the bone, right? I asked @praxis before and now @Antony Nickles, what dont I understand about wokeism, or a key woke position - be it a whole position of just a key underlying interest, criteria, etc.?
I think in the end you will find that we have different interests, that maybe we can agree on criteria, and that we wont get to the substance of an actual issue. To each of us it will look like bad-faith in the other. I hope not, but that has been my experience. If we are too careful we get frustrated before getting anywhere, and if we are not careful enough, we yell at each other instead of conversing.
So to start over:
Over-arching rule of engagement: goodwill towards the others in the discussion, and good-faith in all things proffered in the discussion. I will assume you what you say and you can assume I do as well.
Interest 1: the well-being of strangers
Criteria 1: we all know something of what it means to care for the well-being of strangers.
Interest 2: rule of law
Criteria 2: law/policy as an end in itself, and a means to effectively enforce the interests protected in individual laws.
Interest 3: reason
Criteria: use argumentation that allows for verification in fact and in validity of logic
What needs revision above and what else do we need to set the stage for a reassessment of wokeness?
As to wokeism; I wonder why there must be such partisan polemic regarding it. Surely there were, and are, real concerns that lead to advocating wokeism as an attempt to deal those problems. No social movement is immune from downsides. Correcting those rather than rejecting the whole of woke culture would seem to be a better strategy. Instead we see more instances of black and white thinking from the ideologues on both sides.
An interesting observation. :up:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
These are astute observations. They remind me of "The meaning crisis" of Vervaeke and others. All of this makes good sense.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Right. I am still planning to follow up on your leads about thymos, as that does seem promising. I think that desire to "be good" or "do what is truly right" is behind a lot of Jordan Peterson's success, but I don't follow the various cultural currents as well as you do.
I admit that I am worried about our current state. I certainly don't see the way forward. I'd say the next decade or two will be interesting to say the least. So many of the duties that we have deferred as a culture are now beginning to catch up with us, and we seem ill-prepared to meet them. The whole national debt debacle with Musk and Trump is a picturesque symbol of deferred duties and a populace that is bewildered (or else numb or incredulous) at the prospect that the Debt Collector will come 'a knocking. So the erratic nature of the woke movement is certainly intelligible.
Interestingly, in my opinion wokism is also a Christian heresy, especially in its more moralistic and compassion-driven aspects. For that reason I think Christians need to get serious about confronting a heresy that is so intertwined with 19th and 20th century Western Christianity. The whole notion of bankrupting oneself out of ungrounded compassion is perhaps the paramount sign of this heresy, and I have seen it instantiate within Christian churches, hospitals, individuals, not to mention the society at large. But a large and simple part of this seems to be the loss of intermediate institutions, localness, and the sense of autonomy and confidence that comes from being integrated into a natural community or even a family. People read the national and international news as the local newspapers go out of business; they are hyperfocused on events that they have little to no control over, such as the presidential election; they go on Facebook or Twitter to protest international atrocities and are completely uninvolved in their own local communities; and out of all this comes a sense of impotence and hopelessness. At least on these fronts there really are remedies ready to hand.
Edit: I just started reading that article from Harper's and I see that it is very much related to what I've said here! Five years ago a feminist friend sent me a somewhat similar piece: "The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness."
For me, its hte underlying assumptions in even the use of the word "trans" in these contexts that has me thinking a bit further about these things. I do my utmost to jettison my personal negative experiences, but thats somewhat impossible to do entirely. particularly as they are in concert with overall reports.
As almost a joke, I note that the Manhattan shooter was initially reported to be "possibly white" with absolutely no reason whatso-fucking-ever other than to demonize young white men. That's woke as heck, in the terms I've discussed here.
I don't think there is any thinking nearly as black and white as wokism. That's the lion's share of the problem with wokism. This is why there is so much irony in these objections which essentially say, "You have to treat the woke with dignity, respect, and tolerance (even though they are the most undignified, disrespectful, and intolerant people around)." What I said here highlights a mild echo of the irony that applies to this objection (i.e. activism as opposed to wokism):
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, please!
Classical philosophy was always setting a barahead of time, abstracted from context or any effort on our partfor what should be considered rational, as you are with concerns about goals. Wittgenstein tries to point out, however, that setting the criteria for the assessment of everything is to miss that each thing has its own standards for us to judge by, e.g., scientific claims, moral claims, aesthetic claims, what makes up an apology, following a rule, pointing, understanding. Each has their own standards for inclusion as that thing, what matters to us for it, how we judge in that case. This isnt subjective but specific, thus the importance of understanding all the criteria and current judgments in a moral situation.
Quoting AmadeusD
When youre trying to decide where to eat on vacation, it helps to pick a local to ask. It is not about their claim, or our perception of them (their value?). They are not going to argue with you about where to eat (its not about the decision), but they know their way around.
Quoting AmadeusD
The needs and interests and judgments, etc., of our standing culture may be settled, but they still need to be drawn out, made explicit and intelligible (maybe even more so in being settled). Those things are not evident until we look at them. Now I am suggesting that, before we judge a moral claim, that we need to understand it from the inside; not someones argument, but the interests at stake, the criteria used to judge, etc. When you say the ideas are empirically dead, you are not only just judging the argument, but limiting the criteria to the empirical (Im not trying to justify the unfactual, but to take into consideration more evidence of anothers interest than that of which we are certain). And weve given up getting at their interests entirely with banal.
Yep, put too much english on that.
Quoting Leontiskos
Im just trying to clear a space before the argument; Im saying that understanding is not just to be clear about what they are saying (that we can understand it), but that we understand, as it were, them, the claim in its difference in interests, judgments, criteria. I am not calling into question anything (this is not a tactic), except our habit of jumping to the fight.
quote="Leontiskos;1003876"]...by "understand the woke" I meant, "understand their argument/interests/criteria/stakes/etc." I mean, if you really don't think you are implicitly claiming that my understanding of wokeness is insufficient (and that this is why I need to improve my understanding of interests/criteria/stakes/etc.), then what's the problem?[/quote]
Im thinking maybe there isnt one? I started trying to discuss philosophical assumptions that lead us to misunderstand/pre-judgemiss the actual importof a moral claim. Maybe this is just a matter of you thinking Im defending/arguing for something Im not, and me thinking you dont get what I am saying. Assumptions?
Quoting Leontiskos
It would be yes, that was worded poorly. Of course we have to get to a judgment about moral claims; we have to move forward, decide what to do, and on what basis.
Quoting Leontiskos
It is presumptive to assume that has not taken place, and, again, not my intention. I was only suggesting that, generally, people (and philosophers in particular) do not consider the ways in which they judge. Thank you for the serious consideration.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I dont know what you dont understand :smile: what do you understand? (is it high noon?) And here I am not talking about a position, either in whole or in part, as in, the argument for, but the underlying interests, the difference in criteria, i.e., what matters and how are we to judge? (And maybe other things.)
Quoting Fire Ologist
Different interests is fine as long as weve done our best to draw them out well enough. I would suggest maybe we dont think of it as our interests, as if they were personal, because we are of course examining the judgments and criteria of our standing culture, and what interests those reflect, and then the claim that those need to change, and why that matters. I have no skin in the game, nor knowledge of either really, but I can try to imagine them. I think we need a case before we can start describing interests though, right? I started to draw out the possible interest in lived experience w @AmadeusD that I could repost unless there is a better example.
That is interesting. It is like a new religion, and has been embraced by Christian and Jewish leaders and congregations.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok, Ill go first.
1. All people are different, unique individuals. (Putting people in groups, is secondary, and often just for ease of argumentation and generalization purposes). All people are unique, with particularities that deserve respect, charity, and that come from a whole person deserving love.
That is what matters about people. When there is injustice, it is a particular injustice. When there is something good, it is from one person that such good comes.
We can talk about groups and make generalizations for the sake of argumentation, but when discussing people, it is vital, essential, paramount, to remember always, the generalization and category is less than, smaller than, any single individual we might put in that box.
I dont care about the difference between white and trans as much as I care about the positive features of a person who calls them self white man or trans woman. I just think most of the time we argue in generalities about people in order to talk about how white men are different from black men - we are mostly full of crap, because we are ignoring the important differences between this black man and that black man, or this white man and that white man. I just think honest white and black men cringe about most woke generalizations.
For instance, racism used to mean judging another by the color of their skin. (Racism was always wrong because much like I think, you cant form a truly meaningful judge of character of an individual by judging him from the racial box he is in.). Now, due to CT and woke, only those in power can be racist. So racism doesnt mean judging another by the color of his skin, it means when a white guy judges another by the color of his non-white skin; it means a black person in America isnt equal to a white person and a black person cant be racist even if he wanted to be.
Thats the kind of incoherent, self-contradictory reasoning, that harms people, and makes problems worse, and that underpins many woke positions.
Im going to stop there.
Id rather someone who likes wokeism tell me something essential to it that I need to understand. But Ive talked about one of my principles that resists incorporation into woke ways of thinking and speaking, so have at it.
Quoting Number2018
But wouldnt AO argue that it is only on the dimension of the molar (rather than within molecular intensities, the body without organs) where a feeling of moral certainty can be manifest? Isnt it the molar regime of social formations which crushes , binds, plugs, arrests, cuts off the circulation of flows, constricts, regularizes and breaks singular points, and imposes on desire another type of "plan? This crushing and plugging activity of stratification and molarization would seem to be the opposite of hyper-intensified machinic affect. Moral certainty, a clearly codified, representational affect, is a molar formation, not an effect of free-flowing molecular intensities or the body without organs (BwO).
Doesnt one have to de-stratify from social formations and make oneself a body without organs in order to free up continuous intensities?
Quoting Leontiskos
Doesnt this raise the issue of the difference between theory and practice? Dont we all walk around with interpretive frameworks in our heads allowing us to make sense of our world? Dont our ethical principles and political instincts come from such theoretical structures, and dont we put such instincts and principles into practice every day in our interactions with others? Is the head of a family not an activist in putting into practice their understanding of moral standards in their child raising decisions? Are their parenting decisions not means to an end, that being the raising of good people? Arent all activists simply actively putting into practice what they believe to be in the best interest of society as they understand it? How are the critical comments about wokism in this thread not a form of activism? What are the ends the criticisms are a means to?
Criticisms from Dark Enlightenment people aren't supposed to accomplish anything. The downside to wokism is viewed as self-correcting, so if anything, the admonition would be to accelerate wokism. Go faster. Accelerate capitalism. Stop dragging this out.
Quoting frank
Is that what Nick Lands accelerationism is about?
Quoting Fire Ologist
That was a lot of argument based on principals (like the above), which I get, but is not what I was thinking of (nor trading reasons why/or why not only those in power can be racist.). We need a situation where the claim is, in a sense: what are we going to value and how do we do it? And then I am suggesting, before argument, we try to figure out what interest there could be in changing and in how (to judge differently). Im not sure what the situation is where the above comes up (I think an example always helps, even if manufactured at first), and I also dont understand the current criteria that are used to judge a person as a unique individual, and what the judgment would be for (Sometimes I dont want someone unique, I just want a soldier.)
Yeah. For the most part, the far right is not interested in reform. They believe the establishment has failed.
I'm familiar enough with Adorno to know that he leans towards realism. But you've merely found an exception that proves the rule.
Quoting Joshs
And Barron does not accuse them of that. What says there is important. To talk about the philosophical antecedents of wokism is not to talk about wokism per se. You keep blurring the difference.
Quoting Joshs
That's just not true. Asserting contrary to common knowledge, SEP, and Perplexity.ai is doing you no good on this score.
-
Quoting Joshs
Okay. In that case you should try to show why wokeness is needed in the garden.
Quoting Joshs
I think you're leaving out the part where you pull weeds and disagree with others, and it would be much easier if you forthrightly admitted that you do that too.
-
Quoting Joshs
No, because they do not treat the children as a means to an end. That their parenting is a means to an end does not mean that their children are a means to an end. You are making rational errors here.
Quoting Joshs
Sure, and we've covered this before. Just because someone is trying to do something good doesn't mean they are doing something good, and in this case it doesn't mean that they are not treating everyone as a means to an end. Hitler thought it was in the best interest of society for Jews to die in concentration camps. That doesn't make what he did unobjectionable.
Quoting Joshs
How are they? Try to argue your position that critically commenting on wokism is a form of activism.
Quoting Joshs
A better life and society for everyone, wokists included. To disagree with someone is not to treat them as a means to an end. To disagree with someone implies that they have intrinsic worth.
Quoting Leontiskos
You need to remind what you think the difference is, in specific terms. Lets start with this: If you agree with Barron that CT doesnt adhere to an anything goes relativism, are you claiming that some wokists do adhere to an anything goes relativism? Can you give specific examples here, (besides Amadeuss assertions)? If
you do think so, I think you are giving wokists too much credit. They are as a whole not philosophical scholars. Most activists are drawing on commoditized , pre-packaged , dumbed down dilutions of the antecedent philosophies. Given that the so-called radical relativists (Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida) offer ideas that are difficult even for other scholars to conceptualize, I suggest it is extremely unlikely the woke leadership, much less the rank and file, has assimilated any of this stuff. And as I argued earlier, if they have, it would pull the rug out from their moral self-justifications.
Heres the likely effect of a wokist actually absorbing the ideas of the radical relativists:
Is it really necessary to emphasize the differences between wokism and CT? Is it your contention that wokist practices are so wildly deviant from the philosophical antecedents Barron mentions that blurring the difference deprives us of a vital understanding of wokists? If Barron thought so, I dont think he would have bothered to spend so much time on those antecedents. Ill give you three names: Adorno, Gramsci and Fanon. I defy you to show me any concrete evidence of a wokist pronouncement or action that isnt fully compatible with one of these three thinkers. Its true that, strictly speaking, only Adorno comes from the Frankfurt school, but the other two share the larger Marxist framework with Adorno, and are as much realists as he is.
Quoting Leontiskos
Are you suggesting that wokists, in treating others as a means to an end, dont believe they have intrinsic worth? Should I be looking in the direction of Kant to locate the context of your critique of means-ends thinking?
Okay. :up:
Quoting Antony Nickles
Well, I don't understand why you would find it necessary to discuss philosophical assumptions that lead us to form premature judgments if you don't think any premature judgments are occurring. It seems to me that if someone judges that we should discuss the philosophical assumptions that lead us to form premature judgments, then they have already judged that there are premature judgments occurring. If there are no premature judgments occurring then there is no need to discuss such assumptions. If there are premature judgments occurring then there is need to discuss such assumptions. If there is a good chance that there are premature judgments occurring then there is a good chance that we need to discuss such assumptions.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Okay, I agree. :up:
I will admit that, supposing there is a problem with wokism, the specific remedy is not obvious. Similarly, the remedy and the critique must be proportionate. For example, if a problem is intractable then a heavy-handed critique will be unfitting and hazardous.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Okay, thanks for that.
My deeper point here is not that one cannot claim that sufficient understanding has not taken place, but rather that if one tells their interlocutor that sufficient understanding has not taken place (or implies it) then they must provide their interlocutor with some means for seeing why sufficient understanding has not taken place. In one way or another there must be an attempt to persuade their interlocutor that sufficient understanding has not taken place.
Thats why I hoped you would start the interests/criteria method you propose (and which sounds good to me).
Quoting Antony Nickles
Interests there could be in changing. So when I hear that, I immediately think there is some particular thing that someone see needs to change and you are looking for what interests there could be in changing. Or are you asking do you have any interest in changing any thing at all? Like what is your interest level in making some changes?
Cant you lay out some interests some criteria, sort of play this out a bit more?
Quoting Antony Nickles
I do too. Here we need an example of how to start the ball rolling toward the conversation you want to have. I am failing to do so.
Quoting Antony Nickles
So now it seems you are playing along with me anyway, which I appreciate, but I dont know if I respond to this I wont be just taking us further down a direction you were not intending to go.
But I will say, its a good question- I didnt say how to judge a person as unique. I was hoping we could just stipulate something like that, kind of like how @Leontiskos is using not treating people as a means with @Joshs. Thought it was easy starting point. But like I said, instead of digging into this more, can you start with something more like what you have in mind?
Quoting Antony Nickles
(Id love to get back to this though. And Id love to get back to the reasoning that says white privilege allows for white racism towards blacks, but black oppression disallows them from racism towards whites.)
But that may be too substantive as we are looking for interests and criteria for discussion.
My interest was in protecting the unique value of each individual person. This seemed too argumentative to you - what do you have in mind?
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree with all of that.
Quoting Leontiskos
I call that a discussion. Which we are all having.
Hoping for more meat, so we can make a judgment about woke, or not-woke, or woke versus not-woke, or traditional conservatism, or traditional conservatism versus non-traditional/non-conservative, or how best to even frame the discussion, and why the judge is sound or better than other judgements
How is this not an argument against the very possibility of totalitarianism tout court, regardless of the ideology consumed by its practitioners? And yet, totalitarianism does exist, and it does not seem impossible that someone who has digested Deleuze or Nietzsche could practice it.
Likewise, your former objection would seem be an objection to the possibility of self-interested behavior tout court. Yet both self-interest as a motivation, and relative selflessness, also seem to exist; there is a meaningful distinction between them. It's the same with rejections of the possibility of weakness of will or the existence of norms.
Might I suggest that if an ideology demands the denial of the very possibility of many of the more obvious features of human lifeif it demands that the ideology be affirmed over the obviousthis is itself a sign of potential totalitarianism?
I have nothing against an attempt to find a unifying principle that can be found throughout the appetites, be it "union with the good" or the search for "actuality" or "intelligibility" (arguably all three being the same thing). However, difficulties arise when it is denied that this unifying principle is realized analogously across different appetites, i.e., when all desire and appetition is reduced to a univocal understanding of some term, be it "utility" or "intelligibility." This is, IMO, perhaps the cardinal sin of liberalism, and one its descendants have tended to take on board. An anthropology that is so thin as to make no differentiation between epithumia (e.g., hunger), thymos (e.g., offended honor), and logos (e.g., the desire to "be a good person") is too thin to explain human history, politics, or ethics.
Second, the move to endorse a sort of amoral, disinterested analysis is itself the imposition of a value judgement. I get the basic idea. If we get rid of the moral valence, the blame, and adopt the dispassioned stance of the buffered self, we will avoid getting angry at people (anger is here negative), and thus avoid making the "mistake" of judging people or acts in moral terms.
The problem here is twofold. First, the supposition that getting rid of blame or moral judgement is going to "improve politics" or our "political judgement" seems problematic. On the Stoic view that the passions are simply bad, or at least "bad for reason," it makes sense. Yet the Stoics are wrong here. Rather, what is ideal is to experience just anger over what warrants anger, and likewise to experience just admiration of what warrants admiration. The passions are not a problem any more than the appetites are; only their improper orientation is problematic. The move to exclude morality from political thought is akin to amputating one's hand because one hasn't trained it to preform properly.
A view that advocates the reduction of the human being to a raft of social forces, flows, knots of language, etc., might very well be palliative in that it reduces inappropriate or overwrought anger. However, it can just as easily support callous indifference to suffering and vice. Such a reductionist account also destroys our notions of merit and goodness. It removes the beauty from history and ethical acts. One can certainly study a raft of social forces. One might even try to tinker with it to produce "choice-worthy outcomes." But does one resist serious temptation or suffer hardship for the sake of eddies of social force? Does one stand upon the ramparts in battle and risk maiming and death to save "flows," "sequences," and "concatenations?"
The same problem one finds in liberalism repeats itself here. Civilization requires the pursuit of arduous goods. It requires selfless leadership, a willingness to endure significant hardship and resist extreme temptation even in times of peace, and heroism in times of war. A denial of thymos and logos leaves no ground for such pursuits. A view that dissolves the subject, and thus merit, aside from being metaphysically and psychologically flawed, also fails as being properly pragmatic for society (let alone aesthetically pleasing).
We might suppose then that mercy, clementia, is wanted more than amoralism. That is, "men with great hearts," rather than C.S. Lewis's "men without chests."
The second issue is that such appeals generally tend to be illusory. Dispassion, in the Stoic sense, might be more or less established in individuals, but apatheia is not apathy. It doesn't dispense with values. Were we to dispense with them, there would be no proper standard by which to measure anything. Rather, what one cares to elevate tends to end up being left outside the "bracket" and is raised up on account of all other contenders having been dispatched.
The idea of man as eddies of social force (granted not as fully matured) is exactly the sort of thing I think Dostoevsky argues against to great effect throughout Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is only aligned to his natural compassion when he is forgetful of this "new understanding."
I find this assertion strange because the annals of Woke protest letters/debates are full of assertions of an expansive moral and epistemic relativism/anti-realism.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/pomona-students-truth-myth-and-white-supremacy/
Yes. Of course this one example - but one of plenty. (i'm also only trying to illustrate hte attitude - not decry all 'wokists' on the same basis).
Quoting Antony Nickles
I'm not entirely sure what the potshot here is, but if its that its incorrect to describe woke behaviour hte way I did, either we can agree to disagree or I can present examples for you (one above). They will number high, and be external links to the actors own words/actions. The paradox of tolerance (i.e, the patent intolerance of that which we subjectively deem intolerable ) looms large. If this isn't what you're getting at, I don't know what you are, so would appreciate and explication.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This seems to rely on your underlying supposition that we(anyone making the noises we're making) don't understand enough to pass judgement. That seems patently incorrect, and exactly what I had classed it as: a cop out. It precludes any third party analysis until you're satisfied the speaker sufficiently understands things (i imagine, the way you do). This is not really doing the work, but instead saying that the work cannot be done other than on terms you agree with. I reject that entirely, so if this is your argument we're at an end to the discussion, i'd say. I imagine you've said more in the thread, so this isn't meant to be a dismissive statement, just explanatory.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is a perfect example. Its obviously about judgement. That is how humans operate. However, you've made a point I want to go into a bit, though in other ways:
For any discussion of this kind, we need to establish what goals are on the table. Something like "inclusion" is insufficiently clear. Inclusion of what, for what reason and to what end? But, if we at least have each other's goal in mind, we might be able to do something akin to what you've said above, but judgements will be there the entire way through. This is unavoidable. I cannot understand how you could make the statement above and expect to lead to anything but sitting about umming and ahhing.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yeah, and those criteria all rest on a rational analysis of the state of affairs. If your analysis is not rational (i.e reasoned and logical) you will import falsities, assumptions and irrelevancies, making your actions disagree with your object. This is a full explanation of why this is the wrong way to think of "rationality". Wittgenstein is not impressive to me in this regard at all, and in fact, comes across as someone cowardly (take the dramatic-ness out of hte use of this word). I'm unsure relying on one or two thinkers to discuss something so fundamental is a good idea either.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This doesn't move the needle. If you support a non-rational assessment of any state of affairs, we may be at an impasse. I don't accept that there are ways non-rational to achieve goals. I cannot understand any other motivation to act. If there is one, put it forward and let me know what criteria you think are relevant to it. That may solve hte impasse.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Usually not, no. This is a tradition that makes not a lot of sense. What would make sense, is to say "Hey, you live here, what's your favourite x". That doesn't give me anything but an opinion. This is not rational discourse and does not get me to my goal, unless it is to eat at a place this particular local person prefers. There is no good reason to accept a local's answer to the question "Where's good to eat"? They don't know anything more than you do about your apprehension and enjoyment of new food.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This seems to reduce the question to one of "where are the restaurants". That's rational, aimed at a goal. Fits with my descriptions perfectly. The former does not.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Then (given the arguments you're running, but i admit this is somewhat an assumption about what you're trying to say) the Woke need to do this. Not everyone else. If they can't adequately articulate their urges, needs and goals without resorting to violence, insults and coercion i couldn't give a shit. Neither, I think, should I. The racist can't adequately articulate theirs. I dismiss them. I take a lot of Wokists to be racist anyway, so maybe that's a moot point.
Quoting Antony Nickles
On current status, we've been looking at them - dead in the fing eye - for a decade or more. I am beginning to think, again, that you simply deny that anyone has a handle on these things. This seems, as my example clip to Leon shows, to be a "You literally cannot question this" type of claim, because at no point that someone is critical, will you accept that they sufficiently understand the subject (it seems). I'm going to simply tell you, outright: I understand what I'm talking about. I was what I am talking about. I was embedded, and respected within Woke culture of a specific kind (drug policy, for clarity and i mean locally, though not entirely restricted in that way. You can find articles about me internationally). I understand these things, and my critiques are well-founded. It wont do to simply tell me "No".
Quoting Antony Nickles
Could you be clear about what you mean by "a case"? It seems we'd only have two options:
1. Explicit claims;
2. Inferences
in 1, we have no work to do. In 2, we will just have the same back-and-forth about understanding.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I suggest this is particularly, and somewhat perniciously (again, remove hte dramatics) wrong. Philosophers, over most others, do exactly this. This is probably why academic philosophy so intensely leans left (particularly public academic phil).
Quoting frank
Seems so for the far-left also. This is to be expected, and I'm unsure why there are discussions about understanding absolutist and destructive ideology (on it's face, anyhow) from either side. Why not ignore hte idiots and move forward with reasonable people in the discussion. But that's a pipe dream, I know, and not necessarily 'right'.
Quoting Joshs
They are not activating statements. THey are quibbles on a forum. Activism is taking intentional action aimed at social or political change. We're not doing that. I probably would if I had time, and I used to be an extremely "active" activist and routinely invoked "woke" tenets of inclusion, equity, racial disparity, sex discrimination to support my arguments. These were erroneous. There were rational arguments to be had. I stepped away from activism when I could no longer make any sense of what was happening around me, or what I was doing in response to it. I see exactly hte same thing in woke activists. The crash outs are monumental. I walked away quietly.
Quoting Joshs
Yes. And it may be worth noting that this is what we're talking about. The mention of the antecedent philosophical thinking is futile, because it isn't involved in their thinking (or activism).
I think the only outstanding matter is Josh' assertion that all wokists run in circles that can be reduced to a few thinkers ike Adorno or Fanon. That is a wild challenge. I would say that the outright racism and wilfully misunderstanding things (like the current American Eagle controversy) is probably not in line, lol.
In the video linked on the previous page, Bishop Barron refers to an 'objective hierarchy of value'a structure he sees as embedded in the very fabric of reality. While that may be a compelling theological claim, it also implies a preference for maintaining a vertically structured society. And in any vertical structure, there is always a lower class.
Exactly. The far right and left have become so similar that we might expect to start seeing them voting as a block against the establishment, represented by Democrats.
What do you mean by "move forward with reasonable people in the discussion?"
My main focus these days is futurism, like around the year 2100. I think climate will be one of the main drivers of events at that point, so I watch Trump's attempts to make the US independent from the rest of the world, his statements about annexing Canada and Greenland. I think it's super ironic that Trump will probably be thought of as visionary one day. Life is strange.
As for wokism, it's in things like a recent failed Disney movie called Snow White, in which the titular character was played by a fairly dark-skinned Latina, and according to this actress, we shouldn't think of this folktale as a love story, because Snow White doesn't need a man. :grin:
To say that something is heretical is to say that it is a kind of warping of a religious form, and that the warping has become internal to the religion in question. So analogously, if you take poor care of your feet and end up with a fungal infection, that fungal infection is a kind of heresy. It's a problem, it's merged to your own body, it's in some measure your own fault, it is something you have to take care of and take responsibility for, etc.
Quoting praxis
There is an important point that Barron makes at 53:26, and it is closely related to what I said about putting second things first. There Barron contrasts the absolute values of justice and love as hierarchically superior, with the secundum quid values of diversity, equity, and inclusion as hierarchically inferior. I think it's fairly difficult to gainsay the Bishop on this point and claim that diversity, equity, or inclusion are absolute values. This inversion where one places secondary things into the first place is key to wokism.
Edit: More explicitly:
Quoting praxis
If X ideology shares nothing in common with Y religion, then it is impossible for X to be a Y heresy. In such a case Y could view X as an error but not as a heresy.
So lets say religion is concerned with supporting disadvantaged communities, those communities being people born on earth. Religion should see us all in the same predicament, all in need of an Ark to ride the storm.
This shows you the heresy. Wokeness divides us all up into privileged and oppressed. As if one group was more moral than some other. Religion, or Christianity, should find this heretical, or at least, too small minded.
The way to help the poor isnt to take down capitalism and educate people about privilege and social construction - its to go out and help the poor. Woke religious folks now get to sit on their asses and argue with republicans, or maybe interfere with some rich persons activities, or yell at a protest with a bunch of people who already agree with you, (which is way more fun than going to a soup kitchen and doing the dishes.)
Quoting AmadeusD
I worded this wrong obviously, as I conceded to Leontiskos; of course we can pass judgment at any point, and we must at some point. Also, I am not trying to undermine any assertions or judgments in particular (I am not arguing). I am merely suggesting that it might be helpful to look at what is at stake, how that is to be judged compared to now, etc. Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are. Yes! that may have already been done! Although my (one) argument would be our society (not of course anyone here) jumps to judgment most of the time, and I only started because I thought I saw the argument framed as rationalemotional (a version of objectivesubjective) which is one thing that gets in the way, philosophically, of getting at the criteria for the case at hand, thus the interests in it.
Quoting AmadeusD
This would be traditional philosophys framing of a moral discussion as an argument over what ought to be done, or the justification for that, or principals, etc. I am suggesting a different discussion where we are talking about how to move forward in a situation where no one has more authority to what is right. I am suggesting that we may not see beforehand what the criteria are that we use in that scenario, and what new or different criteria would look like, as a method, a way in, to see what our interests are (as they are captured in our criteria for each thing).
I appreciate your time in responding; this got a little, philosophically, muddled. If you want, I clarified things more (I hope) in response to Fire and Leontiskos directly above. We worked a bit above on a situation that relies on lived experience, but I think I will give something else a chance (in response to Fire) since we didnt seem to be getting anywhere. Thank you for your efforts and consideration.
What i mean is that people who can provide reasons, and not either deflect (which, I think personally, Anthony is) or move on to epithets, threats, impugnings and irrelevancies should be included - those who do those things probably shouldn't (and this based on a goal-oriented metric, not some 'moral' framing).
Your final point is an example of the sort of unreasonable behaviours I'm talking about. Zegler's goal was obviously of a feminist/equity bent. She failed, entirely, and turned people off her, the film and the general thrust of her point. Its irrational in a way that (speaking to Anthony's point) is objectively damaging to the goal.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Ok, fair enough. Much better starting point.
Quoting Antony Nickles
My initial charge on you still stands. This just kicks the can a bit. Fwiw, I understood this to be your intention to begin with, and felt the same sort of denial was coming through. As someone who was in that space for a decade, I find it (superficially and i do mean 100% superficially) insulting to be told perhaps I'm not looking at the underlying urges. I lived them. This doesn't butter your bread, but may explain why I've been a bit... tetchy.. on this particular point.
Quoting Antony Nickles
While I agree with the opener here (premise?) i disagree that the final point makes sense. This issue is frame and carried out as a tension between emotional and reason. That's largely hte difference between right and left. There's a reason "bleeding heart liberal" is a term, i suppose.
Quoting Antony Nickles
A few things here, that, unfortunately, make it seem like you're not really hearing what's being said:
1. I disagree. That is not the framing of traditional philosophy given "traditional" philosophy has resulted in three distinct and essentially non-overlapping moral frameworks that virtually all philosophers adhere to. But I also thikn this is a red herring;
2. What you are suggesting is actually ignoring what i've said. What I've said is we need to establish goals. That way, what "ought" to be done is a clear, concise and able-to-be-discussed subject. The criteria are already laid out when our goals are sufficiently articulated. Goal is x. Discussion: How do we achieve goal x? That is the criteria. If being overly emotional is counter productive to the goal, then you have your answer. There is no tension.
3. The interests are our skin in the game of achieving the goal, not in carrying out the criteria. Criteria do not care how you feel, they care about what you want to achieve.
This continues to exemplify the exact tension stated above, between emotional and reason. Reason is getting us to move forward. Emotional is getting us to talk in circles. I very much appreciate your time too. Its a pity we werent' able to come to terms.
What is at stake. My own assumptions are at stake, and I might find my current conclusions are incoherent, unsound, factually inaccurate.
What the possible interests are.
I keep hoping youd posit an interest. And we could pick at that for criteria but Ill keep spit-balling.
I understand the only reason at this point to posit an interest is Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means
Thats perfectly fine. But still, I keep trying to step off of the starting line, to make my cut so we have something to contextualize again
But lets just say I am willing to put enough at stake to learn I was wrong - I (we) have to be honest with ourselves throughout the discussion, and be as clear as we can to each other when talking of the honest conscious thoughts.
There is criteria - at least honest opinion.
So do we have to now figure out what I mean by honest and opinion first, or do we just pick one and Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means
I am willing to look foolish here. Im begging you make your own cut to take the heat off me with all of my Quoting Fire Ologist
Just stick with me.
Quoting Antony Nickles
So above I said what is at stake is being wrong in my own understanding or better put, learning something new that replaces what I thought I knew but did not. This is a situation where I concede my authority to something else where no one has more authority. Even if it is you who I say corrected me, that doesnt matter. It is an openness to something new that must be part of the criteria, not something we thought of beforehand.
Now we could say:
We put X interest at stake as method, to see what put at stake means, and then get back to analyzing X interest with a new sense of what is at stake and a first sense of what was the criteria.
Right? Are you at least with me, if Im not with you, which I think I am with you. (I dont think we are getting very far yet, but want to keep reveling the engines here at the starting line.)
Quoting Antony Nickles
Im already ready to jump in.
Im willing to figure out the criteria, live in action, while floating some arguments and interests about what to do and what there is to bother to talk about.
I propose we do both at once:
1. posit an interest (make a clear start - cut the way in)
2. say how to posit an interest (say how it is cutting and not slicing or breaking.)
2 is how you are suggesting we do it.
1 is what I am saying we do.
We can do what and how and the same time.
I think as my first NEW assumption of method, I am positing that we address what and how at the same time as much as possible.
We can bounce between them as we actually do either one. (I posit this, because I think we are already do it, and it has gotten me this far, it is there functioning already..
But even though positing 1. above might go first, Id rather you positi something of the criteria that you think I might speak to as well. We dont have to start with my interest in honest opinion with a how/what method.
I keep asking - just throw an example out there.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is abstract stuff - not easy to color your thoughts into my head or worse my thoughts into your head. But I think Im with you. If you dont see it and thats surely my fault - I admit I need much more editing than I give these posts, so apologies.
But I hope you see we have at least a little further to go.
Quoting Antony Nickles
So do you mean 1.) is subject-object to be taken as meaningless/useless discussion, or 2.) does what subject-object mean not matter, has no needed use here and gets in the way here, and we will just get back to subject-object later?
Thats akin to what I am saying here:
Quoting Fire Ologist
I see both of these as an example of doing precisely what Antony is asking for here:
Quoting Antony Nickles
The means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are is to articulate the goals while we lay we lay out the criteria these goals are articulated in/with.
Right?
We can all consider ourselves on the exact same page methodologically, and that me and Amadeus have taken a first step at a new criteria with the goals/criteria, posit a what while saying how method.
Can we work on method WHILE we work on goals?
Or here is a different goal:
Quoting Leontiskos
Yep, agreed. That's why I resorted to saying we're talking in Circles in my reply to Antony. It seems like no start point is acceptable.
I was working on sketching out a situation: criteria for appointment to a board, but I will concede if there is a more interesting example. I am not an expert in these things.
There is no gainsaying the Bishop on this point, and thats half the point.
Rather, the fixed hierarchy is key to power stratification that wokeness aims to reduce.
Obviously I am failing utterly to make myself understood so I would suggest that yes, we should discuss the philosophy as a side note. I would reply to all of the above but I think we just move to the meat as you say. Ill just say I am talking about fleshing out an example, not about an examination of what is at stake for you and me, or our criteria for judging an (this) argument, or an argument about posited interests, or how to assert them. Whew. Gimme a minute.
@Leontiskos
Huge.
So secondary things placed first is key to wokism.
Or, wokeness aims to reduce fixed hierarchical power stratification.
So much work to do.
Ill start with power stratification.
Why does wokeism assume it must be reduced?
Is there something inherently always oppressive about hierarchy; or can hierarchy be compatible with, or even necessary for freedom and justice?
Can we question this interest first:
If the fixed hierarchy is key to power stratification that wokeness aims to reduce, then lets see if that is a good goal, if that is supported by valid criteria?
My sense is wokeism judges hierarchy inaccurately as oppressive.
I cant create an argument to prove this (someone else might), but I can give an example that allows me to judge hierarchy as neutral whereas oppression is negative, so by inference, if hierarchy is neutral, it need not be oppressive, so no need to assume so.
Hierarchy is woven into the fabric of everything and speech itself. By positing a reduction we still must see the higher has been make lower, and so there is simply a new hierarchy, not a non-existent power stratification, merely a new one. So wokeism cant simply aim to reduce power (as if all power over another must be bad). If a woke person, or anyone, wants to realign power stratification, they must do just that - realign it, not simply and abstractly seek to take down all the powerful. We have to live with hierarchy and need have no interest in defeating hierarchical thinking and power structures - but we may instead need new representatives of the ideals or the high, and more humility from the ones who are led or the low. We arent just to embrace hierarchy either.
Im not saying there is never a time to fight the power, to take down the man. Because there certainly is. But I am saying there is also I time to set up on high, to uphold a positive structure, and build up. So if reducing hierarchy is an essential part of wokeism, wokeism is doomed to be incomplete. Its not a good enough goal.
We need a situation obviously. Ill just throw out there what @AmadeusD and I started on, which was basically, say, adding people to a board. If criteria are different based on more details, we can add those to see necessary distinctions.
Now Im going to brainstorm here, provisionally, so we can all help: what would be the prevailing criteria? history of leadership, subject-matter or practical experience, the ability to contribute to the board's goals (say, fundraising, lobbying), connections (political, celebrity). We may need to elaborate how judgments are made on those criteria with examples, etc., but I would think we could say (agree) the interests in those criteria are something like: having a board with decision and debate skills, knowledge, but also prominence in the community (powerful, influential); though, as @Fire Ologist says, take a cut at it.
Now if we are adding lived experience to that list (or diversity or equity, which we can shift to (not all at once), but I would be even more useless at fleshing those out easily), we might first have to ask what this is? I would think, broadly and most simply, the criteria to judge if someone has it (again, any help here): would seem to be a person having lived through something. But, in that we have all lived through something, it begs the question: lived what? Experience as a criteria is already being considered, so, whats the difference? Time spent working yes, but also maybe advocating for the same issues as the board, and, perhaps, just, other things we do or have accomplished (and practical skills). But, if we consider it as just having passively lived through something, it might look like: having navigated a process the board is working on, or having been part of the population the board is trying to help, say, as a better AA sponser is one who is an alcoholic that is sober (is that a skill?). Other examples? (And here I am not asking to be given examples of woke arguments.)
As I said in a post above, it may have something to do with only certain types of situations (maybe it doesnt always help), such as a board involved with constructing policies that would change things that affect how people live, and so, valuing having people that are connected with the lives they are trying to change. Maybe, apart from any particular board, prioritizing one person over another just because of what they have been through, or are part of (a community), may be similar (in some way) to the existing criteria of having connections (here I imagine the cynical inclusion of someone just because they are a celebrity in the sense of a token). But it might be like carpentry, which you cant just tell someone how to do (sorry DIYers), so it is learned through apprenticeship. Or like an expert as a valued source of evidence; say, an attorney who gives advice, factors to consider, like risk (but not based on something as concrete as the law). I had also mentioned earlier that if you are on vacation looking for something to eat, you ask a local (they know their way about). Maybe we could say we would not be valuing, say, their knowledge or skill in making any decision, but perhaps something like their perspective (though I cringe, as the word seems lazy; I mean I might as well say wisdom for all the good that does), but, then, what is it about their perspective? or their ability to have perspective?
Ill leave it there for now, but I hope Ive demonstrated the process Im suggesting. I dont know anything about boards or lived experience, so go easy. What I would hope for next is for us to add to the criteria, fill in examples, draw out distinctions, etc., and then we can see if weve gotten anywhere, rather than jumping straight to fighting (or just carping) about what Ive put out there, which is, basically, conjecture. If things need clarifying, counterexamples, go ahead; if its broke, fix itI suggest first trying to get at a good overall sight of all the grounds (get it).
What do you have to say about the fact that for 95% of human history we lived in hunter-gatherer egalitarian societieswithout a state and organized religion?
This flies in the face of what the bishop claims is natural.
Id say 95% of human history covers hundreds of thousands of years possibly, and we have scant evidence of what the moment to moment lives of those individual people were like, other than, if they were people, they found themselves dealing with hierarchy everyday. How certain are you about egalitarian hunter/gatherers? You dont think some people consistently gathered more food than others, and stratification wasnt considered all of the time??
I didnt listen to the bishop.
We can probably skip paleolithic economic theory and simply acknowledge the absence of a state and organized religion, yes? This, in my opinion, loosens the rigidity of the bishop's hierarchy of values because it indicates that their fixedness is not natural.
This post outlines your overall perspective on wokeness. It begins by a confusion between affect and feeling, and then opposes this conflated notion to the interpretation of the discursive context within which the affect arises and which grounds the supposed moral authority of feeling. In this view, affect-feeling is produced through a combination of discursive and hermeneutic practices. This framing makes the interpretation of the discursive context responsible for generating the emotional discomfort like feeling hurt or offended as the ground of moral claims. It is assumed that the force of this discursive-hermeneutic process derives from a certain moral absolutism. In fact, you are pointing to a central aspect of wokeness's moral discourse. Likely, this moral absolutism causes woke individuals to avoid debate or resist a rational scrutiny of their views. Yet, the nature of this connection remains unclarified. A potential solution might be based on a reading of D&Gs Anti-Oedipus.
Quoting Joshs
AO offers a more nuanced perspective. Thus, the subject is the product of synthesis, not its origin. The So that was me moment in a conjunctive synthesis is the culmination of intensive processes. "The third synthesis of conjunction, produces the residual subject ... not the subject of desire but a residuum produced by desire and by the series of its productions." (AO, 1819) Yes, molar formations code desire, but the feeling That is me, or I am the moral center is not the result of molar repression. Instead, it is an outcome of machinic process of the transformation of affect into an intensive identity. Yet, molar encoding does not erase the moment of the intensive production of subjectivity. The immediate experience of one's moral position cannot be imposed from the outside. It comes as the result of co-existence and co-adaptation of molar and molecular domains. This view aligns with Massumis argument that the rational aspects of judgement are unseparated from impersonal, affective forces. Events of decision that we experience as rational choices, seemingly without the motive force of affect to move them, envelop the complex of the pre-cognitive and micropolitical processes of the event-based situation. The rational aspects of the event judgment, hypothesis, comparative evaluation of alternatives, decision were mutually included in the event along with all the other co- operating factors. (Massumi, The Power at the end of the Economy, pg. 47). Overall, the production of subjectivity and affect underpin wokenesss 'moral absolutism'.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
They are relativist to a point. For instance, social constructionisms anti-realism is epistemically realistic. Joseph Rouses analysis may easily be applied to the Pomona students letter.
But things get complicated here. Ken Gergen considers himself a social constructionist, and yet rejects the blameful self-righteousness of identity politics.
I cant imagine Gergen endorsing the accusatory language of the Pomona letter, and I think the reason is that his form of social constructionism is postmodern and theirs is emancipatory. Emancipatory discourses like Marxism and the various versions of CT carries forward Hegels totalizing dialectics, asserting a real ethical ground on the basis of which to accuse groups of succumbing to mere myths and using these myths to oppress others.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Its not a question of denying features of life but of offering an alternative explanation for the motivations behind what appears as those features from a certain vantage. If your answer to the question of how well-intentioned people can produce totalitarian regimes and value systems is weakness of will , and my answer is limited ways of understanding alien forms of thinking, am I denying weak will as an obvious feature of life? Or am I acknowledging what you are seeing but enriching your view with a perspective which happens to be invisible to you? It all depends on the perspective.
You may argue that Ken Gergens quietism is a tacit endorsement of totalitarianisms, but he makes a distinction between respecting vs accepting ways of life that one disapproves of. Activism is still possible and necessary for him. He doesnt pretend that totalitarianisms exist, but his analysis of their genesis differs from yours such that he would claim that you miss the forest for the trees. As a result you have no choice but to pathologize and moralize what he would submit to a hermetical negotiation based on mutual respect. This is how I have been reading approach to ethical debate.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Dont confuse flows and concatenations with value-free causal bits. These flows are anything but value-neutral. And they are anything but motive and purpose-neutral. We strive to make sense of things. Put differently, cognitive-valuative systems organize themselves in order to anticipate events, which primarily means the actions of each other. This is an end in itself, not a means to a selfish goal. The appearance of selfishness as an obvious feature of the world is a kind of illusion in that it conceals the underlying dynamics behind a monolithic concept like will. The fact that we are concatenations and flows of values and desire means that no one can stand outside of some stance or other to judge from on high, including the philosopher who writes about such flows. They are not a neutral observer but are writing always from within context , within history, within perspective. There is no perspective which doesnt already have a stake in what matters and how it matters, but this doesnt prevent one from talking about it from within ones relation of care and relevance to the world.
This is to start a separate thread than the boardroom example above (of method) to address any philosophical clarifications separately.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I would hope this is clearer given the example, but I am suggesting looking at the existing and proposed criteria used in a particular situation (not, criteria for an abstract goal), which will take some work to flesh out (not being clear as in, even uncovered yet, much less drawn out in terms of how they work, i.e., considerations, implications, distinctions, etc.), and then we can try to imagine what the various interests might be, in seeing how those current and proposed criteria reflect what matters to each.
As I take this quote of @Number2018 to reiterate: Events of decision that we experience as rational choices, seemingly without the motive force of affect to move them, envelop the complex of the pre-cognitive and micropolitical processes of the event-based situation. The rational aspects of the event judgment, hypothesis, comparative evaluation of alternatives, decision were mutually included in the event along with all the other co- operating factors. (Massumi, The Power at the end of the Economy, pg. 47) (my emphasis). The rational aspects of the event, the particular criteria in a situation, he says envelop and includeI would say reflect (as OLP claims)all the co-operating factors, which are the interests in those (mutual, or shared societal) criteria for judgment, in that particular event.
This might be overly coarse, but I take the other option to be claiming/attributing/assuming a certain goal first and then perhaps treating interests as justifications for the goal, or motivations for the goal. Whatever that may be, I take it as the classic philosophical discussion to first determine what is right or what ought to be done, which can lead to setting the requirement (criteria, basis) ahead of looking at the criteria of a particular case, and abstractly arguing for what is to be considered rational, and thus irrational, (which can leads to/come from, a desire for things like universality, completeness, certainty, etc., as discussed above, because all criteria include our desires/interests, even rationality). Again, I take this difference as a matter of analytical philosophy, and not as some kind of proxy for woke/not woke (although there is, as we have discussed, the theme in philosophy of: not reflected upon yet, fully thought through, etc. which I can see now as possibly analogous, though I wouldnt take as equating the discussions).
Quoting Number2018
This sounds fine, as far as it goes. Im concerned with an interpretation of the above which sanctions something like Protevis concept of political affect. I see a fair amount of overlap between Protevi and Massumi on affect.
Operating from below conscious subjectivity, Protevi proposes evolutionarily adaptive neurological modules that program subjects for prosocial behavior as well as for narrowly construed self-preservation. Impinging on persons from above are socially originating forms of conditioning . Notice the Deleuzian language that Protevi incorporates.
If there is no gainsaying the Bishop on that point, then you are already committed to the same sort of hierarchy he is.
Quoting praxis
My point is that the idea that hierarchical thinking is an evil bogeyman is a strawman. Anyone who admits that some values are higher than others is involved in hierarchical thinking. It's just not about power stratification. The power hermeneutic is something that the woke imposes on everyone and everything.
Quoting Leontiskos
You may be more conversant with Hegel than I am, but I suspect that thinking a hierarchy of values according to power originates with Hegels dialectical stages of history. His idea of a totalizing emancipatory telos in the form of absolute Spirit becomes naturalized as dialectical materialism with Marx, and rethought as discursive power relations with CT writers. This is where I situate wokism, more or less. Only with Nietzsche and postmodern writers like Foucault is the logic of an emancipatory hierarchy and telos abandoned.
If to be woke is to be enlightened, then Foucaults response to Kants 1774 essay What is Enlightenment is instructive of where he might depart from wokists. He considers enlightenment not as emancipation through reason (as in Kant), but as the use of reason to challenge authority, norms, and institutions. This is true of wokists as well, but woke movements often aim to enforce moral clarity, while Foucault sees that impulse as itself a form of power-knowledge that should be questioned.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
-
Even before reading these posts I was tempted to make a new thread on this meta-topic, because it is quite prevalent on TPF. Much of this will build on what @AmadeusD has been getting at. Often on TPF people of a certain stripe try to talk about criteria, or frameworks, or something else as if they are presenting a wholly neutral starting point. I was up against the same sort of thing in this thread with @Srap Tasmaner in particular:
Quoting Leontiskos
I don't mean to pick on Antony, as he has been very humble and intellectually honest (and he is not doing the same thing described in that quote). Still, I am going to use him as an example since something very close to his approach is what I am going to try to argue against, or at least qualify in certain ways. In this thread @Antony Nickles has been saying something like, "Before we argue, let's talk about our interests":
Quoting Antony Nickles
The problem with this idea is that human action is always goal-directed. We are always acting for an end. It is psychologically impossible to step out of this goal-directedness. This is explicitly true when it comes to practical reason, and therefore it is confused to say, "Let's look at our criteria/interests objectively without making any value judgments; without making any arguments." This cannot be done. There is no such thing as a reason-less volitional act, or an uninterested analysis. The reason someone wants to "take a step back" is because they have already made a judgment and they already have a practical syllogism (even if implicit or subconscious). To advise taking a step back without providing an interest or a reason is inherently problematic, and this is why @Antony Nickles ran into trouble by saying things like, "Our goal is not X."
I would argue that what is always needed is argument. We have to give an argument/reason why we should take a step back, or why we should have a different goal, or why we should examine our implicit assumptions. There is no shortcut around argument. There is no way to rationally motivate (persuade) someone to take a step back without providing an argument/reason.
Arguments don't have to be caustic or burdensome. What is @Antony Nickles' reason/interest for taking a step back? Presumably he wants to take a step back because he thinks it is a good idea to do so, and therefore his argument must communicate to others why it is a good idea to do so. His argument might be
In the present case when "beforehand" is already behind us, I think @Antony Nickles is more or less trying to say what Nathan Jacobs says about the "four levels of discourse" at 1:24:36. It is definitely important to unearth deeper premises in this way, but the premises that are being unearthed are still premises of an argument. Explication of premises is a part of argument, not something that is separate from argument (and in this case the relevant premises are the interests or the criteria which are being applied). Granted, the arguments that occur at these higher levels of discourse have a slightly different and more "meta" flavor than the arguments that occur at lower levels. Also granted, understanding must precede judgment, and therefore we must take pains to understand before we judge. All of this is true, but it doesn't mean that we ever fully step outside of the mode of argument or persuasion, at least when we are on a philosophy forum.
What I always find so ironic on this topic is the line from scripture, "by the mouth of babes and infants..." Too often we think of those who argue for things as naive, and much of philosophy has become purely hypothetical and descriptive, where no one is willing to argue for anything as being true. Ironically, I think the "novices" who are giving arguments for positions are more meta-logically sound than many of the learned. But the difficulty is particularly acute when it comes to moral issues, i.e. deliberation about which course of action to take. Issues like wokeness are moral issues: they are about practical reasoning. In this area of moral or practical deliberation you can't be satisfied with hypothetical judgments. Or as ' put it, "we can pass judgment at any point, and we must at some point."
I don't understand what you're describing or trying to set up here. This doesn't jibe with anything we've said, that I can tell. The follow ons seems non-sequitur for that reason.
Quoting Antony Nickles
On our exchange, this is what's going on. The rest is window dressing. You could add something like "In a way that is not obvious unethical" going to things like corruption, deceit etc.. which are non-co-operative. But the rest seem illegitimate (or, baked into this one like history of leadership. That's a consideration of one's abilities in the present with recourse to statistical evidence supporting that claim of ability).
Quoting Antony Nickles
Is the question what's the difference between "experience" in the sense of a job interview, and "lived experience" in the sense of emotionalizing political issues? That seems... perhaps... not a reasonable question to ask. Experience is literally experience of success in a given field in the former. Usually, to extremely specific criteria which are necessary to assess one's potential. The latter has none of these features. The latter (in practice) categorically ignores any metric. It is not a criteria, other than a brute claim criteria. There is no nuance, there is no metric and there is no way to value one over the other (or, as I see it, reason to "value" it for policy purposes at all). We can take aggregate self-reportage somewhat more seriously as a indicator of what problems exist. I can't see it being useful otherwise.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is used in two scenarios I'm aware of:
1. In certain law contexts so that hte committee at hand has a "lay person's perspective" but they are essentially ancillary to any decision making processes;
2. Where there is adirect, measurable relationship between this person's membersihp of some class (demographic?) and their ability to report an aggregate opinion of that class to the committee (or board, whatever). This seems problematic in plenty of ways, but at least has a basis to move from.
Otherwise, I cannot see how this could be helpful. The other criteria you posit are directly related.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This insinuates the board themselves would not have stakes of the same kind. That seems wrong. They are from the same demographic they are serving. Adding "lay people" for the purpose of lived experience seems to simply shift the rhetoric around a bit and have us feeling as if there's some "authenticity" in the decision making process, or "representation". I personally reject that rep. along lines of sex, ethnicity, nationality etc.. are actually helpful or give us much, socially but that aside, clearly the board themselves are representative. This, though, goes to some confusion about the scenario. Why would this be the way to discuss it? Surely it would make more sense to find an issue and discuss why lived experience might be helpful there. You're certainly more likely to find an example that could be agreed on. In broad-strokes, this seems, again, to be an exercise in saying quite a lot, but not going anywhere with it.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I treated that example. I don't think there is any value, other than to get directions. You could consult Google.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think I've done so, and responded in ways that, to me, seem totally reasonable. The scenario doesn't really move us toward anything helpful, and I'm unsure it addresses the issues we're talking about for lack of being specific enough to actually engage them. I make a suggestion earlier as to how we might proceed a little clearer.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think this is quite clearly wrong. The goal is essentially arbitrary, as all must be more-or-less. That's the point. If can't get a moral discussion of goals going there's no point moving to methods. If your position (one's position) is that white people need to be removed, by legislature, from some positions of power - okay, cool. We need to talk about how you're going to get there. One issue is convincing people. So we're off to a good start.
If we start with criteria about goals, we're looking for an objective moral. That seems a bogus endeavour, particularly around Woke issues.
Quoting Antony Nickles
There does seem to be a semi-direct link between the Analytical/Continental divide and woke/non-woke arguments, though. I'm unsure that's an unfair connection to make.
I would also posit that the portion between these two quotes is again, using a lot of words to say not much. Rationality is not up for grabs. Rationality is a particular process. If we want to jettison rationality that's fine and we can discuss from there. I think what you're trying to do is to say "Well, what is rationality?" which is again, bogus. Rationality is a known process. Its place at hte top of hte hierarchy of deliberation may be questionable. But I doubt it, given these exchanges.
Quoting Leontiskos
100%. Absolute gentleman.
Thats what I was saying.
Quoting praxis
I dont know that we have any idea of what people did in a time before political and moral interaction, community narratives and stories of the dead and the invisible but apparent forces. There has always been a type of political state as soon as more than one family create a clan, and there has always been a type of religion as we see burial rituals going way back in time.
Plus you are placing an interest in egalitarianism over and above an interest in hierarchy - thereby creating a hierarchy.
So why fight the hierarchy itself? How about instead we focus on setting the right ideals and goals at the top?
Im not attacking a strawman or anything else. Im merely voicing the opinion that the fundamental conflict is between hierarchical vertical thinking and egalitarian horizontal thinking.
Of course the belief that values are baked into reality in a particular order is not just about power stratification. It helps to uphold the order nevertheless.
@Antony Nickles. I think we are trying.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes. Instead of talking about some thing, we end up talking about how to talk.
I fully admit the criteria and the step back is important. Its like putting all of the products on the shelves and giving them a price and having a cash register and hiring the employees and planning for opening day. All vital. But we never get to opening day and to cash out any of the criteria or see what products sell and which dont and see a customer smiling as they say thanks.
We never conclude something together.
Its all back-office paperwork.
I think its unconscious.
I also think it is a characteristic of woke - if the other party doesnt appear to agree with you, they must need to reevaluate their whole approach so lets talk about that instead of whatever thing we both disagree with.
But, I would rather discuss whether woke avoids direct confrontation every time - meaning argument (the woke obviously love a good protest, but they seem to hate a good disagreement.)
Or how about whether woke or traditionalists seek to verify the facts more. Both sides accuse the other of making up facts - does either side do this more often than the other (both accuse or actually use, false facts)?
Or we can start with a traditionalist thing - Leontiskos called wokeism heresy, and @praxis saw this as counterintuitive since woke and Christ seemed to both root for the little guy, the down-trodden. How can Leons heresy claim be consistent, or how come the religious are not more woke?
Quoting AmadeusD
I would suggest perhaps we look at, engage in, the process I am suggesting, using the example, because Im not sure I can (possibly) clear this up abstractly. I am not suggesting an argument about interests (first), but an investigation to uncover them, in our society, in a particular practice, so this is also not our interests (the ones arguing) but a look at, investigate, make explicit, our shared (current) criteria which encapsulate/reflect, not justify, our societys interests in those criterianot that they are the (rational/irrational) arguments for the criteria or for making a particular decision based on them.
Quoting Leontiskos
This is a whole nother can of worms, but, in what I would call a moral moment, call it a crisis of criteria, we dont know what to do, so this is perhaps jumping to a conclusion and then arguing to justify it, or, worse, arguing about how we justify it. I am merely suggesting a philosophical practice.
Quoting Leontiskos
I have tried to explain this, make an argument for it; maybe the desire for a specific kind of answer is getting in the way? In any event, I dont have a compelling reason to make you do it, as it is voluntary, as is continuing despite an inclination to stop (move to decide we cannot agree), as is the acceptance of the description of the criteria. Perhaps if we try, this might be easier to understand.
Maybe I just missed it. Can you point me to the post where you provide reasons for why we ought to take a step back?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, and this is largely why the "step back" is not necessarily unobjectionable. We have members who literally argue that there is no correct judgment to be had, and when they counsel taking a step back this is what they are aiming at.
Quoting Fire Ologist
So maybe its just better to pin this and take a look at my post above as an example of the method.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Always a risk/possibility, and this creates the desire to agree beforehand on/use, terms that will ensure we agree (or be judged irrational, etc.), say, logic or whatever. Also, I did say, even if we end up disagreeing, we can at least have a better, more explicit understanding of the terrain (learn something about our society).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Ouch, philosophy is doomed.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not unconscious, unexamined, yet to be reflected on, taken from implicit never-think-about, to made explicit, drawn out in assumptions, implications, distinctions, etc. Who actually thinks about what makes an accident different than a mistake? (@Banno)
The religious hierarchy is fixed. Good reason for the separation of church and state in a democracy.
Quoting AmadeusD
I think AmadeusD is right. A board hires someone who will best contribute to their goals. The rest of your post is based on assumptions about the different kinds of goals different kinds of boards would have. But like my other questions, I don't know why we are pretending we are on a board. I think you have to provide some rationale for why we should think up a pretend "situation" and then think through that pretend scenario.
For example, I might say, "Antony, let's pretend that we're surfing. Let's brainstorm about our criteria for choosing a wave. There's a big wave forming, but it looks like there's a shark nearby..." You might say to me, "This is a thread about wokeness. Why do you want me to pretend I am surfing? Shouldn't we be talking about wokeness in a thread on wokeness? Unless I am missing something and you can give me a good reason why I should pretend I'm surfing...?"
Is your point with the board that if the company serves some groupsay a minoritythen that minority should be represented on the board, and that this therefore has something to do with DEI?
My first post was to get at why rational/irrational gets in the way, and to suggest a way around that, but I think I did such a poor job of it, not expecting confusion in the right places, that I think it better to just see what I am doing in, participate in the method of, the example and maybe hold off of on the larger philosophical issues; or we could just read every discussion you and I have ever brought up. ;)
I don't disagree that the conflict is bound up with that polarity. Let's revisit what you said here:
Quoting praxis
So in Barron's "vertical structure" where justice is good and injustice is bad, the thief is forced to answer to the non-thieves, i.e. he is punished for stealing. That's true, and perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the woke do not believe in theft.
Quoting praxis
Well, if you were "merely voicing the opinion [above]," then I don't think you would be using the word "key." That word implies that the non-woke is using hierarchy as a means to their desired end of power stratification. A hierarchy of value results in normative structures and "power stratification" (such as the case where the thief and the non-thief are viewed differently), but I think it is a strawman to impute bad intentions here, as if "power stratification" is the desired end.
But here's a question for you. Take the wokist and place them in every possible world. Is there any possible world where they look around and say, "Ah, there is no power stratification in this world and therefore my wokeness will lie dormant"?
After the following flat dismissals:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
@AmadeusD decides:
Quoting AmadeusD
Reeeally
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
This is a laundry list of proposed criteria (even some about lived experience!) that we had not yet made explicit or examined. And I would offer there is meat here to develop, clarify, compare, etc. that would be valuable to get clear about before judging how the board would go forward and what that looks like here.
Quoting AmadeusD (emphasis added)
Quoting AmadeusD
I took it that people take issue with appointing people to boards based on lived experience. I would concede to suggestions from the group for agreement on a different example as long as it is a situation (not an issue abstracted from any sense of a possible context) about how to decide what to do in a particular case, i.e, with competing, say old vs new, criteria.
Okay, but how they decide (what is important in deciding) is based on criteria. Contributing to their goals is one criteria (do we have a goal that each other criteria satisfy? Our goal is to have someone with work experience How is that saying something different?). There are no more? I have suggested some; I would think a discussion would involve more than just ignoring those; more to my hope, adding to the processmaybe pointing out how my explanation doesn't take into account something about the criteria, etc. I mean, I thought @AmadeusD did well.
Quoting Leontiskos
Appointing someone to a board based on "lived experience" is not relevant? As I said, any other examples are fine by me. (except surfing, though I know there's a joke in there somewhere)
Okay, but you need to cash this out. What does this have to do with wokeism? Are you demonstrating how woke thinkers think, or are you coming to a woke conclusion, a woke thought, somewhere in there?
I dont think this expressly needs to have anything to do with woke yet.
Quoting Leontiskos
A few posts back I raised as an interest or goal that all people are individuals, that kinds of people or groups are less important than any single individual that might be placed into the group for sake of argument.
This to me is an unwoke interest. Nothing came of it because you wanted criteria and underlying interests.
Now with the Board example, as with my individual example, I will still prioritize the particular when seeking the criteria and/or the interest/goal - I sort of, assume a criteria and find some particular with it and augment the particular by expanding the criteria.
So I cant even begin to balance Board criteria without just discussing the particulars.
What kind of company/entity does this Board lead? For profit or non-profit? What is the product or service?
Who is on the board already? Who is being replaced, or is the new person being added?
These particulars are mostly external to the new potential Board member. The criteria you mentioned are mostly internal to the person:
Quoting Antony Nickles
These are about the new individual. Before I can start to prioritize and identify these people factors, I need to know the company, service, physical pieces
But lets look at what you said. One thing is the different notions leadership, experience, moneymaking, goal setting. The other thing is how judgments are made.
@Leontiskos mentioned a third thing about making judgments, or understanding.
So in another prior post I talked about doing two things at once (like answer why and how, or clarify goals and criteria as @AmadeusD mentioned.
Now in this post here, the method now becomes doing three things:
Criteria. (Substance based X)
How judgements are made. (Reasoning).
Judgment. Or understanding. (The particular truth, universalized, or simply what is now known.).
So we have some criteria and underlying bits. Now lets talk woke or not-woke with these bits in mind.
Quoting Leontiskos
@Antony Nickles Is there a way to promote inclusion, without first dividing different exclusive groups and identifying types of people to be included and represented, and others to be excluded as already represented enough?
Is there a way to promote equity without blindness to particulars?
Is there a way to promote diversity without recognizing all of the inequities that make things diverse?
When are we going to cash this out in terms reflecting the woke?
Lets just pick something important, say what and how that is the case, and see what criteria emerge in the process, so that next time when we pick something else important again, well have stronger criteria. Lets go back to the topic, criteria be damned )before we damn the toooc and review the criteria again )
Quoting Fire Ologist
Literally the first thing you say? No attempt to humor me? I mean, at least @AmadeusD gave it a go, and there is nothing there worth discussing/exploring? All right, maybe just not your cup of tea.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Adding details in order to clarify how certain criteria work can be helpful. It shows how our words are connected to the world in a way. I suggested lived experience might be important in a certain way if the board was doing work that affected that lived place. So sure, feel free to suggest how certain criteria would require certain situations, or vice-versa., etc.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I love the energy, but why the hurry? is there nothing of interest so far?
Quoting Fire Ologist
So the discussion of criteria seems done and clear to you?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
I dont even think weve gotten what we have mapped out, and you want to add three more new criteria? Again, I applaud the ambition. If everyone wants, we can shift to one of these other criteria (just one please), but I hate to throw out our efforts so far. But, if another is more interesting, or would be easier to draw out in a more appropriate situation, Ill concede.
Quoting Fire Ologist
We can also abandon the experiment, if thats what this means; or just try it out. Your call.
Quoting praxis
I didnt mean to imply abandoning the experiment.
I guess Im saying it needs more structure (in my eyes) to ensure it is even related to wokeness, and the way I propose giving it that structure is with a bit of dialectics - adding some Yang of goals, to the Yin of assumptions and criteria, to then come back with a new synthesis and re-inquire about the assumptions and criteria (the experiment).
But to recap progress (Ive asked the secretary): we are seeing criteria reflecting assumptions in the identification of: general lived experience, leadership, practical task at hand experience, moneymaking/fundraising, goal setting. I see some methodological awareness of a distinction between judging, and understanding, and some thing understood. (But we havent really fleshed that out yet).
Thats all mostly Yin. Method. Criteria. Not many assumptions made explicit.
Id like to provisionally cash out this just to see what happens - to see if the experiment is going to help us at all to understand wokeness. I am losing sight of that. OR maybe there are tons of assumptions YOU have in mind that make all of this clearly about wokeness. Please put them on the table.
But to continue building the experiment Ill call How to Build a Better Board:
What kind of company? This will matter. Is it an American based for-profit, publicly traded mineral and mining company with 5,000 employees whose business model involves trashing third world resources? Is it a non-profit think tank aimed at educating HR departments in how to foster DEI? Lets go more neutral, and say its a small business (200 employees), that makes low cost baby and children supplies (whatever that means, doesnt matter to me more than manufacturing/selling kid stuff). So a nice little retail/manufacturing start up, privately held corporation, struggling to grow in todays marketplace. (Or you tell me if this kind of detail is not necessary and Im way outside the intended experiment.)
Do they currently have 5 board members or 12? This matters because a board of 5 members leaves no room for error and each member will have hands pretty full or all will share all duties (just operate differently than a board that has room for sub-committees). Lets say they have 7 members, all of them have some degree of ownership (profit share) in the company, but there are more employees who own some of then company that are not on the board, and the Board is looking to add an 8th board member, and dont care if they are an owner or not. (Will this new even number of 8 members allow for stalemates in voting? so do they need to consider adding 2 members and bringing the Board to 9?)
And how about this specific - which brings up age-ism - the current Board and leadership recognize the company needs a bigger and better online social media presence. Want to almost become a baby-stuff influencer as a company. Do they make someone young and fluent in social media a board member? Even if a candidate happens to be great at social media, if they are over 55, it just wont give the appearance they want for the role. They want a mom or dad, not grandparent type, dare I say. This new board member is going to develop initiatives that involve both their employees internally (stuff to post about in the company) and they have a lot of young employees, and they will have a bit of a marketing role themselves, be a face for the Board, so a younger face makes the sense (but no one is sure its necessary).
Am I getting us anywhere?
Does it help to say the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment to the board?
As far as limiting the scenario ahead of time, the idea is to allow the investigation of criteria to drive the boat. Now we could of course say, in this scenario, a certain company, etc., leads a board to other criteria than we have drawn out, or more to the point, criteria x is qualified by certain aspects of the world.
I did suggest a pin in the philosophy. What I would say is we might not see the benefit, not having really gotten anywhere yet, to get to a point where we can judge it or compare it, but you certainly can investigate the relationship between goals the board might have to the criteria suggested, or others we have overlooked, such as
Quoting Fire Ologist
And is this the same as, or how different, than lived experience, or just for a skill (social media), or like a celebrity
Quoting Fire Ologist
Its a start, so thank you.
BTW - I do appreciate the effort, and I am working on a response. I think you gave us a lot to think about. I thought I might give @Leontiskos and @Fire Ologist, or others, a chance to give some more input on the criteria we are discussing.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Antony Nickles
So are you saying that you don't really know of a place where you provide reasons for why we ought to take a step back? Again, I don't know what your example is supposed to show. I don't know how it counts as a reason.
-
Quoting Antony Nickles
If you think there is a criterion that is unrelated to the board's goal, then what would that criterion be?
Quoting Antony Nickles
I'm asking you to tell us why it is relevant. This is the same issue we ran into earlier. You want us to do something but you won't tell us why. "Let's change our goal." "Why?" "Let's talk about a board." "Why?" It seems to me that just telling people to do things for no reason is coercive, and this is incompatible with philosophy. If you were my Zen master then you could just tell me to do something and I would do it, no questions asked. Or if I accepted your arguments from your own authority, then you could just tell me to do something. In both cases I would trust that you are leading me where I ultimately want to go. But I don't see you as an intrinsic authority who can just give directions without any rationale. So if you want us to talk about a board, then you have to tell us why. Again, should we start talking about surfing? Would I need to provide a reason if I said that?
How is talking about a board going to help us get to where we want to go? How is it related to the topic of this thread, and not a derailment? "Just trust me" is not a reason.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Why not surfing? That is precisely the sort of question you need to answer. If you can propose boards for no reason at all, then why can't I propose surfing for no reason at all? If we've done away with reasons then what's the difference?
It is incredibly common on TPF for people to give "random" scenarios such as the board, which then turn out to involve petitio principii, even unbeknownst to them. This happened recently when Srap wanted to frame an issue in terms of moving from one town to another, but in the end his framing . He styled himself as a neutral party, but it turned out he wasn't, which is not surprising. Neutral parties are rare when it comes to these issues where we must all make decisions about the thing at stake. That's why you have to give a rationale for the relevance of your example (analogy?). No one just gives random examples for no reason. I desire transparency.
These quotes show a philosophical divergence between Protevis approach and Deleuze and Guattaris philosophy of subjectivity. For Protevi, agency and ownership are treated as distinct faculties, existing independently before or after the event. His focus lies in the emergent control systems, where subjectivity is bypassed or managed rather than produced. In contrast, for D&G, the subject is not an object of affective regulation or bodily control. Instead, it is the effect or residue of more fundamental productive machines and intensive processes. D&G would resist the reduction of desire to actions behavioural management.
I assumed that considering using lived experience as a criteria for appointment to a board would be something that would at issue here. As I said, feel free to chose a different example that involves indecision on how to move forward. Having a situation only matters in that we would have existing criteria for doing something, but that there is either something happening that we havent considered or new criteria being suggested, etc. that make us uncertain as to how to continue, but, from where we are (lost). I am suggesting that, instead of assuming we understand the criteria and the interests they reflect, we actually investigate a situation with this uncertainty to use the criteria as a way in
Quoting Leontiskos
Again, I did try to explain the reasons/benefit (which you did go through?) of the method (tied up with what that even is); but the idea was to, for now, put a pin in the philosophical discussion, in the hope that trying an example would help see why do it, to understand the philosophical reasons to do it. As a courtesy I will say in summary (though I will not argue it here, as I have spelled it out in length above), wanting to first decide what we are going to do, or imposing criteria for how to decide that, is to skip over examining, in a sense, how the world works. Now, as I said, I think aaaallll the objections have not resolved whether that is a good idea (as I did not anticipate all of them in my explanations, nor explain well it appears), much less even an agreement on understanding it (though there were some times that parts of it were close), so, yes, barring your review of the above (and perhaps even after that), I am simply asking for a good faith effort to try. But I can understand your skepticism and reticence in the effort. (Is guilting someone coercion?)
Quoting Leontiskos
And my suggestion is to look at the criteria for judging in a particular case (not justifications for x) to find out what is at stake (what is essential about it), as if we dont yet know, and so would be trying to decide what to do blind (even about a goal).
A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10.
Next top surfer title has to be - The Chairman
Or do we allow men and women to compete together and name the victor The Chairperson.
The trophy can be someone standing on a conference room table, hanging 10.
Boom! Nice.
Im pretty sure the criteria is coolness (surfer coolness)?, but Im not sure Chair of the Board or Board Chair meets it (confusing objects?), nor President of the Board or Board President (who likes presidents? What are they deciding for the surfboards?).
Okay, so it looks like you are doing something like this:
1. In the case of wokeness we are uncertain of how to proceed
2. In the case of the board hire they are uncertain of how to proceed
3. Therefore, there is a similarity or analogy between the two cases, where one will help shed light on another
That is helpful, because it gives a kind of rationale for the board example. Yet the difficulty is that I do not understand why you hold to (1). What is uncertain about the topic of this thread, wokeness? Curiously enough, this thread has some of the strongest consensus I have ever seen on TPF. There is very little uncertainty of how to proceed. People from all different philosophical and political backgrounds are agreeing that there are problems with wokeness, and they are in large agreement on what those problems are. So your notion that there is uncertainty about how to proceed does not seem to be in evidence. Could you explain where it is coming from?
Quoting Antony Nickles
I don't think that's right at all. If we don't know what we want to do, then we don't know what we are doing. But it seems that most all of us in the thread know what we are doing, including the OP. We know the basic genre of activity we are engaged in. To question the idea that we have even this faintest idea of what we are doing seems like a very implausible form of skepticism.
In your board example the board already knows what it is going to do. It is going to hire someone. It just doesn't know who. At least one goal is always in place before we deliberate.
Quoting Antony Nickles
As I have said, if you give us a reason to look for examples of cases where one is uncertain how to proceed, then we will be more likely to engage in efforts to look for examples of cases where one is uncertain how to proceed.
Quoting Antony Nickles
No, because guilt is self-imposed. Such is an appeal to a principle the person themselves recognizes, not an imposition of a principle.
Quoting Antony Nickles
But I think your idea that we will be able to decide what to do without a goal is simply incoherent, and I think any attempt to try to decide what to do without a goal will be wasted time. So I don't want to adopt your premise that one can decide what to do without a goal. I want you to argue for your unintuitive premise, or at least give me a counterexample where someone is trying to decide what to do without a goal.
There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that.
Lets assume that I am uncertain about what woke is (it seems not far from the truth); think about the criteria you would explain to me so I would be able to tell it from something else I would know that is close to it and/or opposite to it (as we were doing with work experience vs lived experience).
Quoting Leontiskos
I am not questioning that you do not know how to proceed, as if, in this Discussion; what I am suggesting would be a situation in the world where the people involved do not know how to decide how to proceed.
Thus the importance to imagine a context in which people are trying to decide what to do where the value of those criteria (above) for deciding what to do, in that situation, is up for grabs. I thought lived experience was a woke thing, but I am more than willing to admit I dont know what I am talking about, or I picked the wrong context. Without this, or an attempt at getting clear about the criteria in the example I set out, Ill just respond to @AmadeusD and you can follow along, or not.
There isnt just one such situation in life; on the contrary, we often live in a way that requires making decisions instantly, without deliberate reflection. Let me bring here your reflection on one of my posts:
Quoting Antony Nickles
Massumis theory of the event posits that our behavior co-emerges with affect and the environment. In this view, rationality is not separate or universal but is embedded within specific configurations of embodied and affective dynamics. This offers a more effective framework for understanding the phenomenon of wokeness. It is not as a set of moral claims to be considered for logical consistency or truth-value. Instead, it emerges in an eventual field in which rationality is mobilized and becomes a component of the event itself. In this context, Eichmann's case can become a paradigmatic example. My knowledge of the case is based primarily on Hannah Arendts account. He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing It was sheer thoughtlessnesssomething by no means identical with stupiditythat predisposed [Eichmann] to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together. (Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, pg 36) Arendt does not claim that Eichmann lacked intelligence or suffered from mental illness. In fact, psychologists who examined him before the trial found no signs of pathology or disorder. Nor does she attribute his actions to extremist ideology or any inherent evil. Rather, when she writes that Eichmann never realized what he was doing, she asserts that he stopped thinking in a sense that his capacity for judgment was impaired. But this view abstracts Eichmann's rational faculty from the eventual field in which he operated.
@AmadeusD
I finally get it (I think). You are looking for woke criteria. You are saying to the Board we need to appoint a new member and want to make sure we are being woke, enlightened, in our selection, so, how do we make a woke selection?
Correct?
Quoting Leontiskos
Thats why Ive been saying lets dive in deeper.
Whats been said about wokeness.
1. Its goals are chosen and driven more by affect/emotion than by rational analysis. (So a gut feeling on a board member is just as or more valid than some rational argumentation and comparison between two members. Whos got the stronger gut feeling despite counter factual reasons and arguments.). Gut feelings are important factors, so Im not against recognition of emotion and passion. But, to me, it only wins the day when all else seems equal, and shouldnt come first. But its number 1 for wokeness.
2. Diversity is an end in itself. In groups of people, regardless of any other factors, diversity as an end in itself is good. So any group of 10 white men is worse than any group of 10 diverse races.
And further, diversity is defined based on surface features - the diversity between a poor southern white redneck, and rich white east coast northern city-born CEO, is not as diverse as between a black boy and a white boy born and raised across the street from each other at the same schools. Giant universal categories like race, ethnicity, religion, sex, forge stereotypes that can be assumed about all members who on the surface appear to belong to said group.
(So for the board - how many white people are already on it? How many women? How many different universalizable groups of people do we want or need to show by a quick glance at a web page our board APPEARS to represent, because the appearance of representation can be just as, if not more, important than whatever that person might actually represent.)
3. Righteous indignation. The woke are honestly compassionate for victims. But they are terrible judges at who victims are and why victims are being victimized. This goes to number 1. above. They let emotions guide their sense of how to respond to something. So they see immigrants being deported, and hear of families being separated, and hear of a person being deported with no due process, and often, the outrage leads them to think of protesting and venting that rage and making a statement so that OTHER people might change their behavior and OTHER people might keep families together and OTHER people might use due process, and seek to make new legal policy and rage some more and blame OTHERS for failures. They could go find out why families have to be separated, or find out how to enforce laws and keep families together, or find a family of immigrants and help them and put all energy into that one family, or find out what due process is and find out how it looks when it is being followed and find out how it can be improved if indeed it needs improvement, and find out how best to police the police and make sure they are following the law as well (or just throw rocks at them).
(As far as the board, how does one express righteous indignation right now when selecting a board member - this might be a sort of sabotage move where you hire a board member you know will annoy the current white chairman of the board - so you think the current chairman is really a racist, so you demand the board confront its racism and hire an immigrant black/hispanic woman. Or maybe the board are all already fully woke so the best way these days to make a big statement of righteous indignation is to parade a trans woman around - nothing says I am righteous today better than a drag queen who means business.)
4. This all goes to the fairly recent notion of virtue signaling. Wokeness gave birth to this concept. We have to look woke, while we are being woke, and in order to make sure people know we are woke we have to send signals. We wear a mask or get a covid vaccine regardless of the science, but mostly because we want to signal which group we belong to and which group are people who we dont like. And we can scold those we dont like because of our emotion and righteous indignation.
5. Self-contradiction. It seems to be a feature of wokeness.
You have to be racist in order to notice or care that some group is diverse or not diverse.
Inclusion and tolerance are huge righteous virtues - yet the woke are the most intolerant people and create the most exclusive clubs around.
For wokeism, there is this sense: if loving my woke ideals is wrong, I dont want to be right.
This means they are allowed to argue and defend their positions with logic, but they dont have to. When logic fails, only facists would care, because the woke are already righteous in their feelings.
(Lets say the Board currently has all black and Hispanic people on it, some women, one of whom is white, but she is mixed Asian it is still not woke to say we need a white man. A white is never needed for sake of diversity. Thats wokism being self-contradictory.)
Another self-contradiction is how progressives find dog-whistles everywhere (recent American Eagle jeans ad) - they are paranoid about conspiracies around every corner. Yet they think anti-woke people are the stupid ones who fall for all the conspiracies and mock birthers and anti-vax.
Another is about science. The woke say the anti-woke are anti-science, but both sides pick and choose only the science that supports them, and if Id have to pick a side that was more reasonable and moved by proven facts, it would be the non-woke.
6. Everything is political. We cant interact in the community without simultaneously making a political statement about our values. If a white man is mad at a black man, it must be because of systemic privilege in which the white man has been constructed. It cant just be because the particular black man was an idiot, or the particular white man is the idiot, or both. This robs the black man of his ability to just be a man who can legitimately piss off another man, but thats ok, because whether the black man knows it or not, he is a victim of systemic racism. We all are pawns in a system of politics.
When a woman isnt paid as much as a man, it is by default, injustice, because of the structure of society.
Fathers leading families is nothing more than oppressive custom.
Everything must be turned over for sake of new policy and new system (with no sense or vision even needed for what that new system would look like).
If a girl likes being beautiful and attracting boys and wants to be a mother most of all - blasphemy! She knows not the new politics!
(For the Board - we must ensure our new Board member gets across the right signal politically, shows the world this board is on the right side of history and captures the politics of the current moment - basically, to be woke - the board needs a trans person, whether woman or man depends on who is already on the board, and race may not matter depending on who is already on the board. After that, we can look at leadership qualities, experience and, you know, if they will be able to function day to day on the actual business )
I thought I was speaking Klingon. Yes. How do we tell? What matters to (in judging) it being woke? I just didnt want it to be aaaallllll the criteria (in aaalll the situations), so I picked, what I thought was, one. Was it not one?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree with all your points, they are excellent. However, they remain at a primarily descriptive level and lack a sufficient explanatory power. This is why some posters in this thread can still introduce frameworks that support alternative interpretations of wokeness. In addition to presenting accurate facts and observations, I have attempted to apply a theory of affect to approach wokeness as an affective phenomenon. Its rituals of calling out and moral absolutism reflect a particular mode of being, a form of emergent subjectivity.
You want to take a step back to a meta-level, such as <Nathan Jacobs> describes. The problem is that I disagree with the step back you want to take. You think that if we take the time to look at an example we will understand wokeness differently, or else that we will have a more sufficient understanding unto judgment.
I could offer a different step back which responds to your own reasons for wanting to take a step back. The problem is that I think we are <derailing the thread>. Note too that as someone who thinks wokeness is being approached inappropriately in this thread, you wish for the inappropriate approach to cease or to be replaced by a better approach. By constantly attempting to change the subject and introduce new topics or examples, you have effectively ceased the discussion of wokeness that the thread is about. Whether intentional or not, you have effectively derailed the thread from the topic of the OP. Perhaps the tangent would arrive back at the topic of the thread, and perhaps it wouldnt. Either way, the discussion of the topic of the OP has ceased for very many pages now.
But if we dont want to create a new threadand I dont necessarily have the time to field itthen I can outline the step back that I would offer in response to your own jockeying for a step back. The key error I see in your approach is your premise which says, People often make premature judgments, but no one is doing that here. If people often make premature judgments, then we are not immune; and if you think we need to reconsider the whole issue from a different vantage point, then you probably think we are making premature judgments. Although politeness and tact have their place, we simply cannot traverse this terrain without forthrightly acknowledging that a premature judgment is at stake, and may be being made. If you were to simply bite the bullet and raise this issue of premature judgment, all of the problems with coercion and double standards I have been pointing out would evaporate. This is because we both agree that premature judgments are inappropriate, and therefore in that case we have the same end rather than a coercive or imposed end (similar to my point to Banno <here>).
Besides that, the deeper deeper problem is one of error: what it is, how to address it, how to accuse others of error and then bring them around to a proper understanding, etc. When error is correctable it involves an inconsistency, and the error is removed when the inconsistency is resolved in the right direction. So if you think premature judgments are being made with respect to wokeness, and your interlocutor agrees that premature judgments are impermissible, then if you are able to show your interlocutor that he is making a premature judgment with respect to wokeness he will be have corrected his error. Or if my interlocutor agrees that coercion is impermissible in the sphere of philosophy, and I am able to show him that he is involved in coercion, then he will amend his approach. Yetnot unlike wokenessthere is an affective impediment within our culture to the idea that error concretely exists either in ourselves or in our interlocutors.* This is related to a pluralism which does not want to deem anyone to be wrong.
(Note that this is very similar to what I have run up against in @J's approach to philosophy).
* The great thing about your disposition is that you never double down on the double standard of coercion. You are the first one on TPF who did not do this, and it took me by surprise. When I point out to others their double standard of coercion, they conveniently ignore the point for hundreds of pages, in fact never owning up to it at all.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting Antony Nickles
I would say woke has to do with systemic discrimination or systemic inequality, as seen in things like DEI. The woke person thinks there are societal problems that most people are blind or asleep to, and this usually cashes out as what is "systemic," such as "systemic racism."
The whole issue revolves around the question, "How much of a good thing is too much?" Everyone agrees that it is good to oppose certain forms of discrimination or inequality, to a certain extent. The critique of the woke is that they go too far, failing to make proper distinctions and failing to take into account an organic system of competing values. They become affectively set on one value or goal to the detriment of all others.
I have read Arendt; I take her to be making a point about all of us: that, most of the time, we do not give thought to what we are doing, to the implications and consequences of our actions. We do this thing like everyone else does, and we never turn our attention to ask what effect it has, etc., in a sense: to ask, why we do it.
Quoting Number2018
So, if we can examine the configurations of each specific practice (what we do), embedded within it are the rationality for each, as the way in which we would be said (our criteria) to embody them (to meet having done it) and our (as a society) interests (feelings about something) in doing them.
You're rightand that's likely why I introduced a new example myself: the case of Eichmann. But in truth, we don't need more examples; we're already overwhelmed by an abundance of facts and cases.
I agree - I am more analyzing the effects caused by wokeness, than I am getting to heart of what it is, what drives the emergence of these effects.
Quoting Number2018
I like it. Its why my instinct was to place emotion as the first point.
I think affection is at the heart wokeness.
So we leave that fixed as the number one component of something having some explanatory power.
I think an impulse to resist, which may be emotional, needs to be analyzed. Like an adolescent psychology - the first impulse of the woke when perceiving anything as coming from the powerful is to say No - I disagree, I will resist.
They have a built in power-detecting filter.
This forces reason, and discussion, as secondary to the emotion. So this further elaborates on how the affective phenomenon plays out.
But I think reason and discussion and argument are at the very heart of being human, so if we do not understand better how the affective creature that is a woke person reasons, we wont fully explain the phenomenon.
We cant just say they are guided by emotion, because they use reason and argument all of the time. We need to think through the fact that the woke are as fully human as anyone - I love them too, but they are just wrong - how?
I think the key is wisdom and judgment - the woke, like adolescent, simply lack an interest in learning and cultivating wisdom. They think as the the adolescent thinks that, because some bit of enlightenment is new to them, they are the first person in history to come up with wisdom and so they dont need to listen to others. And besides, wisdom always seems to come from the powerful, and because they impulsively resist the powerful, they just dont hear the wisdom from them. Wisdom and my truth are mine first, and maybe from those people I like (peers).
So they can be intelligent people, even skilled at logical argumentation, but the objects they argue about or judge to be important are just not always apt.
They view a lack of clarity as an openness to diversity, when it may just be a lack of self-awareness about the fact that they dont know what they are talking about. Thats poor judgment. And instead of finding wise leaders, they dig in on some hill.
The woke see two things, and look for which has power over the other. Its sort of a baked in reality that is most important to them - victims and oppressors are absolute and everywhere where two things sit next to each other. They hate this, and so fight for egalitarian leveling. But they dont take time time to discern what can be equal and what cannot. They dont ask which one between the powerful and the powerless might be good and which might not matter. The oppressed always matter more, and the powerful always only abuse and oppress. This is poor judgment.
This is why woke feminists cant integrate with woke trans, and why racial motivations made Obama outshine Hillary in the 2008 election. Racism is a deeper hatred and more impactful fight than feminism (at the time). And now trans is more stark and better battle than what woman means (trans is at war with race as well). Since women now have power over transwomen, women may need to be resisted and take men down now.
Wokeism doesnt really have the criteria built into itself to ensure justice between the feminist and transactivist. They just hope they can feel their way to the right villain and take them down.
Its poor judgment finding poorly designed categories for sake of barely identified goals, summed up as fight the power.
So, there is not only an affective explanation, but a judgmental resistance to the logical if that logic comes from a station with power.
Quoting Number2018
I think this could be helpful. I would actually follow Aquinas to a conclusion slightly different from Arendt's. For Aquinas the evil of error is primarily a matter of neglect. For example, when you are excited to visit your beloved you might speed and "forget" the speed limit. You haven't really forgotten it since it's still there in the back of your mind, but you're neglecting it. More generally, there is a sense in which you are capable of following the speed limit and yet choose not to.
One could cash that out in terms of "thoughtlessness," but I think what is happening is more subtle. A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored (which in this case is a restriction-goal: not-speeding). I agree that this is all deeply bound up with affectivity and the passions, but the moral point I would emphasize is that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. The lover neglects to obey or even consider the rationale for not-speeding, or else he neglects to obey or even consider the cause(s) that would either allow him to consider that rationale, or which obstruct him from being able to consider that rationale.
The affectivity of this case is a kind of obstruction to the judgment, and one which in fact pleases the lover. Without that obstruction he would need to slow down and he would thus delay his union with his beloved. So there is a complex intertwining and mixing of the rationality and the affectivity, and yet the lover who speeds has prioritized his affectivity whereas the lover who does not speed has prioritized his rationality (or has prioritized the broader context of goals by not allowing one to dominate the others). This prioritization often happens over years or decades, fusing with habit and ways of living, and this is why it is so hard to remove ingrained habits or addictions.
-
Quoting Aquinas, ST I-II.75.1 - Whether sin has a cause?
...That gets a bit complicated, but the point is that sin has to do with inordinateness, and that therefore the goal ("good") causes the inordinateness of the act indirectly, beside the intention. What is at stake is a lack of order, not simple thoughtlessness. The lover has failed to order his activity according to the speed limit law; that he has done so is beside his intention; and nevertheless he is still morally culpable for this neglect.
Thats what Im getting at with the comment about the lack of wisdom. The emotional response to systemic power differences usurps good judgement.
ADDED:
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes, like we all do in adolescence. This is how to avoid reasonable discussion. Willing disregard for the reasonable, and anger at the annoyance.
You may be right about this; I had thought we were getting somewhere, but getting to what counts for woke, much less to judge if it has ended, has been harder than I considered.
Quoting Leontiskos
I must apologize for this; it was a joke, in bad taste, which I thought was clear, as you seemed hell-bent on assuming that, in not attacking your argument, I was attacking you, your character, or your ability to judge at all. Poorly done on my part.
Of course I was saying judgment was being made prematurely, but not any particular judgments, other than the assumption of the rational-irrational/emotional dichotomy, which, as I said, is how I got started, and then of course suggesting that we look at the criteria (rationality) as a means for understanding those interests (feelings), which I did hope held some promise (to see their life and/or death).
I was going to develop the example I brought up and that @AmadeusD and @Fire Ologist responded to, but I will defer to your lead, as @Leontiskos has rightly pointed out I should.
Fair enough. :up:
Quoting Antony Nickles
No worries. I actually thought you were trying to be polite. I suppose my point is that one can critique someone's judgment or even their character without falling into ad hominem. For example, if my judgment is consistently premature on some given topic then I may well need to consider my ability to judge that sort of topic, or the character that gives rise to such judgments. There is nothing inconsistent in this given that the affective critique of wokeness is similar, and is by definition going to go beyond the merely rational. To critique a movement on affective grounds will certainly look like ad hominem to the untrained eye.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes, I am going to try to revisit some of your early posts where you talk about that rational-irrational dichotomy. :up:
Or when we're tired. :lol:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes.
I think the objection from @Antony Nickles is somewhat related to ad hoc reasoning. A critique or even assessment of wokeness can feel ad hoc (and therefore unsympathetic) if it is not situated within a broader theory of error or understanding/assessing. So perhaps it will help for me to acknowledge that the general error of the woke is not only found elsewhere, but is actually the basis for almost all bad/evil acts of judgment whatsoever. Almost every time we make a true mistake we are involved in this form of neglect.
(The exception for Aquinas is malice, namely when one sees clearly that their act is wrong and they do it anyway. With negligence that clear sight is not in place, and this is the more common case.)
Greatlikely, were now much closer to a more nuanced and developed approach to the phenomenon of wokeness. What you describe as neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored corresponds to our response to the pressures of immediate situations. We are constantly required to make decisions about complex matters within very short time spans.
As a result, many of our decisions become automatized, almost unconscious. This condition affects not only those identified as woke but all of us. Woke individuals primarely remain anchored in a relatively localized domain, where they can continuously demonstrate their vigorous sense of moral rightness and commitment to justice. In doing so, they vividly illustrate how rationality can become subsumed by the impact of the short-circuit.
Hannah Arendt offered a remarkable account of Eichmann. However, it is not quite accurate to describe him as irrationalhe was, in fact, following the bureaucratic logic of the Nazi regime. Most likely, his most consequential decision was joining the Nazi party. From that point on, he became a thoughtless functionary. But that pivotal decision was made at a more subtle level, shaped by unconscious affective forces rather than deliberate reasoning.
Ill leave the below here unfinishedinvestigating with @AmadeusD the criteria of lived experienceand, then, @Fire Ologists suggestion of other existing, related criteria in this scenario. I did also respond in a way where I folded some things into wider concerns we already have, which would avoid an arbitrarily narrow judgment, and other shifts in consideration.
I hope it helps in the way of clarifying what the interests are, and to have clearer field to judge whether these criteria still continue, or have ended, or should.
*[Experience] is a consideration of one's abilities in the present with recourse to statistical evidence supporting that claim of ability). AmadeusD
Could we (accept it would be to) say: experience is a (present) demonstration of skills and abilities (anything else?) supported by, evidenced by, lets just say: a history of those. I mean it could be quantified statistically for certain things, sales?! But would it be for all? And then this might help with the criteria for lived experience, as it would also be supported by a history, but of some different kind.
*Experience is literally experience of success in a given field. AmadeusD
Legit. Hard to argue with setting a goal and achieving it, or whatever success looks like in a particular field. In contrast, some lived experience I brought up might look like a life of failing, having come up against maybe institutions or situations and not being able to achieve the goals they set out, not been able to set their own goals.
*Usually, [experience is judged on] extremely specific criteria which are necessary to assess one's potential. AmadeusD
I could see why wed want this (prediction, and ), but Ive been in some interviews were they say things like, fit (maybe thats just with me). And this maybe only applies for a specific job/tasks, but as to potential: as an interest, judged by a demonstration of past performance as an indication of future performance (or is not, as my mutual fund says, qualifying it as not guaranteed). So one question might be, what is someones lived experience performing? and does specificity play a part?
*[Lived experience] (in practice) categorically ignores any metric. AmadeusD
And this brings up the question whether specificity (always) plays a part in the experience or other criteria for our board, throwing in success maybe. A metric sounds like a certain kind of measure, and it would be dodging this to say not everything is measurable (though we dont always judge with specific criteria, say, like what a yard is), but there are other criteria for our board where the metric is not, say, personal, like fit, but I want to say, looser, like influence, or connections (which we have yet to get into). Now, if lived experience does avoid any metric (a predetermined ruler), are there other kinds of criteria for it than, say, a judgment of my personality, like fit.
*[One criteria for] adding "lay people" for the purpose of lived experience [may be to make the public feel] as if there's some "authenticity" in the decision making process, or "representation". AmadeusD
Absolutely, as I said, for some kind of image, perhaps in the same way they might add a celebrity, but even that has some related value, say, to bring attention, or draw in a certain demographic. Of course to say it is a necessary criteria, or as the only criteria, is, as I said, a bit cynical of what other value we are considering, as @Fire Ologist said, internally, say, to the boards decision-making process.
[lived experience could be valued as] a "lay person's perspective" but they are essentially ancillary to any decision making processes; AmadeusD
I see what you are getting at, as part of where we stopped was their value for perspective, but we might not call this just support in a decision, or maybe just certain types of decisions, but maybe this is, like I said, just like an attorney, who gives advice which does not need to be heeded. Though they might just not be granted certain authority, maybe of a final kind, but saying they should not or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case (or what case), if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment.
[Lived experience may matter] where there is a direct, measurable relationship between this person's membership of some class (demographic?) and their ability to report an aggregate opinion of that class to the committee (or board, whatever). This seems problematic in plenty of ways, but at least has a basis to move from. AmadeusD
(I didnt get to this.)
I don't think there is any value [to a local], other than to get directions. You could consult Google. AmadeusD
(I didnt get to this either, but I think it is in the same category as the one above.)
Quoting Fire Ologist
This seems like either a premise or a conclusion rather than a criteria, so Im not sure what the criteria itself would be for the board; someone emotional could be to say someone passionate, and we imagine someone angry, but we also say that about someone who has accomplished a lot, been doing it for a long time, demonstrated commitment maybe.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That seems like a tactic (not a criteria), but we have been presuming that the board are all of the same mind, so maybe the criteria would be someone who shakes things up, as I kind of revolution, an upending.
As I said, I dont consider these as drawn all the way out, so my comments are only to provisionally get at what is at stake in this, and not (hopefully) arguments for or against- though Im sure @Leontiskos will point out how they are if that is the caseas the process is meant to be fair and is based on acceptance.
Right, and it also corresponds to 's essay about the way that modern technologies promote and exacerbate this tendency.
Quoting Number2018
I agree.
Quoting Number2018
Good, and we could agree with Hume at least on one point, namely that Eichmann's rationality was placed at the service of Nazism. Eichmann's reason became a slave to his passions, at least if we see Nazism as part of his passions. So Eichmann was involved in a lot of thought and reasoning about how to further his goal of Nazism, but in another sense he was being thoughtless and irrational.
Quoting Number2018
Im going to offer my take on how Deleuze would analyze Eichmanns situation, then present a Wittgensteinian perspective that I think is consonant with Antonys. I will then contrast these with how you are relating the role of affectivity and rationality in Eichmanns behavior. In AO Deleuze distinguishes between investment in pre-conscious interests and unconscious desires. Pre-conscious interests guide and organize what matters and how it matters. With regard to political movements, the former lead to reactionary and reformist actions, and the latter to revolutionary change. If one continues to draw one thinking from such pre-conscious interests, one will remain within a status quo even as one attempts to makes changes within itself. The unconscious however is transformative
change in thinking, opening up lines of flight which alter what is at issue, what matters and how it matters. Only such thinking can be truly revolutionary. No amount of deliberative reasoning can accomplish this, since all deliberative thinking is already enslaved to pre-assigned interests. Deliberative rationality is in service of the reigning norms.
For Deleuze, whether Eichmann was an enthusiastic supporter of Nazi ideology or andisinterested bureaucrat the diagnosis is the same. Eichmann was ensconced within a social collectivity in such a way as to validate the most extensive rational deliberation he might attempt to justify his actions.
A Wittgenstein account has many parallels with Deleuzes. Eichmanns work duties amounted to a network of language games authorized by a form of life which made his work life intelligible to him both practically and ethically. These languages games and this form of life are intrinsically affective in the sense that they are only formed and only sustain themselves through continuously inter-affecting between persons. Affect cannot influence rationality from below as some autonomous domain (contra Massumi). Instead it is the elements of the system of meaning (perspective) that is a way of life. We cannot change affect separately from perspective , since they are the same thing. Wittgensteins concern with regard to Eichmann would be how he might be persuaded to look at his situation and that of others living alongside him (the jews) differently. Not do a better job of rational deliberation, but find a way to turn those rational schemes on their head through a change in affective orientation
Your reading of affect seems to differ from these accounts by treating affect, as Massumi does, as not just primary but autonomous. It seems to want to sever the dependence of knowledge on affect and value, as though affect can distort or inhibit rhe process of reasoned deliberation, and as though there could be a progress in logical , rational deliberation that was not at every point made intelligible in its very sense and meaning in an affective manner. Your Eichmann and your wokists are victims of this strife between affect and reason.
Leontikos articulates this strife well:
Quoting Leontiskos
And so, never ending great.
In these terms, my point was that the ad hoc assumption ofinherently to prove legitimacy/not legitimate up frontsay, the desire for, a framing of irrationality/emotion, is endemic in philosophy and humanity, and gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. I should have qualified this with the recognition that there are mistakes (to be) made (bad means), and I do think it is important to sort the wheat from the (general) chaff. And here it seems there is some distinction to be made between (general) bad means separate from certain goals or criteria, and those intrinsic in the value(ing) of certain criteria, and, recognizing there are costs to meeting most goals, is the juice worth the squeeze (and what that is, and if avoidable, able to be mitigated, etc)
Im curious if you think it would be appropriate for wokeists to ignore something like this:
Is this truly an upsetting ad for more than a handful of people?
Quoting Joshs
It is an idealized interpretation of Deleuzes concept of the line of flight. A line of flight is not necessarily liberatinary or revolutionary in a moral or political sense.Lines of flight are not always lines of emancipation; they can also be lines of death. ('A thousand plateaus', pg 298)
Quoting Joshs
This statement assumes a relatively stable, unified subject capable of rational deliberation. From a Deleuzian perspective, subjectivity is not fixed or whole but emergent, and produced. Deleuze would be less concerned with whether Eichmann was a committed ideologue or a passive bureaucrat. Instead, he would likely focus on how Eichmanns subjectivity was transformed. Also, he could try to answer a question of an authenticity of his denials of committing crimes. And this issue is a reason for my interest in the Eichmann's case, it could help to further elaborate our approach to wokeness. A Deleuzian reading would not treat Eichmanns memory or denials as simply true or false statements made by a self-transparent subject. Rather, it would see them as effects of an emergent subjectivity. For Luhmann, memory is re-produced by evolving systemic conditions. In a sense, Eichmann followed a line of flight as a means to avoid a feeling of guilt.
Quoting Joshs
It looks like you view affect primarily as a disruptive or distorting force.It interferes with reasoned deliberation. However, for Deleuze and Massumi, as well as according to Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, affect is the necessary condition of reason and deliberation. My position is that true progress in thought requires an acknowledgment of how we, and our thinking are impacted by the same affective forces and assemblages that shaped figures like Eichmann or contemporary "woke" individuals. This is not a moral equivalence but an ontological and epistemological commitment. Affective investments shape all subjectivity, including our own.
Quoting Number2018
Affect is simply the differences ( affecting and affected), the partial objects, the building materials, the working parts of machinic assemblages. Its not the parts which by themselves disrupt or repress, its how they are organized. The parts can assemble themselves in ways that resist their own transformation, they can assemble themselves in ways that deterritorialize in a revolutionary manner, but I dont know what it would mean to say that they can distort themselves. Distortion implies a proper configuration, and there would be no fixed basis for the proper here.
Thats an interesting way to frame the question.
I am totally interested in what you think something like this is.
I cant imagine how to go from what this ad says/means, to what this ad REALLY says/means, to whether that is something that either demands response or that can be ignored.
The notion good genes?
Yesterday I was talking with my cousin about heart disease in my family, and then with another cousin (different genes) about who is tall in our family. In both conversations the phrase good genes came up.
I barely get the pun - she has good genes because shes pretty I suppose. Is there something more I need to know about the model? Shes white? White people cant say genes anymore? So if the ad only had people of color in it, they would be allowed to make this pun to sell jeans?
Yes it should be ignored for two reasons:
1. It takes too much effort and racism inside someone to be offended at this ad (at least shes not naked) so they should fight to resist that racist urge and ignore the ad.
2. Giving it any attention at all only promotes American Eagle, so if you cant help yourself but find something deep in the ad that is offensive to non-white or non-pretty people, it would have been better not to repost the ad and talk about it and get it in the news.
But outrage attracts in own attention and gets clicks and likes - so have at it - seems like a minuscule issue that could easily have been ignored and makes the woke look bad. Again.
Wish you would say what you think. Why is it something more than a silly pun on genes - what is it really saying that is offensive, so much so that it is not appropriate for it to be ignored?
Quoting Leontiskos
That should have been more plainly said by the critic of the critique/assessment. Are you trying to be woke about criticizing wokeness?
Quoting Leontiskos
True. So maybe what is peculiar about wokeness has not been peculiar at all? Woke is merely a new window dressing, a new word, for erroneous justification of emotional conviction?
Quoting Number2018
I think all of this all makes sense, and should continue to be fleshed out, but I also think we may be unnecessarily leaping ahead.
Woke is peculiar. Woke is not just a general neglect of reason, but a particularly focused liberal/progressive brand. Have we defined it enough to go so general as to all error theory?
Quoting Leontiskos
So we can find the same kind of error building leads to following and promoting Nazi ideology, as might lead to following and promoting woke ideology.
Quoting Joshs
This seems to position things not in emotion, but in a stipulated rational framework called the Nazi.
Quoting Joshs
Is this a reframing of the source of error? Or are we moving away from error making? In which case we are drifting from our thesis it seems. @Joshs how do you think woke or Eichmann avoid error and emotional trigger.
Quoting Number2018
Bringing it back home again to the thesis.
So we no longer need care about what is different between woke and Nazi in order to discuss this subject?
I think error theory is essential here - wokism is error obfuscation. And wokism puts emotion first. But why would the wokist and the Nazi come to such opposite conclusions?
If emotions only, is it random whether a willfully neglect person will become a Nazi or woke?
I mean, both use similar tactics in promoting their ideology, so maybe they are only separated by circumstance? Emotional error makers born in Germany around 1915 who hear Hitler speak are more likely to become Nazis than progressives, and emotional error makers born in America around 1990 who hear the TV and go to school are more likely to become woke? Is that where this analysis is headed?
First, I'll just point out that I think it's a mistake to conflate "emancipatory" with "critical theory" and "definitely not post-modern." Even in less explicitly activist texts, the "free rollicking of thought," the opening of "new lines of thought," or the deconstruction of systems so that new ways of thought and action can come into being are often presented as desirable in themselves. The very word, "freedom""libertas" and all its cognatesis value loaded in its Western context, and that certainly doesn't seem to be different even in more theoretical texts. A freedom that is associated with potency, and the generation of greater potentiality vis-á-vis thought becomes itself emancipatory. But Woke has also drank deep from this conception of emancipation as the freedom (as lack of constraint) of thought and action (which is of course part of liberalism as well, although in a different register). This is one of the key points on which it diverges from the older Christian, Islamic, and Marxist activism of the 20th century.
To my eye, this looks like an example of @Leontiskos'
"putting second things first," however. The freedom of thought, an increase in potentialities available, of lines of action and thought, are themselves only good as a means of reaching choiceworthy ends, better means to those ends, etc. Greater potentiality is, of itself, not actually emancipatory nor is it desirable. Taken wholly by itself as an end, it's a slide towards multiplicity and nothingness. It's only choiceworthy itself if it is "unblocking" changes that are actually improvements. This is the old liberal inversion of placing a procedural freedom above the good, which is accomplished when it considers potency a good in itself.
Yes, it varies, but they do seem to tend towards various forms of anti-realism as well, including historical anti-realism. I think you are selling short the level of commitment here. One of the things right-wing media made the most hay over was straightforward pronouncements of the relativism and anti-realism coming out of activist circles.
Statues, names on buildings, memorials, etc. become such a focus because history can very much be re-written by the current victors, and while this is sometimes framed as merely "uncovering the truth about the past," it is also sometimes framed more explicitly simply in terms of power dynamics ("he who controls the present controls the past"). It is often "power all the way down," when the adversary controls it, and something to be uncovered when the forces of virtue control it. But the apparent contradiction here, or supposition of a "real" bedrock realism, is in fact also consistent with the "power all the way down" narrative. Those welding "power that goes all the way down," are not obligated to frame it as such, and indeed it would be unwise for them to do so.
My general impression is that, broadly speaking, the median Woke position is simply contradictory. It is morally and epistemically anti-realist and strongly relativistic, while at the same time being absolutist. This is, in many cases, an unresolved, and perhaps often unacknowledged contradiction. But my point would be that, accepting some of their starting points, contradiction is actually not a fatal problem. One can dismiss the demand for contradiction-free reasoning as nothing more than a power move (and indeed this has been done). You can see this more in the right-wing analogs of Woke (which are often conscious responses to it), which are even more explicitly relativistic and anti-realist, following a logic that terminates in something like "might makes right," where "might" has been given a much wider theoretical understanding than mere physical strength or kinetic force.
Sure, although I would say the aesthetics of such an interpretation have already begun to deflate our fellow "concatenations." But my point was more about adopting a study of them that attempts to bracket out or withhold all moral judgement. This seems to me to be, by definition, a deflation vis-a-vis value.
Right, but then this is also taken as a reason for bracketing out or eschewing moral judgement. It's that line of reasoning I find faulty. Consider that Socrates does not need to "step outside his humanity" to judge, universally, that "all men are mortal." He can do this just fine while remaining a man.
The idea is not that the wise man steps outside the world to stand alongside a Good that also lies outside the world. The Good is everywhere, in all things. Rather, there is merely the concession that it is possible for some to be wiser than others.
I am engaged in a dispute with Number2018 over what writers like Deleuze, Wittgenstein (where Antonys perspective comes from) and Foucault mean by affect and how it relates to reason. These thinkers assert that error is not the result of any distorting effect of affect on reason. A system of logical assertions gets its sense from a way of looking at the world, a perspective which is not itself either logical or illogical, correct or incorrect. Only the particulars organized within a perspective can be correct or incorrect error.
Your position, like that of Leontiskos, harks back to an older way of thinking about this relation, wherein emotion and reason run on partially independent circuits, and emotion can distort or inhibit rational processes of thinking.
I think my position is less clear than that.
I would say that reasoning is an act of the will and the intellect. A synonym for to reason would be to deliberate. So will and intellect must simultaneously be at work to reason. Emotion can consume the will or, like a stoic, be subsumed by the will. So emotion is not on a parallel track, or prior to, reason. Its all in the mix.
What I describe is not very clear, even to me, but I think it is more clear than what I see you describing of Deluze (who Ive read a little) and Witt (read a bit more). I see carts and horses being moved around, but not much clarity regarding independent circuits being identified.
Maybe the views of two prominent researchers on affect will be a little clearer. Robert Solomons book Not Passions Slave argues against the traditional view (especially David Humes) that emotions are irrational impulses that control us, and that reason is merely a tool used to fulfill emotional desires. Instead, he claims that emotions are forms of judgment: They arent just feelings or reactions; they involve interpretation, appraisal, and meaning. Emotions are structured by reasoning: For example, fear usually involves a belief that something is dangerous. These beliefs can be questioned and corrected. Reason and emotion work together. Rather than being enemies, Solomon says emotions are intelligent and reflective; you can reason about your emotions and emotions can involve reasoning. Emotions are not irrational forces. Theyre ways of seeing and making sense of the world, shaped by and open to rational reflection.
For Matthew Ratcliffe, emotions are not just about things in the world (like fear of a dog) but are about our whole way of experiencing the world. He calls these existential feelings; they shape our sense of possibility, reality, and self. Rather than being just cognitive judgments, emotions structure our background sense of meaning, making some things feel possible, hopeful, threatening, or hopeless before we even articulate them. Emotions are not just ways of thinking or judging, they are pre-reflective ways of being in the world, shaping how things matter to us. This view is closer to that of Deleuze and Wittgenstein than it is to Solomon.
Quoting Joshs
This is all very clarifying, but I think I disagree with some of the distinctions being made.
I would say judgments take account of emotions, but I dont see how emotions could possibly be a way of thinking or judging.
Emotion is a psychological condition. It is like the body or the brain, something in which conscious thought sits. Emotion is disposition, and situates ones conscious thought in the world. Emotion is like a higher form of sensation.
It cant be a way of thinking. Emotion can be conceptualized and considered as evidence when thinking (but emoting itself is not a type of thinking). One can make judgments to follow the flow of emotion versus stopping to further deliberate and introduce concepts and other reasons. One can choose to go with ones gut feel and not think too hard about something. This can be the best way to proceed (its a judgment call whether to think or not.)
The moment where a judgment is made, one is willing, intensional, about some mental object of thought. One judges the deliberation is over, enough evidence has been correlated into a coherent judgment, and one judges. This is reasoning or thinking - intellect and will in operation. But the moment of judgment is the end of this moment of reason. We sense - we reason - we judge. We gather experience through sensation, emotion and conceptualization; we reason about these and deliberate (forming many interim judgments); and then we make the ultimate judgment - we stop thinking and otherwise act.
One feels scared as one senses an angry bear, but one further observes the bear is focused on something else and one reasons the bear is not aware of you so one can judge what to do next. Feeling scared is important evidence to do the right thing. We can short-circuit to the moment of judgment and act immediately out of fear - but in doing so, this is not a way of thinking but is not thinking at all. We could also swallow our fear, and be courageous and stay still and quiet to think about what to do next.
There are not two different tracks or circuits here that we judge which to follow. We dont act on emotion OR act on reason. Emotion is always there, like the body is. We are on one track and either incorporate sensation, emotion, AND intellectual activity all before judgment, or we skip one of these steps.
One can see the American Eagle ad and immediately feel outrage, and act angry, and try to construct an argument about how outrage is reasonable or go protest, or deliberate about what is happening to you by this ad before acting at all, before judging your emotions are reasonable evidence of the world and state of affairs.
To add on a bit of a late point, I have often found that people who are pro-woke tend to retreat to theoreticals and philosophy while neglecting the material concerns that were brought up. It's an understandable impulse, but a frustrating one. I am sympathetic to moral concerns, obviously, but I find woke actions often have a startling lack of pragmatism backing them up. It gives off the vibe that they would rather lose than compromise what seem to be increasingly rigid beliefs. While I find this admirable to an extent, it makes attempts at rational discussion about pragmatic solutions all but impossible sometimes, even when you ultimately share similar goals.
Pardon the intrusion, but I think the fact that they are ontologically incapable of not responding to it, even though it would arguably be beneficial to ignore it in the current moment, illustrates that their actions have become more ideologically motivated than meant for real change.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Right , one needs to find a criterion on the basis of which way of being is preferable to another, more desirable.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Lets examine two postmodern models. According to one, ethical and empirical progress are united, based on the same criterion, optimal anticipatory sense-making. According to another, there can be no such overarching vector of historical progress since the criterion changes along with the social structure. However, there is local progress. One initially finds oneself ensconced within a particular set of cultural norms ( ethical, empirical). These norms inform one about what ethically desirable and what is to be rejected. Eventually, cultural change shifts perspectives on the criteria of ethical norms, and one now disapproves of the previous conventions while embracing the new ones. This process of establishing, living within and overcoming criteria of ethical desirability repeats itself endlessly without any over progress. You may want to call each of these totalitarian, but such totalitarianism will never be used as weapon against your belief in moral and empirical foundations. In the first case cultural progress is subsuming. Each formation of knowledge and ethics is equally valid, and there is no justification for coercing a change in beliefs from an external vantage. In the second case as well , persuasion substitutes for coercion. In both case ma there would be no wokist breathing down your back and policing your language. Your concerns about these models totalitarianism would have to restrict itself to the complaint that they eschew punishment, condemnation and coercion against those believe are unjust.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Is their position contradictory, or are you failing to appreciate that there can be forms of realism? As you pointed out, anti-realism is not opposed to totalitarianism or absolutism. That was Rouses point about social constructionists being semantic realists. You can try and pathologize them if you want by claiming that at bottom they just desire power for powers sake, but I think that would be utterly missing their motivation, which is not power but moral truth.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Even in writing here, we likely operate under the same general conditions that enable and reinforce what we now call wokeness. As Foucault reminds us:"The strategic adversary is fascism... not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussoliniwhich was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effectivelybut also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us." (Preface to Anti-Oedipus, p. 13)
Following Foucaults warning, one can find that our discourses often exhibit a kind of affective resonance, marked by overlapping expressions of identity and moral values. This phenomenon cannot be reduced to individual psychology or collective emotion.
A systems theorist Niklas Luhmann argues that under certain systemic conditions, memory ceases to function as a personal retrieval of the past. Instead, it becomes a functional, situationally enacted element within broader communicative systems. Today, digital media structures largely determine the selection of what counts as meaningful references to the past. In parallel, memory politics emerges as a struggle over the circulation of selectively chosen content and facts. Based on such systemically produced memory, affectively charged networks generate discursive effects of credibility and authenticity. In this context, genuineness is no longer grounded primarily in personal sincerity or factual correspondence. In online discourse and media- mediated domains of public life the distinction between 'truth' and 'lie' often does not comply with the binary of factual accuracy versus intentional deception. Therefore, wokeness represents a relatively localized phenomenon of affective-driven regime of truth within broader contemporary tendencies. For Foucault, a regime of truth refers not simply to "what is true," but to the systems of discourses and power relations that maintain what is accepted as truth.Truth is produced historically and tied to power. So, Foucaults insight about 'the fascism in us all' can serve as a provocation to examine the contemporary epistemic and affective shifts that impact our subjectivity.
To date American Eagle is being tight lipped about it. When looking for their response just now I found this interesting tidbit from former Levis brand president Jennifer Sey, who said, Theyve [the woke] lost their power. They just havent realized it yet.
Jean branders have realized it, apparently. :lol:
This is, expressly, the problem I am having (and one I wanted to highlight within 'woke'). That is ironic, unfortunately as I think it is what's happening. I can't understand Antony's intention anymore, given the responses which have been directly on point and either claiming we have done his dance, or that it is not really what we want to do. It seems the circles continue, but I have two further pages to read before hitting Post Comment.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Entirely reasonable, thank you.
Quoting praxis
I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss why they aren't similar. That last bit nveer gets done... And i can see several powerful responses (they just happen to not land for me). So, I think these sorts of arguments need to engage why that position is so reprehensible. "Oh its only x no. of people". Yes. But what those people are doing matters (and this isn't akin to an argument I am liable to make about prevalence causing alarm. We can ignore that, and assume its 1:1000000 for hte above to still run well, imo).
Quoting Antony Nickles
I would suggest for myself, and I think Leon is on this page, that this is just ignorant (not in a personal sense). We do understand these things, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The tension is between competing arguments (not even interests. I've tried to make this clear but if not: If you aren't willing to state your goals then I can't get on with your arguments. If you wont give me your arguments, I can't assess them against anything. Your 'interest' wouldn't help because getting there is what's at stake, not "having interest" in x y or z policy for a, b or c reasons) and we can't assess arguments without knowing the goal the argument is meant to support.
You have to make a proposition: Lived experience is a valuable aspect of a person's exploitable wisdom.
We can get on with that. But you'll notice most arguments I have made (and, from what I see, Leon) address this squarely, and this is why we cannot understand why you're asking us to slow down the horses. If there is some significant different between "interest" and "goal" for you here, please make it explicit. I see the difference broadly, but for our purposes it just seems to be a difference in clarity:
Interest (in): Not being subject to arbitrary search and seizure
Goal: I am not liable to arbitrary search and seizure.
The former is a desire which isn't particularly apt for policy. The latter is a goal which absolutely is (as the constitution will evidence). If you mean interest in a more legalese sort of why, I do not know what (extending hte metaphor) estate you could be claiming an interest in, to get this discussion off the ground, without creating a scenario of expressly competing interests in the way that "life" and "death" are express competitive notions. They cannot co-exist. The way I see this playing out is that if we had this discussion first we'd all be looking at similar things:
For all to be treated with respect;
For legitimate power to be wielded in the face of arbitrary disparity/force
and all the rest that underpins most concepts of "policy". Once we have all this on the table, we can discuss what methods might get us there. The interests, themselves, don't tell us muc because we must break them down to this priors. If you're not looking for equality of opportunity, you can support many bigoted policies. If you're not looking for equality of outcome, you must drop some policies of force, as examples.
Quoting Leontiskos
The veil of ignorance, i suspect, is at play. And its not the worst premise for a discussion of this kind. I just think Antony is importing (maybe unconsciously) plenty of goals which he/they (others, not a gender joke) implicitly carry, without these base discussions. I'm doing my utmost to ignore those voices and discuss with zero on hte table, to begin with. What do you want seems the right question.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Do you not notice that this fizzles out into a total nothing by the end? "how the world works" is not a reference we can make any sense of in this context. What about it, are you referring to? Besides that, I think you're wrong.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think this is hte best argument for bringing in lived experience. The problem is that if that person is a dick, or a moron, or dishonest or any number of things, the board wont take their ideas on board very readily. If they are clearly bad economic ideas, or are typically irrelevant to the goal of the Board (quite common for DEI-type hires as best I can tell) then that person is ignored, and their complaints ring true to their politically-aligned based in that "See, they only hired me as a token for looks - they don't even take me seriously" where, you'll notice, there isn't even room for discussions of hte merits or relevance of the person's experiences.
This is why goals are far, far, far more important than criteria.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think this is the same mistake my would-be board member above is making: There is no reason to think that your descriptions here are in any way helpful to the goal you're after (coming to terms, it seems). But again, a perfect example of why not stating your goals clearly has muddied these waters. Your goal is "a process", not an end-point, so there's nothing we can adequately hold to the light for assessment. Your position seems to ruin the potential for a valid assessment.
I think this fairly clearly sorts a couple of things out, but makes the above comments (immediately above) all the more apt: you are shying from an assessment by continually trying to bring our attention to that which we have already gone over. Perhaps this is not to your satisfaction, and so FireOlogist's comment I've quoted above comes in. If we don't agree, we must not understand. That seems wrong.
This one is confusing. You seem to be saying that you posited a method, which I then carried out, while arguing against it. That's not the case. I ran with your example because you gave it. It should be clear I think its unhelpful and a bad example that leapfrogs the fundamental, base-level function of decision making: Goal orientation. If you're tlaking about how we decide on goals, that's really not what this thread or discussion are about. But it would explain the disconnect.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Without a clear, articulated goal, this isn't helpful and there is no meat. it is window-dressing for a show we're not part of.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Then, unfortunately, I do not think you are here in good faith. That is specifically not what's at stake in the discussion, and exactly what we've been saying is problematic in your responses/approach. It comes across like you are not getting the joke, and trying to explain the pun in terms other than whimsy. The issue is what needs discussion. The 'situation' is entirely ungrounded and unable to be approached without a stated issue/goal for which someone's experience might be relevant. This cannot be talked about without specificity (as you seem to acknowledge, but in a different place).
Quoting Antony Nickles
What board, for what purpose? Otherwise, no, clearly not.
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree. I think the discussion is evidence in itself.
They should just enjoy it, like all of us who acquiesce to be advertised to.
They did the same thing (the advert) with Beyonce for Levi. The woke (such as you are referring) should just stop making shit up to get upset about and call people Nazis. It just shows us how bored and uninteresting you are. Its utterly fucking bizarre that anyone is making hte kind of comments they are about htis advert. Its selling sex. Not fucking Eugenics. You've got to be so bored - so incredibly bored - to find stretches that Mr Fantastic would be impressed by - to call people bigots.
I"VE RUN OUT OF TIME BUT I INTEND TO ADD TO THIS POST. IF YOU CAN, HOLD OFF ON RESPONDING UNTIL IMARK IT COMPLETE>
Quoting AmadeusD
It was to try to offer a different way than just a philosophical framework which tends to overlook things based on the terms we bring to something.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I was literally not arguing; how can I disagree!? And 3/4 of this discussion is yall and @Joshs bashing on about theories on how we approach things!
Quoting AmadeusD
I did/do apologize for insinuating that anyone didnt understand what they were talking about, or that I was trying to slander anyones judgment.
Quoting AmadeusD
And I will leave yall to that, because I hadnt even figured out: valuable how?
Quoting AmadeusD
Now I get it. Yall think Im trying to sandbag you, or set a trap, etc. If anyone is bringing implicit unconscious goalsas like implicit premisesthe idea would be to realize that, to get a chance to become aware of that, just like a logical error or a contradiction. My whole idea was to come at it open-minded and then figure out what the terms and stakes are. If I realize I have presumptions, prejudgments, a preconceived idea of rational, an axe to grind, etc., I could then separate what I am bringing from looking at what is the case here. Thus the idea of jointly brainstorming the criteria so that we keep each other honest to sort out the grounds, yes, on which we might actually (ultimately) disagree. If we assume disagreement, were just picking sides and fighting to see whose sword is sharper; Im good.
Quoting AmadeusD
I see; sorry I wasted your time with all this.
It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesnt even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault.
This is just so hard to read. I'm not sure what you are saying.
Edit: Note too that so much of this can be simplified. An ad hoc assumption merely intended to "prove" legitimacy/illegitimacy up front is already a huge problem.
I asked where you argued that a step back is necessary, and you basically didn't answer my question. So I went back to some of your earlier posts to look. Here is one issue I found:
Quoting Antony Nickles
I am going to point out some of the grammatical problems first, because these seem to be present throughout. What does "it is" refer to? What does "these" refer to? It's hard to follow what you are saying.
With that said, it seems like your thesis in this paragraph is
1. We should not put second things first
2. We should not place appearance over reality
A woke example of the first would be an attempt to make diversity an absolute goal. A woke example of the second would be virtue signaling.
Now we can argue over whether the woke do either of these two things, but on your argument that doesn't seem to matter at all. On your argument, even if they do those things, I still can't critique them because my critique involves a "fixed standard for [...] rationality."
To be clear, suppose I accuse the woke of virtue signaling. Someone might respond, "I recognize the standard which says that we should not engage in virtue signaling, but I am not engaged in virtue signaling." Yet that is not the response I am interested in, because it is not your response. Your response is apparently, "To critique on the basis of virtue signaling is to critique on the basis of a fixed standard, and you aren't allowed to appeal to fixed standards; therefore your critique fails." Do we agree that this is your response? If not, then what does it mean to object to fixed standards?
I think this is helpful in furthering the discussion. :up:
We could certainly talk about the relation between reason and "affect," but I want to remain at a different level for a moment. If one holds to a theory in which it is possible for ideological movements such as wokeness to be erroneous, then it is possible for that person to see wokeness as erroneous. Contrariwise, if one holds to a theory in which it is not possible for ideological movements such as wokeness to be erroneous, then it is not possible for that person to see wokeness as erroneous. This point is very similar to my analogy about weeding a garden. Note too that we could substitute different negative valuations for "erroneous."
I am wondering if @Joshs and @Antony Nickles think ideological error (and the attendant rebuke) is possible. My guess is that both of you do not think that moral error is possible (which includes ideological error), and that you hold this for slightly different reasons. If this is right and there are different grounds at play, then I think the anthropological reason-affect approach could be useful in speaking to @Joshs but not in speaking to @Antony Nickles. @Antony Nickles seems to eschew charges of irrationality for a somewhat different reason.
Yes, that's a very interesting point. :up:
---
Quoting Fire Ologist
The "ad hoc" objection could be phrased this way, "You just dislike wokism. You have no real arguments against it; it's just an emotional dislike."
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think it is a particular determination of that broader sort of error. It is also a paradigm example given that its outcomes are so obviously inordinate.
Sure: the woke belief that (biological) men and (biological) women should compete against one another within the same sport.
Quoting Joshs
I agree, but you are the one who wanted to explore the connection between wokism and philosophical antecedents. Why did you want to do that?
Quoting Joshs
My contention is that one who "blurs the difference" is able to conclude whatever they want to conclude. For example, you cherry pick a subset of philosophers from a very broad construal of CT, ask how wokism could possibly issue from such thinkers, all the while refusing to consider other thinkers in that very same broad construal of CT. Everything is so loose here that ad hoc reasoning becomes incredibly easy. To give another example, you single out Adorno to somehow justify your highly implausible claim that CT is realist.
Quoting Joshs
Do you really not know what a means and an end are?
---
Quoting Joshs
This seems largely correct, but the more general point is that wokism isn't genealogically simple. It derives from a number of different sources, philosophical and non-philosophical. For example, when I called it a Christian heresy I was saying that one of its sources is Christian morality.
Maybe, but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch: is the above stretch between a man taking over a womens sporting event (maybe as a precedent for all womens sports) and child abuse/sexual assault a bigger stretch than an ad with a pretty white girl talking about have good genes/jeans and being offended by her? Id say only the woke hear that sort of dog-whistle. But all of the girls in surfing competition (if not everyone who watched, could see what was expressly being done (no whistle sensitivity needed).
Quoting Antony Nickles
It being the idea of ones experience as unique, in that it also creates the idea of irrational as individual, emotional (relative to a person). And these would be: both these errors.
Quoting Leontiskos
I said, to ignore in only recognizing fixed standards, and this would be preset (created) requirements, not any standards, and also in the sense of desiring them to be (as philosophy does) applied generically, uniformly, without any context (or across all). And, anticipating the next bit, I am specifically not talking about errors in logic or grammar I might make here, as it were, philosophically.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Leontiskos
And here, as I have said (quite a few times now), I am not trying to cut off argument or dismiss anyone (not saying cant critique or arent allowed), only suggesting we find out if our (any) assumptions are getting in the way of seeing things clearly. I think the presumption herewhich I am starting to take personally as an accusation based on my desire and repeated efforts to be intellectually forthright and honest (also admitting errors and my own assumptions)is that I actually do have a position and am either trying to cut off all others philosophically (theoretically as it were), or I am merely being slippery, or trying to hide, which I mentioned above to @AmadeusD, would be the whole point of looking at actual criteria in a case: to investigate them together to sort them from our assumptions, which we all have, and are, categorically, unrealized. Isnt this what anyone is against, being judged prematurely, say, based on an inappropriate standard?
I am, of course, abandoning that effort here in order to avoid cutting off discussion or appearing dismissive (of anyone), as has been pointed out. If we can get past the skepticism of my intentions or the presumption of my goal, I dont mind discussing the philosophy.
:lol: Who would you rescue first?
1. A child being abused.
2. Someone involved in an industrial accident.
3. A woman being sexually assaulted.
4. A woman competing with a trans-woman in a longboard competition.
It seems to me that there's a rather large gulf between 3 & 4.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You forgot:
5. Pretty white girl who talks about her genes.
6. Someone who is having a seizure because they saw the ad.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I had a pretty good sense this was how your well-intended project was going to end. I consider you to be one of the rare few on this site who grasps the idea that what is at stake and at issue for a matter of concern is not something which can be treated separately from questions of empirical validity , of what is reasonable, rational and logical. Rather, such considerations form the very basis of intelligibility for judgements of fact. Armed with this knowledge, you hoped to steer the discussion of wokeness away from what is true, rational , reasonable and logical to a preliminary exploration of the different ways participants construe what is at stake and at issue, and then see what kind of consensus might arise from this hermeneutic exercise. To your apparent surprise and chagrin, your attempt to begin at a point prior to formed ideology and theory was accused of being biased in the direction of an already formed ideology which you were trying to shove down peoples throats. In a certain sense they have a point.
Let me explain. You rightly take from Wittgenstein the anchoring of sense in systems of intelligibility that he talks about in terms of language games, forms of life and hinges.
What Wittgenstein does not discuss is how difficult one should expect it to be to persuade another to change their way of looking at things. There is a difference between seeing that considerations of what is at stake and at issue (forms of life) form the very basis of intelligibility for judgements of what is reasonable, and getting other to arrive at that insight. You seem to be treating this understanding as some kind of common sense, as though all you had to do was explain what you had in mind in a few paragraphs and it would be immediately comprehended by other members of the thread.
I think this lack of attention to historical genesis is an important weakness in Wittgensteins thinking. What we see in the work of writers like Focault, Deleuze , Heidegger and Derrida is a depiction of what Wittgenstein calls form of life as sticky, intractable and resistant to transformation and persuasion. And they explain why this is so. The very stability of systems of intelligibility which allows us to make
sense of the world imbues them with a certain conservatism and resistance to change. This is why Foucault can talk about cultural knowledge epistemes lasting for centuries, and Heidegger can talk about the first beginning of philosophy ( traditional metaphysics of presence) and the other beginning (inaugurated by Heideggers own thinking), with the first beginning extending 2000 years from the Greeks to the modern era.
Thats right, the first beginning lasted 2000 years, and you were hoping to cause a philosophical shift in thinking in a matter of minutes! What you have been considering as merely the commonsensical preliminary to a discussion of wokism is the whole kit and kaboodle. If other members were prepared to grasp the orientation toward what is at stake and at issue that you have been trying to convey, the whole conversation would be unnecessary in the first place.
But the very intractability of participants orientations on this matter made your assumption that mutual understanding here was assured fooled from the start.
My strategy in such discussions is to assume that it will not be possible to attain mutual agreement on such fundamental philosophical matters if the starting point for participants (their form of life) is too distant from that of Wittgensteins and writers who overlap his thinking. My goal is instead to zero in on their orientations as intricately as possible such as to glimpse the outer boundaries of their way of thinking, that zone of intractability beyond which any attempts at persuasion on my part meet with a glassy eyed stare and/or outright hostility.
You complain that my contributions to the thread restricted themselves to debates over theory, as though what you were asking of the group didnt itself require a major shift in their presuppositions butting up against that very zone of intractability. You really dont see that if Leontiskos and Fire Ologist embrace theories of emotion which split affective phenomena off from rationality as potential disrupters and inhibitors of reason they are going to be in a position to embrace a notion of what matters and what is at issue that completely overcomes this split? I think you should take your own admonition to heart. If you really want to understand others ways of thinking and valuing, what matters and how and why it matters to them, the. you need to appreciate the enormous difficulties they may have in coming over to your way of seeing things.
So do you know what you mean by "fixed standards" vs. "any standards"? Can you provide an example of a non-fixed standard?
Quoting Antony Nickles
I want you to say out loud what sort of assumption would get in the way of seeing things clearly. You keep alluding to things that you never actually explicate.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yes, the presumption is that you do have a position, and that this is why you are interested in this thread. Be forthright about your position, even if your position is not simply pro-woke or anti-woke. Tell us what you are arguing for or against and why, even if you are arguing for greater clarification because you think there is a lack of clarity.
Quoting Antony Nickles
If you want to be forthright then you have to spell out the inappropriate standard that you think is in play. You can't just keep making vague allusions ad infinitum.
This is an instructive exchange:
Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Antony Nickles
Quoting Leontiskos
We keep going in this circle because you apparently want to say things without being committ[ed] to saying anything. Every time someone tries to capture what you are saying you balk, and then do not clarify what you are saying. I want you to say something and stick to it. Say something that you are willing to stand behind. Philosophy cannot begin until that occurs.
Yes, and I think that lacuna is built in:
Quoting Moliere
Quoting Leontiskos
---
Quoting Joshs
I would say the problem is that @Antony Nickles would reject your verb "steer." He somehow doesn't understand himself to be doing anything. In his mind he is not steering, he is not arguing, he is not taking an ideological side and he is not even acting for the sake of any end or goal whatsoever. Thus it becomes impossible to get him to see the fork in the road between these two approaches that you outline. My underlying point has been, "Hey, there's a fork in the road here. We have to deliberate and discuss which route to take. We can't pretend there isn't a fork while simultaneously picking a side."
I get the oddest responses from Wittgenstenians when I tell them that their activity is not being done for no reason at all - when I tell them that everyone acts for ends, themselves included. They tend to see themselves as eternally above the fray.
I feel like I should take issue with the presumption, but the question itself is too broad for me to answer. Nevertheless (stepping in front of the loaded question), what is an example of an error that is moral, say ideological? As, say, opposed to a political one, like dictatorship? which seems hard to call an error. Dewey (as I discuss here) will call intolerance a treason to democracy, which would cast one out of the polis, not be wrong or a mistake.
I see your approach and @Antony Nickles' as quite distinct for the relevance of this thread (despite some overlap in general). But there is a point at which they can come together. It is this: we can talk all we like about "pre-conscious interests," "unconscious desires," "a preliminary stage to that in which we know our goals," but all of this is actually non-discursive and therefore separate from what occurs on a philosophy forum. A philosophy forum could be driven by any number of such things, but it is not possible or permissible to directly appeal to such phenomena as justification for this or that claim. The non-discursive aspect must first be made transparent and discursive before it can be utilized within a discursive context such as a philosophy forum.
More simply, a philosophy forum is about deliberation, and we deliberate about that which we are conscious of, not what we are unconscious of. The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness.
This is, expressly, the problem I am having (and one I wanted to highlight within 'woke'). That is ironic, unfortunately as I think it is what's happening. I can't understand Antony's intention anymore, given the responses which have been directly on point and either claiming we have done his dance, or that it is not really what we want to do. It seems the circles continue, but I have two further pages to read before hitting Post Comment.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Entirely reasonable, thank you.
Quoting praxis
I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss why they aren't similar. That last bit nveer gets done... And i can see several powerful responses (they just happen to not land for me). So, I think these sorts of arguments need to engage why that position is so reprehensible. "Oh its only x no. of people". Yes. But what those people are doing matters (and this isn't akin to an argument I am liable to make about prevalence causing alarm. We can ignore that, and assume its 1:1000000 for hte above to still run well, imo).
Quoting Antony Nickles
I would suggest for myself, and I think Leon is on this page, that this is just ignorant (not in a personal sense). We do understand these things, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The tension is between competing arguments (not even interests. I've tried to make this clear but if not: If you aren't willing to state your goals then I can't get on with your arguments. If you wont give me your arguments, I can't assess them against anything. Your 'interest' wouldn't help because getting there is what's at stake, not "having interest" in x y or z policy for a, b or c reasons) and we can't assess arguments without knowing the goal the argument is meant to support.
You have to make a proposition: Lived experience is a valuable aspect of a person's exploitable wisdom.
We can get on with that. But you'll notice most arguments I have made (and, from what I see, Leon) address this squarely, and this is why we cannot understand why you're asking us to slow down the horses. If there is some significant different between "interest" and "goal" for you here, please make it explicit. I see the difference broadly, but for our purposes it just seems to be a difference in clarity:
Interest (in): Not being subject to arbitrary search and seizure
Goal: I am not liable to arbitrary search and seizure.
The former is a desire which isn't particularly apt for policy. The latter is a goal which absolutely is (as the constitution will evidence). If you mean interest in a more legalese sort of why, I do not know what (extending hte metaphor) estate you could be claiming an interest in, to get this discussion off the ground, without creating a scenario of expressly competing interests in the way that "life" and "death" are express competitive notions. They cannot co-exist. The way I see this playing out is that if we had this discussion first we'd all be looking at similar things:
For all to be treated with respect;
For legitimate power to be wielded in the face of arbitrary disparity/force
and all the rest that underpins most concepts of "policy". Once we have all this on the table, we can discuss what methods might get us there. The interests, themselves, don't tell us muc because we must break them down to this priors. If you're not looking for equality of opportunity, you can support many bigoted policies. If you're not looking for equality of outcome, you must drop some policies of force, as examples.
Quoting Leontiskos
The veil of ignorance, i suspect, is at play. And its not the worst premise for a discussion of this kind. I just think Antony is importing (maybe unconsciously) plenty of goals which he/they (others, not a gender joke) implicitly carry, without these base discussions. I'm doing my utmost to ignore those voices and discuss with zero on hte table, to begin with. What do you want seems the right question.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Do you not notice that this fizzles out into a total nothing by the end? "how the world works" is not a reference we can make any sense of in this context. What about it, are you referring to? Besides that, I think you're wrong.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think this is hte best argument for bringing in lived experience. The problem is that if that person is a dick, or a moron, or dishonest or any number of things, the board wont take their ideas on board very readily. If they are clearly bad economic ideas, or are typically irrelevant to the goal of the Board (quite common for DEI-type hires as best I can tell) then that person is ignored, and their complaints ring true to their politically-aligned based in that "See, they only hired me as a token for looks - they don't even take me seriously" where, you'll notice, there isn't even room for discussions of hte merits or relevance of the person's experiences.
This is why goals are far, far, far more important than criteria.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think this is the same mistake my would-be board member above is making: There is no reason to think that your descriptions here are in any way helpful to the goal you're after (coming to terms, it seems). But again, a perfect example of why not stating your goals clearly has muddied these waters. Your goal is "a process", not an end-point, so there's nothing we can adequately hold to the light for assessment. Your position seems to ruin the potential for a valid assessment.
I think this fairly clearly sorts a couple of things out, but makes the above comments (immediately above) all the more apt: you are shying from an assessment by continually trying to bring our attention to that which we have already gone over. Perhaps this is not to your satisfaction, and so FireOlogist's comment I've quoted above comes in. If we don't agree, we must not understand. That seems wrong.
This one is confusing. You seem to be saying that you posited a method, which I then carried out, while arguing against it. That's not the case. I ran with your example because you gave it. It should be clear I think its unhelpful and a bad example that leapfrogs the fundamental, base-level function of decision making: Goal orientation. If you're tlaking about how we decide on goals, that's really not what this thread or discussion are about. But it would explain the disconnect.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Without a clear, articulated goal, this isn't helpful and there is no meat. it is window-dressing for a show we're not part of.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Then, unfortunately, I do not think you are here in good faith. That is specifically not what's at stake in the discussion, and exactly what we've been saying is problematic in your responses/approach. It comes across like you are not getting the joke, and trying to explain the pun in terms other than whimsy. The issue is what needs discussion. The 'situation' is entirely ungrounded and unable to be approached without a stated issue/goal for which someone's experience might be relevant. This cannot be talked about without specificity (as you seem to acknowledge, but in a different place).
Quoting Antony Nickles
What board, for what purpose? Otherwise, no, clearly not.
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree. I think the discussion is evidence in itself.
They should just enjoy it, like all of us who acquiesce to be advertised to.
They did the same thing (the advert) with Beyonce for Levi. The woke (such as you are referring) should just stop making shit up to get upset about and call people Nazis. It just shows us how bored and uninteresting you are. Its utterly fucking bizarre that anyone is making hte kind of comments they are about htis advert. Its selling sex. Not fucking Eugenics. You've got to be so bored - so incredibly bored - to find stretches that Mr Fantastic would be impressed by - to call people bigots.
I"VE RUN OUT OF TIME BUT I INTEND TO ADD TO THIS POST. IF YOU CAN, HOLD OFF ON RESPONDING UNTIL IMARK IT COMPLETE
EDITED IN FURTHER RESPONSES:
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is a really good example of you importing some assumptions on the part of your own scenario: We don't know what the board wants. There is absolutely no basis to say the bolded without first giving a reason why, Nothing is valuable tout court. What is it valuable for? I can only surmise you want lived experience to be informative. About what??? This is the basic problem with your entire approach. You want to have a discussion about nothing, and still make it substantial. It looks as if you're not willing to do the ground work here, or truly believe it isn't ground work. But that is logically unsound. If you do not state an end, criteria for what will get us there are impossible. That's the impasse.
Quoting praxis
They've responded.
Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. Well continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.
Good on them. Ridiculous reaction to the advert.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Yep, but what you missed from my quote was "now" that I/we have addressed that squarely several times. I can't see why you would run the same stuff when it's been dealt with.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is because you wont do what I'm charging with being unwilling to do. We have brought that point up to you several times in these pages. You seem to now be figuring out that this is an extremely important aspect which you had initially wanted us to forego.
Quoting Antony Nickles
No. I think you're trying to have the discussion with having your own arms tied behind your own back, and not knowing it. There's no charge on you here, morally. It's about what you're not grasping in the discussion (from my perspective, naturally). I would also suggest I am not a 'y'all' :)
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is an unfortunate deflation. If this was your position throughout, then you clearly are not reading very well. I (and we, on my account) have explicitly gone over what we're talking about and why. I've even pointed out that goals must, at some level, be arbitrary because they are prior to criteria on achieving them. You have proceeded as though boht that hasn't been said, and isn't the case. This is why I/we cannot understand what you are getting at anymore. It seems to be purely ignoring hte relevant responses you've been given.
Quoting praxis
It would be a stretch to say I was doing that. The comparison is the logic, not the content. You don;'t seem to be disagreeing that a single instance of trouble in the kitchen should have us investigating and preventing that trouble. And there's far more than one instance in all three areas people care about here (bathrooms, prisons and sport).
Quoting Antony Nickles
But your responses are making it clear you are avoiding this. Whether this is conscious or not, I don't know (or care, tbh). You're focussed on something utterly incoherent, and we've pointed that out to you explicitly. You do not respond to that, and continue on your journey to talk about criteria void any goal. Which is incoherent. Unfortunately, the posts Joshs' and yourself have been making have reinforced a sense that Continental and "deconstructionist" philosophy is almost entirely useless, other than for people who already agree to speak in some private language. That is certainly a shame, but not one i'm uncomfortable with. It's a "you don't get it" type of situation.
Obviously this wasn't to me, but it was ancillary to something which was so I'll chime in: 4. doesn't require rescuing. They shouldn't ever have been in that position. Had you said an MMA match, there's probably no gulf between 4 and a couple of the others. Its a male beating on a female. These are clearly irrelevant considerations though. The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. There is no force of reason which sets aside that presumption, currently. Yet here we are, arguing about it. If you care about safe spaces, this is quite ironic (not that you do, but it's a woke thing so worth mentioning).
There are no hard divides in these categories. The ideological sphere and the political sphere are both part of the moral sphere, and the ideological sphere and the political sphere themselves will overlap, especially depending on how we construe "ideological." So a dictatorship is simultaneously a moral and political phenomenon, and may well be an ideological phenomenon too.
I am asking, "Is it possible for wokeness to be [insert negative valuation here]?" So if our term is "erroneous," then I am asking whether wokeness can be erroneous. Most generally we might ask, "Is it logically possible for wokeness to be bad?"
If you admit that some things are bad, then I at least know that you are in principle willing to admit of the badness of wokeness. If not then I may be up against something quite difficult.
Quoting Antony Nickles
So for Dewey intolerance is hypothetically wrong given a democratic outlook, but it is not categorically wrong given that there is nothing categorical about a democratic outlook. Is it your position that something like wokeness can be hypothetically wrong (according to a hypothetical imperative), but not wrong per se (according to a non-hypothetical imperative)? If so, then you are saying something like, "The woke person is not simply wrong given that wrongness presupposes standards and all standards are hypothetical."
Quoting Leontiskos
Richard Rorty made some interesting observations along these lines.
Quoting Leontiskos
I only intended my reference to Deleuze and his notions of the unconscious and the pre-consciousness for Number2018, because Deleuze is important to his thinking, and he brought him into the discussion.
I dont want my position to be misread as a claim that when we deliberate we may be blind to the true motives and meanings of what we are trying to reason about. For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. If we disagree about an issue and then check to make sure we are not talking past one another, it is not always easy to tease out the contrast poles of our concepts. I know what I mean by concepts like justice and dignity, but can I locate their opposites? The opposite of dignity may not be the same for me as for you.
I can find all the words I am using in the same dictionary you use, but finding these words will not tell how each of us is using them. I am not by any means crossing off the possibility that two or more parties can come to agree on the same meanings of what is being discussed. This happens all the time , and allows all to come to consensus on what has been validated or invalidated through deliberation. But I suggest that the more philosophically, spiritually and ethically consequential the topic, the more likely it is that the participants will begin talking past each other, which is where the intransigence of presuppositions I discussed earlier becomes a barrier to consensus, not due to hidden or unconscious dynamics, but the limits of any given framework of intelligibility to assimilate elements outside its range of convenience. Thats when the hardest thing in the world to say should be said. Not youre wrong, biased, irrational, not paying attention, but wen are talking past one another because I apparently cant make your understanding of the concepts involved coherent to me and you cant make my use of those concepts coherent to you, so well either try to locate some more general level of analysis wheren we can see eye to eye, or leave each other to their world.
Yes, and along the same lines Wittgenstein never seemed to recognize that others would approach him in the way that he approached these other philosophers. There is that general tendency of "exempting oneself."
-
Quoting Joshs
Right, and even if we are blind to a motive or meaning, that blindness must itself be brought to light if it is to be leveraged dialogically.
Quoting Joshs
Sure, and like I said, this all feels a little bit like a tangential topic.
Quoting Leontiskos
Would you agree theres an easy way to test whether its tangential? Namely by jumping back into the topic of the OP and seeing how long we last until we start talking past one another. I like to think I succeeded in not talking past Number2018 in my back and forth with him over his OP. My aim there was threefold.
1) to clarify the concepts of affect and rationality that he was employing by tracing them back to the references he provided( Massumi, Luhemann, Deleuze, Foucault).
2) to establish that there are other ways of interpreting Deleuze and Foucault in line with contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on the relation between affect and reason which integrates them more closely than his approach does .
3) To show the implications of this alternative approach for his account of wokism.
Quoting AmadeusD
I should have said as we are imagining, but I thought I made it clear that what the board wants was to add another member, and we were considering the criteria they would use, the traditional ones and what would be the criteria to judge how lived experience would have value for the board, how they would decide whether to choose the new member based on it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, youve been very generous. The question would be whether we learned anything about what lived experience is, what it applies to (maybe only certain kinds of situations), what not (in comparison to the value from the other criteria), the pitfalls (appearing discriminatory), its corruption (just image), etc. to make a judgment in this case (whether to add it as a criteria here, in this example, or as it might equally apply elsewhere, in other similar contexts). We didnt get as far as I would have liked (still things to clarify to find out how/when/where/if lived experience is valuable), but Ive been kinda browbeat on this (e.g. You're focused on something utterly incoherent). If this doesnt help understand the value of the method, I havent done my job. Im sorry if you didnt get anything out of it, but I stilI appreciate your participation.
So I think you're contradicting yourself here, given that you're establishing a created or preset standard, namely, "One should not dictate what is rational ahead of looking for how things have rationality." What you're relying on here is the standard against post hoc rationalization, and this is of course a good standard. But it looks like your objection to preset standards relies on a preset standard.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Sort of, in that you gesture towards your preset standard that you wish to apply, but you don't apply it. You don't say, "This is where my preset standard is being violated and here's why."
Quoting Antony Nickles
You told me that you had provided the reason I was asking for, but that my "desire for a specific kind of answer [was] getting in the way." I asked where you had done so, and you said that you did it in your first post, but that you did such a poor job of it that I should look elsewhere. So it looks like my question, "Where can I find this reason?," was never answered.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I am far from the only one.
Quoting Antony Nickles
You told me that you've already explained it, I asked where, and you literally failed to tell me where. That's why I came to the conclusion that you haven't done it.
Quoting Antony Nickles
Think about how much ink has been spilt in this thread. An enormous amount. Then when I ask what you are saying, all you come up with is effectively, "Don't dictate what is 'rational' before understanding how things have rationality." That is a truism. Is that all you were saying with this enormous amount of ink? Again, at the very least you would have to say where and how this "dictation" is occurring if it is to count as "saying something."
Quoting Antony Nickles
But you didn't point it out. You didn't point to its occurrence. We can do it again: If you've pointed out the error, where did you point it out? In which post?
Quoting Antony Nickles
No thanks. The point about your "steering" is deeply relevant. If you would not reject the term "steer" then feel free to correct my interpretation.
Your coercive approach, both publicly and privately, is unfortunate. It is certainly not philosophical.
I am not saying that the discussion about reason and affect is tangential. I am saying that the broader conversation about intractable disagreement is tangential.
Ill just reply to this via message. I apologize for the theory dig; I was just jealous you were being taken seriously I think. I do admit that, in being made to work so hard to explain what I was talking about, I didnt take the time to address that a debate about ends is inevitable and has its place, and so probably came off as condescending or judgmental or dismissive (or unintelligible it turns out). I thought I turned it about, but the ship has sailed. I would just say publicly that I was not pitting an assumption of rationality against the individual, or the personal, or participants. I also dont take Wittgenstein to be talking about justification or a system or basis of intelligibility (as if it were not an ongoing responsibility). Thus I was not assuming mutual understanding was assured (as if what I was saying was right, or simply common sense), but I was not assuming (immediate) disagreement. Thanks.
Surfing is not a contact sport and locker rooms or whatever are also a non-issue.
Btw, the woman who made a fuss about it didnt compete as a longboarder. Shes a Christian and just happened to be selling her conservative themed childrens book at the time.
Quoting Joshs
We are still here in this thread because what is commonly referred to as wokeness concerns all of us. We consider this issue to be urgently important, and each of us is attempting to bring our philosophical background to clarify it. All of us apply here a solid theoretical foundation. We try to better understand wokeness and the nature of our own engagement with it. Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to reflect more critically on ourselves.Yet the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness.The term unconscious is often overused and should not be understood here in a purely psychological sense. Rather, it refers to a regime that operates across heterogeneous domains and develops a cumulative strategic resonance. This regime produces specific expressions of identity and morality as true and authentic. These expressions do not appear as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts.
Yes.
Quoting Joshs
Leons unconscious entities are neutral and just need to be brought to the fore. Leon is pointing to what.
Joshs unconscious entities are the why and how of importance.
Still yes.
Quoting Joshs
I admit my writing style is not the best, I go too fast, fail to edit, but I truly try to be open and honest and clear and respectful, and even grateful, and in-debted when I read some of the things you guys make so clear. My apologies. I can be a wise ass and even know I sound dismissive but I am truly not dismissive and would rather just know we all already can get along as people, like cousins, so we could hash out a good, blood soaked argument, never talking past anyone.
Calling each other out for saying something stupid is one thing. That doesnt mean you arent also brilliant. At least thats how I do it. (See, I just used a double-negative because that is how I would say it doesnt mean you arent. Sorry! Internet is a blessing and a fickle bitch.)
Quoting Number2018
Yes.
Quoting Number2018
Wokeness is a reflection of the fact that precise definition and straight inquiry are challenging to come by. Wokeness embraces the challenge leaving the end, the overcoming and completion of the challenge, unfinished, without precise definition or straight lines of inquiry.
Yes.
Quoting Number2018
You could have stopped here to fix the point this makes to me: Its meaning shifts.
So nothing you just said about where its meaning shifts (perspective,etc) is wrong at all. But I pause at simply the notion wokes meaning is a shifting thing, unfixed. That, I think, is a perfectly neutral observation about wokeism - we are going to have leave some lines undefined and unclear if we are to clearly see what is woke. Thats what woke is - it resists to stagnant form embracing change qua change; but that is always woke. So when we draw the line and point clearly that is woke - like trans rights are woke - we are also pointing not to any clear lines but maybe to areas or frameworks or local systems of agreement
Quoting Number2018
Yes, It is urgent. It is immediate, and self-evident at times, like injustice. This involved is real power that must be managed, and judged, and in support of calls to action, a morality.
Quoting Number2018
This speaks to how it is undefined again. What is unconscious is the same qua unconscious for the woke and the anti-woke (qua unconscious). But this unconscious for the woke is a comfort level with ambiguity and undefined things. So its influence may be subtle but that is not intrinsic to wokeness - its influence could be dramatic and loud.
Quoting Number2018
Yes, that is part of the how Joshs was relating/contrasting with Deluze and the other writers.
Quoting Number2018
Yes - there is a particular character, nevertheless, to the woke. (Like with anything, there is its particular character and how this blends in with its context )
Quoting Number2018
Yes. The character of wokeness involves its context more than its own defined in-itself and this affective and social context IS where woke finds it clearest definition in its struggling self.
There is a lot more to say..
Quoting Number2018
If wokeness (or its conditions) are irreversible, then is it reasonable to oppose it? Because my approach here is something like:
Or perhaps my syllogism is off. Perhaps the conditions are irreversible and therefore must be opposed only in roundabout ways.
I really don't think you're grasping the responses to your point. This one is a prime example. Why are they adding a new member? And if there's no particular reason (perhaps there's simply an empty space) then we need to know what hte board intends to do. You are removing any possibility for motivation, and hten asking for motivating criteria. This is nonsensical, as best I can tell.
Quoting Antony Nickles
This is the closest to something we've seen, I think. But all I could put under this head is that "lived experience" is worthless unless directed at some pre-existing intention, generally, an informational one. Without a pre-understood goal, aim or purpose for the experience to inform, there is nothing to be spoken about.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I very much appreciate the exchange too. I'm just finding it genuinely really, really really hard to see how this impasse even exists.
Do we agree we need reasons to do things? Those are goals
Do we agree that those reasons can be understood? These are motivations.
Do we then agree that any methods need be aligned with motivations, in order to achieve goals?
If this is hte case, it is patent that you started a step above the ground, but wanted a view of the ground. Maybe we can just sort that out, and the rest will fall into place.
I can't understand that either of those lines are responses to the issue, other than to again attempt to make a principled approach to separating male and female sports seem silly. But it's intuitively, and reasonably not silly. Could you maybe make clearer what it was you were trying to say here? The logic is the same.. That one is a contact sport doesn't make a difference to that.
I don't know what scenario you're talking about. If you mentioned one, I would have purposefully ignored it because the content is irrelevant. I think Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most outrageous commentators out there. But he is obviously correct about some things.
Wow, okay! :grimace:
- The fact that woke issues/analysis was so precisely tuned by 1993 shows how the woke attitude became ubiquitous in the 1980s. It was mostly led by womens rights, but also gay rights (called LGB), but all the moving parts were in the public consciousness (except the word woke).
- shows how the woke make something intended to have zero political content into a political outrage.
- shows absolutely zero progress has been made towards advancing the conversations, or reducing any sense of injustice. This could be a scene from yesterday in any US university (except the teacher would have been physically kicked off campus, fired, ruined, cancelled).
- shows how in-fighting was always a feature of wokism because there is no way to possibly talk and act right and woke.
- shows how the main result of wokeism is the break-up of the art class, representing the dismantling of institutions and how the woke are always shooting their own society in the foot (this is the main product of enforcing wokism: everybody just shut up and go home; no more X institution for anyone.. No thought to what will replace some pillar of society)
ADDED: Kids in the Hall was probably one of the most woke things in all of media when this was released, but today, if they did a skit like this, making woke people look silly and unreasonable, and not showing serious consequences for the non-woke, this skit would be considered anti-woke, harmful to the cause.
They were mocking PC culture. Today, people like Andrew Doyle practically make a career out of mocking woke culture.
Absolute bullshit. Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly.
Oh, sorry, I assume calling it satire is acceptable or at least less offensive.
And the examples write themselves.
What is the correct term in this political climate?
I would come to pretty much the opposite conclusion -- that it shows how long we've been blowing up this "threat".
Let me give you an example from here in the UK. For example: in Birmingham a set of events across winter of 1992 (IIRC) was named "Winterval". Somebody saw posters for Winterval, jumped to the conclusion that it was a politically-correct renaming for Christmas, and right wing newpapers ran with it as a headline....for more than a decade afterwards.
"You're not allowed to say Christmas any more; they're calling it winterval!" worked great as outrage-porn and therefore selling the Daily Mail*.
This used to go under the clunky name of "Political correctness gone MAD" here. It's definitely helped that the term "woke" rolls off the tongue easier. But it remains mostly exaggerations and outright horseshit.
(this is not to say that there aren't some ham-fisted attempts at diversity in some cases, but they are few and far between, hence why the tabloids have to engage in exaggeration)
* A newspaper that then, and now, is run by a billionaire that pays no UK tax. But hey, let's worry about important things like a film casting a black lead.
The hang-over is the resulting myth you've outlined above, which is not supported by the actual history of the matter. The Daily Mail itself outed it's behaviour as click-baiting in 2011, labeling the issue as a myth. It was never interesting, beyond the original comments by the Bishop. It has remained as some kind of distorted catch-all for PC gone mad, though.
Quoting Mijin
Is this to be troll-ish? There are plenty of ham-fisted attempts at diversity. One only need look at cinema for plenty. Those are trivial, to be sure, but illustrates that hte above is a bit naive.
I cant tell if youre serious. Assuming you are, you wrote Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly. in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit.
Earnest critique aims to identify strengths and weaknesses to improve understanding or quality. Even if it's harsh, the goal is constructive or truth-seeking. Mockery is about belittling, often using sarcasm, exaggeration, or tone to make the target look silly.
The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way.
I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this?
This doesn't even make sense for the point you're trying to make.
A national newspaper, that almost never corrects any of it's various made up stories, a decade after Winterval, felt it needed to apologize and correct the record. But oh it was just a momentary thing in 1998
FTR the daily mail still pushes stories about how you can't say Christmas any more. I guess it helps pay for the Christmas turkey every year, for the poor billionaire owner of the Mail that doesn't pay UK tax.
In the states its been heavily politicized in recent years, and quite successfully.
Three pages back in this thread I asked one of the Awake folks if they thought wokeists should ignore the American Eagles jeans ad. Answering the question was apparently a struggle.
Its just a stupid ad, why not say what you thinkthat theyre probably capitalizing on culture war hot buttons or whatever.
Deeply ironic that you cant say white supremacy anymore. :lol:
What are you talking about - anything that comes out of a rich white mans mouth is white supremacy. Right?
Like the stupid jeans ad is white supremacy. You can accuse anyone about white supremacy all day, about meaningless things, that have nothing to do with supremacy, or white.
A challenge to your use of the term white supremacy os not a threat to your right to say whatever you want.
Its not that you cant say white supremacy anymore at all - its that, as with so many words, when wokists get a hold of them, they lose their meaning.
There are many important words that have lost their meaning: man, woman, gender, rape, my truth, racism. If a conservative argues for a traditional meaning for these words, they can be fired from their jobs. Such a person is likely hiding racism, misogyny, and a homophobe.
Wokists think that because what they say is being challenged, they are being oppressed. I know you were joking @praxis but there is a huge difference between someone saying calling the jeans ad white supremacy is just idiotic crap and someone trying to curtail speech. You can still argue things are examples of white supremacy all you like on TV, in movies, on the news. Here on TPF. If you have a liberal, progressive, woke, anti-traditionalist, anti-capitalist, anti-religion, Winterval friendly message, the sky is the limit.
But when conservative speakers go to a college campus to give a speech - they dont get debated and argued with. They get shut down, physically threatened and kicked off campus. Thats woke. Thats an example of you cant say X; the reaction to the wokist critique of the ad was more speech, not an ironic cancellation or shutting down.
@Amadeus discussed the wokes inability/unwillingness to debate a challenge to their reasoning a few pages back.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes. Its the exact same concern, as wokism and political correctness has always been a threat to free speech. And a threat to shut good things down. Its now the cute catch-phrase cancel culture still as alive and well as wokism. Trump is an expression of the anti-wokes frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who wont agree. Thats what wokists dont understand - they are oppressive, not liberating. They are self-contradictory, not a clear new vision. They want to defund the police, and are outraged when the police dont serve them in time of need. Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson do a good thing, or were they just slave owners and white supremacists? That might not be an acceptable topic for college campus and public debate if there is going to be a strong voice in favor of the good of Washington and Jefferson. Just cant stand to hear unwoke sounds - like micro aggressions and dog-whistles.
So many new layers of utter bullshit (that could never be challenged) since the 80s.
The cancelling that I am seeing is coming from the MAGA government right now -- federal agencies banned from talking about climate change, educational institutions not allowed to criticize Israel, journalists banned from the white house for being critical of Trump, museums made to remove mentions of slavery, or Trump's impeachment. Lots more if I just google around.
There's nothing remotely comparable on the left.
Since you're so against cancel culture, do you condemn all of this?
1. As far as the federal government limiting what the federal agencies do and say - that is called: how it works. That has nothing to do with speech rights in the public sphere. So all of the agencies changing websites and spending money differently and deprioritizing X for sake of Y - go vote according to your own priorities. So nothing systemic to address there. No new fascistic takeover - the EPA, the white house website, NASA, Dept. of Agriculture, always bowed to the whims of the president and Congress and those debates are not "shut-down" - the woke members of Congress are being forced to make a better case.
2. Educational institutions - generally, since the 1960s, a safe-haven for all things revolutionary, and all things anti-tradition. The default in the institution: if it speaks "truth" to "power" let it speak. But they are such bad judges of what is "truth" and who has "power" and who is "victim". These institutions totally botched their students' reactions to the Israeli war. You say college institutions are not allowed to criticize Israel. That's not the message. It's that college institutions are not allowed to endanger their Jewish members. College institutions do not know how to debate without seeking to crush their opponents, and remove them root and stem. The general university consensus was, Israel has no leg to stand on, so there is nothing to debate. Just shout and speak of a new map "from the river to the sea". There is not enough acknowledgment of the responsibility Hamas has for the predicament of the poor Palestinians. There is not enough acknowledgment that Jewish people need protection and support too, as they did on October 7, 2023. So the move against educational institutions is to level the playing field, not put down the supporters of Palestine. It is a move against the tactics that endangered Jewish individuals, (US citizens versus US citizens not being handled well by the institutions). Plus, college professors have no actual guts - speak your mind and defend your arguments. What injustice is being fostered in the US on US campuses because of the federal government? You don't get easy money for stupid crap for the time-being?
3. Journalists, or opinion makers? Newspeople, or propagandists? Journalists have plenty of power and voice - more than enough to sort the issues there. They instead want to cry about "oppression" and loss of "freedom". That's more bullshit. We all know more about what Trump is doing than we ever did about what Biden was doing. Journalists are not being shut-down. If this one journalist gets shut-down, or that one news agency gets kicked out, there are 50 more to take their place. It's more a market reaction to bad journalism than it is government censorship. Again - wokeists, grow some guts. As the video from 1993 showed, Trump could have run on the same anti-woke platform 30 years ago, and he might have won then. Anti-woke cowards have all but lost the debate (that never happened) - Trump led the "no more bullshit" charge - "make your case!" Finally, the woke need the guts to make their case. Being kicked out of the white house press room is not censorship when 50 people remain in the room. If all 50 people become too afraid to challenge the president, that's on them, that's cowardice.
4. Museums - kind of silly. It doesn't erase history to pick and choose what is highlighted in a museum funded by the federal government and what is not. No one is going to forget slavery, and everyone needs to learn just how horrible it really was. But there are presentations that leave you hating America, put on by the federal government, funded by taxes from families whose children died preserving our country. There is a time and a place, and if done with true equity, the mistakes of the past can and should be presented in museums - but the inmates took over the asylum my friend and a correction might take a bit of the favored method of revolution.
Quoting Mijin
There are so many progressive takeovers of cities, towns, counties - they shut down basic land management, and we get monster forrest fires, in the name of protecting the climate. They want to include trans, so they exclude cis-gender. They want to include black women, so they exclude white men. It's been happening with great progressive success for 40 years. To the wokeist, I must be living in a different world. To me, I am trying to see the benefit of woke policy and can't find it.
What is being canceled today is 'cancellation and oppression with no debate' - so you cancel a cancelation and you don't have the same thing at all.
Quoting Mijin
I'm positively sure there are some injustices being committed in individual cases. I would condemn that. I don't condemn these sweeping policies that are more of a course correction away from oppression. But depending on the individual case, and because I know the nature of people, I'm sure there is much to condemn coming from "Maga" (as if a monolith).
I am against political ideology guiding individual actions. Political ideology should guide political debate. When it comes time to act - do what you think is best and be brave about it. If you are challenged, stay brave and defend your reasoning. Don't rely on a party platform to justify who you are and what you do.
So if you bring me individual cases and allow me to gather all of the facts and allow me to push back on presuppositions and "dog-whistles" and "slippery slopes" and "conspiracy" - I'm sure I would end up agreeing on what is clearly injustice and what is not.
Do you condemn me for not offering blanket condemnation for what Trump's federal government has done to websites, the press room, college funding, the climate change debate, and museums? Is all lost for the progressive victims, or can they just restate their case and show what value has been lost because of Mage, and what value needs to be restored in these arenas??
You haven't been clear on what you think about the ad. Do you think American Eagle is innocent and had no idea that their ad would be viewed as it has been?
I answered clearly. Yes, the woke can ignore the ad.
But this rephrase of the question is a bit more.
Do I think American Eagle is innocent?
- of fostering racial tension?
- of hinting at racial tension to foster conversations with the word American Eagle in them?
Do I think they had no idea playing a a pun on jeans/genes would be hated with vitriol or make its way to a presidential tweet?
I dont think Am Eagle is actually white supremist. Thats stupid business if the world found out. So that dog whistle is ridiculous.
Honestly I have no opinion on those other detailed marketing questions. And dont see this as a matter of guilt or innocence. You just mean intention or not.
They probably got way more than they hoped for out of this. And it probably back-fired on some fronts. But this very conversation is so small potatoes.
There is nothing whatsoever offensive to me with a person of any race saying their genetic coding makes them awesome and they look good in jeans because of it - all to sell jeans. And American Eagle didnt go that far. You have dig real deep in a pile of horse crap to pull out something offensive there.
Everyone is allowed to be proud of their genes. And say it.
The ad controversy was just dumb. And it hurt proponents of woke because they have no judgment of what matters and what doesnt.
Quoting praxis
Likely, because non-Woke don't suppose to tell what others should do most of the time. But yeah, it's better for their mental health if they ignore it. That isn't hard at all.
Quoting praxis
I don't know where you are in the conversation but this isn't where i am. You explicitly stated "Andrew Doyle" in the comment I linked from. Earnest critique is not mockery still stands, and I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the Skit as I linked from your comment about Doyle and mockery.
Quoting Mijin
No, that is not what I said. The paper noted that the "uproar" was a myth. It was. Entirely. I was there. There was never any significant issue around Winterval, unless you were not paying much attention to anything else. It seems the Daily Mail got you with this, and now you're upset over something which didn't actually happen.
Quoting Mijin
This is not a good faith exchange, it seems. Moving goalposts wont work too well around here.
Quoting praxis
Who can't? It's all over the fucking place. What are you talking about?
Quoting Fire Ologist
:lol:
You decry cancel culture, but when it's shutting down messages you don't like, you're all for it.
And these rationalizations are, frankly, pathetic.
What I should have done is give examples of right-wing speech being shut down, wait for the outrage and then say, no, it was actually a left wing opinion. Because there's absolutely no principle here.
The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness.
Its the physical changes to culture - men competing in womens sports; men who choose to be called women with outrage when not obeyed (as if man never meant something simple); the destruction of language itself; the lack of simple protections of children; drastic child trans therapies in the name of ridiculous psychology and physiology (a grand experiment that one is a deplorable MAGA man if one challenges its safety or value, or even functionality towards its own ends); etc.
Quoting Mijin
You wont get any outrage. Not a bit. Thats a done deal. The progressives rule the media, the news, and education. With an iron fist. Right wing speech was shut down long, long ago. Thats just a tiny part of it.
They werent rationalizations. They were rational though.
A positive defense of the value of woke cancellations would do better then to try to see if you could catch me in an unprincipled contradiction.
You say yourself that this is no big deal so why not say what you think? Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AEs part?
Firstly, what?
"Cancel culture" has been a top headline on the right for years. Trump's talked about it, Ron De Santis, FOX news, the daily wire, Candace owens etc etc. I don't know what it would take to make your top 10 list, and I don't care; it objectively is a common talking point on the political right. Indeed "woke" started out as often "woke cancel culture".
Secondly, yeah, they aren't concerned about cancel culture now, because they are the ones doing it. And they are apparently as unprincipled as you are being
Quoting Fire Ologist
Just ranting about issues you disagree with. What's this even got to do with the thread topic? Unless you're complaining that you can't cancel such opinions?
So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world taken over by Leftist fanatics?
Quoting Fire Ologist
To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.
Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? Id be interested in personal experiences.
I said twice already. The woke should ignore it. There was nothing of import for society to respond to. Its a stupid ad.
Quoting praxis
I answered that too.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I dont think this controversy could have been predicted. Wokeism is not coherent enough to allow one to predict weeks long political discussions based on an ad.
BTW, you really rarely give your own opinions. Despite calling for them from others. Closest thing was how you feel you cant say white supremacy anymore.
Its not about free speech. Its about the cancellation. The physical shutting down. No one on the right is telling the left to stop arguing and debating and talking. The feds just arent paying for a one-sided opinion as much anymore.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Kind of hard to decide whether theres a clear new vision floating around in the background when you havent said a word about underlying philosophical visions, just the stunts some activists who have gotten the attention of the media have pulled.
Would you consider someone who did think so would be welcome to discuss such opinions in the back offices and around the water coolers of 98% of the news media and educational institutions? Honestly, is expressing a positive opinion of one thing Trump did a good career boost over lunch with colleagues in those extremely powerful and influential institutions?
Trump is doing some good. Force for good? Remains to be seen. But I will evaluate for myself, not from any ideological standpoint.
Do I think the world has been taken over by leftist fanatics? No. Just the media and our educational institutions. The political takeover is an ongoing battle. The focus on the media and education didnt work, at least not yet.
Quoting Tom Storm
My cousin was fired from his job because of some stupid DEI bullshit. Hes a great guy. Period. To everyone he meets. Some petty asshole misunderstood something, and HR has no idea how to handle people anymore thanks to DEI initiatives. Nothing could be sorted out before a message had to be sent that had nothing to do with my cousin. Utterly destructive, for sake of promoting confusion and no justice. Nothing was clear except the coworker was in a protected class and my cousin wasnt. (Although we are of Italian descent, which I like to think is in a class of its own, sort of like white black guys, best of all possible worlds with great cuisine, but thats probably evil of me to say ). My cousin has plenty of support because, hes a great guy.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree with that. Dont particularly like hearing MAGA lovers speak. Unless they are speaking with the other side in a debate, as here in TPF.
Honestly, all of politics and government is discussion of lesser or necessary evils. All strong opinions requiring political and governmental action are fraught with peril.
My interest in woke/anti-woke is cultural. Wokeism makes everything political - its one of the things I disagree with about it.
I wonder if at this point in their presidencies what the count of positive news stories and negative news stories was from Biden and for Trump (second term). I am fairly confident that regardless of what either of them actually did or are doing, and regardless of how powerful either of them seemed, there are more stories about how Trump is bad in the legacy and leading media than there were Biden is bad stories, and less Trump is good than Biden is good stories. So even with the his evil Trumpiness on the throne, not much debate and challenge is actually being shut down. Wokeism remains the king of systemic cancellation - precisely because they have the media.
Yes, please. Dont make me show the gains and benefits and progresses of wokeism. That side of the discussion is sorely missing on this thread.
Questions about the underlying vision of wokeism:
1. Is everything about politics? Or economics? Or race? Is anything in the public sphere simply not about these things, and if so, are those things good or bad for the community? Or should we focus on power structures?
2. Is there anything good we should preserve from white, patriarchal, historical Europe? Sub-question: who are genetically the victims in the world, and who are genetically the privileged oppressors, if any one. (If any one is a clue to my own answer.)
3. Will there ever be a dictionary that solidly supports a correct use of the word he?
4. When one is offended by another person, whose fault is that feeling of offense? The hurling of insults is certainly the fault of the one hurling insults, but the feeling of offense, who is responsible for that?
5. Diversity requires differences. Equity requires no differences. So which is it? Because if we are all equal, then a board of all white men is equal to a board of any races, genders. But if a board of all white men is just aesthetically repugnant, how can woke create better looking boards, and be equitable, without dividing everyone up and excluding certain groups? Seems like impossible criteria to make truly coherent, and truly just, while being truly good for the company/entity the board is supposed to run. Seems utterly pie in the sky, with no sense of flavor, just that vanilla is gross.
Help me, help you.
I just listed four different ways that speech is being shut down off the top of my head
You havent actually and I dont understand the problem with answering whether or not you think it was intentional.
I dont watch Fox News. Mostly vacuous cheerleading. CNN is smoke and mirrors. But if something big happens, I flip between them for the live stuff.
I have to piece together facts from all over the place, left and right.
Im not a big fan of conspiracy and hidden governmental agenda analysis from here on the outside. My main issue is incompetence, not bad intent. We dont need inside information to see which politicians simply stink at getting anything done, and yet we reflect them anyway.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Three times now.
What do you think about the intentions of some people you dont know?
I can make a judgment based on their actions, and so can you. Why dont you in this case?
:lol:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Your critique of wokeism focuses on certain highly visible activist actions and social media flashpoints, whereas Im more interested in the underlying intellectual currents that can, at least in principle, inform fairer treatment of others, without inevitably leading to the authoritarian excesses youre concerned about.
If we zoom out from the noise, there are some core philosophical frameworks that have shaped what people call woke thinking, such as Implicit bias, the idea that peoples perceptions and decisions can be unconsciously shaped by stereotypes, even when they consciously reject prejudice. The value here isnt in shutting people down but in cultivating awareness so we can interact more fairly.
Intersectionality is another woke concept. It is a way of understanding that peoples experiences arent shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones. Its not a mandate to divide everyone into rigid groups, but a reminder that context matters in how people experience opportunities or barriers.
Then theres critical race theory, which at its most basic is a scholarly framework for looking at how laws and institutions have embedded racial disparities over time, not as an accusation against individuals, but as a way to ask, If these patterns exist, whats sustaining them? Discussed philosophically, these arent inherently about censorship, purity tests, or stripping away free speech. Theyre tools for noticing complexity in human relations, and in that sense, they could enrich the very kind of civil discourse you value, if applied with humility rather than dogma.
So, Id argue its possible to explore these ideas, even agree with parts of them, without signing on to every activist tactic or extreme proposal youve seen in the headlines. We can be critical of bad implementations without dismissing the frameworks entirely, and in doing so, maybe get closer to that clear vision youre asking about.
If we assume American Eagle intentionally provoked controversy with the Good Genes Sidney Sweeney campaign, the financial logic is clear: spend heavily once, then let public debate multiply the reach.
A high single-digit million budget (likely around $7M) covered Sweeneys endorsement fee, premium placements like the Las Vegas Sphere and Times Square 3D billboard, plus national TV and social buys. Under a normal, safe ad strategy, this might yield $14M in total media value when factoring in some organic buzz.
But controversy acts as a force multiplier. Criticism over pairing the Good Genes slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed celebrity spurred news coverage, reaction videos, and social media debate, generating an estimated 3× more earned media than a safe campaign roughly $21M in extra exposure, for a total media value near $28M. Even a small conversion rate (0.1% of 500M impressions) could drive $30M in denim sales, delivering around a 4× ROI and cementing AEs cultural relevance for months.
Great post. Something positive and thoughtful.
Quoting Joshs
Implicit bias, is real, and important for people to understand about themselves. So if wokeness can take credit for that, then that is a positive contribution.
I see bias as the implicit. Its the prior lens through which we view. People have the ability to self-reflect and must recognize how their own upbringing will shape what the see now and tomorrow. But people have the ability to see this bias, in themselves, and honestly confront it.
So bias is an important discussion for people to come to be able to respect each other despite biases. Since we all have biases, AND since we can all see around them if we self-reflect and try to look at things differently, we should respect each others differences and forgive their struggles with their biases as we need to be forgiven for our own.
But honestly, what I see the woke doing with the notion of bias, is using it to control people. Woke says people are doomed and chained to their biases, and have to be told by the enlightened what their real motivations are. One day people might see their own biases, and maybe even overcome them, but I dont see woke people treating biased people as whole human being who are more than their biases. The woke just tell you want new biases to make so you can be biased right, not free from all bias. I see the woke showing how the biases of white people create an exclusive privilege for white people, fostering more bias in white people, and whether they know it, or worse intentionally, oppressing non-white people. I see the woke manipulating from on high an otherwise bleak world to control with bias.
Individuals are not just the sum total of all of their biases. And to the extent they are, no one is better than anyone else. That is both the starting point and the goal when it comes to bias.
Quoting Joshs
Yes. Peoples experiences are each unique to them and only each one. As you say peoples experiences arent shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones. I take this to simply mean, we are each unique.
You say that woke is saying we are unique blends of many overlapping categories. I think this has it backwards. The categories come second, not first. Each unique individual can be lumped into different categories we learn about after meeting many unique individuals. We arent merely categorizable. We arent even merely unique overlapping categorizable things. Some parts of each of us defy categorization, at least not so easily and not politically useful. There are crazy combinations that make up some individuals.
Turning individuality into intersectionality is just a new way of saying individuality, but one that, to me, downplays the individual.
And again, if wokeism means respect for each one as a unique combination of whatever combines to make a person, then great. I think intersectionality is a smaller part of what makes people great. Mostly because we have too few categories. Race, gender, class, education, ethnicity, region, urban, rural, progressive, conservative, etc - way too small to define a person. We should add inquisitive, smiles a lot, anxious, energetic, methodical, whimsical, and so many more. Then we might be able to make boxes people could fit in.
Quoting Joshs
This is another reference to the implicit. The systemic. The predisposition of our economic and legal system and institutions.
This is a very practical topic. You said these patterns. We need specifics to know where to look to ask what is sustaining them.
I would start that due process under a constitution legislated and enforced by elected and later ousted representatives isnt embedded with any disparities at the outset. And our economics - capitalism - doesnt seem essential to any particular race. We can theoretically all agree regardless of race, to build a capitalistic world.
There is much to debate, but it requires significant specifics and lists of fact gathering to really play out. It requires something equivalent to the constitutional congress that started before 1776 and culminated in a solid constitution by 1787.
I think we can work more to reform what we have then we need a new system.
But I am open to learning about what is bad about the current system and what could be better about a new one.
So many new woke institutions seem divisive and unsustainable to me, but Im sure there are more positive things about wokeness.
I do believe that the heart of many woke people is with true victims of injustice. But I believe the heart of many conservative people is with true victims of injustice. So thats a wash - good intentions pave the road to ruin - and none of that saves either side.
Good lord - that sounds so sleazy.
Why sleazy? Theyre in business to make money.
:up:
Of course its possible they spent about $7 million on the campaign without realizing that pairing the Good Genes slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman might draw attention from the wokebecause, as Im sure you will agree, the woke are always so sensible and discreet.
They didnt say Beyoncé has great genes.
Why, what color/race is Beyonce and why do you notice that first and foremost?
Seems to me the goal of wokeness should be that absolutely anyone on earth could replace Sydney Sweeney and the ad should be viewed with equity and inclusiveness.
But wokeness cant help creating exclusive categories for privileged or victim members, and seeing things skin deep to form those categories. And imputing ill-intent behind anything white with genes in it.
I know you dont see the contradiction. You just see that I dont see all of the ill-intent that is so obvious to you because you are not asleep. Or because you are careless and shallow in your reasoning on this issue.
It is the intellectual currents that inform their treatment of others, and that treatment manifests into the highly visible actions and social media flashpoints weve seen too many times, and the countless ones we havent seen.
As I see it the necessary mental segregation required to understand and believe these currents begets actual segregation, such as race or sexuality-based affinity graduations, or diversity hiring. Perhaps their premises are too nationalistic and racialist to lead anywhere else. So Im not sure its even possible to inform fairer treatment of others in principle.
If those phenotypes are the first things that come to mind when you hear the phrase good genes then youre the problem to begin with. To me it was obvious they were pointing to the other parts of her body, especially the ones shes known for. This discrepancy and the racism inherent to the woke backlash is what makes it so stupid, and evil.
Anyway, Ive outlined an ad campaign strategy, a successful campaign strategyhow and why someone may intend to do something. Will you now admit that they may have created the controversy intentionally?
Will you admit you are theorizing about AE marketing folks intentions and predictions? This whole admission doesnt matter - you are asking the wrong person. There is no point to your question or me answering it ( :lol: which I did!).
Here is what happened. The AE marketing team totally botched their intent, thinking they were ushering in a new era of Beyond Good woke and Evil Woke - a utopia where genes are now blue and can cover over all races and colors of skin.
But they botched their post divisiveness delusions, by picking a white girl for the ad campaign - the world was not ready for their equitable vision ..
Who the hell really knows. The wokesters have made it into a whole new thing completely unconnected with denim clothing marketing anyway.
I know, admit it: you pissed AE played progressives like a fiddle. :lol: They got all this free publicity by having a great looking white girl say genes, because the woke are so predictably shallow and loud the words AE jeans would surely take on a life of their own. They probably seeded the outrage by planting some comments on the right twitter feeds.
As usual, the woke focus on non-issues, the unimportant. And self-contradict. If woke thinks AE was evil whitey, then ignore it and be silent so that it goes nowhere. Dont seek validation of your feeling by asking for others to make admissions for you.
What is interesting about the ad for woke culture is that it was so clearly wrong to them to highlight the word genes with a white woman. If they used a white man instead of Sweeney, the ad should cause even more outrage right? AE at least checked the woke empowered woman box - but then there is the extra cleavage, just another patriarchal male gaze opportunity setting womens empowerment back (because Sydney is incapable of making her own decisions and showing her own cleavage because she wants to - she only wants to because men have made her that way .)
So many unanswerable, contradictory, layers of bullshit comprise much of the woke picture of reality.
Where are the positives? Where are the achievements specifically tied to woke?
You arent advancing any arguments.
They don't deserve all the credit. Many prominent right-wing figures have played along, including various writers, personalities like Dr. Phil and Megyn Kelly, senator Ted Cruz, and the vice president. When Trump endorsed the ad AE stock spiked dramatically.
Advertising reflects culture, and I think this campaign shows how much the tide has turned against the woke. Advertising can also promote what it reflects.
You arent looking at the right thing. Its not the campaign that teaches the lesson (so you dont get the lesson). It is how the woke reaction to the campaign has been so soundly mocked and done zero to promote woke agenda that shows how much the tide has turned. Woke needs to turn inward and reflect on how it is often full of unsound, incoherent , contradictory bullshit baby feelings. The substance of wokeness is no longer being ignored and thoughtlessly forced upon culture at large.
Quoting praxis
You literally quantified the credit in dollar amounts.
Just admit it, wokeness can be easily played like fiddle.
Dont know how you think its so obvious that some marketing team could predict a positive return playing that fiddle. Im sure there are white people who will purposely not buy AE jeans now - woke wont support them, and anti-woke wont want to look like they are making a political statement by wearing them (like driving a Tesla) inviting retaliation from woke kooks).
But you do think that they predicted a positive return from looking racist. You seem to have the sleepers all figured out just like the accounting..
I think they predicted a positive return from accurately observing the cultural climate and subtly leveraging it to their advantage. And again, advertising can also promote what it reflects.
This is particularly hilarious in that I just listed the folks who did the heavy lifting in promoting the campaign, and that lists includes the president of the United States. :lol:
I cant name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it.
So you are saying the wokes reaction to the ad had nothing to do with the extra mileage the ad achieved for AE.
No self-reflection.
The math according to you is:
1. Ad shows white girl saying my genes meaning AE jeans.
2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
4. The words AE jeans will be a household name for years.
5. We will get rich.
Thats your math. Thought the woke being played like a fiddle (2) was obvious part of it.
No self-reflection.
I just did a search for prominent left-wing figures whove criticized AE for the ad campaign and several names came up, such as activist and scholar Angela Davis, who expressed skepticism about corporate marketing campaigns using coded language that can resonate with supremacist ideas, urging brands to be more socially responsible.
Quoting NOS4A2
To the right of these intellectual currents (dominated by Critical Theory and post-colonialism) are political
models showing little or no influence of Hegel and Marx (such as classical liberalism) To the left of the intellectual currents shaping wokism are postmodern social constructionist models, also drawing from Hegel and Marx but moving farther beyond them than wokism does. I support such perspectives, and am arguing that the intellectual ideas which both wokism and postmodern approaches draw from need to be assimilated in order to get to a politics beyond the wokist practices which you reject. Beyond means going forward, keeping the positive ideas which wokism draws from, rather than simply discarding this philosophical heritage and returning to older political thinking. Going forward means embracing thinking along the following lines:
The math according to you is:
1. Ad shows white girl saying my genes meaning AE jeans.
2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
3.a. Woke folks sublate the whole dust-up as the right wing making something bigger than it really was, so woke needs take no blame or responsibility for 2, when they .made something bigger than it really was. (this is still possible because the woke still own the major media).
4. The words AE jeans will be a household name for years.
5. We will get rich.
New 3.a. Points to lack of self-reflection.
See, I disagree. I think this is basically treating adults like they are irresponsible children. It doesnt require extended forestructure - it simply requires you make the case.
Basically, the highest elites have to realize they are proportionately not that far from the basest deplorables. People need to start with that humility. From there require of themselves that they respect different peoples dignity as fellow people, and THEN hash out the arguments as humble respecting adults.
The preoccupation with bias and forestructure creates a diminishing return. Forestructure building and bias recognition are important. But Ill grant they represent 20% of a fruitful conflict resolution.
Quoting Joshs
This sounds positive. Can you put some real flesh on this as a for example?
1. A sample woke specific intellectual idea
2. What do you mean by assimilated to get beyond
3. Why beyond a wokeist practice?
If the woke idea was so good, why do want to end up beyond a wokeist practice?
Is this like desegregation?
1. Diversity is good.
2. Force diverse people together from segregated areas.
3. Have a new society that loves diversity and there is no need to look for segregated groups anymore because they are all integrated now, thanks to woke ideas and woke solutions (that we now no longer use as no longer needed).
Is that an example? Id rather hear yours. I think there is a massive gap between 2 and 3 here.
This seems to only underscore the point, or is it a joke at this point, that AE manipulated the right into promoting the campaign, because the woke still own the major media and yet did not utilize major media. Again, I just pointed out that major media attention came from the rightfrom the fucking president for Christs sake, and the vice president, and at least one Republican congressman. No Democratic officeholders weighed in publicly that I could find. No left-wing personalities (similar to Megyn Kelly or Dr. Phil) weighed in publicly that I could find.
That it went this way is great, for them. I can't understand that they would have planned it. Shes hot, young, popular and wants to work with them. They need naught else to pull the trigger.
It seems far more likely that a company would use impugning white, blonde young women as a strategy to rile up the public, given that is:
A. More likely to piss off the right-wing and cause much more of a up-roar than that found among the slowly-declining Woke messaging mechanisms; and
B. Grabbed a demo (Woke, such as it is) that they probably had no real hooks in previously, other than by habit.
The CNN "possibly white" debacle sort of shows that companies will make utterly ridiculous, un-sound and irrational decisions in service of the above tactic. It is not possible anyone, in good faith, thought that shooter was white.
Quoting praxis
You can find compilations of wokists, including a handful of celebrities decrying the campaign, most notably Lizzo, Colbert, Doja Cat. But it is mostly non-celebrity figures. There are compilations of people breaking down calling it eugenics, calling it Nazism, facism etc.. etc.. all over the place. I cannot be bothered finding the source videos, but there's only a couple in these links I haven't seen in their natural habitat. That said, I recognize these videos are heavily biased, overall. I don't care abou the commentary, just that it brings together several examples of what I'm talking about.
Quoting praxis
No, I don't think that's right. Besides the fact that all advertising manipulates its demo (i.e, that is not disparaging and is, in fact, a success of the campaign if so) i find it hard (as explained above) to conceive of AE caring about that particular division among the public.
But you could be right. And if so, i don't see the issue. That is what advertising does. And it worked.
Okay, Lizzo and Colbert got played. Who Doja Cat? :lol:
I agree - the intent behind the ad campaign and predictive measures of its success is a whole discussion. And facts from that would be helpful to understand how people and society are grappling with wokeism - but who really knows? Those are facts, and our assumptions may be wrong.
Part of the issue the woke should reflect on here is the fact that unless you assume the AE marketing team had some sort of malicious intent, the ad is perfectly normal. You have to bring your own assumptions to the table to read into the ad how unwoke is is. Good genes might refer to her hot figure. Good genes may refer to her success as an actress/model/person. We have to say bullshit, they meant her blond whiteness. AND we have to bring to the table that blonde whiteness America is a nod to Nazis and racists, because in another century and another land, there is nothing inherently supremacist about white genes.
Point being, the woke have to bring their own facts to the table, and they dont seem to care about or need real proof.
Im not trying to be naive or blind myself, Im just saying that often woke people make something that seems to come out of thin air, and then the thing they make is all that matters and they forget about the thin air (which includes the facts).
If wokeism wants to survive better, it needs to improve its choices of hills to die on. Good genes ads aint and should not have hit Colberts radar.
Quoting praxis
No thats backwards. That would mean AE manipulated the appearance of woke outrage in order to then cause their real target audience, the right wing to be interested in news stories about woke propel flipping out. That is too far fetched.
The point about the media still being in the pocket of the left is that, the woke people who flipped out are being protected by the mainstream media - there are now news articles about how the ad was never really a thing for the woke, and that the right media and Trump are making it seem like the woke care about the ad just so they can brag about how woke is dead and they get to talk about white genes now with white pride I guess. Im sure there is a little of that because people are pigs, but that is also the woke failing to take responsibility for screaming about spilled white milk, which they often do and fail to learn from.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think it's a bit worse, though I definitely take Praxis' point (however buried it might be) that it is probably not a majority of people 'on that side' doing this, but...
The 'woke' reaction is to jump straight to 'Nazi', 'eugenics' etc.. and actually, genuinely talk about a society-wide conspiracy to ... do what? Kill all blacks? What hte heck are they even pointing to?
Turns out, its white supremacy. Which is, prima facie, an after due consideration utterly fucking preposterous to the point that I am willing to laugh in the face of the social incels who make this claim.
I cant tell if youre being serious with all that.
Its painfully obvious that MAGA has been hammering on anti-wokeness for years, and its worked for them. Its more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. Countless media personalities, both left and right, take advantage of the so called culture war. Nothing new, complicated, or unusual about it.
I saw the ad and found it distasteful in a retro way, but many ads annoy me. I was wondering if it was trying to be playfully defiant towards identity politics. Maybe it was trying to generate controversy and talking points which some advertising wanker felt would translate into sales. I was surprised the ad ran, as I would have thought making a childish pun about a white, shall we say, 'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad?
I read a branding expert talking about how AE jeans demographic is teens and the campaign may appeal to a teens rebellious naturedefiantly anti-woke or whatever.
What have I said that is unreasonable?
What good would woke folks be if they didnt notice things that most people are oblivious to. :lol:
I would have thought the younger, the more values led, with a tendency to be turned off by these sorts of campaigns. Interesting what you say about younger people.
It sounds like you feel that I've said several unreasonable things but are unable to articulate the source of those feelings. That's fine.
Quoting AmadeusD
Mission accomplished then. :clap:
I'm curious what you mean by the younger being more values led.
Right. So people like you (and me) are either racist due to our biases and we dont know it (so, asleep), or we are way above the fray and just color blind to race. (But that is probably a dream Im having because Im actually sleeping. Like Martin Luther King Jr apparently was.)
@praxis
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, exactly. You need to come to the ad with certain biases to find it outrageous. Maybe those biases serve a beneficial purpose. But outrage? If one thinks outrage over racism is justified because of that ad then one is sleeping on their own biases.
Id take this to mean more led by feelings, much in line with @Number2018 thesis of the OP.
Its funny you put it that way, because if King had been more woke in the original sense of the word, he might have lived longerthe idea being that the marginalized simply need to be more awake out of necessity.
If that is intended to trivialise peoples position, then not exactly.
But at a broader level, everything is about feelings, isnt it? I tend to hold that our choices are guided by our affective dispositions.
My point is that some people hold certain values to be important. When they see ads that trade in implicit racism or sexism, they are disappointed by the choices made. That was certainly my reaction to this campaign. I also recognize that certain people, owing to age or education come away with different understandings.
My experince working with younger people is that they tend to be more values led - hence more radical and often more politically engaged. Isn't this merely a commonplace observation? What's the famous quote which satirizes this process - "If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
Youngsters can be led by conservative values. I suppose you mean that youths may have a slight tendency to lean liberal. That appears to be statistically true according to recent surveys.
Not to trivialize. I literally typed out the if not liberal when you are young you have no heart, and not conservative when older you have no brain but took it back because I didnt think people knew that phrase.
Quoting Tom Storm
Maybe, many things involve feelings. But dont we need to scrutinize and dissect feelings from logic from biases, from theories and propositions - everything isnt about feelings. Although I think there is a case to made that wokeness is all about feelings - it is for the sake of feelings and driven by emotions.
Indeed. And by extension we would imagine that the values held by 'woke' activism would be strongest amongst this cohort.
I'm not certain on this. But as a supporter of diversity and inclusion in general terms, Id say its as much a question of values as anything else, values that are informed by our affective and aesthetic dispositions. The hard part is knowing where to draw the line regarding when feelings are important in a discourse and when theyre not. I suspect you and I might draw that line in different places, which probably makes further discussion superfluous. Im personally opposed to the coarsening of public discourse, name-calling, personal attacks, dismissive labeling, because I believe such behaviour damages people and undermines constructive dialogue.
Fair enough on the second comment :P
Quoting Tom Storm
That's fine, but generally when they see this in something or other, they can just be wrong, though. Usually are. That's the problem. The majority of those who Fire and I are referencing (to be sure, I am speaking about people who fit the bill. Not trying to fit people into the bill - I think that is what the Woke do).
The response to this ad campaign is just not justified in these terms. You have to be out of your mind to think that ad is championing White Supremacy. Utterly bereft of either sense, or cultural understanding. This is just as obvious with claims about misogyny among young people. Daily there are reels and reels of people confronting businesses or individuals over perceived slights that are plainly either invented, extremely tenuous or made-up for clicks. I'm sure you're aware of this. And that's what we're referring to. Those people are moving on feelings without any reasoning. Just some pre-recorded reaction of "hear word A, do x" I've been able to have a couple (including my wife, when we met) admit this. But it doesn't stop them from doing it (other than my wife) in my experience. That is a serious issue if we are ever to get along with one another. Given it's young people, it's an extreme worry for those of us who are not yet middle-aged.
I think having children usually changes this bent from Left to Right. And those who don't change when they have children tend to raise relatively unregulated children. A recent convert is Whitney Cummings, who was a pretty obvious darling of, at least, the non-card-carrying left. Once she had a kid, it all changed and she's been quite public about it.
Ive only skimmed your trollish responses so I dont know what youre talking about. I guess it will remain a mystery.
As noted, you could review the exchanges where i have said things like "I do not think this is a reasonable response". But, you could also continue on with your biases, reading things in and out of the comments to your heart's content.
If you've only skimmed them, bugger off and read them properly. That might explain why you're saying unreasonable things. And again, indicates you're not here in good faith.
I might be saying unreasonable things because I havent read everything youve written to me? You know that sounds crazy, right?
Or you're trolling. Either way, previous comments stand.
Interesting. Makes some sense.
Quoting AmadeusD
Interesting. Shes funny.
Always.
My wife has been a high school English teacher for many years and I briefly asked her about this. Her insights were generally what you might expectkids in more conservative communities tend to have conservative views and kids in more liberal communities tend to have more liberal views.
Incidentally, my father was a staunch conservative and mentioned the aphorism about shifting values when I was a kid, so for a long time I expected to turn conservative when I grew up. I cleverly avoided this fate by never growing up.
:lol: Nice. All too telling (not about you, to be clear)..
I think progressives need to understand that being conservative doesnt mean having no heart or empathy or feelings.
And conservatives need to understand that being liberal doesnt mean having no common sense.
These are both simply not true. Generalizations are not helpful.
Diversity and tolerance go in all directions and are about unique particulars, not generalizations. We think to low of those we disagree with. And we think too highly of what we think about ourselves.
True humility about oneself, and true respect for all others regardless of the flaws - these need to be our personal goals, or we should talk about why not.
I dont see those as the goals of woke people. Maybe they align with the goals of wokeism on paper, but thats not the message that the woke put out. Neither do conservatives. If humility and respect really were our personal goals, there wouldnt be so much outrage involved. People dont seem to really want to be tolerant or appreciate true diversity, or think of themselves as all equal - people would rather hate the deplorables, hate maga, hate liberal elites, hate wokeist whiners. Right? Who hates me for saying it? Who thinks I must be willfully blind, or heartless for being anti-woke.
We are having the wrong conversations.
What is humility? Why is it good for the individual and for the community. Is it good (Nietzsche thought not.). Does humility mean thinking we are bad, or just no better than anyone else? Is there any reason to rank others, and can you do so while being humble?
What does it mean to respect diversity and be truly tolerant? Does it require forgiveness and sacrifice? How can we push back against what no one should tolerate and still respect diversity and be tolerant?
Quoting AmadeusD
That would be great if we stayed innocent too. But we are far from innocent anymore.
Let me ask an honest question: if you (meaning anyone) think your ideas are the good ones, and that your ideas reflect the fact that you are awake and enlightened, dont you think that sounds vain and self-important to the person who disagrees with you, the one who is not awake and not enlightened? The word woke as a class of people is itself a bit anti-woke, elitist, oppressive, hurtful. Is there any self-reflection to be had surrounding the word woke?
Yes, that's a point I often make too.
I hold progressive and conservative positions, depending on the issue. Conservatives have almost never concerned me - reactionaries and hard right people I'm less optimistic about.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not sure.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I tend to come from a starting point that people do the best with what they have or with what that can understand and all we can do is have a conversation with those who think differently and maybe something positive can come from that. The stumbling block to me seems to be tribalism and binary thinking. And when it comes to public discourse, the inflammatory approach of media tends to promote extreme, black and white.
Those are rather odd and extreme generalizations. I recall someone in the discussion saying it ultimately comes down to values. People prioritize their values differently, shaped by cultural influences and, perhaps, innate personal traits.
This poll says only 12% of the population was offended by the Sweeney ad. https://nypost.com/2025/08/12/business/12-find-sydney-sweeney-american-eagle-ad-offensive-poll/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
This suggests a conservative backlash disproportionate to the extent of the liberal position being used to present the left as radicalized.
It's also possible the left took the bait by refusing to downplay the ad and instead chose to adopt the 12% minority as its official position.
The problem is that those who did respond jumped to 'Nazi'. "Overt eugenics". "white supremacy".
No one has overblown either side of this one, as far as I'm concerned. I am also extremely reticent to believe a poll about offense to an ad campaign - how embarrassing to hit Yes even if you are.
Well, Im sure this is an isolated incident and not something MAGA does on a daily basis or anything.
Quoting Hanover
No Democrat officeholder has publicly commented on the campaign. As for leftists personalities, Lizzo modified one of her songs or something and Colbert devoted around a minute of one of his monologues to joke about it and ridicule the wokesters for overreacting.
How could you say that?
You know what humility is.
You said above that you support diversity.
Quoting Tom Storm
Diversity and tolerance and acceptance of those who are different are made possible by humility.
Humility is being grateful. And thankful. It is thanking someone else for what they do for you. It is acknowledging others, before yourself, above yourself at times. It is not taking credit for the good you might do, and even giving credit to others for the good you do.
We all do these things. That is humility.
If you value inclusion, humility helps there too. We include others, the diverse, just as our own differences are included and accepted by others. You cannot demand inclusion (like you cannot demand others love you); you can only accept inclusion from others, or grant it to others. So you humbly are grateful when others do in fact include you, and that is why you include all others, so that all of us, equally, form an accepting community.
Does that sound good and right? Does it sound woke? It certainly is utopian, because most people dont really want to be humble and respect diversity.
Quoting Tom Storm
That sounds like humility to me - you see a best effort in people, and are not putting yourself above them.
Quoting Tom Storm
And that takes respect, to patiently let others speak, and you speak to them in a conversation, instead of a fight over differences.
So we seem to agree, even though you said you dont know what humility is.
Quoting Tom Storm
Here is where we have to be careful. We just said we value conversation with people who think differently. So isnt binary thinking just another different way of thinking that we should humbly respect (at least once in a while)? Is binary thinking nothing but a stumbling block? What is really wrong with a little binary simplification, once in a while? We should tolerate that too, at times.
Tribalism seems counterproductive to real conversation. You can love your own tribe, but that is a positive feeling, and a love of what is diverse from other tribes. We have to remember that a tribe is just another unique culture and we should be accepting of diversity too, so tribes themselves are not a bad thing. But it does no one any good to hate some other tribe, so if tribalism involves hating the deplorable, and hating the maga, or hating the woke, of hating that race, then it is certainly a stumbling block. Hate is the weakness. Lack of humility about ones own tribe is the weakness. Lack of respect for humanity as a whole is the weakness. Nothing wrong with loving your trib; everything wrong with hating someone elses tribe just because its not your own.
Quoting Tom Storm
Binary thinking is a tool, a process. Its not good or bad in right measures, I think. But when this tool is used to pit good guys versus bad guys, instead of brothers with sisters, well than I have to agree with you.
-
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting praxis
Are you both equating the values we happen to choose with our feelings, or saying we make our choices out of gut feelings, and random cultural influences and innate traits that we dont choose?
See, to my way of thinking, that is a completely different conversation. That also defeats DEI. If peoples opinions are a bundle of randomly developed value choices not even really in their control (influenced and innate) then a real, open conversation Tom mentioned above is hardly ever going to happen. Only by shaping society first can we even open people up to those conversations. And to want to reshape society we cant be tolerant, we cant respect diversity, we cant humbly include those who think things that should not be valued. We have to reshape the diverse to conform.
Its like you are saying rednecks cant help being MAGA, too many cultural influences and innate traits. So we dont need a conversation with them, and because of bias, a real conversation isnt possible. So we should remake the culture so maybe the next generation will truly get it.
That all sounds anti-DEI to me. Although its the arguments the woke make. Thats why they create such strong but negative identities - patriarchy, white privilege, dumb redneck maga - there is no conversation with these types, and no way for a father not to be patriarchal, or for a white man to not have privilege - so there is no reason for a conversation with them and no true tolerance or support of diversity.
So I think raising we all have different values in this way sort of removes autonomy and contradicts values like diversity, equity, inclusion or humility and respect and contradicts someone who truly thinks:
Quoting Tom Storm
Values discussions are important. But if you think we each get to prioritize our own value lists, then we will never see equity and inclusion, just diversity.
Can you square tolerance, acceptance, support for diversity, with people who dont share our values? I think the conversation we want to have is about what are the values we ALL must share. Yes must share. If we are to make a better world, we have to find value in every person in it, or decide if we dont find value in everyone, how best to remove them or change their minds (but thats not tolerance or supporting diversity). Why does the its all about personal values and priorities make a better case for wokeism, because I dont see it. I see it as about maga and woke and whites and blacks sharing something, consciously, and it getting into all of their DNA for future generations. Nothing bad to root out of others, but something good to nurture in ourselves first and everyone we interact with. True tolerance out of respect. True diversity, out of humility.
@Joshs what do you think of the above? I am anti-woke. Am I just asleep, or just diverse? If diverse, dont I need to be accepted too? Or do I need to be changes, awoken, made aware of my implicit biases? This is why I charge wokeism as being incoherent, self-contradictory, and woke people with being less tolerant, hateful of those who are the wrong kind of diverse and elitist when it comes to value choices. The slogans dont all hang together, and the actions speak louder than words.
The woke do not know how to value diversity, just conformity. The woke do not understand where we all are equal, and where we all are unique. The woke do not include those who dont conform to their values. And the woke are not self-reflective enough to see all of the contradiction.
Earlier in the topic we discussed the Bud Light/Mulveney ad campaign and unlike the AE campaigns subtlety (which may or may not have been intentionally provocative), the Mulveney campaign was overtly woke. In your opinion, was the Mulveney campaign humble or self-aggrandizing? Did it respect diversity or demean gender?
Id be happy to address that but you need to address a couple things I just said. I need to know how you think a bit more. We need to stay on some paths a bit longer and I cant provide all of the analysis for this to be a conversation.
Why dont you answer your own question in detail, discuss Mulveney, what overtly woke means in the context of selling beer, for all to clearly understand, and I can respond to that, instead of just answering your questions, and instead of you answering the questions I posed? How about you give a little more?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Im saying we all share the same basic gut feelings or intuitions, but we prioritize them differentlyshaped not by randomness, but by cultural trends or intentional personal development, and perhaps our personal innate traits like introversion or extroversion.
Overtly woke means being openly and deliberately aligned with woke values.
Are they supposed to just hide? Like they've had to do for most of the history of Christian and Muslim countries?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sorry, I dont relate to this frame. Im not saying it isnt right in its own way but it just doesnt come up in my framing of this matter. I tend to go more with a rights approach (I don't ground rights in humility or any brand of ultimate truth, just pragmatically), but I am not a theorist.
(Added later) I guess we would hope for a form of humility: or at least a lack of dogmatism and arrogance, in all interlocutors when we are in discussion about an apparent clash of values.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Dividing people into us and them is so often the nub of the problem: binary. In fact, this is how you appeared to frame the discourse when you wrote this:
Quoting Fire Ologist
But I didnt say that some binary thinking isnt useful. We didnt get into parsing the notion of binary or dualistic thinking more broadly; I was just pointing to the tribalism and dualistic frames that seems to be at the heart of our culture wars.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I have no problem with this. All we can do is have a conversation advocating for our values and present some reasons. I tend to value solidarity over division. But I'm not interested in getting into a conversation about my 'worldview', there have been enough monomaniacs flogging brittle worldviews on this site already.
I focus on solidarity, because for me all we really have are conversations with others, not the exchange of ultimate truths. Talking about values this way helps me understand others and build empathy. The aim is finding ways to live together respectfully, not proving anyone right.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I have no advanced theory about this. What I experience is people settling on what appeals to them aesthetically and culturally (often through upbringing ) so its contingent. Reasoning often seems post hoc.
An obvious response is: If all is contingent, then theres no right or wrong, and how can one view (mine for instance) be superior to another? But contingency only describes how values arise, not whether we can evaluate them. We can still judge perspectives based on consequences, coherence, or social effects no absolute truth doesnt mean no basis for judgment. This process will always be a bit loose and jagged.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Even if our values are influenced by factors beyond our control, conversation is still the main way we learn from each other and reconsider what we care about. Ive had many useful conversations with fundamentalist Christians in the atheism spaceno arguments, no antipathy.
If youre asking how we change the opinions of people who hold firm beliefs opposite our own, I think it happens slowly, through time and exposure and boredom. And conversation. I suspect, for instance, in 50-100 years transpeople will be commonplace and mostly accepted. Which is how we come to no longer jail gay people or force treatment upon them (except, perhaps, in a small subset of fundamentalist communities).
:up: Appreciate the response.
Quoting Tom Storm
If we frame things more as rights, then, to me we are talking about how government and society can identify wrong-doers and enact and enforce laws against them. Like we all have equal rights to a public park, someone is not being equitable about who can go, we can fix that by enforcing the equal rights law.
But I was more talking about values. Woke values seem to be diversity, equity and inclusion. Im saying better values to teach about and practice internally are respect and humility. If people take these values to heart, they will respect and include the diverse, they will humbly see the equal importance of all other people, at least enough importance in others to treat them better.
I think the conversation should be about something deeper than surface appearances like diversity and visible inclusion. We need to include people in our hearts, not just on paper with ethnic frouonandnsecualnorietstiin checkboxes.
There will always be new victim classes. You said you disfavor binary thinking and used me saying progressives and conservatives. Ill work on that because I agree, those are cheap categories - they simply make it easier to have a discussion. No whole person falls neatly into any of the buckets we create. Just because you are white doesnt mean anything more than an assessment of your skin - says little about the person inside. Wokeism is full of buckets of people, and identity politics. If that is all you mean by binary thinking then I agree 100%.
And to be consistent, Im not creating a class of binary thinkers and saying all people who fit in that bucket are baddies. Im saying all of us at times are binary thinkers - and we all need to work on that.
That shows you how the values of respect and humility work. I humbly, publicly, admit I have to do better myself with my binary thinking as we are calling group identification. And I apply this respectfully to all of us, not to any classes who are better or worse than me.
Quoting Tom Storm
People are too afraid of dogmatism. No one else can tell you what to believe, and arrogance is ugly. But I have no issue saying all arrogance is ugly and foolish. There is good dogma we can agree on.
There is no functioning society without some sense of absolute rights and dogma about them. These things can change in time, but we cant live like the right to life is fleeting and up for discussion all of the time. Its a sort of absolute. We tweak it at the edges with capital punishment, killing in self-defense, abortion, and have to continue discussing and debating these things. But as to two citizens walking down the street, the right to life is absolute dogma. Why avoid dogmatism writ large? Isnt that a kind of absolute dogma in itself? We need to aim toward something - why not believe we could build a society that is so good some of our rules will never be questioned again (even if one day they are questioned)? The right to vote on those who rule us - the right to self-rule - make that an absolute dogma.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, that's reasonable.
I think that was supposed to be sexual orientation. Idk.
The problem with dogma is that no one but the absolute authority can disagree with it.
Dogma is a belief held to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, often defended without question and resistant to challenge. A well-founded principle, by contrast, rests on reasoning, evidence, or lived experience, and remains open to revision if better information arises. Where dogma closes inquiry by demanding acceptance, a principle encourages ongoing testing and refinement, making it more flexible and adaptable to new circumstances.
Why would you advocate for dogma instead of well-founded principles? Its as though you want our moral reasoning stifled and fixed on external control (punishment, approval, laws) rather than developing internal principles (justice, fairness, human rights).
I guess I used the wrong word. I generally dont listen to anyone. By dogma I meant well-founded principles.
Its grotesque football-passing, virtue signally nonsense. Those of us who notice call it out. It didn't used to be like this.
Nice skit by Alan Cummings though, thanks.
Quoting Mijin
I have no idea where this has come from. This is the kind of response that definitely Fire and I, perhaps others, find infuriatingly out of step and possibly a form of 'gotcha' we need to ignore. No one has said, intimated or even vaguely referred to anything of this kind, including both the AE and Bud campaigns.
Before each trans characteristic he repeatedly say like superheroes which is simile. A clever rhetorical device isnt meant to be taken literally, obviously. To Mijins point, the first superhero-like characteristic mentioned is the need to stay hidden.
The monologue was informative as well as entertaining and persuasive. I didnt realize that hate crimes against the trans community had spiked so sharply in LA over the last few years. Thanks anti-wokesters? :confused:
Further, this simply illustrates what Im talking about. Shut the fuck up about it, and people will stop caring what you identify as. Its this self-aggrandizing, delusional hyperbole. You seem to enjoy it - fine. It's ridiculous to most.
Trans people aren't superheros. They aren't like superheros, unless we want to agree that both categories are deluded. I'd prefer not to do so, but that's all they have in common. Its horseshit.
Hate crimes are generally speaking, based entirely off the reportage of the victim. Those stats mean essentially nothing without hearing the individual stories. Saying 'he' instead of 'she' when someone is demonstrably male is a hate crime, if reported as such. Its "woke" writ large.
One has to understand that the whole discourse about anything that involves especially sexual minorities has been hijacked by the politically driven culture war rhetoric. The whole culture war rhetoric spreads simply like a cancer and it dumbs down everything. Just like anything involved with feminism, DEI etc. And this goes both ways.
Referring to "woke" is a sign of this just as if someone argues that some Trump administration policy is "nazi". Or the American Eagle jeans campaign being nazi or whatever.
Try to have a reasonable smart conversation when people are just looking for dog whistles everywhere. It's very hard.
Behaving like what? I watched it again to be sure, and she talks about a bunch of things, and if the ad is about anything, it's about March Madness. Yes, she mentions it's a year since she transitioned...is that topic verboten?
It's good to know though that you're big enough to not label things as woke where you unknowingly see someone trans. It will be a big comfort to the community that they don't need to hide necessarily, as long as they can perfectly pass as cisgender.
In 2023 nearly 97% of these hate crimes were violent (assaults, aggravated assaults, even attempted murder).
Assault in California is legally defined as an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. This means three things must be present:
Verbal abuse doesnt qualify as assault. Youll have to try harder to downplay violence against trans people.
So, you say you've seen the ad. There is nothing normal, whatsoever, about how that person is behaving. Its like a childhood television presented. Its really weird, and absolutely out of hte norm for beer, advertising to adults, advertising to (mainly) men, and completely out of left field. I, personally, don't care - but I can 100% see why having someone prancing about like that out of nowhere is disconcerting, off-turning and feels intrusive. It would be the same if a load of white guys with guns and MAGA caps started appearing in Lululemon adverts.
Quoting Mijin
Two issues (imo):
1. You're making up a problem, as I've explain: being trans is not the issue, for the most part (this is not to deny bigots their existence, either). It is being intrusive, entitled and hateful (again, not to ignore bigotry where it occurs);
2. Sarcasm isn't helpful. Trans people don't pass, in 99.999999999999999999% of cases. It is a pipedream. Because they are not the sex they want to present as, and humans are evolved to tell sex from visual cues subconsciously, though i recognized a lot of slower people around hte place lol.
Aside from those issues, if you watch the Mulvaney advert and do not see something odd and awkward happening, I think you are lying, or naive. You don't have to talk smack about it to recognize these things.
I don't know what you thought would come of this, buuuuuttt.... the period you're tlaking about includes 65 hate crimes against Trans people. 65. There were 125 anti-Asian hate crimes in that year. There is also significant disagreement between types of data collected.
Crimes with a 'gender bias' totaled 7, a decrease from 15 in 2022. So, are hate crimes against trans people not gender-biased? Or what are we doing here? Additionally 'violent' includes at least 30% crimes against property, and not person. Interestingly, perpetrators are not noted by gender or identification. That is a shame, as I am fairly sure we're looking at much, much higher numbers of violent crimes by trans people based on a few relevant stats (like their socio-economic status, mental health status etc... collectively). Speculation, to be sure - but in the face of 65 (likely more like 40) violent crimes against trans people in a state with a higher proportion of trans people, inter-LGBT violence and 55 million people, I don't need to downplay anything. Its a nothing burger.
This is the precise fault line between woke and anti-woke.
The woke see that identity politics and victimization of certain classes are everywhere and systemic. And so the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons. Wokeness is top of mind and systemically in front of everyone everywhere anyway. (Thats why they so quickly found issues with the AE ad too.)
The reaction against the Bud Light commercial wasnt anti-trans. It was a statement against woke preaching being shoved in everyones faces from every direction, with every sip of beer. It was anti-woke, not anti-trans, at least primarily.
So there are usually two different conversations going on (which explains this thread). People talking past each other.
You two seem to not be in agreement. AmadeusD claims the campaign was criticized because people believed the company was using Dylan Mulvaneys trans identity as a marketing gimmicka calculated play for salesrather than an authentic show of support. You're claiming it was criticized for being preachy.
Quoting praxis
Same thing.
You still have not said what was wrong with her behaviour, or why it is automatically "woke" (and how any trans person can ever appear on TV in a way you wouldn't label "woke").
Your claim now seems to have shifted to just saying it was a bad fit for the brand. Sure. That's irrelevant to the discussion though...lots of ads star people that are a bad fit.
Quoting AmadeusD
Who is being those things? Do you have an example?
Quoting AmadeusD
You just said you "wouldn't be surprised" if we had been buying beer advertized by trans people without knowing ?:confused:
If your point was that those people were just behind the camera, out of sight, then you're reinforcing my point, not yours.
I wonder if @Fire Ologist and others will acknowledge how much theyve been influenced by the MAGA anti-woke movement.
I'd say they amount to the same. 'preachy' seems like its leaning toward education, which I don't think the point is. It's more like saturation or, at worst, brow-beating. But I think we're talking about either the same or very similar and related phenomena.
Quoting Mijin
I have. It's overbearing, disingenuous, somewhat indicative of sociopathy (the dead eyes, faked emotions, bad acting and overall bad faith display of 'Look at me be feminine!!!!!!!! WAASDIHGS{NVO'. Its preening, over-wrought, transparent and utterly perplexing. Advertising beer to adult men as though you were presenting sesame street is either extremely sexist, or unbelievably stupid.
Quoting Mijin
Both. But they actually are the same thing here - the opinions meted out by those critical are what's bad for the brand. These don't come apart, really. Both are bad, by my lights, and to some degree all I am doing is distilling the country-wide reports of opinion. I don't drink Bud and never have.
Quoting Mijin
Dylan Mulvaney, trans women in bathrooms, the ubiquity of violent threats and entitlement among trans activists. These are random examples off top of my head, but there are literally thousands. This has been going on quite a long time.
Quoting Mijin
I don't watch beer ads. This is not a gotcha. You have overstepped wildly to try to make a point not open to you.
I wouldn't be surprised. That's all I said. Not "I've never noticed, while watching beer ads...". Because I don't watch beer ads.
Alright, I think I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I haven't looked through all the responses to this post just yet, but I think one issue that we are all at fault for is definitions. Whether or not "woke" is bad depends entirely on what your definition of "woke" is. If your definition is equality, social justice, and human rights activism, then yes, I would say woke is good. If your definition of woke is defunding the police, inciting violence, and blatant discrimination, then I agree that woke is bad. It is the same with the term "fascist". "Fascism" is a mix of many ideologies and can take many forms, and has a very loose definition. In this day and age "fascist" is a slur people throw at people who don't share the same political beliefs. "You like trump? fascist" or "You support DEI? fascist" are common enough in the politcal landscape that it makes you wonder which side is actually fascist. The issue is, again, that there is only loose definitions of some words, such as "woke" or "fascist", people will have different definitions of what they mean, making it very hard to say whether or not something is or isn't describable using those terms. This leads to association fallacies, where people say "Fascist A did this, therefore anyone who does this is fascist" which is obviously wrong, just as saying "Woke person A wants this, therefore everyone who wants this is woke" is. Both terms are now just generalized umbrella terms that people use for things they don't like. For example, I support racial equality, gay rights, and freedom of expression. Some would call this woke. But I also support globalism, militarism, and big stick diplomacy. Some would call this fascist. I point this out because I think other's perspectives can be hard to understand, especially when the terms we use to describe said perspectives are loose, undefined umbrella terms. But on the subject of this post, I agree that the far-left swing that Western politics has taken in the last few decades is starting to swing back the other way. The reason for this is simple, people got caught up in their movements and took it too far. Once anti-racism movements started advocating for racial discrimination, lots of people started to question their support for the movement, leading to the swing back we are witnessing in the USA and Europe. I would say it's less society swinging away from the movements, and more the movements swinging away from society. There is of course a worry of counter-woke movements taking it too far in the other direction, but I hope that as they get more and more hypocritical and extreme, they too, lose steam. I'm not really making any claims here, simply stating why this is a hard subject to debate on, and how I interpret "The End of Woke".
How so? Thats dumb. And unobservant. I dont really even know what MAGA stands for.
Ive been annoyed by wokeism since before the term was popularized. Wokeism used to be called political correctness. Started in the 1980s, based on the 60s. I am not MAGA, and have learned nothing from them.
Will you acknowledge that you havent learned one thing from all that Ive posted here?
Ive learned that there are no good defenders of wokism here on TPF. I think that is because, its difficult to defend something that is so incoherent and self-defeating.
So you're calling it woke just because of her mannerisms. So again you are just taking the position that woke = someone being trans and not hiding it.
Because if the rant is just about annoying mannerisms, at least half of adverts have someone that needs a slap IMO, I don't see any reason to particularly focus on one transwoman.
Quoting AmadeusD
You've given no example of anything Dylan Mulvaney has done wrong apart from, apparently, making you uncomfortable.
Trans women in bathrooms is absolutely a non-issue; in my town a lot of the public bathrooms are unisex and it makes no difference to anything. As Alan Cummings put it in your cite (I think): Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?
As for violent threats yeah your list of pinterest t-shirts or whatever totally refutes the data that transpeople are massively more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
Quoting AmadeusD
It's not a gotcha, it's a self-own. If you don't watch beer ads, what point were you even trying to originally make? That trans on TV is fine as long as you don't see it?
Youve engaged extensively with this topic, and the influence on your perspective is quite apparent. Take your most recent post, for example, where you wrote, "the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons." This phrasing, which conflates the woke, corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis.
Anheuser-Busch is in the business of selling beer to make money, not of teaching ideological lessonscasting its marketing decisions as ideologically motivated is a partisan rhetorical move, not a serious analysis.
Well I didnt get it from anywhere - I just watched the ad for the first time this week. I heard about the ad at the time, but had no idea Kid Rock got involved until you said it. I dont follow the anti-woke gazette.
Do you think the marketing team conversations were really all about sales? Is that your serious analysis? You think the Anheuser Team, or the Bud Light division wasnt taking an ideological stand? You really think they were only selling beer? Of course they convinced themselves it would make them money and it would be good for the brand - but they were total idiots then. More likely they were blinded by ideological preaching and thought they were preaching to enough choir to feel good all around.
If they were only selling beer, then American Eagle is only selling jeans, so why not just laugh at blond hair and blue eyes selling good genes? Its nothing but a marketing decision and not ideologically motivated - so who the hell cares if it doesnt looks woke?
Casting what Im saying as a partisan rhetorical move is a rhetorical move too. Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism.
How could the Bud Light folks possibly think those ads would work? Is that a partisan question?
Maybe they thought they would gain more than they lost??
Why would they think they would lose anyone? Why would they risk losing anyone?
I dont know for sure (and dont really care), but I bet most if not all of the marketing team that came up with the add were fired. And not for ideological reasons.
This conversation does not have to be so accusatory and antagonistic does it?
Racism is a deeper problem than white America and white Europe admits.
Homosexual people are not properly respected, ostracized from many institutions, mistreated, harmed and killed, just for being homosexual.
Women still need to fight for equal rights in many situations.
I say all of that and I mean all of that because of the vast reaching influence of wokism. And there is more. And the situation is better for most of these victims groups in part because of the woke in the world.
That said, wokeism also stinks badly and harms classss of people, sets equality and respect back, causes people to be racist and prejudiced, promotes false facts and half the story.
There are terrible people who are anti-woke. That doesnt make wokeism good.
You said you agreed with AmadeusDs view that Bud Lights campaign was "a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage," even though I had pointed out that your stance on this seemed different.
Anyway, not important of course, just a curiosity.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I know you've said that before and I've ignored ityour meaning wasnt clear. You have my attention now if you'd like to explain how I'm failing to reflect on Wokeism. What have I said that shows a lack of reflection?
That is the preachy part. Maybe they were not preaching in order to help trans people, but they were playing identity politics which, if you think about it, is more like cult religion and good sheep herding.
Quoting praxis
Cant you tell me some things Ive said that you might agree with? Show a little wokeism self-reflection. Youve been engaged here like a third-party judge, not really talking to me, but talking about what Im saying. But you are not really talking about the content of what Im saying either, you are just saying things like I must be influenced by MAGA.
Tell me what you personally think. Tell me what woke is, what is good about wokeism. Tell me what is bad about MAGA, and how wokeism addresses it.
Is every woke idea good? Give me some bad ones.
Is anything Ive said that speaks negatively of wokeism true? Say where you might agree.
Do you think wokeism truly promotes equity and inclusion? I think it promotes division better than anything else it does.
I used to think the division between white people and everyone else was the problem. There should be no division among us based on skin/race. But wokeness seems to rely on this division to be fixed and in place, not resolved. Woke teaches me that there is a difference between white people and everyone else, and that all white people must be reeducated about their implicit biases and privileges, and taken down off of their high horses. That white people today still owe for sins of white people in the past. Thats divisive. Thats impractical. And most importantly, I think it is a shallow estimation of whites AND everyone else. And thats the sin of wokeism today - for the sake of people, they misunderstand people, and harm people. And they wont suffer fools who disagree.
It deserves critique, or better defense.
Now youre saying that Im not showing reflection. Youve been claiming that I havent reflected.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not true. I quoted you directly and analyzed the substance and phrasing, pointing out how it reflects partisan rhetoric. Ive reflected partisan rhetoric in this thread as well. I dont know why it would be difficult for anyone to admit doing this.
Is it really so?
Because I would think many people, also who are politically in the center and on the right, were agreeing with the above far before the term "woke" was used.
I think many on right, starting from libertarians, would agree with those statements. Above all, does saying the above somehow clash with values upheld on the right, starting from things like private ownership or family values? I would say that it's the leftist distorted caricature of the conservative right that portrays the right being against equal rights for women and against homosexuality. Well, when those topics were first discussed in the 19th and 20th Century, naturally there were conservatives at the time who were for sticking to the old ways, but then again, those times the left was truly for disbanding capitalism at every level and striving for socialism and only disagreeing inside of itself on how socialism would be achieved.
Is the left now preaching the leftist mantra of the 19th Century? Nope, not at all. It's main objective would be just to curve the excesses of capitalism at this stage. In the similar fashion the views on the conservative side have changed. Hence it simply is time for us to put these travesties aside and really look what in general the political sides are saying, not to cherry pick the most outrageous comments that one can find and try to represent these as the common goal of that side. Because when we do so, then we fall into the trap of thinking that people are either "woke" or then "MAGA".
Ok. I agree. Identity politics makes caricatures of everyone. I hate it. Putting people in boxes and groups reduces whole human beings to much smaller creatures than they really are. We use our generalizations progressive left or conservative right to help us organize our thoughts and what we say, not to organize actual people - we cant think any individual person actually neatly fits into any of the boxes we construct to make our points.
Quoting ssu
I would hope so. That is probably true for many on the left, but I think most leftists think implicit biases and unconscious cultural influences lead non-woke people around by the nose, and that underneath it all, non-woke people want to oppress women and are homophobic and dont see non-whites as equals. I think many woke people talk this way. How else does one think the AE Sweeney ad is anti-woke? You have to read into sub-text beneath the surface and find rottenness underneath. I mean, who cares, in this day and age if a white person or a black person says I have good genes - besides the woke? I dont know whether the left thinks these pictures of the right are distorted caricatures or spot on.
Quoting ssu
Can you flesh that out a bit? What do you think the sides are generally saying?
How does the right want to end wokism yet still be good people?
How does the left want to impose wokeism yet welcome true diversity and tolerance and inclusion?
The caricatures of left and right make answers to these questions impossible to formulate, so how would you answer them if we put the exaggerated travesties aside?
I still dont know much about what you actually think of wokeism, anti-wokism, or many of the things Ive said about these.
You need to say what you think woke is, and what is woke and what isnt woke, say why it is woke, and say whether you agree with it or not. Then do the same thing for anti-woke.
Quoting praxis
Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric says that person isnt thinking for themselves and just parroting partisan talking points. Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric isnt analyzing the substance of what the person says.
Here is something I said again that you didnt respond to directly or thoroughly. It would be greatly appreciated if you would break this down to show what it means to you (show me what you think this says), then analyze it to show where it is wrong, where it is right, how it misses the mar, then state what you think instead of what it says - you aim for and hit the mark.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Its a simple point that I think is true about wokeness, and is at the heart of why the anti-woke dislike wokeness.
My view hasnt changed, though it might have if you didnt ignore the following the first time I posted it.
" the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons." This phrasing, which conflates the woke, corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree that anti-woke rhetoric has been very influential.
Is any public appearance "woke"?
Transitioning genders for example is a psychical need that manifests similarly to the conception of "Free will" such that it follows an equation roughly similar to "'I am 'free' and 'IT' must obey"... It's a manifestation of the need for control over oneself in a world that very much tells you to deny your instincts through objective morals that attempt to determine for you how one OUGHT to live. This burden of ought attempts to shackle someone to one side of a political stance (Left/Right being a newer manifestation of objective dogmas since the proverbial death of God). Both sides attempt to detail what is good/evil and offer their versions of reward/punishment through acceptance/rejection. It turns life into a courtroom.
And yet those individuals who experience "woke" as a lived personal experience don't give a damn about your Left/Right views on it. For them, it is a style of innocence in becoming that occurs out of a necessity in which there is no guilt, sin, or "wrongness." It is more of a fundamental condition of their existence. It is neither sinful nor virtuous, it's merely a manifestation of becoming. The projection of guilt by both sides (from conservatives: "unnatural," from progressives: "immoral not to affirm") both miss the point: they moralize what is, at root, the individual's personal experience of becoming, innocent, and innocence in their instincts.
It's not only Identity politics. Political discourse has dramatically changed after people have taken up to use social media. The role of mediators, like newspapers were before aren't there and politicians communicate directly through social media to their followers. This has created a quite toxic environment were people can lash out the way they would never do if publicly they would meet the actual people. Then there's those obnoxious algorithms that simply choose on your behalf just what "news" you get. The most radical views get more traction etc.
I think it was the historian Neil Ferguson who has compared the present change to the invention of the printing machine, which created a huge information revolution ...and also bloody religious wars. Once the monopoly of the Catholic Church was broken and people could read in their own language the Bible, then the role of the priesthood was diminished. At first one might think this was a totally positive change, yet the bloody religious wars fought afterward showed not everything was positive.
And the last issue is American political discourse itself, which promotes and encourages toxicity and lashing out. The two-party system creates an environment where there is no reason to be diplomatic or try to reach out to the other side. In fact, it usually seems that the main argument that both sides give for voting for them is that the other side is so dangerous and will destroy everything good in the Republic. If politicians had to form coalition governments, the discourse wouldn't be so hostile.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think this more about echo-chambers and people hearing everywhere dog whistles. And it's more that many leftist think that they themselves are attacked by the MAGA crowd.
Quoting Fire Ologist
But just who is really talking about this commercial? I think the most influential commentator is Donald Trump, who was enthusiastic that Sydney is a Republican. Notice the discourse. Remember the huge discussion about taking the knee with Colin Capernick? It was actually a green beret named Nate Boyer who in my mind smartly advised them to take the knee rather than sit on the bench, which indeed would be quite offensive. Only when Trump got involved on this, then the issue took a life of it's own.
The AE Sweeney ad is 100% Culture War stuff that political parties use to get their supporters interested in politics. The vast majority don't care shit about foreign policy matters or monetary policy decisions, but a thing like talking about some ad, be it Bud Light commercial or a jeans commercial, and the level to comment about them is far lower.
The whole Culture War thing is intended to make us even dumber.
So you are saying that what I said is not analysis. But you havent given me any of your analysis either. You just said I conflated and collapsed some things. And that I wasnt giving you my independence analysis.
What is conflated exactly? What is better independent analysis?
Quoting praxis
Gotta take the uber out of it - too inequitable. Trans-uber isnt woke.
Trans-ber-mensch, is better. Maybe go she-ber-mensch for the female/male hybrid version.
Quoting Mijin
No. Of course not. But there is a time and a place, and a wrong TV spot. The word inappropriate serves a valid purpose in life. The bud light marketing team learned that.
One of the most important messages from the anti-woke to the woke is: read the room.
But this is not addressing the point I'm making.
The point I am making is: there's a difference between a poorly-judged advert, or picking a bad figurehead or whatever -- brands do that every day -- and "woke".
Several people in this thread are complaining about the wokeness of that advert, yet can give no reason why it is woke other than having a transwoman in it. Which begs the question: can a transperson appear on TV in a way that you wouldn't label as woke? Is it instantly rendered woke simply by you noticing that the person is trans?
Quoting ssu
Its not the two-party system that promotes toxicity and lashing out, its the polarized cultural environment pitting urban against rural. For decades the two parties were quite cordial toward one another and there was much across-the-aisle compromise and consensus. Israel is just as polarized politically as the U.S. and its a multiple-party parliamentary system.
I dont get DifferentiatingEggs woke as lived experience thing, but the culture war is fully last man standing in a puddle of piss. That I get.
One may then ask, where did the polarization come from? I think one reason is that people are simply dissatisfied about the political establishment and thus many have eagerly taken on populism. And my argument is that the two political parties aren't doing anything to limit the polarization. On the contrary.
Not all is political, I agree. Universally there is this divide between the urban and the rural, but in the US it's especially nasty. The hostility especially against the poor is very telling, as if it's OK and not bigoted for white people to talk in a derogatory manner especially about poor whites. How hillbillies, crackers or white trash are talked about even publicly is quite astonishing.
That's what we woke loonies call 'rape culture'. Specifically, rape and fear of rape is part of the mechanism of control of female sexuality by the patriarchy. That is the horror of trans - that one might find oneself accidentally raping a man! It's rather like finding a serf in a suit of armour - dangerous, and against the natural order.
It's things like this that really make me question what type of mindworm has bored its way into your brains.
So why, do you suppose, in America rapists are treated better than trans?
You are right - I see your question now, and its a valid one. Here is why the ad is about wokeness.
Its not just an ad. Its an ad for Bud Light, previously known as a vastly, eminently, dude bro beer. Bud light goes with a beard. Or a cigar. Or NASCAR. Or football.
When bud light drinkers grab a bud light, they dont want to expand their horizons. Or remember they have a congressman or even a political opinion. They want to close their garage door and change out the master cylinder on their classic car. Thats Bud Light. And everyone knows it. (I shoukd help them write an ad)
But like a fine red wine pairs with some stale chocolate chip cookies, they paired Bud Light with a trans person taking a bath. Hmmmm are they trying to tell me about something I was missing, here under the hood of my car with my dude bros?? Was I asleep at the wheel for too long and times changed?? Do I need to change with the new times, and step out of my comfort zone here in my garage?? Why is that person in a dress sipping cans of beer at all?? Are they talking to me? What happened? Answer: wokeness strikes again.
So no, trans dont have to stay off TV, there are fifty other ways to place a trans woman in an ad on TV that wouldnt spark much of a second glance, but Bud light aint one of them. That is why the ad wasnt just about Bud Light. It was teaching the ignorant what normal bud light drinking can look like. Maybe they are even right, and its a good lesson, but its a lesson in wokeness and we are not supposed to hate lesson time if the lesson is a woke one.
And the reason this is interesting is not because of advertising or because of the ad - its to hopefully show reasons why people are anti-woke. We disagree we need lessons about who is acceptable and who isnt, and we disagree these lessons are appropriate in any time and place the lesson givers want to give them.
So much bad judgment involved in wokeness and in the name of wokeness.
Drag queen childrens book readings is like that. Its not a big deal because it happens a lot and its a mass problem. Its a big deal because someone thought it should happen at all, to any kid. How is that ever a thing? There is such a thing as a time and place, and there is such a thing as childhood innocence and matters for adults only. You dont play at political and social experiments with other peoples children (or hopefully your own either).
Quoting praxis
I guess Ill take your word for it. I dont pay any attention to that bullshit. American culture is freedom, so its 1000 different cultures. Wokeism grades them good and bad. I dont pay attention to that shit until the woke tell me I need to check my privilege and like certain cultures and hate the wrong ones.
This, and within my family, is the only forum Ive really talked about wokeness. I am fighting any wars. Im too much of a live and let live person. This is an attempt at a conversation. If its a debate, you need to make some points.
Why dont you say something positive? Give me a reason for something woke that should convince me to think better of it?
Quoting ssu
Youve got it backwards. The polarization wasn't the result of the make-up of the political parties. It was due to the fact that one part of the country, the cities, moved more rapidly into a post 60s economic, social and intellectual way of life than the slower changing rural areas. As a result, people needed to change what the political parties stood for in order to reflect the growing cultural divide. They have now done that. 60 years ago the republican party was socially moderate , fiscally conservative , supportive of the U.S. as the worlds policeman, and over-represented by wealthy, educated voters. It is now the populist party, is dominated by the poor, lesser educated and working class, is isolationist and socially conservative.
Quoting ssu
The political divide is not a reflection of hostility against the poor. Its a reflection of the hostility against traditional ways of thinking on the part of the educated urban elite. This urban elite supports progressive liberal economic policies to help the poor , including a higher minimum wage, government subsidized health care ( Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid), support for education. But rural poor whites overwhelmingly reject progressive economics in favor of small government , socially conservative populism. Many wealthy whites also support this right wing populism, because they share with the rural poor a traditionalist worldview. The best indicator of where one stands on the political divide is not wealth, it is population density. The more sparsely populated the region one lives in, the more likely one will be to support traditional political , religious and economic values, and the more likely one will be to vote for the Republican party.
I suspect you harbor resentment towards the natural structure of society and men/masculinity in general, and that this is just some exercise in projection and the justification of your own prejudices.
Yes. I blame our leaders - in politics, in the media and in schools. And here in our discussions. Our leaders should be showing us how to respect differences and work together. Instead our leaders fan flames and show us how to divide and what to hate.
Its urban versus rural. Rich versus poor. Religious versus secular. Man versus woman. Straight versus not straight. Black versus white. Conservative versus progressive. Immigrant versus citizen. Soon, young versus old.
Some of these things we pit against each other in fact belong together, and complement each other. But our leaders cant and dont want to show that.
Quoting unenlightened
You have a lot of statistical data or anecdotal evidence - or are you just trying to launch a political campaign?
It's also shrunken some differences. For instance, I've heard the sentiment expressed, and even seen it in op-eds, where bourgeois Americans (or Europeans) claim they have more in common with and feel closer to (more kinship with) other bourgeois from Dubai to Hong Kong then with their fellow citizens outside their socio-economic context.
Yet why shouldn't this be. One of the great benefits (or deficits) of (neo)liberalism is that it makes "everywhere everywhere else." This helps liberate individuals from custom and culture, and facilitates the free flow of labor, ideas, and capital. But it also means that the biggest differences to cause tensions no longer exist between nations (indeed, national identity is dissolved) but between those areas that have entered this space and everywhere else.
Now, when people actually say this out loud, they will almost always frame it as: "I don't feel kinship with my fellow citizens in the hinterlands," but I think there is also a way in which this applies to those within their own urban contexts who sit outside their socio-class space.
The dissolution of custom and culture brings with it its own tensions, since there is no longer a "binding together" of ends and identity. To some extent, this is papered over by making pluralism and the destruction of custom its own goal. But this cannot go on forever. Eventually there isn't much left to transgress or destroy except for liberalism and pluralism itself. I think that's pretty much the stage we have gotten to. Once that sort of "call to activism in service to liberalism" is no longer an option (because neoliberalism has won) only the pleasures of epithumiai.e., sensible pleasures, wealth, and safetyare left to support liberalism. Hence, those seeking thymos (honor, recognition) or any higher logos (as against the emptiness or "decadence" of an epithumia culture) will end up turning against liberalism. I think you can see this in "Woke" and the "Alt-Right."
It's an interesting comparison, since the Nazis also produced a lot of strong pronouncements of relativism and anti-realism paired with prophetic, absolutist rhetoric. I am not sure if this was a particularly common combination in Nazis though, or if these sort of pronouncements just tend to be selected by historians because they are interesting and tend to be made by more intellectual writers (the same could be said of Woke to be fair). I just know I have seen a lot of them. For instance, a sort of amoral "historical Darwinism" was at least common and accepted enough to make it into some official orders of the day I've seen from the Eastern Front. But these orders are also always in apocalyptic, Manichean tones. In fact, "mercy and morality must be left behind" precisely because "the clash of the races is our final struggle" is a common theme.
Our leaders? Youre telling me the fights over values and ways of life tearing families and neighbors apart is caused by leaders? The leaders are late to the party. These things start at the grass roots, not from on high. I recently discovered my childhood next door neighbor lives in a different universe from me, even though we were best friends as kids. He wasn't transformed by some leader, he always had those views, but it didnt emerge until he began to notice how far his thinking was from many of the people around him, including me.
You cant wish away real, entrenched differences in outlook and ways of life separating one community from another by blaming them on the nefarious influence of some powerful individual. Thats insulting to persons and communities who rely on forging their own value system as a compass for guiding their life and making sense of their world.
It is an interesting observation, but it has two controversial theses. First, that neoliberalism is a completed project with no real internal challengers. Second, that both the Woke and the Alt-Right are united in their rejection of liberalism, driven by its perceived spiritual or moral emptiness. However, if we accept that neoliberalism has indeed won but continues to evolve and accelerate, then both Woke and Alt-Right movements can be understood as distinct expressions of contemporary subjectivity. Each, in its own way, seeks to overcome the collapse of older structures of meaning and reflects a search for identity and moral certainty. Yet, as iek argues, contemporary identity-based activism poses no real threat to the neoliberal order, which is capable of absorbing even its most vocal critics.
I suspect you are the one projecting onto me here. Your go to response to something you disagree with is personal insult. Rather weak.
Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why we are so obsessed with sex? You know food is as important to survival, but we don't seem to worry too much about what everyone else is eating or not eating.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Fire Ologist
I was paraphrasing @Mijin
"Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?"
Mijin
But here is a gentle introduction to the notion of 'rape culture' in the UK. I only specified the US because it was in the quote I was responding to, but I imagine you can easily find the corresponding statistics for the US if you are interested.
I don't know if it has to suppose that neoliberalism is "complete," just that it is hegemonic.
Well, Fukuyama's End of History thesis, despite often being misread, has held up remarkably well over 30+ years. There is no challenger with any significant following. Even the authoritarians within the liberal order describe themselves primarily as the saviors of that same order. The policy solution for the failures of liberalism are still virtually always "more liberalism" (just "more" of variously its conservative or progressive varieties). Even the biggest external critics of the global order keep "legislatures" and hold titles like "president" instead of "king" or "caliph." When they want to attack the neoliberal order, they almost always do so in its own terms, by claiming it fails to live up to democracy, providing liberal freedoms, etc. They don't attack it with any sort of coherent parallel vision. Radical Islam is the closest thing to a real challenger, and it necessarily has limited appeal.
The term "internal" makes things a bit more difficult though. I'd say that neoliberalism does have one significant challenger, and that is its own positive feedback loops. But if neoliberal states like the US become less democratic, and more authoritarian, I don't think that necessarily means much for neoliberalism. It has proven if can exist alongside more oligarchic or authoritarian settings.
That might put to fine a point on it. The lack of any sort of thymotic outlet leads to activism for activism's sake. That is not the same thing as a self-conscious rejection of liberalism per se, nor even a recognition of its spiritual and moral emptiness. All it requires is that activism becomes a sort of performative outlet for the desire for recognition that is otherwise frustrated in a society of atomized "worker/consumers."
I get your response and I agree with you. I am not blaming leaders for causing our problems. I am blaming them for capitalizing on them, attempting to make our divisions wider.
I dont know why that would be an insult. I am not saying we are all sheep looking for leaders to solve our problems. Not at all. I am saying our leaders call us sheep and tell us what we need, and say they can solve our problems for us, and to do so we need to hate those bad people over there .
It's not meant as a personal insult. It's genuinely how I feel about the position you're laying out.
You talk about an obsession with sex, but it's you who seems to throw all reason out the window on this topic.
I genuinely believe that you, and people like you, are being manipulated into an emotional response by people much cleverer than you, in order to control you for political ends. This is essentially just how propaganda works.
Topics of sex and sexuality are especially suitable for this, due to the fears, insecurities, resentments, etc. that a lot of people harbor and are often ashamed of - fear and especially shame are very powerful emotions. You give people an excuse to turn that shame into righteous indignation and a sense of moral grandiosity, and you have a delicious emotional cocktail for people to get drunk on. Or actually hooked would be a better word, because very few people will voluntarily trade that emotional drug back for the shame that started it - it's addictive; a clever propagandist will seek to fuse the subjects ego to whatever it is they're being made to believe, making the road back to sanity all the more difficult.
In addition, sexual topics are often taboo, ensuring limited interaction with the real world, and thus a lower threat of the echo chamber being disrupted.
Maybe you should read up on how propaganda works. Propagandists are very clever, and they know people better than people know themselves.
Oh, your sacred feelings! How very woke! How very feminine! How very irrational!
https://www.unh.edu/sharpp/prevention/rape-culture
Bit of a weird response. No idea why the word 'feel' set you off in this way, but at this point I figure I'm not surprised. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder, and are not interested in having it pointed out.
Universities and academia are at the root of this mania, so you'll excuse me if I don't take their views on the topic especially seriously.
They spent years trying to stretch the definition of rape and sexual violence to 'drunk people having sex' and 'I had a shag that I regretted', and are now trying to sell the idea of a "rape epidemic" - I'm not buying it. Sorry, not sorry.
Alas, you do not seem to recognise your own arguments played back at you. I genuinely do not feel that you are genuine, therefore you are fake.
Two sad people having a really sad discussion about a really sad topic. This is why woke died. :sad:
That's cause you're here politicizing over other people's self awareness.
What would happen if people started demonizing your traits and qualities as trash and shit to be stamped out of society? Suddenly you would be the point of contention in the lives of others for simply living your life the best way that you know how.
There never will be an end of woke, it's the history of the fucking world... "we don't like X so fucking kill it!" Ressentiment at it's finest. The word woke is just a modern mask for people to discriminate against others.
The term woke was originally used in philosophy as in those who are self aware, as in those who don't slumber their lives away to the status quo of some falsified world. For those awake and aware of this falsified world.
There will always be people who are awake and aware of this falsified world we live in. You used to get burned at the steak for simply being awake and aware.
Now it's a bunch of lazy fucks not minding their own business, attempting to assert their objective dogshit upon others as if that's the burning at the steak.
Their life, their rules, not yours. Ya feel?
No, but Im only on chapter 7 of Zarath so Im not fluent in uber-speak.
It seems that Nietzschean values place power (self-overcoming) on a pedestal, perhaps slavishly.
I agree.
What is wrong about woke is calling it woke.
People on the left are no more awake than people on the right. The loudest of both sides are the deepest sleepers.
Woke is false advertising. Its really just another package for my way versus your way shit, and no one willing to mind their own business, or willing to truly develop their own my way and just live it, and damn the whole rest of the world and their hatreds and failings.
Society will never be comfortable for us. Admitting that fact is the first awakening.
The woke stand for victims of racism. Right? The woke want to stamp out racism. But they are racist. So woke solutions are not even woke by their own standards.
We should all wake up, cut the crap and admit it.
Wokeism is a set of vague moral aspirations, and practices to enforce these moral judgments in oppressive and facistic ways. No different than your basic caricature of any church, or naziism, or tyranny.
No one (besides me) one this thread has been able to demonstrate something that is clearly on the side of woke that has benefited society, or just benefited yourself. Woke is mostly shallow, empty hatred of those deemed powerful with no real solutions besides rioting. It is embracing weakness for sake of staying weak. It is self-contradictory and self-defeating.
And I hope we learn something from this present anti-woke moment.
We wont.
Wokeism may change its name, but it will stay strong.
Truly aware and enlightened people dont blame anyone else for their problems, even the systemic problems. And truly aware and free people do not need laws or society to level the playing field for them, or for justice and fairness. You want a level playing field? Wait for an earthquake, tsunami and a wild fire from the volcano to level things out for everyone. You want justice? Wait for death and for God to sift the sheep from the goats. Just sit there and wait.
Or, be awake. Or, make and live your own life. Regardless of everything and everyone and all that they say and all that they throw in your way. We will always hav to learn to say fuck it before we might attempt freedom. Equal opportunity is called having lungs and breathing air. The rest is up to you.
Tolerance isnt a virtue. Its a tactic. Useful for the time being once in a while. But most often, tolerance is avoidance. So its more like a vice.
Diversity isnt a virtue. Its an assessment of multiple things.
There is nothing good to learn by preaching tolerance and goals like diversity.
Be more precise and specific if you want to tell other people what to do. DEI is vacuous and amorphous.
If you are truly interested in a building a better society, cultivate humility in yourself (so others may tolerate you) and respect for all others above yourself (so you can learn from their diversity), and then become a leader, and show everyone what it is like to be truly free. Serve others out of your own free choice.
Im sure that sounds like no fun - well, that is why society is a mess. No one wants to actually do the work to get what they want; its more woke if the system will just hand it to you.
This is where we sleep - in between our false selves and the false others around us we blame. These moralistic problems are never about others, or politics - they are about ourselves. But we are asleep to that fact, dreaming of how others are to blame and how if we just could normalize the TQ in LGBTQ, the world will make more sense to everyone .
The woke are worse off than many.
[Paraphrased from an actual real life sermon by a cool holy man of the deep south who, though he had been sniffing coke that day, abstains on the Sabbath]
Amen. :pray:
Wait... is that a whiff of irony I detect, drowning in the woke gas?
You are probably insulting Satanists, which isnt very woke.
Quoting Baden
Irony, or feature of wokeism?
In principle, I agree with your general evaluation of contemporary activism, which may also help qualify the nature of wokeness. However, the notion of activism for activisms sake requires a more nuanced and elaborated analysis. What you describe as the lack of any sort of thymotic outlet appears to stand in tension with the potent vigour and intensity of emotional expression and the clear sense of authenticity that are often embedded within activist practices.
The idea of a performative outlet for the desire for recognition points to a broader performative enactment of contemporary subjectivity. Likely, it implicates not only those engaged in activist practices but also affects all of us. Félix Guattaris framework shows that subjectivity emerges as the culmination of processes of aesthetic enunciation. An aesthetic reconfiguration of experience incorporates elements of the unconscious subjectivity, which operates beyond conscious intention.
For Guattari, aesthetics is not limited to artistic production or the traditional domain of art. Rather, it represents a broader mode of subjectivation that occupies a central place in the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. In this sense, the aesthetic dimension of activism may reflect a deeper transformation of subjectivity under capitalist conditions, where novel forms of expression and recognition are constantly negotiated. So, the sense of identity is no longer a fixed essence but becomes something performatively achieved and continually redefined.
Thats brand infringement, dude.
Quoting praxis
Quoting Number2018
Does this operation beyond conscious intention serve to select the matter one is active about (environment or trans or womens rights), or does this operation beyond conscious intention make one an activist at all, as part of ones aesthetic reconfiguration? Are activists activists because they cant help it; or are they activists against capitalism and not against racism because they cant help it?
(Because they cant help it may be too extreme but its my short form of operates beyond conscious intention.)
Quoting Number2018
Why capitalism? I thought you were going to say contemporary society.
Quoting Number2018
Im not sure I can picture a world where the shape of ones subjectivity did not involve some sort of social negotiation. Are you saying that capitalism has produced activists operating beyond conscious intention? If this is what you are saying, why is this peculiar to capitalism?
I have to say, there is something ironic to this subconscious motivator for behavior of the woke.
-
As Ive said before, the focus on the notion of implicit bias (much like beyond conscious intention), is one of the most positive contributions of wokeism. We do operate unconscious of our motivations, and we need to identify and face these motivations if we are to change future behaviors. Thats a positive contribution of wokeness and justifies the term woke.
Meaning youre fully onboard with conservative branding?
Thats Viktor Orbán, btw. He was a rockstar at CPAC.
I think you're right and bring up some good points. My point would be that other maladaptive thymotic outlets are not so straightforwardly corrosive for politics and civic virtue.
For instance, two things I've noted before:
Now, the political gap between the genders and the follow phenomena like the "Manosphere" and equally "economic" dating advice for women (e.g., "sexual marketplace" lingo) certainly do have follow on effects for politics, but not in the same way that direct calls for activism do. The two are not unrelated though of course.
Right, and also identity is less fixed because it is less attached to more static sources such as a particular denomination, ethnicity, or even class (class identity has dissolved in some ways even as economic mobility plunges). Patrick Deneen is pretty good on how liberalism (both conservative and progressive) tends to positively drive the destruction of these more static forms of identity in its quest to transform man into homo oecononimicus (or in more positive terms, into enlightenedperhaps Rawlsian or Nozickiteproperly atomized rational, reasonable utility maximizers; "properly atomized" here being "holding to just those relations the liberal individual positively consents to").
I find Charles Taylor to be quite good on the appeal of the New Age movement in this context. But, because liberal, capitalist culture tends to be quite politicized and focused on competition (and nowadays, very conspiratorial, and also soaked in the language of market competition) these efforts, some of which might be very positive for some groups, can often derail into toxic "culture war" activism. For instance, I saw a paper once that identified a solid path between organic food, meditation, and wellness spaces (all positive I would say) and anti-vaccine activism, which for some broadens out into participation in "culture war" identities.
Let me re-formulate your questions: Is activism an effect of an involuntary process of subjectivation (i.e. one cant help it)? Does this process also determine the cause one takes up (e.g., anti-capitalism vs. anti-racism)?
Likely, one does not decide to be an activist in a fully autonomous, intentional sense. Instead, a need to stabilize identity or a desire for recognition, beyond individual control, draws one into it. So, in a sense, one cant help it, but not because one is a passive victim of manipulation. From another perspective, the content of activism (environment, trans rights, anti-capitalism, etc.) may not be simply chosen, nor is it arbitrary. The activist might feel aligned with anti-capitalism or anti-racism because ones ideology resonates with the subjects unconscious investments, shaped by ones socio-aesthetic milieu.
Quoting Fire Ologist
For Zizek, activism often operates as a displacement of desire. The radical energy that cannot confront capitalism gets sublimated into more manageable, identity-based struggles. In a sense, wokeness may simultaneously express political powerlessness and a mode of enjoyment. So, activism may be both an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity.
And you're right preaching diversity doesn't really do anything but create a prejudice for equality, how many people actually want to admit they are a dei hire/promotion? That their advantage comes from nothing important to the position? It's literally a way of fighting back against prejudice with prejudice and solves absolutely nothing. As you said it literally adds to the divide of us vs them.
Just as man is the rope between the animal and the Superman, Zarathustra is the chord between Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods...
John 15:4-5
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
Just as Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil 2, and in Birth of Tragedy 1:
For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps!
And from BoT we can see from his first Aphorism that the dual orbit exists in such a way that there is a bridge linking the two values together... hence why in the Prologue Zarathustra declares what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal (the goals are the branched ends of the values, the Left/Right, the Good/Evil, the Bad/Good, the Ignoble/Noble)
Man is the vine, the bridge, between the branches of his valuations. One does not exist without the other and both values ultimately stem from the creator of the values.
The bear fruit from Zarathustra one must abide in him, and to do so one must develop an understanding of both Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods with a discerning eye.
From Gay Science:
VademecumVadetecum.
Attracted by my style and talk
You'd follow, in my footsteps walk?
Follow yourself unswervingly,
Socareful!shall you follow me.
Ha, let me clarify by commenting that woke is the anti-Coke. Uncle Sam drinks Coke and sprinkles golden urine on his flock. Satan drinks woke and pisses hellfire on his army of demons who terrorize colleges across the land. The final war as prophesied between the golden sheep and the woke demons, the fight between Coke and hellfire is ending now in the defeat of woke. Glory be to Coke
[Taken verbatim from the real life sermon of our preacher hero, at the gates of Berkeley San Fran, wearing a sign The Last Bastion of Satan]
But, less facetiously, on one end of the spectrum, woke collapses into vain resistance (in the form of naive anger), and, on the other, it's just critical theory or something with fairly obvious value. And for anti-woke: on one side of the spectrum, it's non-resistance, naive passivity, wrapped up in indignance, and on the other, it's a justified critique of the excesses of woke as naive anger.
The media-fuelled woke/anti-woke war is a kind of a cartoonish oversimplification.
Quoting praxis
Would you feel better about the Nietzschean notion of power if you saw it as radically distinct from its conventional definitions? For instance, if we filter his concept of power through interpreters like Joseph Rouse, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, we get something like the following:
Rouse, channeling Foucualt, argues that connventional understandings of power usually come in two main strands. First there is power as possession or capacity: someone or some institution has power because they have resources, authority, or force at their disposal. This is the classical liberal or realist view: power is something one can hold, wield, or lose. The. there is power as domination. Especially in critical or sociological theories, power is often understood in terms of control, coercion, or subordination (e.g., Max Webers definition of power as the ability to impose ones will despite resistance).
Rouses account of power, drawing heavily on Foucault, shifts away from both of these substance-like views. For Rouse, power is not a thing or resource one possesses. Its not an object or capacity that sits in someones hands waiting to be used. Power is relational and productive. It emerges through practices, discourses, and networks of interaction. Power doesnt just repress or constrain, it also constitutes possibilities for action, knowledge, and subjectivity. Power is inseparable from meaning and normativity. It is bound up with how practices make certain things intelligible or significant. It is mid-stream, always embedded in ongoing activities, rather than a force applied from outside.
Rouse rejects the idea that power is something imposed in a top-down, centralized, hierarchical fashion (the state or the sovereign commanding from above). Instead, he emphasizes that power circulates and operates from below. It is embedded in local practices, everyday interactions, institutional routines, and forms of knowledge. It is capillary, spreading through networks rather than radiating from a single source. It works through norms, practices, and discourses that people themselves enact and reproduce, not simply by external command. Hierarchies are effects, not origins, of power. Institutions like governments, professions, or sciences dont so much possess power and trickle it down; rather, they are stabilized patterns of already circulating power relations.
Nietzsche attempts to ground this circulating, capillary relational nature of constitutive power in a principle
of differentiation. As Deleuze explains,
Do notice that this has been an universal transition that has happened in all Western (and other) countries. Yet not all countries have suffered similar polarization. The usual stereotypes in jokes of the city dwellers and rural folk doesn't result in such dramatic polarization. For example, in my country clearly derogatory terms of poor people, like white trash, were used in the 19th Century, but disappeared from use in the 20th Century.
In US politics there was a quite unique event of the two political parties switching their traditional base as the Democratic Party left the traditional white southern voters and the Republicans took them eagerly under their wing. Also the divide from the Civil War era is something notable even today.
Quoting Joshs
The radical transformation of the Republican party is something that has happened quite recently. Perhaps one thing was that the Republicans started fearing that the demographic transition where white Americans lose the majority and minorities would stay loyal to the Democrats made them to choose populism. Or simply Trump and populism took them and they have carried on with the flow.
Quoting ssu
I have claimed that there is a direct correlation between population density and political orientation in the current era. But by population density , I dont simply mean how many people live in a country relative to its size. After all, a huge percentage of Australia is uninhabited. What Im looking at is the density experienced by the average inhabitant of a country or region. One can calculate this by median pwd (population-weighted density). Doing so, one sees that the average person in countries like the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Belgium and Germany lives in a much denser environment than in many U.S. states (like Wyoming, Idaho, Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc) . So to be fair in our comparisons, we shouldnt compare the level of political polarization in Belgium or the Netherlands to the U.S. as a whole, we should compare them to states in the U.S. with comparable average lived density, like Massachusetts, Illinois or California. What we find by doing so is that such highly dense U.S. states are no more polarized than their European counterparts, because like those counterparts, a large percentage of their populations are relatively urban and therefore reject strong social conservativism.
That's part of it, but a lot of it is Republicans and independents reluctantly voted for Trump because the Democrats have lost their minds. A lot of people here could care less if boys are playing in girls sports, but to many Americans, boys in girls sports became a gateway wedge issue that opened the door to much weirder shit: you can't tell me what a woman is? You want me to pay for gender affirming surgery for prisoners and detained immigrants? You want to allow doctors to remove 13 year old girl's breasts? You want to let male rapists in women's prisons? They concluded that Democrats shouldn't be allowed anywhere near political power. And that's not even getting into the open Southern border.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This might be actually simply globalization, when we all watch the same movies, follow the same TV series and sports and listen to the same music and buy basically the same stuff. Urban life is quite similar as you can go to a McDonalds or a Starbucks everywhere around the world. Few customs are just different, as in the climate. Being a farmer is different way different from that life of an urban consumer. What is a total world apart is when someone is still a subsistence farmer, which means absolute poverty basically.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
If people think that the present is dominated by liberalism / neoliberalism, then naturally their critique is against this. But here it should be remembered that what isn't important is the grievance, which everybody can see, but what is purposed to solve it. You will have the "Woke" answer as you will have the "Alt-Right" or the "Populist" answer.
Liberalism or neoliberalism don't eradicate identity. The Swiss have still an identity, even if the country is very liberal and made up of many ethnic groups. Common identity is eradicated by the juxtaposition of us and them. The evil rich, the hostile foreigners and the nasty migrants against the good common people. A juxtaposition of populist and the nativist.
I think the dissolution of custom and culture is hastened when the political field is polarized and there's not much if anything that everybody believes. If the political establishment is incapable of finding any general agreement where they stand for a common cause as "team nation", the destruction of a common idea and citizenship is a true possibility.
I could notice just how different Finnish politics is from US politics. Naturally there's a heated debate about income distribution, taxes and the role of the government in both countries. Yet that is simply normal political discourse. Yet when the Pandemic hit or when Putin assaulted Ukraine, the Finnish ruling administration and the opposition got behind a common policy in no time, which was accepted by the vast majority of the people (in both cases). Especially the discourse during the COVID-pandemic was totally different: in the US the Pandemic just increased the political polarization, which has lingered on still until today. This actually didn't happen in Finland (or Sweden, which went it's own way during the Pandemic).
Rallying around the flag in a time of crisis is very important for social cohesion and for a nation to function properly.
It's a good point to look at the US as separate states as there's obviously a huge difference between Massachusetts and Wyoming and Alaska.
Yet I'm not so convinced about this. Urbanization might be too general as there are obvious differences between income levels and prosperity between urban dwellers. A place like Massachusetts, which is basically deep Democratic territory, has still it's Republican places:
Now even if we take a large city, we would have similar differences between the rich and poor places. And do notice that especially in Europe in many countries the conservatives haven't gone with the populism similar to Trump.
Your point raises a fundamental question about the status and value of thymotic desire under the conditions of late capitalism. It seems we share the view that what is called wokeness has become embedded in adaptive, performative mechanisms of neutralized subjectivity. Recognition and the search for meaning become managed within existing capitalist structures.
Still, are there genuinely non-conformist or maladaptive thymotic outlets that stand outside or oppose to capitalist capture? As Deleuze and Guattari argue, desire is never pre-social. It does not originate from a pure, inner core of the individual, but is always produced within and through social assemblages. In capitalism, desire is no longer primarily repressed; instead, it is mobilized and redirected. It functions as an engine of productivity, consumption, and identity formation. Thus, the desire to be heroic, to be recognized, to live through crisis is intensely exploited by media, and consumer practices.
As Franco Berardi observes in Heroes, the epic form of heroism dissolved with the acceleration and abstraction of modern life. In its place, we find gigantic machines of simulation. Corporate structures and affective apparatuses produce mass illusions and manage subjectivities:
The epic form of heroism disappeared towards the end of modernity, when the complexity and speed of human events overwhelmed the force of the will. Epic heroism was replaced by gigantic machines of simulation... Here lies the origin of the late-modern form of tragedy: at the threshold where illusion is mistaken for reality, and identities are perceived as authentic forms of belonging. (Berardi, 'Heroes', p. 5)
You are right to point out that sex and gender, remaining the most intimate and affectively charged aspects of life, have not been fully commodified. But they also cannot be treated as primordial sources of authenticity or recognition. What we witness today is the amplification of gender struggles as zones of intervention, modulation, and mutation of desire.
All in all, these are not straightforward thymotic outlets. Instead, they are complex sites of negotiation. As Berardi notes:
Identity is not naturally ascribed; it is the effect of the hypostatization, fixation, and naturalization of cultural difference Identity is the opposite of style, which is singularitya map of orientation, flexible and adaptable, retroactively changing.
(Berardi, 'Heroes', p. 123)
Capitalism thus plays a double game with desire. From one side, capitalism fixes and commodifies it, but also keeps it permanently flowing and mutating. In this condition, resistance cannot rely on reclaiming pure desire or returning to a pre-capitalist authenticity. Rather, we may learn to track, map, and aesthetically engage with the ongoing dynamics of desire.
Does anyone feel better about the Nietzschean notion of powerembodying it as a lifestyle?
Quoting ssu
This isnt about the rich vs the poor. Someone can be poor but socially progressive , or rich and socially conservative. Traditional (far right) social values are not correlated directly with level of wealth. They are more closely related to level of education.But even here, we need to focus on a particular kind of education After all, some of the highest ranking leaders within the MAGA movement are ivy league-educated. The sort of education. or intellectual
understanding I have in mind relates to what I call social i.q., a set of insights into the way that individuals reciprocally shape each others values and knowledge within discursive communities. Social
traditionalists embrace an older set of notions that conceive of personhood in terms of isolated, autonomous subjectivity (like Ayn Rands Objectivism). Being a billionaire doesnt prevent one from having a traditionalist worldview like Trump. I have a number of wealthy friends who are MAGA supporters.
Quoting ssu
Axios doesnt seem to have noticed what you are noticing. They report:
In addition, in Austria in the 2024 legislative elections, the Freedom Party achieved its best-ever result, 28.8%, and is leading coalition talks. In Portugal, Chega became the main opposition party after winning 60 of 230 seats in May 2025, marking a major shift. Other countries with far-right parties in government, either leading or part of coalition, include Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden, where far-right Sweden Democrats prop up the minority government.
There are many parallels between MAGA and Europes far-right movements, even if theyre not identical in style or political system.
Some of of the strongest similarities include
populist nationalism. MAGAs America First is paralleled by Europes France for the French (Le Pen), Germany for the Germans (AfD), and Italy for the Italians (Melonis party roots) . Both MAGA and the European far -right frame politics as protecting the real people against outsiders (immigrants, Brussels/EU, elites).
They also share an anti-Immigration focus. The framing of immigration as a civilizational threat is almost identical.
Both groups attack elites and institutions. MAGA attacks the Deep State, and the media as enemies of the people. while in Europe, AfD rails against mainstream media and the Berlin political class, while Orban in Hungary portrays Brussels and liberal elites as oppressors of the nation, and Le Pen denounces the French establishment and globalists.
Both embrace cultural conservatism. MAGA is anti-woke, and attacks gender and LGBTQ rights in favor of strong Christian identity politics In Europe, Polands PiS government pushed anti-LGBTQ laws, Hungary banned LGBTQ education content, and many far-right parties link national identity with traditional Christianity. Both frame culture wars as existential fights.
Both embrace an authoritarian style and election doubts. Trump allies and MAGA figures have actively supported European far-right leaders (e.g., Steve Bannon worked with Le Pen, Salvini, Orbán). Shared rhetoric often bounces across the Atlantic (immigration invasions, globalist elites, law and order).
Quoting praxis
Yes, I do. Why do you not? Respond specially to the distinction I made between conventional definitions of power and the alternative I laid out. Btw, its not a lifestyle , any more than the structure of temporality is a lifestyle. Its an ontological ground.
Will to power may be a metaphysical claim about the structure of existence, but for me it only carries weight if it is also experientially meaningfulcan be embodied as a lifestyle.
When making my daily walks, I have started to notice a peculiar pattern. Every now and then I will pass by a woman/lady on an empty street, when they will inexplicably tense up, clutch their purse and/or pull out their phone. Sometimes they'll even pretend to be making a sudden call.
Normally I wouldn't think anything of it, but this has happened more times than I can remember, and I suspect something else is at play: they are assuming that, because I am a man and they are alone, I must be there to rob or rape them, and they are pulling out their phones as a way of saying "I have the emergency services on speed dial/someone is on the phone with me, so there will be proof", etc.
I am not tall, nor overly muscular or otherwise intimidating.
I suspect this is the result of years of fear porn and woke propaganda about 'rape culture'.
Despite not being particularly likely, being raped is one of people's biggest fears. The woke have taken this fear, inflated it and ensured that people are continually confronted with it, keeping it always at the front of their minds.
They've also worked hard to ensure rape is, in the minds of the fearful, psychologically tied to "men" - not a small set of deranged individuals, no - men.
My example is of course anecdotal (maybe it was all coincidence?), but one need only to glance at the things wokies and RabFems espouse to see the possible connection. Such things generally don't worry me unless I start seeing symptoms in my everyday life, and that is what I believe is happening here.
Woke is promoting sexism of the worst kind, and is exactly that which it pretends to fight.
I don't know if you're in America or not, but here's why American women would look at you that way:
[i]Over half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes.
One in four women and about one in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape.[/i]
https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Who do you think is raping and committing sexual violence on all these women? Men.
Quoting praxis
My point wasnt that it is MERELY an ontological
principle as opposed to being experientially meaningful. It is both at once. Like Heideggers Being, Kants Transcendental Subject, Hegels Absolute Spirit, or Husserls Transcendental Subjectivity, Nietzsches Will to Power is not simply an abstract metaphysical thesis but a grounding condition for the possibility of meaningful existence itself. To say it only carries weight if it can be embodied is almost redundant: its function as a metaphysical a priori is precisely to determine what embodiment, practice, or lifestyle can mean at all.
Will to Power functions as a perspectival lens: an interpretive key to life understood as force, struggle, creation, and transformation. Its significance does not depend on being translated into lifestyle after the fact; it is already lived through the embodied dynamics of drives, values, and self-overcoming. In this way, Will to Power differs from other major philosophical principles: it is not a condition standing behind existence, but an interpretive enactment within existence itself.
I would feel better about it if lead to greater meaning (creativity, self-overcoming, and life affirmation) than the conventional definition of power. I cant say how I feel more plainly than that.
No. This is clearly bollocks. I gave you several reasons, which have nothing to do with being trans. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Quoting Mijin
You may. Most people do not. Until we see something egregious. I have explained why that's the case. You're allowed to disagree. What you cannot do, is pretend I've said something else. Mulvaney being trans has nothing to do (i assume) with her overbearing and uncanny behaviour, which puts people off. Clearly, lots of people.
\\Quoting Mijin
You didn't ask for that. You asked for why it's a problem for people., I gave you those reasons, Don't move the goalposts. You're simply allowed to disagree. You seem to think her behaviour is totally normal. Fine. I don't. Most don't. The situation is as it is.
Quoting Mijin
Right o, I'll tell that to the victims and the millions of females it makes unsafe. Cool.
Quoting Mijin
I think all 'being trans' is pretend in some sense: You cannot change your sex. It is utterly impossible. There is no version of 'transition' which means anything if gender is a construct/spectrum that means nothing to us as sexes (which is fine, I don't quite have an issue with tha tposition). With that out of the way, people are stupid and that claim is utterly fucking insane. Cummings rant is delusional, and i reject entirely the insulting, disrespectful and self-obsessive statement that rapists are treated better than trans people. Absolutely fuck off with that completley absurd horseshit (that's not direct at you, but this is an important issue for which I will not accept equivalences that puts the rape of females up against the challenges trans people face (which are mostly self-created, anyway).
Quoting Mijin
You, not even bothering to look at the examples given, and then making an erroneous claim designed to denigrate and trivialise? Wow. Couldn't have picked it.
Quoting Mijin
This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with what we're talking about. This is now not a conversation but you ranting. Please stick to what we're talking about.
Quoting Mijin
This is the exact type of stupid, bathwater-tossing response that makes this conversation almost impossible to have. We need an adult conversation with nuance, not ridiculous hyperbole as soon as anything gets contentious or is being discussed in "close quarters". We need to be real.
I didnt suggest that it was.
Quoting praxis
Because that's essentially what will to power is...
All life is will to power, and thus the differentiating egg/seed etc etc is an example of it.
Check out BGE 188. Which details that tyranny of forces that embodies even language and how the long obedience in the same direction always reveals something worth living for. This isn't about "creating yourself" through picking yourself up by the bootstraps... this is about understanding the tyranny of your highest drives that differentiate your existence.
From Ecce Homo
At this point I can no longer evade a direct answer to the question, how one becomes what one is. And in giving it, I shall have to touch upon that masterpiece in the art of self-preservation, which is selfishness. ... Granting that one's life-taskthe determination and the fate of one's life-taskgreatly exceeds the average measure of such things, nothing more dangerous could be conceived than to come face to face with one's self by the side of this life-task. The fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is. From this standpoint even the blunders of one's life have their own meaning and value, the temporary deviations and aberrations, the moments of hesitation and of modesty, the earnestness wasted upon duties which lie outside the actual life-task. In these matters great wisdom, perhaps even the highest wisdom, comes into activity: in these circumstances, in which nosce teipsum would be the sure road to ruin, forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self, belittling one's self, narrowing one's self, and making one's self mediocre, amount to reason itself. Expressed morally, to love one's neighbour and to live for others and for other things may be the means of protection employed to maintain the hardest kind of egoism. This is the exceptional case in which I, contrary to my principle and conviction, take the side of the altruistic instincts; for here they are concerned in subserving selfishness and self-discipline. The whole surface of consciousnessfor consciousness is a surfacemust be kept free from any one of the great imperatives. Beware even of every striking word, of every striking attitude! They are all so many risks which the instinct runs of "understanding itself" too soon. Meanwhile the organising "idea," which is destined to become master, grows and continues to grow into the depths,it begins to command, it leads you slowly back from your deviations and aberrations, it prepares individual qualities and capacities, which one day will make themselves felt as indispensable to the whole of your task,step by step it cultivates all the serviceable faculties, before it ever whispers a word concerning the dominant task, the "goal," the "object," and the "meaning" of it all. Looked at from this standpoint my life is simply amazing. For the task of transvaluing values, more capacities were needful perhaps than could well be found side by side in one individual; and above all, antagonistic capacities which had to be free from the mutual strife and destruction which they involve. An order of rank among capacities; distance; the art of separating without creating hostility; to refrain from confounding things; to keep from reconciling things; to possess enormous multifariousness and yet to be the reverse of chaosall this was the first condition, the long secret work, and the artistic mastery of my instinct. Its superior guardianship manifested itself with such exceeding strength, that not once did I ever dream of what was growing within meuntil suddenly all my capacities were ripe, and one day burst forth in all the perfection of their highest bloom. I cannot remember ever having exerted myself, I can point to no trace of struggle in my life; I am the reverse of a heroic nature. To "will" something, to "strive" after something, to have an "aim" or a "desire" in my mindI know none of these things from experience. Even at this moment I look out upon my futurea broad future!as upon a calm sea: no sigh of longing makes a ripple on its surface. I have not the slightest wish that anything should be otherwise than it is: I myself would not be otherwise.... But in this matter I have always been the same. I have never had a desire. A man who, after his four-and-fortieth year, can say that he has never bothered himself about honours, women, or money!not that they did not come his way.... It was thus that I became one day a University ProfessorI had never had the remotest idea of such a thing; for I was scarcely four-and-twenty years of age. In the same way, two years previously, I had one day become a philologist, in the sense that my first philological work, my start in every way, was expressly obtained by my master Ritschl for publication in his Rheinisches Museum.[4] (Ritschland I say it in all reverencewas the only genial scholar that I have ever met. He possessed that pleasant kind of depravity which distinguishes us Thuringians, and which makes even a German sympatheticeven in the pursuit of truth we prefer to avail ourselves of roundabout ways. In saying this I do not mean to underestimate in any way my Thuringian brother, the intelligent Leopold von Ranke....)
The more contrasting forces within... meaning that there are tons of forces stacking up in rank order. The highest of which will be so strong that they define you. That is if you're not sickened on lazy peace and cowardly compromise, attempting to quell the war within.
This is why ploticizing over those who are self aware is such a crock of shit, they are differtiating into that tyranny of their highest drives. Through living the best life they know how. Through a style of innocence in their instincts.
Again Im no expert but I dont think will to power is defined by my feeling better about it than the conventional definition of power.
Here's what you said Quoting praxis
Which consequently isn't you saying you don't think WtP is defined by how you feel about.
It's you asking if people feel better about Nietzsche's notion of it...
And yeah, if a person understands the concept intuitively without reading Nietzsche or even after reading Nietzsche I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who prefer living to their strongest drives. Rather than living to some political dogma.
It's about living to your internal values rather than external values.
We see this more and more today with people yearning to embrace their own internal drives. In sex, in social, in academics. People dropping out of the "thou shalt" train to live towards "I will"
I was talking about this:
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You seem to be saying that wtp is essentially my feeling better about it if it lead to greater meaning (creativity, self-overcoming, and life affirmation) than the conventional definition of power.
Errr, yo dude, you do you. But that's not what I said at all.
WtP is obeying the tyranny of your highest drives that differentiate you into you. There is no existentialism to it at all. You dont "create" yourself, you simply obey the tyranny that is you. If your highest drive is inherently destructive then you can sublimate it into another drive. Reconcile it to something in the same vein hence tragedy was born out of the Dionysian destructive drives being sublimated in the Apollonian order.
I didnt say anything about creating yourself.
More or less I don't give a fuck what you didn't say, I'm explaining will to power to you, not asserting wtf you said. And you're too dense to pick it up.
You got this insecurity about failing Aesthetic Socratism.
Very Nietzschean of you to encourage quitting. :lol:
How so?
Nosce te ipsum, know yourself by knowing your limits. And you apparently don't know yours.
You even saying this shows you think one must create themselves... it's why I harped on that point.
In virtue of [I]what[/I] are these desirable, or more desirable than their alternative?
Those with their own strong organizing drive would find living under an external value system to be stifling.
The point being grow into the plant you're meant to be.
Nihilists for example have low organizing drives and want no gods nor masters....
So rather than struggle you always quit when faced with a challenge that interests you?
Meaning you don't use limits as resistance to grow stronger and simply quit when you've hit your limit?
Can you point out an inaccuracy?
My feeling about it is inaccurate?
How so?
I haven't determined how meaningful it is to me yet. I'm defiantly interested.
Your reasons all boil down to you just finding her appearance "uncanny" to use your word. Yes, that is just you not liking the appearance of a transperson, you have not rationalized it at all.
Quoting AmadeusD
What victims? Let's see the cite for someone pretending to be trans to SA women in a public toilet. I'll wait here.
Quoting AmadeusD
I think your understanding here is a bit confused. There's gender and there's sex, and transpeople are quite aware that changing their gender does not change their sex. They don't believe that going from Robert to Roberta instantly gives them a uterus.
They might find it stifling, but it does not seem to follow from this alone that it is necessarily better for those who do find it stifling to act contrary to systems of "external values" in virtue of this fact. It seems that, in at least some cases, it is better to for those who feel stifled to learn to appreciate and enjoy what at first seems stifling. For example, the music student or person learning the art of painting might find their instruction initially stifling, and yet it may help to make them more excellent, and they may learn to love what they have initialy learned under some duress.
I would imagine this is probably the main question vis-á-vis Nietzsche's positive claims: it they succeed in escaping nihilism or the charge of arbitrariness (or comporting with intuitions about the good). In virtue of what, ultimately, are new values choiceworthy? Nietzsche is a very keen diagnostician of Enlightenment ethics, but the vibrancy of the critique doesn't necessarily support any particular positive formulation to replace what has been undermined.
But, for purely descriptive readings of Nietzsche, I think there is a different sort of problem people often have, which is that a purely descriptive approach seems to fall victim to the same charges that are often leveled against advocates of "might makes right." All the value-laden language is then disconnected from the main theory, for if "the stronger (drives/wills) shall win" (indeed, is if this is how we know that they are stronger) then what more is left to say? One can hardly complain about who has turned out to be weak and who has proven strong, and to say: "but it would be better if these who have proven weaker were the stronger," requires giving some positive explanation of why this would be "better."
At any rate, I think a retreat into the purely descriptive and away from Nietzsche's aristocratic tendencies tends to do violence to the text, requires discounting as "unessential" vast segments of his corpus, and at any rate seems to obscure what is really valuable (to my mind at least) in his thought.
Or, to 's original point and 's clarification, I am not sure how the clarification points to anything desirable or good in a positive sense. It perhaps makes "putting power on a pedestal" less obviously bad (if one judges more conventional, liberal notions of power bad, or at least not desirable in themselves).
There is no escaping the weight of external values, and every student at first confronts the limits of their own abilities. Yet instruction, when it accords with a persons nature, can serve as a catalyst for self-realization rather than a constraint. What becomes stiflingperhaps in the sense that DE intendsis when a spirit is bent against its grain: when, for instance, one who is inwardly a musician is compelled to devote themselves to science, sculpture, or some discipline for which they feel no inner drive.
To be clear, I was sort of asking if placing high value on wtp or creativity, self-overcoming, and life-affirmation has a downside or will reliably result in meaning.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Indeed, this may constitute the central problem of Nietzsches project of revaluation. On one hand, nihilism marks the collapse of transcendent foundations. On the other, if anything is permitted, new values risk becoming mere matters of preference or lapsing into aestheticism. For Deleuze, the solution lies in rethinking what it means to value. There is no need to justify values by appealing to external normative foundations. Instead, values are affirmed through their capacity to open new possibilities for subjectivity. In this framework, values are not arbitrarily chosen but created through collective processes. What renders new values choiceworthy is not their adherence to an external norm, but their transformative power. The good is the elevation of the active forces, the triumph of affirmation (DR, p. 55). Considering this, one might ask: how would a Nietzschean evaluate wokeness? Does it primarily express ressentiment, or does it cultivate solidarity and new cultural modes of life?
False. I have given you the reasons people are made uncomfortable. This occurs when anyone does it. I cannot grasp how you're missing what's being put down, unless you are so ideologically blinded that you cannot accept normal human reasoning like I've given you. Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not.
Quoting Mijin
I cannot understand what you think is going on here. The issue isn't anyone pretending to be trans. Males who are openly abusive (such as that would require) aren't botherd to pretend. The issue is trans women (whether 'legitimate' or not) abusing females. I don't care if you're pretending or not, if you're male, get out.
But here are a couple of examples anyway
One of these isn't a public bathroom, tbf. I personally know of two close friends (one is the mother of my child) who have had female-appearing males assault them in public.
We then have the multitude of problematic cases of males in female prisons, and the overwhelming concentration among those trans women who are prison, of sex crimes. IN the UK a trans women is fully four times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime than a non-trans male. We can calibrate that for non-violent crimes like exposure and sex work. Lets call it 50%. Which is utterly insane, but lets go with it. Still fully two times more likely.
I don't know why you're so hell-bent on reading genuine safety concerns as some kind of bigotry. I have no problem with people identifying a certain way, within reason, and I have no problem with people living their life as they see fit. That does not mean they are allowed to violate the norms, protocols and safety positions of wider society. You can just stop taking digs and being a dick while still vehemently disagreeing with me.
Quoting Mijin
You may need to re-read, clearly, what I've said, as that distinction is quite clearly made. Gender means nothing if it is literally a random spectrum with no actual points of interest on it. However, I think one of the biggest misconceptions/misunderstandings is that the pro-trans (i hate this term, I just mean the non-critical ) crowd tends to claim that gender varies independently of sex. It doesn't, really. This is why we see the same levels of aggression and violence in trans women as other males. Trans men? Not so much. Because females tend to not be as aggressive or violent as males. Unless overtly masculine, like lesbians who tend to experience more DV than heterosexual or gay male couples.
Sex is real, and it matters. Not sure how that became controversial... Discussions about dignity and what not come after safety. I actually couldn't give a fuck about misgendering a rapist. We probably should do that, consistently, to ensure their rehabilitation is personalized (quipping here, but point should be illustrated well).
It's not about better or worse, it's just simply how one becomes who they are, by following what drives them. If one chooses to sublimate a destructive drive through the reconciliation of it's inverse drive then you're getting into Nietzsche's self overcoming... the resentful type choose the onslaught of what is different than itself through defending objective morality. There is no reconciliation, no bridge to their love. That is the problem with binding oneself to objective external values.
Yes, but it seems debatable if this is itself good, no? Or, in virtue of what are new possibilities good? It does not seem to be true prima facie at least. Not all possibilities seem worthy of actualization. Indeed, to elevate potency over actuality is arguably to confuse self-determining, reflexive freedom with arbitrariness. I am aware that Deleuze has responses here; I am not sure if they are adequate though.
Dante's use of Ulysses is a great example of just this concern. Ulysses says:
[i][Not even my family and responsibilities]
Could quench deep in myself the burning wish
to know the world and have experience
of all man's vices, of all human worth.[/i]
Inferno - Canto XXVI - 97-99
Now even if we allow Aristotle's all men by nature desire to know and it is owing to their wonder that men... first began to philosophize" (i.e., to love wisdom), is it wise or choiceworthy to desire experience of all mans vices?
Then, in the next circle down, we see the most brutal punishment in the poem, the schismatics being repeatedly dismembered (as they dismembered institutions during their lifetimes). At this point one of the damned offers to explain their woes to Dante, that he might "have full experience." This is clearly not the sort of potential for new forms of subjectivity we want though. (Not to go on a tangent, it's just a nice, graphic illustration.)
The point being: not all experiences are good. Potentiality does not appear, to me at least, to be self-justifying. Second, I do not seem how "being a collective process" necessarily excludes arbitrariness.
On the first point, we could ask: "shouldn't we be equally open to new capacities to pursue cruelty, disintegration, addiction, etc.?" Being able to infect others with an STD is in some sense a "power" after all; so is sadism. So too for getting to experience withdrawals or blindness.
No doubt, Deleuze would deny any appeal to novelty for noveltys sake and pivot to what increases the power of life, or to Spinoza re the "power to act." However, my rejoinder here is that what is being identified here just are the virtues. Vices cripple these powers; they are precisely what is diminishing and mutilating. Virtue is what allows for self-determining actualization and self-governance. This is really an area of convergence as far as I can tell.
Yet there is not a convergence on justification. It seems to me that, at the very least, "power to act" must itself be presupposed a standard. And yet it doesn't seem like that will be enough to rule out vice. There might be a "joy" in being a violent neo-Nazi. Nor is it clear why active power should be necessarily preferred to a sort of "passive power" like being addicted to a drug. There is, of course, the intrinsic negative valance of suffering, yet many vices are pleasurable. Hence, it seems to me like a telos is still required to give any sort of positive structure here.
Now, if we adopt a "privation theory of evil" here, it is perhaps easier to justify virtue without equally justifying vice, but that requires a different ontology. A "privation" only makes sense in terms of a telos (we don't call rocks "blind" after all).
But then it isn't any better or worse (more or less choiceworthy) to simply refuse to be what one is either, no? The same for sublimation. If that were the case though, wouldn't it be problematic? It seems to me that a choice made vis-a-vis something that cannot be "better or worse" (something indifferent to desirability) would be arbitrary.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The emergence of new forms or possibilities of life should not be celebrated simply because they appear novel or transgressive. Instead, we should measure their true potential by how well they can resist absorption into dominant systems. This includes resisting commodification and turning into marketable lifestyles. Also, they should avoid recoding by systems of recognition that make them legible, or manageable. And they should oppose reincorporation into cycles of reproduction of normative social structures. To affirm difference means to cultivate ways of being that exceed the prescribed constraints without being captured and neutralized.
In virtue of what would:
-resisting absorption into dominant systems
-resisting commodification and turning into marketable lifestyles
-being able to avoid recoding by systems of recognition that make them legible, or manageable.
-opposing reincorporation into cycles of reproduction of normative social structures.
be desirable? Prima facie, I am not sure why these are necessarily valuable or laudable. Being legible and manageable does not seem like a necessarily negative trait. It's often a positive one.
To be honest, these standards, particularly the last, sort of do seem to be "the celebration of the novel and transgressive for their own sake."
Sure, but how could their choice be non-arbitrary? The individual chooses, but if it isn't for some sort of understood reason, it would seem to be an inchoate choice, or something more akin to a muscle spasm or careless act than self-determining, reflexive freedom.
I think it is quite clear that what's being pushed back on is the hijacking of progressive ideals within a non-progressive social framework. The controversy is over the fact that Number and I (and others) probably view the "left wing progressive" notions as the non-progressive, semi-bigoted versions of what to do.
Though to be certain Joy too is inchoate. In that one cannot fully place a finger on what it is that brings someone to such a state of ecstasy.
You are just trying to rationalize why you feel uncomfortable. Firstly, who cares, but secondly, this concedes the point.
I don't like the mannerisms or dress of lots of people on TV...it doesn't matter and it's not "woke". You were supposed to be explaining what's wrong with woke and are still just coming back to not liking Dylan's appearance.
Quoting AmadeusD
OK, I'll give you one there; the peeping tom one. The others are just not relevant. A non-sexual assault that happened in a bathroom. What's the difference between that and a cismale assaulting a cisfemale, which is of course far more common?
But yeah, I'll stop saying there are zero examples.
Quoting AmadeusD
I would agree that the prison service in the UK has got this wrong a couple of times; like the high-profile case of the the rapist who "transitioned" after being convicted. However, in general the data is that trans people are much, much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and are at great risk in prisons. It's extremely misleading to depict them as predators.Quoting AmadeusD
Among who? Sounds like a strawman to me.
What I would say though is I have, and will continue to push back against the claim that sex is binary, because intersex is a thing. But in general, no, no-one is saying sex isn't real.
Nothing in your source seems to indicate what you are saying. It is silent on the rates at which trans individuals are perpetrators of violent crime. In general, groups that are more likely to be the victims of violent crime are also more likely to be perpetrators. "X is more likely to be a victim," does not entail "X is less likely to be a perpetrator." In general, it's quite the opposite. For instance, men commit most violent crimes and are also more likely to be victims.
Common Knowledge is generally a granted...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/#:~:text=Press%20Press%20Releases-,Transgender%20people%20over%20four%20times%20more%20likely%20than%20cisgender%20people,Key%20Findings
You're right that we need to separate out these two concepts.
So firstly, I guess you are accepting that trans are more likely to be victims of crime, as there's no counter-cite or rebuttal?
Secondly, in terms of frequency of committing crimes, I could only find this swedish study, that suggested that people who engaged in sex reassignment in the 1980s had a slightly higher incidence of crime than cisgender, but no difference among those who transitioned in the later (2003) group.
I couldn't find great data TBH -- police forces dont seem to keep this data -- so I'm happy to take back that part, as long as you also acknowledge that those alledging that transgender are more likely to be criminals also need to back that up.
Right, so what I've said is this:
Quoting AmadeusD
You are either lying, or not reading my responses before replying. The latter is impossible, since you're quoting my comments. So you must be lying. That is a real shame. Luckily, there is evidence for what i'm claiming (in that I have been explicitly talking about traits which are not appearance).
You are utterly bereft of a sense of reality if you don't think this is an attitude people take with anything presented as such. The reason Marshall Appelwhite was so uncanny was similar: He came across uncanny, somehow performatively askance from what a human expects to see, behaviourally (not physically). He was wide-eyed, overbearing, intense and intrusive with how he presented himself. He wasn't trans, or female. Therefore, your claim is absolute bunk and an attempt to impugn reasoning you don't enjoy. I don't give a shit what you enjoy. These are reasons, and either you accept them and disagree with the conclusion, or you don't. What isn't open is lying about them. If that happens again, you will not get a response.
Quoting Mijin
You should probably just stop making claims, and asking 'gotcha' questions with sarcastic quips when you clearly are not informed on this subject. Those were links I could into that sentence. Besides this, as with preventing males from entering female spaces before this mass psychosis occurred, a single example is enough.
Quoting Mijin
You are simply making shit up to distract from the point made (though, i appreciate that your prior comments were very level):
Compared to non-trans male, trans women are fully four times more likely to commit a sexual offence. This has nothing to do with their status as victims. It has to do with their status as predators. Two things can be true at once. In any case, the last time I did a deep dive (I am not willing to do this right now, becaus this thread is inconsequential to my life) it turned out that the claim they are more likely to be assaulted that give out was actually minimally incorrect. I've just run a small set of prompts through chaGPT and got the following, though I don't suggest this is conclusive:
"Unofficial data, such as the Trans Murder Monitoring project, notes that in Europe only 8 cases of trans and gender-diverse people murdered occurred between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024"
That's all of Europe. Not trans women murdered in that period? Well, this is too many to give an overview. Spain alone:
"Heres a clear and sourced statistic from 2024:
In Spain, there were 48 women murdered due to gender-related violence in 2024. Additionally, 9 minors were also killed in crimes perpetrated by their fathers or their mothers spouse, and at least 6 additional femicides were committed by individuals who were not current or former partners. This figure marks the lowest number of gender?violence?related murders in Spain since 2003."
Let's first acknowledge that final line - that's amazing. But you can see we're looking at probably 8x the number v trans women. Now, I am aware the comparison you're making is trans women: victim vs perpetrator. That's fine, but unfortunately, the claims that trans women are more likely be assaulted come largely from self-report as they are recorded by their identified gender. This means that no meaningful statement can be made about it. But we know that trans women are killed at a much lower rate than non-trans females, and that they commit sex crimes at a rate four times higher than non-trans male.
If this doesn't give you any pause, we're living on different planets my dude.
Quoting Mijin
But this is absolutely, objectively wrong. Every intersex person is either male or female. That is how intersex conditions work- they are categorised by which sex they affect. It is a misnomer, and misleading misinformation to claim intersex people are neither male nor female, or a third sex. That is plainly absurd.
False. You're reading the stat wrong. What the stat said, was that among the prison population, of the crimes that people had been convicted of, that trans people were 4 times more likely to have been convicted of a sexual-related offense. That's not the same thing at all as saying that trans people in the general population are more likely to commit any crime, whether sexual or not.
Quoting AmadeusD
Glad to have a human biology expert here.
Go ahead then: what's someone with XXY chromosomes and a mix of internal and external genitalia?
Unfortunately bud, this is the exact wrong reading.
I have posted the statistics in full elsewhere, because they are on my desktop computer at home, but suffice to say the conclusion goes like this
Of the TOTAL population, who is in prison for sex crimes
Of non-trans males: 0.04%
Of trans women: 0.16%.
This is of the entire population, what ratio of those groups are in for sex crime. This is nothing to do with comparing the different types of offense within hte trans prison population. I am happy to post the full breakdown when I get home this evening. However, your comments are exactly right, and had I presented the stats the way you describe, that's the right response. Good stuff (i am not being sarcastic).
Quoting Mijin
Do the have an active SRY gene? You've asked the wrong question. And I've already given pieces of information that tell against it.
Find me a DsD which is not sex-specific.
Earlier a poster asked for examples of how 'woke' has affected real people negatively. Personal example, it takes me weeks to function these days, since I got cancelled for playing a Kendrick Lamar song in my high school English class.
You know Lamar, the first hip hop artist to win a Pulitzer for literature?
And I think of my colleague Richard Biltzsko, a retired gay principal who, like me, had returned to teaching (in his case, he'd retired) to represent kids during the pandemic. He was shamed during a woke PD session and killed himself. He had dared to challenge a presenter who claimed that Canada was more racist than the US.
Richard was a gay man, of an age that recalls the days when Canada was not yet a haven for gay people.
Yet my woke teaching colleagues wrote this off. Several told me 'there is more to the story'. They didn't know each other, but they knew the woke progpagandist answer - one of myriad examples of the 'predictability' of woke that was brought up by a previous poster. And, needless to say, there was no more to the story. There was just deflection until it could be forgotten.
Fortunately, for those of us not dogmatic on the topic, several posters have jumped in to demonstrate the predictability of wokeness in real time. Short, snide answers. Cherry picking details. Indiscriminate use of babyish emojis. Ignoring legitimate good faith questions. Weird insistence on importing binary US political positions globally, to vastly different countries.
Given that I had to read most of this thread in a couple of sessions of reasonable mental wellness, I have a different take on things than had I been in the weeds from day one.
People who are certain they are right at the least likely to be right. People who answer long, thoughtful comments with brief, snide ones are likely to be asshats.
Engaging with these people is like picking at a scab or scratching a mosquito bite. Briefly enjoyable, but ultimately toxic.
Woke is an activist control mechanism, not an actual philosophy. They aren't even trying to engage in good faith. They say this themselves. Check out any professional managerial organization, your associations of sociologists and your colleges of teaching and what not. They TELL YOU UP FRONT that they are activists, not academics.
(I can support any statement I made in this post with references, so ask me if you doubt me).
So there is no point debating the philosophical underpinnings - the average wokist can't articulate them anyway. I can outwoke these woke dimwits, despite despising woke.
And hey, snide wokist, prove me wrong! Articulate the best of woke. examples of cutting edge research, or vital insights? ANY exciting new thinkers, landmark studies, anything at all that show academic integrity in say, the past five years? Ten? This shit goes back decades, the 'long walk through the institutions'.
Nah, they won't do that. They will pick one misplaced word in my post, attack that, and pat themselves on the back while lauding their personal 'courage'.
Andrew Doyle, subject of the OP - who is a comedian and mainstream journalist, for the record - is more informed and insightful than full time woke academics - presumably, the cream of the woke crop. I read "The New Puritans" before jumping into this discussion, since it was the only book of his I had lying around. How many posters in this thread even know Doyle?
I can cross the political spectrum with references to worthwhile woke skeptics, from Marxist Adolph Reed, to heterodox black academics like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes, to right-wing bugbears like Christopher Rufo, who have published meaningful works on the topic. I could name dozens more.
And yes, I have read all the books that I am referring to. Check out my Goodreads account.
To be honest, I imagine this the easiest litmus test for whether or not one is doctrinaire, woke or anti-woke. Have you read any books on the subject?
Has anyone tried to read woke? It's intolerable garbage. Judith Butler? Robin DiAngelo? Candy-ass X?
I have a lot more to say on this subject, philosophy to reference, posters to reply to, but I simply had to take advantage of one of the few 'windows of wellness' I might have per month to jump online and share my initial thoughts.
And props to you guys keeping TPF interesting and relevant.
You misspelled pro[s]g[/s]pagandist.
It turned out none of that was present. You can get a feel for their stuff in this .
Left Is Not Woke was pretty good though (Susan Neiman).
For pop-woke, I would never stoop so low. Just as I wouldn't read a book by Charlie Kirk.
Overall, though, I think your comment is a little... one-sided. I think people have a been mor enuanced than you're saying, and that good points have been made on both sides. Obviously, I have a relatively secure position but that doesn't mean I haven't been given pause. Its been a really robust thread and I've enjoyed it. Not as predictable as you describe, I don't think.
Haha, I like you.
But once you say that a biological man can't be with females (in this case, prisons), aren't you opening the door to banning men from other female-only areas?
There are far more than 8 times the number of ciswomen versus transwomen though. And if the number of transwomen killed is very low in Europe (as opposed to just a dearth of reporting figures; how many police forces even keep that data?), that's great. As your cite says though, the figure is much higher in the US, which has a lower population than Europe and is ahead of the curve in demonizing trans.
So, in total, it's actually a good argument for why we should be more tolerant and not become like the US.
Quoting AmadeusD
Is that how human biologists define gender? Do you think that society would regard even someone capable of getting pregnant as male if they have that gene?
Firstly, prisons are a special case as:
1) We're talking about a population that has in many cases carried out violence towards women. Yes, a person can lose their right to be around women, at least until we have a chance to rehabilitate them. Prison is inherently about losing rights, it doesn't entail anything about the outside world.
2) Part of the concept of prison is that it's not just a holiday home where people are getting laid, as would be the case if prisons became unisex. That's part of the justification for separating the sexes. Now, the obvious counter-argument, is that homosexual sex happens in prisons, but of course, ideally that wouldn't either. The fact that we don't police prisons adequately in some cases is not an argument for giving up entirely and making it essentially impossible.
Secondly, let me be clear: I am not saying transwomen should be prevented from being in women's prison either. I think it's complex and necessarily case-by-case. I think it would be an injustice if a transwoman who looks cisgender female, and has committed a non-violent crime, is put in a men's prison where she is likely to be a frequent target.
Quoting Number2018
Although I dont disagree we are drawn and pushed, I still think once in a while, we make a true choice, a fully responsible act.
The very process of trying to awaken is a stripping away of forces that draw us and push us. At some point, I believe we know enough to sit atop the wave that is society and become an individual, and even guide society for brief moments. Freedom is that goal.
So I dont know why you are saying one never decides to be an activist. I think for some, we do decide, and it is those we need to discusss.
Quoting Number2018
Again, I am not disagreeing the general picture that creates/ I see what you are describing too. But in that same picture, I still see self-identifiable desire as a possibility. So I disagree desire is NEVER pre-social. Sometimes, desire reveals the true subject in its solitude. Thats what true desire creates - the finite, the particular, or the part that remains unlike the whole, waiting to be actualized (desire that is acted upon).
And what happens is that if a desire EVER actually is pre-social (or extra-social), than such true desires are a new animal, not what you are describing. Such desires are a true novelty and new identity, in addition to all of aspects of our identities that involve social construction.
So I think I have to disagree with Deluze. We need to recognize the space, the vacuum, created clear as day that becomes filled only by the truly novel self. Perhaps this self does not originate from a pure, inner core, but once it declares itself, it is claimed and staked out and becomes ones inner core (or at least core becomes something to continue clarifying )
Quoting Number2018
People in very similar social-aesthetic milieus can go very different directions. Are we starting to talk more about any activism, and not something particular to wokeness? Unconscious is not conscious intention. Likewise, ones milieu is outside of and separate from the subject (woven together, but distinguishable). All of these outside forces shaping activist behavior, seems to build a lot of psychological room for a lack of responsibility and accountability. Is that what you are saying is a feature of wokeness? I dont think Im following you anymore. Are you saying that the drive toward woke activism (wherever it comes from) is a drive to shirk responsibility?
Quoting Number2018
That sounds irresponsible, or at least non- self-aware. Why cant one confront capitalism, AND do what one desires?
Quoting Number2018
Im losing sight of how this is about wokeness. Instead of becoming an activist, one could become a used car and gasoline salesman as an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity.
Quoting Baden
I dont see the value as obvious, or at least the harm so overshadows any value I dont see it.
Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it.
I've only read anti-woke books like Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Material Girls by Kathleen Stock, and really awful ones like Woke, Inc.[/I] (on a par with DiAngelo awfulness I imagine). Though I've read some woke-adjacent books like [i]The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.
Quoting Mijin
They can't, as best as my knowledge goes. Any DsDs which occur after the activation of SRY result in an infertile female anatomy, if that develops. CAIS and 5a Reductase deficiency are examples. These people generally find out they are male (though, often not framed as such) when they go through puberty, or even later when they realise they have no fertility.
It is key to be clear about two things:
Sex determination
Sex differentiation
Differentiation is the non-binary aspect. We can talk about that all day long. But there is not a single human on this planet who is not male or female (though, I am aware of one published case study which was carried out in less-than-ideal circumstances and likely represents a lack of exploratory knowledge and resources as it was, i think, rural Africa - it is never cited for these reasons).
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think he's making hte point that the underlying concept of "review your structures for unfairness" is probably valuable. I think that's right, also.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think Mijin is giving it a good go, to be honest. The stats are an issue, but they're trying to make points about protections where we see harms. You say the harm outweighs the benefit, but conceptually I don't think that's right. Its like religion - the priests are hte problem.
You're right to point out that people in similar environments dont all make the same choices. But one doesnt become a woke activist simply by making a clear, conscious decision. Often, something pulls a person in. It can be a sense of injustice, guilt, compassion, or even the feeling of being on the right side.
These feelings arent just the result of rational deliberation. They come from how one is shaped by their environment, as well as by unconscious needs for recognition, and belonging. So, it's not accurate to say that people become woke to avoid responsibility. Rather, wokeness often stems from unconscious motivations that are more complex than we usually admit.
Lets take ieks critique, for example.
Zizek discusses the obsession with public confessions, guilt, and self-humiliation. This is one of key features of woke discourse. He calls this a victimhood culture. Individuals often describe themselves not as victims but as complicit or privileged (even as predators). iek argues that this act of self-denunciation becomes a way to gain moral legitimacy. By confessing guilt, they position themselves within a victimhood culture, where acknowledging one's wrongdoing paradoxically grants a kind of moral authority. But iek points that this self-denial doesnt cancel privilege. Instead, it transforms and maintains it. By claiming the position of the morally wounded or perpetually self-critical subject, the woke individual asserts a universal moral authority, one that is difficult to challenge. For iek, the 'woke' individual is not simply manipulated or programmed; rather, their position is often shielded from rational critique because it satisfies unconscious desires for moral legitimacy and identity. In this thread, you and other posters noted that it's often difficult to maintain a dialogue or structured discourse with 'woke' individuals. They appear to be convinced from the outset of the righteousness of their moral or ideological stance. How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from ieks interpretation?
"As best as my knowledge goes" is critical here.
IANA expert on human biology (well a bit of neuroscience, but that's not so useful here). So we should defer to those who are, right? Instead of going by our gut, or whatever is the moral panic of the day.
My knowledge is based on the scientific explication of these conditions, consistent (over years) reviews of literature and plenty of rather terse challenges over that time. I am not a random person giving you my gut feeling. That is extremely disrespectful and fairly predictable in terms of a 'woke' response to facts. This is why the phrase 'facts don't care about your feelings' comes up (not a Shapiro fan particularly, i'm just noting this exact thing for the context we're in calls for it).
One does not need to be an expert to understand scientific positions and read papers. You are more than welcome to reject my positions, but I suggest if all you have is questioning me this is a form of poisoning the well, and doesn't touch the validity or accuracy of my positions.
Aside from this, humans have inbuilt expertise of certain kinds - we are more than 95% accurate in detected sex from facial features alone. Some sources show near-100% accuracy. This isn't specific to your query, but it shows that being a scientist isn't required for understanding sex and sex determination. SRY is the benchmark biologists use.
\
And from even just the Wiki page on SRY:
Or Sex Determination:
This can be hard to quite grasp - but it is obvious that SRY is hte determining factor. This is because you can have different arrays of chromosomal material, and be either male or female... depending on whether SRY was activated, present, or in some other way, aberrant to the point of non-activation in the subsequent cascade of sex differentiation.
In terms of using the SRY gene as the ultimate determinator, firstly your own cite indicates that that doesn't work in all cases, pointing out that mutations in that gene can lead to disorders of sex development i.e. the very thing we're talking about with intersex. Furthermore, it's just not practical; are we saying that if we find someone who looks cisfemale, and may have even lived her whole life as a woman, we must treat her as a man, insist she goes to men's toilets because of a DNA test?
Nietzsche's master/slave morality.
---
Speaking of socio-aesthetic milieus, there was a recent dustup in the culture war over the logo redesign for a restaurant chain. Trump Jr. led the anti-woke charge against Cracker Barrel and Trump Sr. finished it, damaging the brand and forcing them to abandon their rebranding efforts.
It might be noted that rebranding of this kind is a common practice in the evolution of a brand. It's sometimes called logo simplification or brand minimalism, and the basic logic of it simply that brand equity allows simplicity the more familiar the brand, the less it needs to say visually. A good literally iconic example of this is the Apple logo. When the brand was new the logo was a highly detailed illustration of Isaac Newton under a tree.
What's remarkable about this is that the anti-woke mob was led by the heads of MAGA, and that the rebrand apparently had nothing to do with wokeness.
That's a good point.
I would offer a slight twist on the subject.
The woke category that characterizes themselves as 'the oppressed victims' are absolutely shirking responsibility; they blame history, they blame the system, they blame other people's faults and "unconscious biases", etc.
This category exhibits something that I would almost consider a collective inferiority complex, which I believe stems from their own, unconscious rejection of their historical or cultural identity. That is then projected on society.
When one reduces one's own historical and/or cultural identity to "subservience to patriarchy", "slavery", etc. the 'other side of the mirror' is that one is indirectly admitting to one's own inferiority. Hence, observing the woke is like watching a dog chase its own tail.
No, i'm going to explain why this is a fallacy and that you are wrong, given that you can't present a single piece of information which goes against that which i've cited, in several places, to create a coherent narrative based on scientific information, and not my emotional response to uncomfortable realities. That you are ignoring all of htis isn't not my issue, unfortunately. I have given you the date. Not my interpretation.
Quoting Mijin
You are clearly not reading anything I have presented. THe SRY gene determines whether you are male or female. That's the end of that part of hte discussion.
During sexual differentiation your phenotype can be aberrant. This does not, and cannot, change your sex. You are either not listening, or trolling me here. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. You have not even tried to claim otherwise.
Quoting Mijin
I've not said anything at all about a DNA test. If you could ask a non-loaded question on the back of a fairly confused response to some biologically crucial information, I would be happy to treat hte "what we should do" type questions in good faith.
No it isn't the end of the discussion. Your own cite's exact words are:
"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development"
(emphasis added)
Quoting AmadeusD
I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse.
This doesn't address how "one's wrongdoing paradoxically grants a kind of moral authority."
iek underscores the point that morality is power in disguise. The scenario is what Nietzsche calls the ascetic ideal a way of dominating life by turning life-denying values like humility into a source of authority, powerful not in spite of humility but because of it.
In differentiation, yes. I have explained that quite clearly too. Those aberrations don't change your sex. They lead to aberrant phenotype and sometimes (well, mostly) infertility. Again, you need to keep determination and differentiation separate. They aren't the same process, nor do they result in the same "facts" about the individual. I hope that with this clear, its less important to you that sex is a binary. I can't see why its important to argue otherwise for reasons both that it is quite biologically clear what's going on, and that I can't see any social/political benefit to ignoring that reality. Same with plenty of other issues like racial statistics too, but here it seems far more important given half the population is "at stake" if I want to be dramatic.
Quoting Mijin
I am indignant at your continued non-acceptance of facts I present, and continuously confusing concepts I've been at pains to delineate for your benefit. I am justified. If you appear to not be reading things I'm typing, I will care given we're trying to have a discussion.
I responded that way because your implication was a moral one. It isn't appropriate here. We're not discussing "what to do". That's why i asked for a good faith version of a similar consideration.
Humans are (in some studies) next-to-100% accurate in telling sex from facial features alone. What we need to do is trust that people will not lie about their sex. If that's a concern, then perhaps we do need testing. But that's not my position. My position is that we separate almost all private spaces by sex (for almost all of history). That is right. We should continue to do so. We understood there were bad actors before 2010 and almost every male weasling their way into a female space was promptly dealt with.
More males in female spaces is a bad idea. That's the headline. This isn't controversial. I don't care how people identify for this purpose. I only care how people identify when it comes to my personal interactiosn with them, and I am not obliged to affirm or participate in an identity. I don't expect that for myself.
I don't disagree with Zizek or Nietzsche there, but I do believe the group that classifies themselves as "the victims" are doing so out of a sincere (though misguided) bid for self-validation. Resentment and a desire for revenge (and a corresponding desire for power) are a part of that.
Then there's the grifters, the profiteurs and politicians who jump on this bandwagon; they see emotionally vulnerable people as an opportunity for profit.
For them morality really is power.
The emotionally vulnerable are just being exploited and led in destructive circles, because the grift depends on them not finding a proper cure.
Once again, this statement of faith. But the problem is you've been hoist by your own petard.
Your claim was that sex is binary because of the SRY gene (never mind that biologists do not define gender this way).
But, oh look -- there are more than 2 observed genotypes for that gene. By your logic, we would have to concede that either there are more than 2 sexes, or that some people do not cleanly fit into one of the two most common ones. Unless we're going to engage in special pleading?
Quoting AmadeusD
Firstly "next to 100%" is a red herring, because trans is rare and intersex is rare.
Secondly though, the point I was putting to you was that some people with the "male" SRY gene might look cisfemale and even have lived their lives assuming they were women (e.g. those with AIS). They might be married to a heterosexual male.
But, if we go with SRY gene as the determinator of strictly binary sex, then we are forced to consider them male and insist they go to men's bathrooms, men's prisons etc.
If, on the other hand, the SRY gene isn't the ultimate designator here, then that's the end of your argument. Because you're agreeing with me and the scientific consensus, that while most people can be trivially placed in a male or female bucket, there are special cases.
Which is it?
What is the proper cure?
People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present.
The same basic power dynamics exist in religion. Though he presents it with a joke, iek makes a direct comparison between Rabbis and wokesters. Do you think the religious need therapy also?
Yes, but if these motivations are unconscious, which is what you are saying, then arent we talking about motivations now, and not the thing at hand, wokeness? The unconscious motivation for being woke is one thing; what makes it woke, head on, woke qua wokeness, is another thing.
Im not saying we dont have to talk about motivations and unconscious motivations, but we have to talk about how these motivate woke thinking and woke actions and woke activism, versus something else.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Hey Jeremy. Thanks for chiming in.
Activist control mechanism. I can picture the herding that often accompanies the woke - the control mechanics of it (and Im interested in further thoughts about how a shepherd can use wokeness to control the activist); but I also see an essence to wokeism, a philosophical underpinning, a what it is to be woke. There is a philosophy in there. Its basically post-modernist mental acrobatics applied to hurting those in power (really, white men) (with no concern for who is thereby helped, and no concern for why someone might have this power)
And I dont think you are really saying there isnt a woke philosophy at all. You may just be recognizing that the woke themselves never provide much philosophical support for what they believe and say, and do.
I have a few theories about why the philosophy of woke is never directly discussed:
1. Its unwoke to define something clearly - definition itself is an oppression. A well articulated principle is like authoritarian law, and tyranny. So if the woke clearly define woke they simultaneously perform a demonstration in anti-woke behavior. The minute something becomes defined clearly, it becomes institutionalized in a sense, so if that thing is wokeness and wokeness is supposed to be anti-institution, then the definition itself must be incoherent. So they cant bother with definitions. Like what is a woman? If you even ask that question you are probably unwoke. (They only define those they want to dominate and impose absolute changes upon, like white men, or patriarchy.)
2. Woke debate tactics are to wait for the opponent to make an assertion, and attack and deconstruct that. They dont usually build the position or assert the claim; instead, they take down opposing claims. So for the woke to say what it is to be woke is for them to create a target for shredding and deconstructing, because taking other things down is what they do best, not building something new, or defending it from deconstruction.
3. The woke, the masters of critical theory never self-reflect, because they have already decided their position is obviously superior, common sense, morally superior, rational, and most practical. Thinking woke lends itself to only sharing thoughts inside a bubble of like-minded workers. They already know that the only goal of securing the border is to keep out disfavored races. Thats it - and if you dont understand that, you arent reasonable or even intelligent enough to be worth debating. There is no need to debate what is obvious to them. In short, wokeists are often (not always), among the least critical thinkers Ive met. (This is obviously ironic - wokeism is supposed to be more aware, and it is supposed to be more aware by uncovering hidden bias - but they never ask themselves about their woke conclusions, totally sleeping on the many biases and prejudices that abound in their speech and actions.)
So I agree with you that there is no point debating. And this thread never really took off. The woke proponent is doing psychology when you ask a philosophical question, and doing epistemology when you ask an ethical question. Wokeness or any one issue is not dealt with head on. If any thread screamed for full-throated defense of wokeness, this one does; yet no one goes there.
Quoting Tzeentch
Maybe some people, but everyone who ever uses the expression things are getting worse is focused on the past in comparison with a present they see as worse than the past. So a blanket condemnation as unhealthy obsession of all conservative thinking shoots down along with it anyone who ever sees things are getting worse.
We are all conservative at times. Just as we are all liberal progressives at other times. There is no need to demonize finding good things in the past to emulate and to bring back, before things keep getting worse. Just as, for conservatives, there is no need to demonize tearing down any institutions (some need to be torn down) or to fear anything new and untested.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sorry but this is all such bollocks. A whole thread discussing the fine embroidery of the emperor's clothes. You can't even say Christmas any more!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, there's an authoritarian, and, yes, fascist* administration in the white house. Freedom of the press, of the judiciary and academia is all under threat. And in terms of rights, we've had due process, freedom of assembly and free speech all attacked as part of a move towards white christian nationalism.
Oh but the real problem is being forced to say there are 37 genders, a thing which hasn't happened.
* I don't use that word as a pejorative. Look up the definition. MAGA fits every part of it.
Why not just:
1. Define woke.
2. Construct something new, propose good woke policy and practice
3. Self-reflect from the woke side of the equation and show where woke needs improvement - be critical of critical theory for just a bit.
?
Or just tell me what MAGA is, avoid discussing what woke is, and demonstrate the point I made.
I don't use the word, and I didn't make a thread about it. The only time I hear it now is in conservative media, why's it on me to guess what on earth they mean?
However, I don't want anyone to accuse me of dodging, so here's the definition:
Woke (adj) - Pejorative used in conservative media against any policy the author does like, has no consistent or coherent meaning. See "political correctness gone mad"
Quoting Fire Ologist
In terms of diversity and equity policy, things were progressing well before it got weaponized. The idea of such policies is that eg the best candidate for a job might not be the white, male, able-bodied guy who looks like all the others and we should try to cast as wide a net as possible.
Thousands of companies have implemented such policies successfully. Right wing media though, tries to claim it's about hiring people who aren't qualified. And, in a country as large as the US, it's possible to cherry pick an example of a poorly implemented or constructed DEI policy.
However it's simply a lie that it's commonly implemented, let alone defined, that way.Quoting Fire Ologist
Good example.
No-one had even heard of CRT before Christopher Rufo made claims about it on conservative TV, as it's a college-level optional topic.
Almost immediately people were railing about CRT in elementary schools, because people are easily duped now, and have a desire to be outraged.
So you didnt even try to define it. You should ask yourself why you dont think a definition of your position is necessary. Why would you not simply say something about what woke is, what it does, what it positively means and points to?
Like this:
Woke refers to being aware of social injustice, but also the hidden causes of such injustice; and it means to search deeper into how injustice has been systemically built into our institutions (like the police and justice system, capitalism, patriarchy, conservatism, Christianity). Being awake or enlightened, but to the ways our traditions have let us down.
Instead you said:
Quoting Mijin
That was the closet to a positive, substantive promotion of wokeness given.
And I agree, race or sex has nothing to do with the best candidate for a job. (But doesnt it depend on the what the job is, at least sometimes? Are there no jobs where a certain race or sex might be preferable? I just want us to acknowledge that possibility, so we dont appear unreasonable or to have zero common sense - or do you honestly think there are absolutely no jobs on earth that arent best handled by one sex or one race over the other(s)?)
But I also agree, until the 1980s, and for some still today, many people just refused to see the fact that women and all races can be just as good at many jobs as anyone else, and to just be happy for this fact. I agree much progress has been made towards this good, equitable goal since the 1980s.
Racism is irrational. Sexism is ignorant.
So what could possibly be wrong with the progress wokeism has promoted since the 1980s?
So you skipped 1, gave a small bit for 2. Ive tried to show you how I am on the same page with you about certain progress. But now lets try to answer 3 (which you skipped as well as it called for a critique of woke).
What has been harmed by all of this progress? Anything?
Is there anything illogical or incoherent or contradictory going on as this progress is being made, because if there is, dont you think things may come crashing down as the inconsistencies rot any progress from within?
Is the only critique of woke to come from the unwoke?
If you dont want to go there yet, can you tell me anything else besides best candidate for a job might not be white that has been good because of woke activism? What else is woke, and good medicine?
Is the only critique of anti-woke to come from the woke?
No, and you keep proving my point by dodging.
Im anti-wokeness. But I also think resisting certain diversity/equity/inclusion initiatives was and remains ignorant and irrational and morally wrong. So, once again, the ball is in your court to make some sort of point.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
Can you find any fault with DEI, wokeness, anti-conservatism? Anything at all good come from tradition and white father figures??
Is that anti-conservative?
EDIT (added snobbery)
Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/snobbery/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative?
Before DEI, most people that rose to their station did so by hard work. But only white men got to play that game. So the issue before DEI wasnt that all of these incompetent nepotism babies were running everything. The issue was that no one considered anyone besides white men when looking for replacement people.
So selecting people by merit versus selecting them by tradition/confirmity seems like a false dichotomy. The world pre-DEI wasnt a monarchy. (If we were having this debate in the year 1804, you might have a point, but then no one would listen to you at all unless you were a white man.)
You need to define conservatism now f you want to make some point about how its bad. Its not conservative to overlook merit for the sake of tradition/conformity - its ignorant and prejudiced. Its a type of injustice conservative people do; but then, do you think woke people never choose fellow woke people over some republican who might actually be more competent? So you missed your mark.
Why not just define what is good about woke?
My position though, is that the people complaining about "woke" are largely talking about a boogieman and a bunch of myths. My position IOW is that it's bullshit.
It's not a word that I use, so why on earth would it be on me to define it?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I just think you've got this backwards. It is a boogieman of mostly manufactured and exaggerated grievances.
And right now in the US it's "anti-woke" that is impinging on individual and institutional freedoms -- banning books, banning words, banning protests, shutting down journalism, whitewashing history etc etc
It's absolutely the wrong time to be saying "Oh they might have had a point though about this one cheesy diversity training at Yahoo".
So you wont say what is woke, but the anti-woke is a clear threat.
Institutional freedoms? Like the wonderful judicial system that, used to be hated for incarcerating too many victims of racism, but is now under threat from the president?
Institutional freedoms like the rule of law, which would include border immigration reform?
The reason woke thinkers wont define woke is because it would reveal its incoherence and contradictions.
Quoting Mijin
Enough to elect an idiot like Donald Trump? Twice?
You just dont want to look directly at wokeness and criticize it.
European men are some of the smartest and best leaders in history.
Woman, generally, are smaller and physically weaker than men.
One man and one woman, married, as mother and father, typically provide the basis of a good family, and typically the best situation to raise a child.
Why should anyone cringe at hearing the above? Because its not woke.
Correct. Because while "woke" is some amorphous term at this point, there are people who self-identify as "anti-woke".Quoting Fire Ologist
Both of these statements are correct too. I don't know what point you think you're making.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. That in the past, and less so today, the courts have favored some racial groups over others. The data on sentencing is very clear.
And MAGA is trying to weaponize the judicial system against their political enemies while pardoning their cronies. Both these things are bad.
Quoting Fire Ologist
The rule of law does not entail any particular immigration policy, but what it does entail is things like due process; not unidentified men kidnapping people from the streets and deporting them to Ecuador against court rulings.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I have to lol at this thread, and your ranting about woke, and you can't even define it. You're insisting on a "No, you!" attitude, when I'm not using the word. I think it's meaningless bullshit.Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't cringe, I just think it's closed-minded.
The basis of a good family is loving parents and/or guardians, and a state that can help support families where needed.
And I generally think society is best not getting involved in how people pair up or form families, except when children aren't being cared for adequately. We should always default to freedom.
:rofl: Who is leaning on cant define it now? That was my line! I am happy to get started on a definition any time. What do you need? A definition of woke?
I did get a general sense of woke started for us:
Quoting Fire Ologist
What do you think? Where am I off on the wrong foot? What needs to be added?
Ok, but there are all different flavors of bullshit. Im sure you can say something of what wokeness is that makes the anti-woke, anti-woke, and not some other flavor of bullshit artist. (And just the fact that you use the word bullshit makes me want to agree with you; its one of my favorite philosophic terms of art, but )
You cant clarify exactly how the anti-woke are living in fantasy grievance land a bit more? What do you think they see as they make their false grievances? You cant imagine at all, after all the grievances youve heard?
How is anti-woke so clearly bullshit, but woke can mean nothing to you? Seems a bit superficial.
Quoting Mijin
Ok. Anti-woke people see a boogieman. Fine.
Do the anti-antiwoke (such as yourself) see any boogie men?
Isnt a straight-white-man a sort of boogieman for the woke? What if hes rich too? A capitalist white prep school nepo baby with some German/Italian/Irish in his veins. No reason not to pick on such a person, right? I can use them as a stand in for any theft, lie, rape, conspiracy, murder, war, and I am within bounds of respectable argumentation. All white men are the same on some level, because they are all white men. Right?
Now here is why you are wrong that the anti-woke are merely fabricating a boogieman: Will I ever get fired if I get caught saying any of that in this context? No way. How about if I said this about some other race? Do you think I could make any point talking about some non-white person without inviting utter condemnation and disgust? Think about it. Wokeness is very entrenched. The woke police are everywhere there are groups of people. One of us will always be willing to correct those who are micro-oppressing (regardless of the context ) DEI has altered our etiquette so much that we pay real lip service to utter bullshit and we dont even notice.
This thread is called the End of Woke. THAT is bullshit. Woke is 100 years old in Europe (white men like Marx inspired it). Its not going anywhere. It aint dead. Trump and MAGA could just as easily turn out to be a death rattle for the notion that some things are old for a good reason.
Could Trump be a boogieman (how dare I even suggest such a theory!)
Yes that be the standard definition, at least before the current weaponizing.
For the last 5 years or so, it's only ever been used as a scare word on the political right -- "the woke mind virus". Famously there was the author who wrote a book on the horrors of woke, then couldn't define it in an interview.
I don't blame her-- who the f knows what it means at this point.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I did list off some examples. Using the pretext of fighting woke, this administration is taking away rights that Americans of all stripes used to condemn. They're banning books, banning protests, banning government institutions from using certain *words*. Whitewashing history, pulling funding from scientists making the "wrong" conclusions and now trying to get doctors to report those getting gender affirming care, in contravention of HIPAA.
This is the extent to which Americans have been duped and this has been weaponized. And posters in this thread are choosing to be on the wrong side of this.
Now, I'm aware that your question is more focused on what the specific myths are of anti-woke, rather than why I see it as so dangerous.
But the myths are as amorphous as the idea of woke itself. They are generally about mischaracterizing DEI as hiring minorities who aren't as qualified as the white people going for the same job. Mischaracterizing CRT as something taught in public school. Mischaracterizing the accurate teaching of history as telling kids to hate white people.
There's some examples.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, of course not. What are you talking about? That I can accuse any white person of being a rapist?
What the hell?!
Quoting Fire Ologist
Well firstly, as I just said, it's not cool to call anyone a rapist etc regardless of their race.
But I can shift what you're saying to something more sensible-- how come you can poke fun about white people in ways that are considered racist if you were to say about other races?
And the answer is that it's not symmetric because society is white majority, particularly among the rich and powerful. Most of us walk by statues of heroic white dudes every day, and learn about them in school. We pull money out of our pockets with white dudes on it. And chances are, we go report to a boss who is white.
This is why the line for teasing is different. No one is going to generalize something negative about whites, but people absolutely believe crazy stereotypes about minority groups.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Well, that ...
Quoting Fire Ologist
Anyway, RFK Jr's appointment to head of US Health is a clear high-profile example involving competence, one I'd hold the administration accountable for. Coming up with other examples isn't hard; I guess typical (historical) examples involve skin color, ethnicity, females, religion, political leanings, homosexuals, whatever.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I'm not using the words in some non-standard way, but rather suggesting an ethical stance, then trying to ask if that's more important than conservatism.
Like saying that Im super old and am my great great great great grandfather.
Marx + Nietzsche + Freud + Weber
???
Gramsci
???
Frankfurt School (Critical Theory)
???
Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze (Postmodernism)
???
Butler, Crenshaw, etc. (Identity & Gender Theory)
???
Wokeism / Social Justice
That means you completely agree with the facts. The facts are, when you are racist against white men, it is poking fun, but when you are racist against others, it true racism.
That, to me, is a problem. Its inconsistent. Its illogical. Its impossible to fairly and equitably enforce and implement policy. Its yielded popularism and Trumpism. It leads to ridiculous and destructive divisions among brothers and sisters. It allows for scapegoating and glossing over real problems. Worst of all, it ignores good white men and discounts their opinions that arent woke. The fact that its not symmetric because (our) society is white majority only means you have to look even more closely at individuals to see who is racist and who isnt; it doesnt mean white men cant be victims of racism in America or Europe. That is bullshit that hurts the battle against racism.
Im not saying racism is as big a problem for all races - not even close - Im saying when Ive heard woke people tell whites they cant be victims of racism because they are in power, I call bullshit - you need to look deeper than skin tone to identify both perpetrators and victims of racism. And without more precision and accuracy, racism will simply keep perpetrating itself.
It is precisely the fact the poor black and brown people can be racist against rich white men, that makes racism immoral and illogical - all men are men regardless of race and it is men who are racist, not white men or green men.
So the larger point about all of the above:
Woke, which is good for fighting racism, is using racist policy and tactics to fight racism. Woke is incoherent, contradictory, self-defeating, in need of critique. Fighting racism is good. Identifying white majority status is necessary; but saying there is no racism against the ones in power is misunderstanding racism, ignoring facts, a lie, an agenda that has nothing to do with race, bad reasoning, all of the above
I agree selecting people by merit is the best way for people to select people to fulfill roles and jobs.
I am a conservative.
What is the ethical line you are drawing between conservatism and wokeism?
Quoting jorndoe
Conservatism just means protecting what works, what is already deemed good enough.
Of one is merely conservative, one will make many bad choices, but sometimes, the conservative choice is the best one.
Not sure how your ethical stance involving merit begs a wuestion about how important conservatism is. Its not clear what is conservative and what is not about merit versus snobbery. There is no such thing as a woke snob? The woke choice will never be based on a three year old tradition?
Not at all what I said, and it's pretty shameful for you to put words in my mouth when my last post was so clear.
You had made some point about how we can call white men rapists or something that was categorically false.
So, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt I widened it slightly to be a broader point about why, say, a standup comedian can make a joke about white people going to whole foods, but it hits differently if a comedian makes a joke about black people going for fried chicken.
The answer is because in a country like the US, everyone knows there are white, straight men doing all kinds of jobs, going to all sorts of restaurants, and having all sorts of personalities. No-one takes a stereotype about whole foods seriously. Whereas there are people who take stereotypes about black people seriously, with caricatures of them eating fried chicken all the time often being the thin end of the wedge.
That's me explaining why society treats those things differently; it's punching down versus punching up.
Personally, I don't like either kind of joke though.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I've never heard that, but I would disagree with it. Yes, white people can be victims of racism.
It's just rare and usually insignificant given that it's a white majority country.
What is far more common is the old saying: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"
Quoting Fire Ologist
Again, we have given you, repeatedly, the long list of the ways that fascism is being implemented in the US right now, with one of the justifications frequently being "fighting woke". You haven't acknowledged any of it.
But, instead of these actions objectively happening in the real world and affecting millions, you want us to focus on a hypothetical poor black person being racist against a rich white man: a thing which would be of zero consequence if true as the former has no money or power.
Its punching. That is the point. You can claim your own spot on whatever ladder you are climbing up or down if you want, and see your poor victims punching up and your privileged assholes punching down. Its all punching. Its a simple point, and because you said punching twice, it looks like you might agree with it.
Im not putting words in your mouth. Im telling you what the things you say mean to me. I could be wrong, but no need to call me shameful. You may mean something else. This is just a conversation.
We will never defeat or reduce racism by pointing out how white people are privileged systemically. Because a system isnt racist. Especially not the American system. Sick human hearts are racist. A discussion about systemic racism is not a discussion about individual racists and individual victims.
If, in fact, our socio-economic-political system institutionalized racism and white power, then the system needs to be torn down and replaced. Some woke people do argue the capitalist republican system needs to be shredded and thrown out. I disagree the system has the type of flaws that require the whole system to be torn down (at least since women gained the vote and separate but equal was thrown out, both improvements enabled by the structure of the system) - its not the system that is the problem; its individuals in our good system who implement its policies like immoral assholes.
This is a precise point Im making. Is the American system inherently flawed when it comes to race or not? I say no. Perfection is taking hundreds of years to build, but the basic system is working.
So that means woke people who rail against the system, rage against the machine, are missing the mark, wasting our time, contradicting themselves, making incoherent arguments, and suggesting terrible policies and practices.
Quoting Mijin
That is an huge admission regarding the failure of woke policy. So is a policy goal of woke to take white people down, or is it to raise non-white people up, or both? Why do we need to think race offers anyone any political or economic advantage over anyone else at all?? Fuck race. Thinking like that will never work. We ARE politically equal now - only racists see otherwise. If we want to fight racism, we need to fight the urge to attach victimhood or privilege to skin color alone.
DEI is an academic, theoretical discussion - but implemented in HR departments of corporate America, its utter bullshit. It utterly divides and polarizes brown versus red versus yellow versus black versus white. It builds intolerance, inequity and exclusion, just in a new form, and of a different color.
Quoting Mijin
I am trying to focus on woke qua woke. You want me to acknowledge maga qua facism. I see that as another discussion. You are talking about the policies and enforcement of policies by those who are anti-woke. These policies may be full of flaws (plenty to debate there). MAGA people can be wrong about a lot of things. But that is a different thread. One thing at a time.
Before that, my question is still this: is there a legitimate justification for fighting wokeness? You wont even say there is a such thing as woke policy. So you dont see any reason to fight. To you, there only seems to be a boogieman invented by facists. You want to have a different conversation.
Which goes way back to my points about why woke ideology wont and cant criticize itself.
Let me ask you something, do you think it would be dangerous if the people in power could convince us that sometimes two plus two equals four, and sometimes two plus two equals five?
Or how about convincing us that she can apply to a person with a penis or a vagina? Is there absolutely no danger to equating bullying insults with slanderous physical assaults that require government intervention and law enforcement (DEI)? Is there nothing dangerous about shouting about systemic racism and how the system is rigged when it is the same system that is the best place to even attempt justice on this earth? Should we be delegitimizing government? Does anyone think the individual, lowly, poor victim, of any race, has a better chance at justice in the US or then they would in China, or Central/South America, or most of Africa, the Middle East, or North Korea, or even Britain or Germany? Are woke policies and many of their ideas of what is good and what is bad full of shit or not?
One boogieman at a time.
Again -- I'm not advocating for jokes like that, I am explaining to you why society -- whether white or black -- generally views jokes about the majority versus minority differently, because you asked.
Now, if you're asking me if I'd prefer all race-related jokes to be off the table, then sure, fine by me. I disagree though with any notion that this is a significant problem right now. ISTM, once again, manufactured outrage. Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes Mr Woke Strawman sure has strong opinions.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Again this is flat out wrong. DEI is about equality and trying to draw from as wide a pool as possible. And it has worked just fine for thousands of corporations, not just in the US but elsewhere (under similar names to DEI).
The "problem" is when it got weaponized, and right-wing media went hunting for any cherry they can pick of a badly-implemented policy. When I'm on conservative forums, it's pretty typical for the primary cite of the horror of DEI to be more than 10 years old (as well as usually being pretty trivial). There's been hundreds of implementations of this kind of policy in that time, if it's as bad as you've been led to believe how come there are no better examples?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't, and I've explained why repeatedly.
Fighting "the woke" or "the woke mind virus" is the excuse being given for taking away rights and freedoms of millions of Americans, and eroding the separation of government, the courts and even the church.
That's pretty damn important context as you uncritically repeat their enabling talking points.
Years ago, I was horrified by the demands of men-hating, homosexual women, who had gotten control of a women's shelter. I was in training to be a volunteer, and as their hate of men went on and on, I felt like I had to defend men. I dared to say, it is not only men who can be abusive, but women can be the abusers too. That resulted in being told I was not welcome. These angry women also made it a rule that mothers must allow their children to sit on the laps of a gay person, and if they did not, this mother and child needing protection would be thrown out of the center. Anyone who opposed them in any way was the enemy, and anger was their driving force.
I went into a training for Camp Fire Girls, and I was horrified by the focus on sex! To be a Camp Fire leader for girls at this time, we were to understand that shaving our legs, and wearing lip stick and just about anything that made being a girl fun was taboo. Years earlier, I had been a Girl Scout leader. Sexuality was never an issue. We were not at all interested in grooming girls for someone's ideas about sexuality. That should be a non-issue. We are talking about young girls. It is not a scout leader's job to mold the sexuality of a child.
I interviewed for an in-home care service position and the person with the most power in the room was a gay woman. That was liberalism gone too far. To my horror, she wanted in-home care workers to understand the special needs of gay women. :gasp: I had a college education and years of experience, and never was the gay issue an issue. That is because in-home care has nothing to do with sex.
Am I just old-fashioned for believing some things are private and the whole world does not revolve around our sexual "needs" and desires? When a person is forcing his/her way on me, and others, it is not respectful, but is crossing boundaries that should not be crossed.
Wokeism is a type of totalitarian fascism. Can we acknowledge that first on a thread about the end of woke? Or does wokeism not exist?
All across the country right now, freshmen college students are being asked what their pronoun is. Thats DEI. The boys (usually boys) who make fun of the exercise in proclaiming your pronoun are being punished. Thats like fascism.
Thats our world today. Companies telling workers to list their pronouns in their email signature. Turning everyone into a ridiculous farce of a decent human being.
Progressive liberalism has its weaknesses. Wokeism embodies most of them.
Quoting Mijin
DEI has not been implemented successfully. Companies have survived it successfully. DEI cant be successful because in the name of diversity, it isolates distinct exclusive groups (women, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, whatever ..), then it argues all of these distinctions and differences are equal (so the differences dont matter at all). Then it argues the differences matter so much people need to be fired and certain people with different skin tones and sexes need to be hired. In the name of respecting the human soul it says appearances skin deep are important. DEI will only succeed under a totalitarian state (like a corporation) because people are all individuals and never fit into boxes like whites or trans - DEI is all about boxes. Utter bullshit. Only a corporate boss has the kind of control to implement DEI.
And all you can do is tell me how I wont talk about MAGA.
I am a founder of a law firm with 235 employees. We have a DEI officer. Not because it is necessary for people to get along. Not to teach our employees how to respect each other. Not to teach our employees how to be humble. Not because we need to be reminded of biases or of where to look for new talent. We have a DEI officer because we cant get good employment insurance without it. Its utter bullshit, coerced by law and the new marketplace created by wokeness. We have diversity nights where we invite people to speak about the Chinese New Year, or aboriginal religious practices. Ethnic foods served. Its fun, and interesting, and good. Its also utterly pointless towards anything real in our business, except we can say we do these things to our insurance underwriter and for some reason everyone thinks something real has been accomplished, like there is some measurement of diversity equity and inclusion that is bolstered.
So the boogieman costs real money, money that could go into salaries. The boogieman leads to utterly wasteful conversations when hiring a white man, or when considering an unqualified person who will make us look better on paper. DEI is as much an immoral lie as it is an attempt at correcting immoral racism/sexism.
Quoting Mijin
Is that it? You dont really think a company that wants profit isnt trying to draw from the widest pool possible to gain more profit?
DEI is about shaming too. Its about coercing people into behaving and speaking and even thinking differently. Its about punishing those who disagree with the woke sheep who glorify skin tones above the individual. Its about virtue signaling, not virtue.
@Mijin there are millions of stories like that. Theyve been piling up since the 1980s. Maybe these arent a priority to you, and thats fine, but this all sounds like fascism and intolerance to me. It all sounds like what maga thinks is woke. You could acknowledge there is something called woke that is real. You could even acknowledge the above example is what is wrong with wokeism. Wokeism wants to help women and homosexuals. Thats great. We all should all help each other. But the above example doesnt help anyone. And its hurting our culture and society and promoting contradiction (to bring justice to women they admonish someone for stating a fact).
@Athena gave two more examples. She is one person. There are millions of real harms in the name of wokeness. My cousin, husband and father of two girls was fired for utter bullshit in the name of DEI.
I dont even care about all of the anecdotes and who is a victim and who is an oppressor. They are just useful facts to support the fact that wokeness is a real thing and that it creates it own brand of harms. But forget the anecdotes - I only care about the principle and the philosophy.
What is woke? Is it good? Can good policy promote good woke principles?
From what I can tell, woke principles are in need of discussion (like, what does woke mean?). And from what I can tell, the enforcement of woke through DEI has been utterly wasteful if not harmful, with shallow few benefits to show for it.
I'm baffled that you would even ask me that. Are you reading my responses?
My position is that "woke" is a boogieman of the political right. It's manufactured grievances and culture wars, put under a single umbrella so that people can turn their brains off and just boo when the flashing sign tells them to.
Just today, the president of the united states blamed all of the US military victories since WW2 on being "wokey". That's the level of bullshit we're talking about here.
24 carat bullshit.
Now, in terms of your specific question, I don't think the word "woke" even has a coherent meaning in the way that RW media uses it. So it's as much "totalitarian fascism" as it is a cabbage, or a dream of electric sheep.
But in terms of the definition you cited earlier, the answer is clearly "no".
You cant see what woke is.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thats woke.
Thats impacting lives, unlike your boogieman summation of what woke is.
No because markets are not perfectly efficient and human nature gets in the way.
Think how much money was left on the table for decades by keeping women out of senior roles.
If I were to point you to the data that more diverse workforces are associated with higher profitability, would it change your view on DEI? If not then there's your answer.
In terms of the example you're quoting from athena, it's pretty weak sauce.
We don't get to hear their side of it, and it just sounds like the typical exaggerated with each retelling "I worked at the worst place ever" story.
Even if were entirely true (and to be clear: I don't believe it is), we have...what? Misandry, based on the accurate observation that men are far more likely to be the abusers. And athena's disgust that they were not being bigoted towards gay men?
Oh my god! This story from "years ago" is so much worse than the gagging of universities, government departments, journalists etc that right now is happening under the pretext of fighting woke! Eyes opened.
BTW, from some googling around it would seem requring a business to hire a DEI officer would go way beyond the bounds of what insurers can request and would invite legal challenges. Some (minority) of insurers require a declaration of what the DEI policy is, but they can't ask you to hire someone.
See what I mean about needing to exaggerate, versus the real and present attacks of freedom in the name of "fighting the woke"?
So some gagging is terrible, but gagging Athena wasnt.
Its all baby shit.
Anti-woke is often just as pathetic as woke. So what? I was trying to talk about woke.
You just dont see it. Wokeness animated the election of Trump twice, but you dont even see anything solid about it at all. It is so real a guy like Trump could win up against Ms. Kamala Wokeness. But to you, woke is a mass hallucination Athena and Trump alone can see.
Quoting Mijin
So are corporate profits and capitalism good to you? Because thats not woke - thats exploitation and greed and builds oligarchies and permanent underclasses.
But assuming you could get your hands on some university study about how amazing DEI had been for corporate America, that doesnt change what it is. Its still incoherent (like you using profit to justify DEI is contradictory).
This is a much more careful and longer conversation. I dont want to proceed unless you tell me what woke actually is to you - if you dont think its a thing, a force, a set of policies, a philosophic worldview, then we will never build a conversation. We are just talking to ourselves here.
You say anti-woke is horseshit arguments to justify fascist behavior that is causing real harm.
I say youve skipped over the topic, namely: what is woke. If you dont think woke even is anything, then no wonder you are so animated by Trumps actions - they make no sense at all to you. Its like watching a fireman aim his hose all over a building that isnt burning, hearing the fireman yell he needs more water and watching him destroy the building for the sake of a fire that doesnt exist. Thats what you see anti-woke doing.
Quoting Mijin
You might not know what you are talking about. Maybe there is no basis to accuse me of exaggerating. Google some more.. There are lots of ways to meet insurance underwriting requirements. There are lots of ways insurers can hike up your premium. There are lots of ways insurers can deny your claims? You really might want to talk to some business owners about what they actually do, what they have to do, what they do that is above and beyond the law and insurance requirements, and why they do it.
But who cares, woke isnt real so anti-woke grievances cant actually be about anything concrete.
:o Not what I associate with "woke", seems more like reactionary radicals or something, but my word-use could easily be off. Gangsta' sistas' been 'round forever.
, okie, so we can go by that rule-of-thumb. I'm not sure what its wokeity rating is. 3/4? It comes up in that context.
RFK Jr was appointed because he's susceptible to Circus Trump's whims, because of perceived loyalty, or whatever, not merit. He's also easy to discredit and throw away, just in case. Concern for health overruled or otherwise irrelevant. :down: Are the Trumpests "anti-woke"?
Say, around 1900 (± whatever years depending on place), women couldn't be elected to office. There was a strong, long-held undercurrent of tradition, rendering merit irrelevant, overlapping with conservative (and religious) sentiments. I suppose yester-yester-century's new movements might have been labeled "woke". Not good enough. :down:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Could be. I was going by the rule-of-thumb, though, which I understand to be in the spirit of DEI. Anyway ... other such agreeable rules?
A couple of years ago, Disney made yet another incarnation of The Little Mermaid, the first being from the late 1980s. Then there was an uproar because of :scream: Ariel's skin color. An army of retarded "anti-woke" rose to the occasion. :down:
Wasn't "woke" also associated with conspiracy theories some years back? Well, there are elements of these culture wars that play right into the hands of adversaries. :down:
Woke police 1980 - the word is handicapped, not retarded anymore.
Woke police 1990 - the word is disabled, not handicapped.
Woke police 2000s - the word is physically challenged Woke police 2010s - the word is handi-capable or other-abled (we can make up words now, like woke, even if they mean the opposite of what they say, like she).
Woke police 2020s - you can be canceled, fired, shunned mocked, scorned for saying retarded.
You gotta know the rules and keep up with the right newspeak.
Quoting jorndoe
Are you willing to say what woke is? I havent seen anyone really try to say it. Just talk around it and talk about the unwoke. What do you see that should be associated with woke?
What I associate with woke is being told what to think and say.
Lol, "some gagging" == universities, government agencies including health agencies, the judiciary, the free press and millions of Americans' right to protest.
While "gagging athena" == an anecdote from one guy, from an unknown number of years ago, about something absolutely inconsequential even if not embellished.
Is there any point in this where you are going to pause and wonder if you've got the priorities right?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I'm responding to your point. You were saying that if diverse workforces were more profitable then the market would ensure that workplaces would indeed be more diverse.
I was illustrating why that doesn't follow -- because human nature and corporate inertia gets in the way. Workplaces are becoming more diverse, but there is still competitive advantage in being more diverse than the average, and it's still taking DEI to make it happen within our lifetimes.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Then don't proceed. Because my position is that it's a nebulous scare word for people who don't want to think. I'm not going to do the work for you in turning the concept (as RW media uses it) into something coherent.
It's like you saying you don't want to address whether the emperor has no clothes until I describe in detail the fine silks I think he lacks.
Quoting Fire Ologist
An impressively evasive response.
Let's get it straight: are you maintaining that it was a requirement of a particular insurer / package that you hire a DEI officer? Or are you withdrawing that claim?
No one has been gagged. Everyone is free to print whatever news is fit to print. Just because news media and professors are wimps and whiners doesnt mean there is any actual political crisis going on.
No one has a right to be in the White House press room. Universities dont have a right to government funding. Federal government agencies are under the control of the executive branch - thats the system. And the courts are reviewing cases as always - a couple judges broke the law and were arrested. Judges dont get to be politicians, thats the point of a separate judiciary.
You are being a baby. Like the news media. And your average college professor.
As soon as Trump is out of office you wont remember these made-up problems. I should say once the media loses interest in selling their anecdotes about the threats to democracy, you wont be reminded of what they think is important anymore.
Quoting Mijin
I agree - its three (not one) small anecdotes from just one little person. But everyone has these anecdotes. Even the woke get screwed by woke sometimes. (See trans versus feminists). Im trying to get away from talking anecdotes at all. What are woke principles and do they work? Is DEI tailored to only have to do with hiring from a diverse pool as you say? Is that the extent of what you think DEI does - diversify hiring?
The point of Athenas anecdotes isnt about how it impacted just Athena. She said the shelter preached about hating men. Thats a lot of people impacted by woke ideology. And if you dont think hating men, particularly white men, is promoted by wokeism, you are aloof. And my point drawn from the Athena anecdote is different as well. My point is that the woke masters of diversity and inclusion are always happy to be prejudiced and sexist against men. My point is the wokeism in practice is contradictory and self defeating - as here, in order to signal ones virtues of diversity, equity and inclusions, one spouts of how all men must be alike (not diverse), how all men need to be excluded (not from the shelter itself but from respect) - in order to fight inequitable treatment, they treat men inequitably. And they dont (wont) see how this will never work and is utter bullshit and only makes them feel like victims. So much harm no one wants to address.
Quoting Mijin
I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. We could have done other things but we had to demonstrate commitment to ramming woke bullshit down our employees throats - naming a DEI officer is one way to bolster that picture. Talk to some people who buy employment insurance. Despite what you think, DEI (so wokeism) is a real thing, costing (wasting) real dollars. And despite all of the divisiveness of our society, most people are kind, respectful, courteous, forgiving, team builders - all before their DEI and implicit bias tutorial.
If you look in my posts, Ive said favorable things about woke and DEI. They do exist. I am trying my best to dialogue.
Do you really have no idea what all the fuss is about wokeness? You cant give one inch to someone who thinks DEI has a dark side to it? You cant just have a conversation?
I challenge you to spend a day outside your home in public places and not be confronted by the new political correctness. Maybe you dont notice it because you are so deeply invested. But the American culture has changed significantly in the past 20 years - everyone is walking on eggshells in public. Even stand-up comedians (almost all liberals) complain about how shut down speech is by wokeness. There are millions of anecdotes showing concrete actual issues. We are so past the anecdotal evidence gathering phase that a guy like Trump got elected because he admitted there are issues with DEI.
The left should face this discussion head on to save the good parts of woke - the real enlightenment it seeks to promote. But they dont seem to self-reflect. At all. They are just still shocked Trump won - how could people possibly elect such a scumbag? No idea.
Thank you. The US is really blowing it when it comes to social harmony, and I have the same sense of wrong when it comes to "in your face" sexuality, even when it is heterosexual. How many remember when our sexuality is a private matter? In the movies it was alluded to but not "in your face". Could there be a relationship between this modern "in your face" sexuality and Woke?
The entire episode proves to me that anyone can hide tyranny, become tyrannical, and live with tyranny, so long as the stories detailing their efforts sing the opposite tale. The problem is it can only be disguised for so long.
It would be interesting to hear from someone that was full-on woke, but who has repented, to see how he was able to make peace with what he was doing. I imagine the steps involved were like the ones Czeslaw Milosz wrote about in the Captive Mind, where he had to come up with delusions in order to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonance required to live under Stalinism.
False. What planet have you been living on? These are the most widespread assaults on free speech that the US has ever seen; much worse than McCarthyism.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, pointing out the myriad ways that government is deporting, imprisoning and defunding people on the basis of speech is babyish...what we should be getting concerned about is an anecdote one person shared of years ago some women saying mean things about men.
Quoting Fire Ologist
So to try to lay the groundwork for climbing down from your claim you take the unbelievable step of cutting a piece of a sentence to pretend to have misunderstood the question?
This was the whole sentence, including the bit you disingenuously cut: Quoting Mijin
So no, I did not say, that you had said, that it was a legal requirement for insurance. I am exactly responding to the claim that it was necessary for "good" insurance.
So, I'll ask again: are you maintaining that a given insurer, or a particular insurance package, mandated that you hire a DEI officer?
OTOH if your claim is that the insurance was advertized as cheaper if you have a DEI officer, that's worse because that would be public information that we could all google.
Which is it?
That is outrageous. :rage: That is taking the controlling feature of government too far. I hope that with a return to civics, some of our problems will be corrected.
Go read the posts about exactly what I am maintaining.
This is dumb.
Let me give you an analogy of why I cant easily answer your question with the word mandated in it. Your question shows you arent seeing what I said. There is a legal requirement in many laws (HIPAA, GLBA, various state laws) that companies train their employees on data security. Training is the mandate. But exactly what the training is supposed say (what the actual content is) and how the company is supposed to document proof of training is not mandated. So companies have to figure out how to comply with these legal requirements. One way is to hire firms to provide and document training in ways the regulators have since accepted. Sooo, is hiring a firm to provide and document training mandated?? No, but aside from your average company becoming an expert in legally compliant training about data privacy to comply with the law, your average company has to hire a firm to do this training. Its similar with employment law, and DEI. For insurers, companies must promise by contract that they will comply with all laws or their claims may be denied - how do companies show they are compliant with employment law today? One thing they can do is name a DEI officer to be responsible for compliance, to figure out how to train, etc. Looks really good on paper. Saves money on premium. And if there is ever an employment claim, the insurance company has less ammunition to deny paying the claim. There are other nuances and details.
So mandated which I didnt say, has nothing to do with my point about how the real world of insuring a business works and how wokeism impacts it.
I have a feeling you still dont understand and think you made some sort of point about the anti-woke and boogiemen.
Wokeism isnt anything but a boogieman to help manufacture some sort of fascist takeover by white Christian supremecists, or whatever. Got it.
Enjoy the next three years hating Trump and MAGA as they furiously remake America. Hope we arent all in a concentration camp under the police state when they declare Trump emperor by then.
In the meantime, learn nothing about the anti-woke, what actually motivates them, what they actually mean, because you understand everything (including insurance underwriting and claim handling).
As long as it's "in your face" in the traditional way, there's no relationship. If it's "in your face" in a non-traditional waylike in a man's facethen the woke red flags start to fly.
Nope. I called those folks anti-woke because they called The Little Mermaid woke. Is that what it is?
Meaning is found in its use. Since we're not talking mathematics, definitions are fraught and have to follow use anyway, be it about equality/exclusion, conspiracy theorists, gay marriage, angry bullying radical lesbians, merit, whatever.
So I had to give examples and some context. And gave an apparently agreeable rule-of-thumb. 3/4 wokeity rating? The linked 2024 article also gives examples and international context; notice how "woke" is used to divide/polarize (e.g. "Kremlin statecraft"). From admittedly unreliable memory, "black lives matter" also got "woke-stamped" by some (coinciding with "statecraft" and perhaps some other moves).
Anyway, "woke" is now used as a pejorative by one side in culture wars, often enough accompanied by an extreme example though implicitly carrying other baggage along. But my understanding/impression could easily be off; either way, personally I'd just as well do without the populist noise and @Athena's bullies (not that any of this is about me, mind you).
Quoting earlier
Perfect starting place for a woke position.
Unless we are defining maga, because they are the definition of jackass bastards. Or white men. Nothing fraught about it. Clear as day what is what and who is who there.
But woke Asian woman is by definition undefinable. Because of the woke part. And the Asian part. And the woman part. Need more context and usages to figure any of those words out. Especially when talking with someone who isnt woke - abuse and oppression loom at every turn of phrase.
The woke dont see the dissonance, the incoherence and the contradictions. Ive pointed a few out to some
folks I assume are sympathetic to woke ideology (they wont say it or make that clear), and have not once been engaged.
:chin: What is the traditional way? I don't think polite society ever engaged in such pushy behavior. We had a system of dueling that enforced good manners. :lol: That may be a little extreme, but I see no good coming out of social breakdown and offensive behaviors. Freeing women to behave like men was not social progress. Empowering women to have a society they want is social progress.
Brilliant, this is the claim I am asking you to support. Any link to any insurer suggesting that they will reduce their price if you hire a DEI officer? Remember, you're the one ranting about how common and severe "woke" is, so this should be easy to find.
All this arguing over what the word woke means. When I play Scrabble, we use a Scrabble book that lists all the acceptable words. It is our Bible. :lol: AI can function as the authority we agree to turn to when we disagree on the spelling or meaning of a word. Woke began as an African American word.
"The term "woke" originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used since the early to mid-20th century." The meaning has changed so much it is a meaningless fighting word.
I don't have a cock in that fight, but it is curious why anyone would want to go to a cock fight in the first place. Why are we making an issue of the term "woke"? Discussing the behavior might be more productive? But arguing about the meaning of the word, is like a dog chasing its own tail. It seems obvious the word can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But what is the social value we are talking about?
How about deny a claim if the insured isnt able to demonstrate compliance with the law?
Ask your broker to get you competing quotes with a DEI officer and without.
Call a couple insurance companies. Or do you only trust AI
Strong Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs can positively impact a company's insurability and premium costs for Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI). Conversely, reducing DEI efforts may increase risk exposure and potentially lead to higher costs.
Here is a breakdown of the relationship between DEI officers and employment insurance.
Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI)
An EPLI policy protects a company from claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment, and other employment-related misconduct. A dedicated DEI officer can influence EPLI in several ways:
Risk reduction: By developing and implementing robust DEI programs, training, and equitable employment practices, a DEI officer can help mitigate the risks of discrimination and harassment claims. This proactive approach [b]can make a company a more attractive risk to insurers.
Favorable premiums:[/b] Insurers often evaluate a company's internal controls and risk management. For companies with strong, well-documented DEI initiatives, underwriters may offer [b]lower EPLI premiums due to the perceived lower risk of litigation.
Underwriting scrutiny:[/b] As the legal and social landscape around DEI shifts, insurers are paying closer attention to a company's approach. Underwriters may ask more questions about a company's DEI programs and policies. Having a DEI officer who can clearly articulate and defend these programs can be a significant advantage.
Or - https://www.ijacademy.com/a-case-for-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-your-epli-toolkit#:~:text=Quick%20Overview,$129.00
Wokeness costs. No big deal. Just another drip drop in the ocean of political bullshit. There are lots of stupid costs in life. What point do you think you can win here either way? (Oh thats right you dont answer questions.) I think we should move on.
Unless you want to say something more about how DEI leads to a diverse workforce and more profits. Besides just citing someone elses experience. Do you have any real experience with employment law claims and DEI? Do you know what the claims say and how to defend against them and how to win them?
Yep. As I say, in recent days the president has claimed that the reason that the US did not have a victory in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc was because of "woke".
Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of that. Were we trying to teach CRT to the viet cong?
Sure -- which is very different to your original claim. The law doesn't say to get a DEI officer, only (in some jurisdictions) that you submit a summary of diversity policy; something which would normally be well within scope of an organization's legal and HR team.
Look, I think it's great that you hired a DEI officer, but do not claim that an insurer made you do that (or offered you cheaper insurance if you would), because that would go out of scope of what insurers can ask for, and would be open to litigation.
Sure, here's a detailed analysis by McKinsey.
Anyway, in offices and companies, demanding an even distribution across whatever, say skin color or gender, is overreach (if done with legislation). Conversely, a marked disproportionate representation of whatever can be remedied by stimulating merit (contra discrimination or social imposition), maybe all the way back to elementary school.
So, the examples, ?
I sure wish his followers understood how he is using them and taking advantage of them by saying anything he thinks they want to hear.
Those wars you mentioned were poorly chosen wars the US engaged in to secure control of Middle East oil and shipping lines. It began with Reagan and was carried on by Bush and Cheney, who were very proud of the neocon effort to control oil, and they bragged about it.
That is a subject for another thread, but I am sickened by how easily US citizens can be gaslighted. The New Century American Project has the world on the brink of a third world war as China and Russia have been motivated to increase their regional power.
Did I offend you? I am sorry if I did.
My point was just that gangsta' sistas' and bullies might be associated with "woke", whether accurate or not; such people have been around forever anyway.
Korea was divided as the spoils of WWII. Japan lost it, the USSR got the North, and the US got the South. It was a problematic political decision, made worse by the Cold War. Perhaps this could fit the subject of this thread if we considered the struggles of people who live under rulers without political power. Both in the North and the South of Korea, the people were the subjects of rulers who were not part of their cultures, and that was true of the origin of "woke". People of color remained powerless subjects of the Whites who ruled over them. Woke was about being aware of racial, political, and economic injustice.
Democracy is about shared political power, allowing for the peaceful resolution of differences and the protection of everyone's rights. Mother Jones, of the coal miners' struggle for better wages and working conditions, woke the miners up and urged them to fight for their rights and stop being passive about their terrible poverty and lack of economic justice.
Philosophically, Socrates said, sooner or later, those who are exploited will become a problem to those who exploit them. But most of America is ruled by autocratic Industry, and people have no idea there is a democratic model for Industry that would make our lives better. We are not woke to our reality. We are not as politically and economically aware as we should be.
Tried what?
Quoting earlier
Do you mean, are people who voted for Trump against woke ideology (generally speaking of course)?
Or is this still the question:
Quoting jorndoe
No, its not anti-conservative. Selecting by merit isnt progressive or conservative or liberal or maga. Woke didnt invent diverse pools to select from, or the criteria for selection that values merit.
The question is, what do you assign merit to, when making your selection? How important is it that we find a black woman, or Hispanic person, and look past the white men in the pool? Choosing the person with the most qualifications may mean choosing a white man. If being consistent with merit as the highest value. How does that fit in a wokety scale?
It is precisely because we are not equal that we are diverse. So woke policy has to be at odds with its ideological values. Woke policy has to pick a woke value and then pit it against another woke value.
When we value both equity and diversity together we have to exclude individuals from the narrow groups people can be divided into, all in order to re-include groups (no longer focused on individuals) in one wider, diverse group. Right? You have to put all of the blacks together, all of the whites separated out, then sub groups of women separated, from men, then now the trans folks - all excluded from each others groups. Then you can judge the super group that re-includes them all and judge whether it is equitably diversified, again, no longer concerned with this particular individual or that one, but merely concerned with the group they have been placed in and the ratio of numbers of members of sub-groups .
So which is the priority? Putting people in their diverse exclusive groups to give them recognition for their diversity, or overlooking the shallow, ignorant differences to see how all people qua people are valuable, have unique merit and deserve equal protection under one law? In which case we cannot evaluate specific situations based on generalizations and identity politics and groups - but need to look at each individual uniquely. And look at each Board of Directors uniquely. Etc
Hi Fire,
I just re-read "Animal Farm". I'd forgotten about the shout-them-all-down sheep.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sure. I mean, Christopher Rufo traces it from Marcusse through Angela Davis, Paulo Friere and Derrick Bell.
You think the average wokist can trace that history? Or articulate what it means? I quoted Friere throughout my masters research paper, at OISE, aka woke ground zero (Canada). Loads of instructors (I won't call them professors) cited Friere. Not one of them acknowledged, you know, the totalitarian failed states and such.
I had no idea, during my second degree at Canada's most prestigious education faculty, that there was anything negative about the man at all - it was simply not discussed. Ever.
That's woke. A creeping mediocrity, it freezes and blinds and swallows. It does not advance, it simply envelopes.
Quoting Fire Ologist
It is anti-objectivity, deconstructionist. I just read Camille Paglia's "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders", a scathing takedown of Foucault. I caught flack for calling woke 'predictable' in my previous comment, and yet it is wildly predictable for something that fancies itself so radical.
Paglia predicted much of woke 34 years ago in "Junk Bonds" (woke BS) issued by "Corporate Raiders" (the woke-industrial complex).
I mean, the reason I haven't been more active in this thread is straight-up despair. I lost the will to live, faith in humanity, any remaining sense of self when I was cancelled. (again, ironically, for playing the first hiphop artists to win the Pulitzer, in a high school English class). I am barely returning to life, 3+ years later.
I alluded to this in my previous post. I 'predicted' shitty takes might ensue. a 'delete' message'. Insulting, false binaries posited as engagement. A snide correction to my spelling. No reference to lives destroyed. If woke is supposedly empathetic, why are woke practitioners so wildly lacking in empathy? Did you not predict the comments that would follow the murder of Kirk?
Why can't wokists condemn murder? Because they are relativists. Because woke is activism, not philosophy.
Weirdly, given that they most closely resemble deontologists. Woke, a secular religion? A cult conspiracy theory? How can relativists be deontological?
Woke is three groups. John McWhorter's 'the elect' - Justin Trudeau here in Canada. Self-appointed elites, who can scold the rest of us, but are more political leader than moral force. The second are the 'true-believers'. My non-binary colleagues running well-intentioned nothings, sucking up all the air time, convincing the acolytes, the relativistic laypeople who are happy to outsource moral thought to technocratic experts.
All three groups required? What do you think of my model?
This thread started with reference to Andrew Doyle - I read "The New Puritans" before returning to TPF. He talked about not knowing if the wokist he was seeing online was a 12 year old or a sociology prof. Seems accurate.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yup. Banal radicals. Doctrinaire critical thinkers. Cruel empaths.
I still care and respect for some woke people. I doubt they feel the same in reverse. I hold out hope that they can be de-radicalized.
But it still makes me sick, physically ill, psychological despairing, to consider how we are teaching this theory as truth to children.
To try to end on a less bleak note,
This is a great read by one of the few active Canadian philosophers I can speak positively about (due to both my ignorance and their own scarcity).
https://josephheath.substack.com/p/why-philosophers-hate-that-equity
At the end of his essay, Heath notes:
"One of the most striking features of the DEI-mania that swept through North American universities in the past decade and that appears to be continuing unabated in Canada has been the resounding silence of philosophers on these questions".
Yeah. That about says it.
Hey man, sorry for not replying to you sooner. This topic gets me depressed.
How is "Cynical Theories"? That's been on my list for a while. Stock I know from Spiked and other Brit heterodox cites, is she worth reading in depth?
I assume Vivek is not serious. "The New Jim Crow" is woke-adjacent, not woke?
I realized that after my last thundery post about reading stuff that I hadn't read much DiAngelo, so I read this:
"Beyond the face of race: emo-cognitive explorations of white neurosis and racial cray-cray".
It might be the worst thing I've ever read. I mean, I kid, but, honestly? It might be.
Well, at least Long Chu is NOT predictable. Repulsive. But not predictable. (repulsive with all the self-infantilizing sex doll stuff. not the 'who cares you are trans' thing)
"Left is Not Woke" is good. My local NDP candidate, canvasing door-to-door, told me to read it when I told him of my disillusionment from leftism. I've renounced voting, ideology, tribalism, but I'll still vote for an old guy who knocks at my door and recommends good books.
Quoting AmadeusD
I've been predicting woke, accurately, since the first time I saw it show up in my undergrad cross-cultural psych course 30 years ago, and 20 years ago when it first tainted PDs at the first high school I got to teach at long-term. I predicted the comments that would follow Kirk's assassination, as well as the lack of comments. Didn't you?
In general, I speak. Not this thread, specifically. But woke, in general? Woke has NEVER surprised me. It consistently makes me sad. But it never surprises.
Nope, it's more or less Wittgensteinian. And an ever-moving target, mostly used by conservatives as a swear word. (Does that work as a definition?) Besides ...
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting Fire Ologist
Made an effort. Say, addressed the particulars brought up.
Quoting (earlier)
@Jeremy Murray, have you found "woke" to be a postmodernist thing?
Joke making the rounds in the wild some 8-10 years ago:
Its been some years but I would say good and worthwhile. Though it was not the intention of either book, I developed somewhat of an appreciation for the more philosophical aspects of wokeness. For instance, the question of why shouldnt a society bend to the weak? Efficiency, predictability, and hoarding wealth & power are also forms of weakness.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Political garbage. It can be interesting to dig through the trash on occasion.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Contrary to Fires rewriting of history, wokeness doesnt go back to Karl Marx. It is also rather narrow in focus compared to full-bodied wokeness.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Like the Kirk shooting video, I wish I could unsee that.
Youre right. Its more like Rousseau. Went mainstream in the 1960s. Institutionalized by 2000s.
You sound like you could say what woke is. Weird. Why not, instead of saying I was wrong, just give us the accurate information. Do you see the End of woke? I dont. But then, maybe woke never got started?
Quoting jorndoe
Isnt that a positive feature of woke ideology? Everything in motion on a sliding scale - gender, definitions of woke, etc.
Went mainstream in the 2010s. I cant tell what your game is but its very late in the game to be playing games.
What were you trying to say?
Clearly woke went mainstream in the 2010s. Why would anyone say otherwise? There must be a reason.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Interpreting events, institutions, and cultural norms in terms of power, inequality, and identity categories became mainstream in the 2010s. I imagine that lens will last as long as it is useful.
Thats really helpful.
I would say two things about this:
1. What it says, in itself, reflects woke methodology. Interpreting events in a particular, woke way, reflects interpreting events in terms of power, distribution of equity, and identity categories.
2. There is more to woke than simply this method; there are specific woke conclusions one is to come to when using this method properly or one still hasnt grasped wokeness. In other words, one could interpret events, institutions, and cultural norms in terms of power, inequality, and identity categories, but if one concludes from this process of interpretation that whites are being oppressed, or that females are not being oppressed, one has not achieved wokeness despite employing its methods.
I think it is simplistic to ask you to agree, because Ive used the word proper.
But Ill ask anyway. It seems to me 1, as method, doesnt go far enough to capture what is woke.
Would you agree? There are woke conclusions and proper analysis, and there are unwoke conclusions and improper analysis (even of one is interpreting according to power, equity and identity categories)? So woke is more than method (it has its dogma).
You asked if I saw the end of woke and I responded to that question. I think the 'woke viewpoint' will continue because once a new and useful perspective is acquired it's difficult to forget, especially if there's an abundance of subject matter to look at from that point of view.
There's a difference between observation and action, however, and identity politics can ultimately be self-serving rather than serving the interests of the marginalized. For example, are "deplorables" actually doing better now than they were before MAGA? Are trans people doing better now than before woke became mainstream? Violence against the trans community is increasing. I imagine it will spike further after the Charlie Kirk incident and the way MAGA is politicizing the tragedy.
Regarding dogmatism, you're free to argue that whites are being oppressed and that women aren't. There is no God-like authority figure to judge you harshly for doing so. It's not a sin.
Quoting praxis
If the goal is emancipating the weak, woke doesn't work. We've seen data indicating that it seems to be bad for the mental health of the practitioners. Data going back decades that people having problems with hiring quotas - including people hired as a result of said quotas. California voting down AA propositions. we see enormous problems with dominant trans narratives - high profile agencies quashing research findings, the refusal to engage with a growing demographic of detransitioners, and increase
If you care about trans rights, the woke approach isn't working in some respects. Without woke, does Trump ban trans military members? Some people ARE trans. We know this because we have historical records from cultures everywhere. So why not engage with good faith questions about why thousands of years of history have been ignored when it comes to who identifies as trans?
Historically, this demographic has been 2/3 male to female. The majority of trans teens who identified as trans adults had patterns of early onset, prolonged insistence, etc. In good faith, we can assume that some of the arguments we are hearing - young, awkward gays and lesbians feeling 'pressured' into identifying as trans, the high prevalence of autistic young people. As many in the LGB community argued (using their acronym) a lot of these kids would have, in the past, simply identified as gay or lesbian.
Even the original proponents of the "Dutch Model" have spoken against the way it's been implemented, with years of psychological counselling and testing being replaced by single, hour-long interviews in some cases.
These concerns come from legit sources, powerful data - I'm happy to provide citations - but the impact of woke is to silence the centre. These conversations are too easily derailed by a litigious minority. I just finished Richard Hanania's book "The Origin of Woke" - I know of his problematic past, but value reading across the spectrum - and he makes a convincing case that the nature of the evolution of civil rights laws has lead to an outcome where it makes more sense for mainstream organizations to simply capitulate, cost of doing business.
You can argue against woke across the spectrum. "Left is not Woke". Adolph Reed and Walter Benn Michaels. Chomsky and Hermann's propaganda model applies to woke tactics.
Don't get me wrong - there is an equally worrisome contingent on the right. I just don't live in that universe the way I do the progressive one here in downtown Toronto. Conservatives acting violently, hatefully are wrong, in that they are violent and hateful. But they aren't betraying my progressive principles the way wokists that celebrate murder are.
I despise woke as a leftist. I saw it used to silence valid conversation over and over again for decades working in a Toronto high school. Deployed by the high status admin to deflect from their own failings to engage students. Wokeness was the language of OISE in 1997 when I did my initial teacher training, and was the language in the early 2000s when I did my masters of ed.
It feels safe to say that schools have been 'woke' since before the term emerged in popular parlance. Should we not hold these educational leaders - who have failed to curtail abseentism, declinging standards, increasing violence and declines in mental health, students and staff alike, accountable
for these failures?
Quoting praxis
I hear you. I refuse to watch it.
Quoting praxis
Fire? Not sure who you mean? But interested in what you trace wokeness to? There is definitely some Marx in there, although I believe Marx himself would have objected to the 'cultural turn'?
Sorry if I wrote too much here. I am sincerely endeavouring to operate in good faith, but, obviously, have some emotional internal conflict going on here
Quoting jorndoe
Postmodern, for sure, with the opposition to 'master narratives' (although woke is obviously one such narrative). Standpoint epistemology evolved from postmodern concerns such as these, no?
Foucault seems a huge influence, although I've only read him in excerpts.
How do you see the relationship between postmodernism and wokeness?
Per "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders", it sure feels like the obscurity of language and meaning is the point?
I admit to being a lay philosopher. Since being cancelled, I have a lot of time to try and catch up on reading, but I'm sure people can help me with some more in depth details. And apologies if I have missed previous relevant posts, I am working on catching back up with this thread.
Maybe, but I asked if it was woke to argue these things?
My point is that it might be procedurally woke to argue power, equity, identity. But its not substantively woke to argue whites are being oppressed and women arent.
Do you agree with that at least?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Quoting Jeremy Murray
These are in line with my points. Certain woke-friendly principles and goals - such as equity, inclusiveness, defeating bias - are perfectly reasonable, and worthy of development. But many of the ways these principles and goals are implemented (by the woke) require, reverse-racism, inequity, unreasonableness, intolerance and exclusion. The impact, in the name of hearing voices, is to silence voices. The impact, in the name of victims, often creates victims. This is what we see between trans and women in sports. (It sounds like the type of contradictory cannibalism you might be painfully too familiar with.)
And the woke are unable to properly deal with shooting Charlie Kirk, for instance. The general woke response to Kirks shooting is that, it was wrong of course, but Kirk was a hateful idiot who practically asked for it. (One could argue that the true woke response is just, good riddance, but lets push that to the extremists response.)
Shouldnt the response have been, long ago, lets beat Kirk in a public debate with own his microphone? After all, free speech is for every political speech. So violence against him should have been as horrifying to the woke as it was to Kirk supporters - weve all been silenced. The debate is over now. No one gets to win it.
But the woke have their own biases and desires, so the best they can say is well I didnt want him shot, but there certainly isnt anything to cry about. Yes there is - woke needs better advocates now. If they exist.
Absolutely, though it's not clear how much of these failures you're attributing to wokeism. I'm sure that plays a part. Anyway, funny coincidence that my wife did her initial teacher training at about the same time, teaching High School English, in the deep blue state of California.
I agree that it could be difficult to meaningfully argue, though you might have an uncommon argument that looks at it in a unique way.
If you're trying to say that wokeness is like religion in its moralizing, then yes, I completely agree.
It is, of course, taught ALL THE TIME in public schools, here in Toronto at least. Has been my entire career.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I like this summation so much I need a new emoji.
Quoting AmadeusD
.Are you guys familiar with the perfect rhetorical fortress?
https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/towards-a-more-perfect-rhetorical
The co-authors are a fun pair, the main guy at free speech goat FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, and Rikki Schlott, a young anti-woke conservative/libertarian. They make a principled combo for free speech, and "The Cancelling of the American Mind" is a great read.
For sure. Greg Lukianoff is great on this topic - he attributes it to the idea that 'words are violence'.
Quoting praxis
Sorry man, I thought I was clearly indicating I see wokeness as a primary problem for the issues I listed? I mean, there are non-woke related issues, but yeah, the failure of discipline, literacy rates? Wokeness wears a lot of that.
Quoting Athena
I see this on the John Oliver show all the time, crude, sexual jokes about Reagan and such. It bothers me too.
I just read "Rebel Sell" by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, 2004, but still immensely valuable today. They identify opposition to 'conformity to a totalizing system' as the rebel 'stance' taken by much of the left since the 60s.
They note not just how silly much of that thinking was, but also how it came to valorize rejecting social norms of all kinds, social norms that have much more value than they ills that are supposedly reputed by 'sticking it to the man' and being rude.
Quoting NOS4A2
Easy. We had no idea what we were doing.
I didn't know just how much criticism woke ideas were garnering outside of my progressive bubble. And, in Toronto high schools, you are full-on indoctrinated in this stuff. People you like and respect advocate for it. Etc. Ultimately, I had no idea that the exact same 'difficult conversations' and PDs and so on were going on in pretty much every government bureaucracy everywhere in the WEIRD world.
I like your take on the misdirection inherent to the woke projection, but the central element that makes this particular delusion so powerful today was the emergence of smart phone tech back in the 2010s. Woke was just the perfect angry-making belief system for the left in that era.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Attacks on custom have been a big part of liberal ideology for a long time. Obviously, one sees it more often in progressive liberalism than conservative liberalism because the latter has a sort of contradictory preference for the very customs and institutions that liberalism and capitalism erode.
I have two quotes I really like on this which I'll just link to:
The first if from Patrick Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" on Mill and the centrality of attacks on custom to liberal thought, and how they are meant to promote the interests of the "exceptional individual."
The second is from the author David Foster Wallace on the tyranny of irony in the post-modern period.
The far-right makes plenty of hay out of this when figures on the left want to advocate for moral anti-realism and take a sledgehammer to culture, particularly religion and patriotic symbols, but are thrown into fits by even joking references to racism or sexism. Actually though, this makes perfect sense from within the context of the ideology, even though it seems hypocritical at first glance. Progressive liberalism tends to focus on race and sex precisely because people do not "choose" to be members of these categories. Hence, discrimination based on these categories is a barrier to the freedom of individuals to individuate.
By contrast, the modern tend to pay far less attention to the identifiers the right wants to focus on: ethnicity, religion, class (ironically*), regionalism, etc. Why? Because the enlightened liberal presumably transcends these categories. They are personally responsible for ditching their religion or finding an appropriately modern/progressive variant, reducing ethnic customs down to an acceptable limit, "moving out of fly-over country," etc. Ethnicity, regionalism, and even religion might be thought to be more tied to place, and the ideal liberal citizen has transcended place, while each place itself also becomes every other place.
Sexual orientation and gender are interesting here. There is an intense focus on presenting these as immutable, inborn characteristics, precisely because then they would fit the same criteria as sex and race. Hence the backlash about the idea of people being "transracial," or against research that suggested a degree of social contagion in gender dysphoria. It is important that people are "born this way" for the paradigm.
Although, prima facie there is no reason why discrimination should be "more acceptable" because it is based on a "choice."
* Before anyone says anything, I am not suggesting that the left doesn't pay attention redistributive economics aimed at the lower end of the income distribution. I am pointing out that they no longer focus on class as an identity, nor particularly on "class discrimination." It's the right now that seems to more often appeal to "elitism."
Literacy rates are typically attributed to socioeconomics, instruction quality, funding and resources, language barriers, and broader social factors like nutrition, healthcare, and family support. How does wokeness impact any of that?
There are 3 simple rules that seem to resolve most social problems.
1. We respect everyone. It does not matter who the other is, a bum or the mayor, because it is about our own character, not the other person's character. Either we are respectful people or we are not.
2. We protect the dignity of others. That can be hard to do, especially when everyone is playing "0ne-up-manship" and puts others down to be up.
3. We do everything with integrity.
Looking for an explanation of integrity, it dawned on me that we would not be fussing over woke if we had personal relationships with each other, and women stayed home to care for their families as they should. There are only so many people we can have in our lives. Only about 5 of these people will be intimate relationships and then come associates, and we are doing very well to know the names of 600 people and an idea of how their lives relate to ours. So when we stand in an elevator full or people, they will likely be strangers, trying to avoid contact and the cashier in our favorite store is a part of the register, not someone we have coffee with. The more impersonal we are, the more we need social rules.
Help me, how should this be explained? It is not natural for us to live in these huge cities where our lives are full of strangers. Without established relationships, there is a lot that can go wrong. How I react to you, and interpret what you say, is all about how well I know you, and if I don't know you, my gaurd is up and I am much more likely to be offended.
I might know something about you, but I do not know you, and this is much more likely to lead to disagreement and defensiveness. I woke in a world of strangers, and a lot is going wrong! In the past I would turn to family, but family is another state, is not what it used to be when Mom was taking care of everything. Now she is working and I am on my own in a world of strangers. Get the F off my lawn, you freak. Bang, bang, the kid playing a joke is dead.
I fail to grasp your meaning.
Well said, and I think I've seen that theme touched on in variety of books and articles I've read - the 'somewheres' vs. the 'anywheres'.
It all seems highly neoliberal to me? I just finished Michael Lind's "Hell to Pay" and he is pretty blunt about tossing 'left neoliberals' and 'libertarian conservatives' into the same guilty basket.
Do you see any merit in the idea that 'woke' is simply a neoliberal control tactic?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Another good point. It is strange to see the likes of Judith Butler taking this essentialist (?) stance.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Do traditional 'lefties' even think to think about class, at all, anymore? That seems in keeping with your comment here?
Feeling deeply about anything (thymos), or especially being deeply intellectually invested in an ideal (Logos), as opposed to being properly "pragmatic" (which normally means a focus on safety and epithumia, sensible pleasures) is seen as a sort failing.
I have a book by Deneen somewhere, you have piqued my interest in it with your quote. And I very much enjoyed your conversation with GazingGecko. That David Foster Wallace quote is great, although perhaps my saying that makes me guilty of consuming 'wisdom porn' myself.
Do you have an opinion on Joseph Heath? He studied under Charles Taylor, and while I haven't gotten to Taylor yet, I have enjoyed his student.
I get a lot out of your comments man.
Does your wife still teach? It's a tough gig, primarily because of appalling behaviour, regular violence, tolerance of disruption, etc. I was told thirty years back, during my b. ed, that we didn't need to 'worry' about discipline, because good lessons, culturally relevant material, etc would solve all the problems.
Wokeness has been the defining philosophical approach of public education for decades. Even the insistence on whole language over phonics is 'woke'.
Of course, I'm only talking about the what educators can control part of the equation.
Why any institution would want to convince people, especially children that it has been captured by 'white supremacy' and is therefore not to be trusted is beyond me.
Quoting Athena
I agree about those rules Athena.
I read "Whiteshift" by Eric Kaufmann recently, and he describes this problem in great detail.
This is one of the problems with wokeness, as I see it - the insistence that everyone care for people far outside the 'intimate circle' you describe, goes against human nature, evolutionary biology / psychology, however you would like to put it. And that's not a bad thing, it's the nature of our brains.
I'm Canadian, and I used to feel great pride in that. Still do, to an extent, but now I'm a rarity - the right and the left here both seem to think it naive to be proud of your nation.
As we welcome more and more immigrants, don't we need to be thinking about what culture we are welcoming them to?
Yes, she's taught high school English in a variety of districtssome more liberal, others more conservative; some affluent, and others less so.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
It's quite a stretch to consider the Science of Reading movement woke.
I have heard English is not the best language for expressing some things. I know I am often groping for the right word without success. I spoke with a friend about the relationship problem I perceive, and she immediately knew what I was talking about because she and I basically have the same experience of things changing over time. She immediately spoke of how we all got along and helped each other on a job. Not she and I, because we never worked together, but just the workplace was different. We were more personal and less "professional". :lol: My daughter and I have very different ideas about how things should be on the job.
The boundaries and goals were different. If someone was having a hard time with something, someone else would step in and help. We never heard of job descriptions. The job was everyone's job, and we did it together. Since then, I have been fired for being "too friendly". I have listened to nurses explain why they will no longer work in the hospital. They saw their jobs as caring, and the new policy pitted nurses against each other, and was a worse top-down organization than hospitals once were. How horribly ignorant to destroy the intrinsic qualities of a caring job. Now nurses want money, and they are not so much working for intrinsic reward. In a way, this is about status. People with money have more status than someone who is very caring. Having control over others is status. Things have changed.
The status of the mother has super changed! :gasp: Who wants to be "just a housewife"? I don't know if we will ever regain the value of the homemaker. We are living in a different reality and I think that really matters.
But the US is far less "woke" than most of Europe and the anglosphere, so by this logic we should all be envying the remarkably peaceful and disciplined American schools.
The reality is that it's the ways that the US genuinely is an outlier that makes schools more chaotic. Poor public funding, genuine poverty, a violent culture and parents who are suspicious of experts and science.
A personal bugbear for me is also how high schools are depicted on US TV. Every single time, even if it's a Disney movie or whatever, bullying is a significant plot point.
Don't get me wrong; kids are people and some people are jerks. Bullying happens. But having it central to the high school experience seems to normalize it IMO. Other countries manage to tell stories about kids that don't have to center around that behavior.
It is hard being human, and I think we need to lighten up. Since ancient times, it has been said, "if they knew better, they would do better". I am not sure what doing better means. Here my thinking gets all tangled up with quantum physics and consciousness and the possibility of more evolved planets. I think we look pretty barbaric compared to a different reality that I can imagine, thanks to Star Trek. Maybe our evolution is what it is and can not be different?
All hominids have evolved, but not all of them have survived. If we had the power of the gods, what would we change? And what is wrong with what we have done that we can not be proud of what we have achieved? How can we judge that without knowing the ideal that we should achieve?
I don't know that jargon, but a quick google tells me it includes teaching phonics, which means it is not the whole language approach.
The whole language approach is using contextual cues, guessing, etc to learn vocab without the sound-it-out basics of phonics. And it works fine for privileged kids - books around the house, parents that read to them, etc. I was taught this way, and you were too most likely. It's only the past few years where the failure of the approach has been addressed, and only in certain sectors of ed.
Turns out poor kids generally need direct instruction. This is ancient history man. I'm surprised you don't know what I'm talking about with a partner who teaches.
Quoting Mijin
I assume you read my posts and know that I am in Toronto, but nonetheless, the US might be 'less woke' in some respects, but it is also woke ground zero in the only considerations that matter. I mean, the philosophical roots are international, Marx, Foucault, Marcuse, Friere, etc.
But CRT and the vast majority of modern 'wokeness' come from US universities, where social science departments and faculties of ed are almost entirely 'woke'. Happy to provide data if you like.
For example. The language - BIPOC - has been exported globally, despite, 'hands up don't shoot' being a stupid thing to chant at unarmed English cops.
BIPOC is stupid here in Canada too, where, you know, the majority of people who owned slaves were indigenous. Our acronym should prioritize our own most vulnerable group, native Canadians.
Quoting Mijin
Okay, sure. There are regional funding issues with US schools - certainly not across the board. And poverty is a huge problem for educators.
Do Canadians have a 'violent culture'? We sure have a lot of violence in schools, largely because schools refuse to discipline children, are constantly worried about litigation, and essentially just cave in the face of complaints. All attributable to 'woke' thought, although I do acknowledge that these trends are far, far older than the term.
Quoting Mijin
I'm with you on this one! I loved that show 'The Wire' back in the day, but when they landed in the school system, the adults were powerless and the kids monstrous (at first - it actually grew into a more realistic portrayal over time). I never taught in downtown Baltimore, but I did teach four murderers at my first school, a ten-year period in a huge downtown Toronto school.
But you can be honest - some people are jerks - without presenting the whole situation as chaos.
Not sure this is unique to the US. Did you see 'Adolescence'? I liked the series, although I despise how people seem to find answers in a show that provides none. Mandate it for viewing in school? Stupid. Exploration of one family and the ramifications of horrific violence? Pretty good.
But those scenes in the wake of the murder, where the teachers were struggling to reign their kids in? Repulsive. That demonized kids, infantilized teachers, and 'normalized' bullying.
I was in class, rookie teacher, in front of 36 kids - 30 boys - when one of our students was murdered. I don't think two decades changes anything - these kids were human beings, we teachers were human beings. Human beings are deeply disturbed, saddened, enraged, etc by murder. They most definitely were not indifferent to it.
I am puzzled, tbh, by you guys. You genuinely don't think wokeness is a problem? Do you endorse elements of the practice? Fire Ologist wondered where the forceful defense of wokeness was, and I agree. I can't tell what you guys think.
Personally, I do not trust anyone who is never wrong. 'Wokeness' is never wrong. Are you guys 'woke'? Is there anything 'wrong' with woke? I would love to be proven wrong on this.
The refusal to answer good questions feels like proof of concept.
I hope I don't need to point out that I do not think conservatives have answers that the woke do not. Solutions in education do not adhere to archaic ideology.
Quoting Athena
I guess I am a philosophical pessimist, at my most cynical, an existentialist at my least? Without being an expert, I relate to those positions, so for sure, I could benefit from 'lightening up' :)
Quoting Athena
There are no Gods and we can be proud of what we have achieved - I love Shakespeare and Dickens, MLK and Gandhi, reggae music and punk rock. I love some people. I guess my best answer to your last question is that we can be 'whole hearted and half-sure'.
To me, the universalizing 'truth' is that we all suffer, and struggle, and yet we continue to make choices, including the choice to live.
Quoting Athena
Is that determinism? I can't concede that we have no agency individually, but millions of people with limited agency may look 'determined' when viewed as a group?
I am a lay philosopher and have only been trying to reconnect to the discipline for a few years, so I might be making some mistakes here, but I do agree with Sartre. We are all, individually, responsible for everything.
Despite nothing having any intrinsic 'meaning'. This is the source of human suffering, and also cause for hope. Maybe?
That's not a relevant point though, CRT is a college level topic in the US, where's the evidence of US schools being "woke"? Indeed *more woke than German, Kiwi, Spanish schools etc* to make sense of this talking point of wokeness being the problem?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
It largely doesn't even make sense as a coherent concept, and in general I am suspicious about content aimed at provoking outrage.
Let me explain where I am coming from.
Here in the UK we've had a long history of calling things "woke", except that actual term didn't exist so it was "political correctness gone MAD".
Headlines about how you couldn't say Christmas any more, or that blackouts were becoming brownouts. They always turned out to be exaggerations, misconceptions or just outright bollocks. But they reliably sold newspapers: people love that feeling of outrage.
Unfortunately it spilled over into the UK shooting itself in the foot and voting to leave the EU, as a huge proportion of Brits believed that "crazy rules from Brussels" were responsible for all the problems in society. Now that we've left the EU and the UK economy remains stagnant, no one can point to a single mad law that we've supposedly extricated ourselves from.
And there's a worse element to this, because now even reporting accurate information about US history is being labeled "woke", and censored. Or it's "woke" to point out that immigrants eating dogs or being part of a crime wave is lies. It's being used as an excuse to lie to people, and keep them ignorant.
So anyway, yes if there's an example of a DEI policy that went too far or whatever, of course I'll call it out. But in general when someone's ranting about "woke" my finger is hovering over the Google button because I know 9/10 it will be pure bull.
Quite so.
Your description of use in the UK matches that Dow nunder.
:up:
Yes, and this unwittingly puts the identity category, the ideology, first and foremost, before the individual. For example, one sees discrimination based on skin color, and then, without need to ask the individual who is discriminated against, one can judge the individual must identify with that skin based category so that individual must be being oppressed - you sort of know a persons victim status and how oppressed they have been from individuating themselves, without need to consult with the actual individual, because of the identity category.
So white people get to feel good fighting with BLM whether black people agree with BLM or not.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
And now we get all of the calls to break up the union into smaller states based on locale.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
So in the name of the freedom to individuate and to distinguish something individual, each place becomes the same as the last place. More unwitting contradiction and self-defeating policy.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
But isnt that just the rights lame attempt to fight fire with fire, as in if you cant beat identity politics, make up your own version? Its still weak and sourced to leftist tactics. Or maybe I should say tyrannical tactics enjoyed on both right extremes and left center and extremes.
Not seeing what woke is, is very woke.
You wrote clearly but I got mixed up somehow and thought you were saying that phonics was woke. I guess because the phonics approach is a relatively recent development. Anyway, I still don't understand how either approach to teaching reading is woke. Can you explain?
Hey man,
I am stretching this term here, perhaps too much, but the philosophical approach is certainly the same, a downplaying of the role of teacher as expert / instructor, the idea that the student just needs to find themselves, to construct their own knowledge. I think it lead towards, say, the book club, and away from the 'whole class novel'. This makes direct instruction much harder. It's the naivety of it all that seems the best point of comparison.
Perhaps that's too much of a stretch? I remember, early in my career, opining to a senior colleague that we can use our 'moral authority' as teachers to help classroom discipline. He replied 'what authority'?
That stance - who are we to be experts, we represent 'the man' - was not uncommon in his generation, and in many ways remains the dominant belief system.
I think we see the impact of this in declining standards all over the place - discipline, academic honesty, falling over backwards to accommodate litigious students and parents, etc.
Of course, all sorts of great teachers, or just average ones, are doing a lot of good work. But this 'race to the bottom' in standards makes it harder for good teachers to stand out.
The child is placed on equal footing with the adults, even in matters in which the child is clearly acting out.
Too much? What do you think?
What does your wife think about the state of schools? She's worked in different environments - there might be more variance between states, say, that between provinces here in Canada.
If you had meant this as a joke, I'd salute you as thread winner.
But, sadly, it seems more likely that you're being serious.
Dead serious.
What is funny is that the same people who cant see what wokeness is, somehow see with absolute clarity that Kirk was racist. Or Trump is a fascist dictator. Nothing vague to puzzle over about those things.
But wokeness cant imagine what all the fuss is about.
Yep. You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something?
No wonder you're so against it!
Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Definitely fascist. Once again: which of the things in this list does not fit trump?
"Dictator" though is a status, not merely an ideology. He wants to be a dictator, that's for sure, but he's not there yet.
For sure about that? Like Descartes for sure with certainty sure? Sure about what a dictator is, for some reason? Trump is clearly a dictator wannabe. All crystal clear. What does that mean a republican is, all 70 plus million of them? Besides you and the others who hate Trump with you, all those republicans must be stupid, or must want to be a fascist with Trump.
You are sure about all that.
But a working definition, or some sort of parameters for what woke is or means, or how it works that is just incoherent. Still totally stumped.
Quoting Mijin
No. I see pretty clearly what woke is. I defined it before - I probably said something about a focus on identity based power relations played out as race, sex, religion, all to be managed under values of diversity, equity and inclusion. Its fairly rigid and predictable. But one of its tactics is to play relativist with definitions it doesnt want to argue about. It is very woke to avoid defending key concepts, like woman or truth or woke.
But I see things more clearly than that. Not perfectly of course - there has to be room for even a paradigm shift to creep in. But for now, if someone says they are a climate activist, we immediately know about ten things they certainly believe. All woke thoughts, well-trained slogans in support of each one. Climate activist for some reason means Palestine supporter, democrat, anti-capitalist, free healthcare for all, free immigration, somewhere on the socialist-communist spectrum, etc, etc. All woke for the most part.
MAGA, thats easy to define for the woke side. Right? MAGA is easy. So many ways to exemplify maga. All of them also exemplifying badness as well.
But wokeness - totally incoherent.
The woke coined the term woke. Which is ironic now that they flee from the term. Its CRT. Its my body my choice. Its breaking the glass ceiling. Its occupy Wall Street and Antifa and BLM. All sharing space with wokeness. Its defund the police. Its Catholic Nancy Pellosis stance on abortion.
Its live and let live (except for republicans and anyone who challenges them).
Its care for the victims (except for republicans).
Its everyone is a victim (except white cis men).
Its tolerate diversity (just no, its not, I take that back).
Its freedom of speech (except for republicans aka hate speakers) (and actually, no, it used to be about free speech in the 1960s, but not anymore - too much thought police that is essential to wokeness - whats your pronoun or should you be canceled - screw freedom.)
Quoting Mijin
I was about to say the same thing. But yes I have. TPF is where I beg for a challenge.
I read your linked list of fascism. Pretty good. Much of the list applied to Biden and Harris and Dems too. Fascism is too state power for me to fit with the republicans or even Trump. It misses the mark. Many items on the list didnt apply to Trump at all. But your list doesnt argue your point for you. Trump has all the power he needs right now. Hes making moves all around the world. Hes not gonna be a dictator and neither is any republican. America is not Europe. It never was. Hitler and his socialist party is not instructive of what Trump is or what is happening today.
Have you ever considered that if you really dont get woke, you dont get Trump either?
I predict if more Dems dont figure this out, they will lose even more seats in the mid terms. So far, there is no blue wave coming. Probably the opposite. If the Dems dont take the House next year, JD Vance is likely the next president.
Repubs have been taken for granted for 30 years. Thats over now.
If anything could really expose wokeism and actually end it, it is this killing of Kirk. Conservatives always had the better arguments. Now conservatives are emboldened. Many more people will no longer be afraid to offend some new identity group, or to use the wrong pronoun, or to trigger someone in their safe space at the drag queen childrens book reading event. The spin to cover up bad ideas, the refusal to face reality (like the fact that woke really is a thing), isnt working any more.
People are turning away from the Democrat party because of wokeism. If you believe in it you should engage with it more - provide positive substance supporting and clarifying the good woke way, and not just say Trump is a douche as your key platform piece and best argument for not-maga.
Maybe wokeism will actually die after all. (Doubt it - it so ingrained and well-funded, the death rattle will take years with plenty of opportunity to be resuscitated.).
The struggle to be born that is the US continues
Like what? That was exactly the question I asked, so let's hear the one on the list that doesn't apply?
AFAICT the only one really debatable is the last on the list (launching a war of conquest) which is given as something common to fascism, not necessary. And there's still time...
And also you say that other leaders like Biden meet the items in the list. Let's hear that elaboration.
----------------------------------
In terms of the central thread topic of "wokeism" though, nobody knows what point you're trying to make, least of all you.
You write that "I see pretty clearly what woke is", and yet here's a selection of the changing, arbitrary ways you've defined it:
Quoting Fire Ologist
And then the icing on the cake: "Not seeing what woke is, is very woke".
So are you woke? :scream:
The so called deplorables that Trump branded to were promised a return to a time when America was great; a time before their socioeconomic status shrank. The death of wokeness makes them feel a bit better, like their status has risen somewhat, though unfortunately the industrial sector remains depressed and will never return to its former glory. The future is mass automation.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You believe the shooter is a woke leftist?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Trump knows how unpopular his administration is so far this term and thats why hes issuing orders for gerrymandering.
Why?
I can think of doing things that I strongly regret, but in reflection, I know I did the best I could with what I knew at the time. Is it just to whip someone for poor judgment and hold him/her responsible when the person did not know enough to do better? In speaking with others about this, forgiving ourselves seems to be one of the hardest things for us to do. Having a forgiving god is very helpful if we don't take advantage of Him. :lol:
I don't need someone to argue with because I argue with myself. For almost everything I say, my mind immediately argues the opposite, and this is exhausting. The best I can do is lighten up and laugh at myself. I can not be as sure of myself as the great philosophers. :lol: Of all the gifts a god may give us, a sense of humor may be the most important. How else can we manage our suffering and hope?
In Sartre's day, we didn't know as much as we do today. How wonderful to walk with Socrates and Plato, discovering life's truths when there was so little to know in their day. Holding the individual responsible for everything seems to me an unrealistic expectation, given what we know today. And it may have always been an unreasonable expectation. I have been watching YouTube explanations of our evolution and history, and that we just survived is amazing. How much more should we expect of ourselves?
How about compassion and acceptance of differences? I ask that question and immediately experience fear. Out of fear, I ask who I can turn to if I get into trouble, and I am not confident anyone could help me, so how woke should I be? Maybe before we expect people to be woke, we should investigate what do they fear? Is there anything that can be done about what causes the fear?
What is the meaning of Woke? I read it began with a woman of color telling others of color they should not be passive about tolerating discrimination that kept their families poor. Like Mother Jones, who encouraged the miners to fight for higher wages and better working conditions. We come from a history of humans exploiting other humans until those who are exploited rebel against the system that keeps them down. As long as human rights is a power game, there will be power clashes.
The US is proud of its claim to protect human rights, but does its history of human rights justify that pride? If it does, why is Woke still an issue?
I am tempted to borrow this and use it when I feel the argumentative urge rising...
I have wished I could believe in a God or religion my entire life - I grew up in a small city with a lot of conservative, religious people, and I saw how much meaning it brought to them.
Having lived through a lot of tragedy in the past decade+, it was this group of people that stepped up for me most, overall. People I hadn't talked to in years, casual friends who became close, etc. I do think people who practice virtues in a community setting are better at those virtues, in general. Thanks to Count Timothy for turning me on to "After Virtue".
Staunch atheist that I am, I can still find some comfort and meaning in religious thought. Christianity has been deemed toxic in some of my (former) progressive circles, and I find that painful, such a diminishment of the richness of our shared history.
Quoting Athena
Definitely. Not realistic. But neither are many of the divine principles of the religions I am familiar with. I guess you could say I came to philosophy late in life as part of a search for meaning, or it's absence, and I don't separate the rational from the divine in the existential realm.
Plus, the whole 'philosopher condemns man to be free, joins French resistance' angle inspired me to try to learn some philosophy a few years ago. I had become tired of belief systems that seemed to inspire no action.
Quoting Athena
Interesting comment.
Fear is your instant response, and I had similar automatic responses when I used to find myself in group woke environments. In certain contexts - people passing as experts, leading workshops that ignored meaningful solutions to real problems in favour of wokety blah blah - my fight or flight response would trigger. I didn't realize I had PTSD at the time, or I could have avoided that response strategically.
Woke BS would occasionally trigger my PTSD. It feels crazy to claim that, but true.
Different from fear, but the same automatic activation of strong negative emotions. Triggered by threat.
'Wokeness' is threatening, and those emotional responses should help us to deal with that threat, from an evolutionary perspective. Society is suspicious of negative emotions in general, but I certainly do better personally when I direct that heightened level of arousal with purpose rather than trying to 'subdue' it.
Easier said than done :)
Solutions? It appears to me that there are no coherent, shared moral principles around which Woke states can organize themselves that do not lead to increased polarization and a rejection of the local community in favour of a shared global community of values found on screens.
The only 'pragmatic' solution I see is to find interest groups across political and demographic divides that unite on primary shared moral principles. I think of free speech heroes FIRE in the US, who attract conservatives and liberals.
In a world with so little coherent narrative available, I think a track record of commitment to fundamental principles should demand more attention, and should be a primary objective, especially for young people who see our naked emperor.
I agree.
Too often any discussion platform becomes shout down, shut out, (even duck and seek cover it seems). Everyone is too comfortable with the polarization. We just throw the opposition into their appropriate, factually incorrect, buckets of deplorables and shout at them. All tribes do this.
No one wants to apply any self-awareness about how we exacerbate what we fear. We scream fire fire! while reaching for the gasoline.
There is so precious little good faith left between the sides. And it is not just extremists on both sides. Its everyone. The line between Republican and Democrat is stark (woke securely on the progressive side, and conservatives squarely republican) like a border wall.
No one even sees or hears each other anymore. Or wants to.
I agree there are some coherent moral principles shared between the two sides. Like free speech is a good one. Everyone knows free political speech is an essential right. But instead of building on that shared principle, weve all been too demonized to trust anything the opposition says (in both directions). The conversation about free speech is yeah, but you cheered when Kirk was shot! Versus yeah, but you cheered when the FCC shut down Kimmel!
Another is due process before the law and fairness. We all agree on that.
And if people take a breath and say I agree with you - how to do we come together with a consistent response to attacks on free speech? It all falls to crap with how could you possibly agree with me because of ten other grievances - I dont trust you at all.
No one takes an argument from the other side at face value.
And our politicians are playing a game to score points with their bases in order to gain votes to extend their political careers. At least that is what a lot of them sound like to me. Just in another game, and not serious.
You would hope the philosophic types around here would be able to parse through the emotional knee-jerk mess a little better, identify facts, and stay logical and reasonable with the analysis and conclusions. But even here, people just overlook each other, and look through the text for dog-whistles and lies, and seek ways to avoid or downplay bad facts instead of just dealing with the best arguments. Im sure many who read this and know Im conservative, are thinking of all the ways to shred it for ill-intent, and to show how I am somehow being fascist (because fascism and conservatism must go hand in hand), and how I must not be a reasonable person.
No one wants to believe we really have the capability to do much better. Things are dire because leadership (Trump, JD Vance, AOC, Jeffries, etc.) cannot help themselves from fanning flames. Flames score points.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Is the naked emperor on both sides? Is wokism the naked emperor, along with conservatives often excessive and cold-hearted ways?
Not quite. I am quite personally really perturbed and unsettled by the celebrations and subsequent justifications of the same. This murder and its response seems like a Rubicon moment to me. I didn't see this coming. Kirk is just so ... middling...both the event and the response are out of all proportion (which doesn't surprise) and are explicitly hateful and violent. This, to me, was not predictable.
I also apologise to everyone for double-posts that will inevitably result from three-four weeks away.
Which, as I have quite clearly and distinctly laid out for you - does not have anythign to do with sex determination. Aberration doesn't change your sex. Please read this again: aberration does not change your sex. Now say it with me: aberration does not change your sex.
Either your SRY is active, or it is not. You are either male or female, and there is no in between or "not either" scenario. You could tell me, if there were, i'm sure.
Quoting Mijin
This is pure nonsense. You brought it up. You deal with it. I didn't suggest we do that and no where did I intimate it was reasonable to suggest so. Either work up something which indicates I might want to defend this, or put it down my guy.
I saw a few clips of transgender folks who seemed happy about it. I guess thats understandable given that they didnt know Kirk on a personal level and Kirk openly referred to them as abominations. Honestly, if someone publicly promoted the idea that I was an abomination merely because I was a transsexual or whatever I would be happy they were gone. You cant argue with irrational disgust and hatred.
I couldnt have predicted how MAGA would use the assassination for woke/leftist hate-mongering. Thats a new low.
Celebrating hte political murder of someone who defended his positions on conceptual grounds, and never expressed hatred for anyone is irrational, abominable and quite clearly dangerous. It smacks of "I have never paid any attention to this person, besides clipped bollocks my hateful friends sent me because they constantly search for shit to be outraged about instead of just letting people have different views".
That one seems an axiom of that type of leftist. Anyone paying attention(to Kirk, or the climate) would understand that.
Quoting praxis
But you can argue with people who are willfully dishonest about those whom they need to justify their hate. This is a prime example. Whether they are open to accepting reality (or, more properly, their ignorance) is something we content with daily.
People say awful shit about groups of people all the fucking time. We don't shoot people over it. Even partially justifying this is tantamount to misunderstanding what has happened, at all.
Right and we're talking about how we determine sex. And your idea of using the SRY gene fails for at least these 3 reasons:
1. There are more than 2 genotypes for this gene -- it's not binary
2. How would we know what gene someone has, since their genitalia and secondary characteristics may not align. Call that an "aberration" or whatever other word you like. It remains impractical, since you balked at the idea of mandatory DNA testing, so how would it work in schools, prisons, hospitals etc?
3. Biologists do not define sex this way as it's completely arbitrary. I know you're happy to handwave everything that people who actually study this topic say, but it's a critical point for those of us who are not guided by conservative talking points over science.
Quoting AmadeusD
WTF? We were talking about gender being non-binary, and you brought up the SRY gene. Don't blame me if it's an indefensible position.
The word abomination generally means something regarded with extreme disgust, hatred, or loathing. How do you defend that on conceptual grounds?
No one needs to feel, much less encourage others to feel, disgust and hatred towards trans people.
I am going to have to respond to one thought at a time, especially because you said you discovered you had PTSD. I am considering starting a thread just for PTSD survivors. It is a serious problem, especially when one does not know that it is a personal problem, turning one's life upside down. When I was dealing with it, it was the Toastmistress women who got me through, and because I thought I was possibly possessed by Satan, and a well-meaning church person told me that, because I turned to the church, Satan was the cause of my suffering. I had to either give in to evil or decide once and for all the mythology was not true and that it could be very harmful. I am extremely thankful, that I decided the mythology is the evil and Satan is a terrible belief. I am saying this because your experience was so different from mine.
It was the Greek gods who saved my sorry ass. From them, I start the path of "being my own hero". That is very helpful, but it was learning about PTSD and getting mental help that finally set me free. However, following the gods and learning of virtues, and my mission to make a difference through education, is what makes my life so good now. I must say, trying to understand math, quantum physics, and consciousness is making my life wonderful right now.
Our heritage is the Greeks and philosophy. They are essential to democracy and liberty, and liberty is the subject of this thread. When it comes to Woke, it is my understanding that the Greeks did not have a problem with homosexuality. In fact, it was pretty common for a man to have a wife to produce children, while the real love was between a younger and older man. This was very much so for Spartans. We might want to look at our mythology and around the world, before being sure there is a God who opposes homosexuality, and not hormones that make it so. When the great mathematician Turing was persecuted for being a homosexual, he was forced to have hormone injections or go to prison. They knew his homosexuality had something to do with hormones, but they treated him like a criminal, and he committed suicide. We lost a math genius, and something is messed up with that mentality built on a mythology instead of science. :worry:
We once believed virtues made us strong. We do not need an evil mythology of Satan and demons and a jealous, revengeful, and punishing, war god. If we do not want to give up immortality, we can wonder about quantum physics.
We had that. It was called public education and being American. That education was built on the Athenian model of education for well-rounded, individual growth. An evil religion based on a mythology of false beliefs and distorted history is not a good thing.
Hello Fire!
Are you an American? I always find it strange how the entire WEIRD world seems to have imported the binary of Republican / Democrat. Or the tenants of wokeness, like BIPOC - neither frame should resonate here in Canada the same as they do in the US, yet we import them intact.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I see a significant minority of thoughtful conservatives rejecting this, which I think speaks to the value of an issue of principle like freedom of speech. I see fewer lefties standing on principle here, but some.
Frankly, the only value I see remaining in the political spectrum are these principled stances.
I often think of this doc on racism in the UK I watched last year. One of the talking heads said, to paraphrase, "I'm more on the side of X than King" when it comes to activism. Which conflates the two, obviously, ignores the fact that King succeeded where X did not, and fails to recognize that it was the Christian, non-violent values that King embodied that empowered his successes.
To this talking head, the only thing that seemed to matter was the cause, and any methods were permissible to achieve it.
But I don't think this style of thinking is as pervasive as you do - there are a lot of silenced voices in the middle. The opportunity cost of expressing these views, or remaining neutral, is just too high for some people.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes. I've already seen how people that can seem like Doyle's 12 year old on this topic can make outstanding, thoughtful comments elsewhere. BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I view the woke project as a result of a neoliberal, morally relativistic technocracy. I think those excessive, cold-hearted conservatives are neoliberal moral relativists too ... just not technocrats.
So it is essentially the same emperor to me, one whose power rests on obscene wealth, across the spectrum.
I hope you do!
I find it remarkable that I did not realize I had PTSD for close to a decade. I could recognize mental illness in others but not myself. As a man, of a certain age, I think it was just not considered a possibility. This was a massive insight for me, not just personally, but because it made me realize how deeply embedded certain values and beliefs are in my progressive world.
Quoting Athena
I certainly taught with that principle in mind. That, unfortunately, is what got me cancelled, which lead to my downfall.
Historically, there are plenty of schools whose goals were more social control than human empowerment, but I still value the project. I fear education has becoming overwhelmingly woke, which to me is divisive, a state I find most problematic given that these are children, who are required by law to subject themselves to what, at times, is nothing more than indoctrination.
BTW, I look forward to your thread on the history of education as well as the one on PTSD.
Kirk's murder might not have been the best example for me to raise - the response does have a Rubicon feel to it. I didn't predict anything of this scale, that's for sure.
It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism.
I find both extremes of the spectrum gross. I'm not used to feeling them gross in the same fashion.
From women in combat to Trumps border wall, here are the policies Pete Hegseth has spoken out on
[sup] POLITICO · Nov 13, 2024[/sup]
Veterans assail Pete Hegseths clueless, self-aggrandizing leadership after remarks to military officials
[sup] The Independent · Sep 30, 2025[/sup]
Hegseth rails against 'woke,' lays out standards in speech to top generals, admirals
[sup] ABC News · Sep 30, 2025 · 4m:56s[/sup]
Is this how the term is generally understood?
Hegseth is an appointed official after all.
Yes, Im an American. From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. The USs Democrat/ Repub division of the political parties does seem to be fairly universal. There are all types of people on an individual basis, but generally, the left-leaning/progressive thinkers are Democrats here, and the right-leaning/conservative thinkers are republicans. All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. So the independent folks are being trampled by the left and turned away from the left. They have no where else to go but the Republican Party, and it helps republicans win elections.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That is really interesting. I heard an anecdote the other day that points to this same observation of yours.
This woman said she was probably 70% liberal/progressive, and 30% conservative. But she was a registered Independent. So she mostly disagreed with the republicans, and would argue with them constantly, but on the few issues where they could agree, they would be able to connect, and even bond. So in the end they generally got along dispute mostly disagreeing. But when she was with the democrats, the Dems didnt care how much they agreed, they would shut her down and kick her out for not conforming on all issues.
The progressives cant fathom a different opinion than their own. Any outsider on any issue must be a facist/racist/sexist, and all of those who hold any opinion that opposes them, indicates to them a person who cannot be trusted on anything. Such people are to be feared, hated and silenced.
This is the lefts biggest problem - its become mob rule at its worst.
That seems to be a government thing these days.
Hegseth slams 'fat generals,' Trump touts cities as troop training grounds
[sup] Reuters · Sep 30, 2025[/sup]
Quoting Trump
Trump tells a roomful of silent generals to join a war from within
[sup] The Washington Post · Sep 30, 2025[/sup]
I can understand different opinions. Its not that difficult.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Outsider is an odd term to use.
Btw, I dont trust people who make false statements.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I dont fear, hate, or silence people who make false statements. I usually just try to correct them.
Gotta admit, there are people who misjudge, and therefore abuse, the Kirk situation from both sides.
But the vast majority of people on the right see it as only tragic. But tragic for all sides. Bad for the country, and bad for liberty and peace, and for life itself. (The frickin guy bled from his neck to death for using a microphone at school.) Many on the left get the picture too. But not enough it seems.
This Kirk thing will be around for a while. This is like an MLK. The left doesnt understand how browbeaten conservatives have been, because they are the last people to admit it.
Kirk is going to represent a new vocalization of conservative values, and a sort of last straw.
Conservatives have allowed themselves to be labeled fascist, racist, sexist Hitler wannabes. Since President Nixon and the 1960s really.
I think the media will all be forced to show another side of conservatives and republicans. The media no longer can contain a more realistic image of the average conservative, hidden behind the caricature the progressive left wants to portray.
Kirk just doesnt look like a racist sexist, person, and because the left wont look at him, they are the only ones who cant see that.
The irony is, its like the right has become woke - awoken to the need to deny being a racist, and repudiate the harmful folly of DEI, and speak the truth of proven traditions.
There are terrible things in the past, but those are all the left sees. And they make up new terrible things and boogiemen and want to talk about them as well - and all republicans always go in the same bucks the rest of th terrible things they only want to look at. At once, morally superior as they burn down everyone who is not monolithically with them.
No longer will that be the only conversation. Kimmel and Colbert, and many other screaming wokeists just dont function like they used to.
If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no blue wave (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.
Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. Maybe someday
The hand on the scale is wavering.
But the schools will have to turn around a bit, and that will be tough as that is really where leftism/ wokeism seems most comfortable, and apparently, bold and militant.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I didnt think anyone was even following, so thanks for noticing the feeble effort. You are making a lot of sense to me as well.
Quoting jorndoe
Maybe, but I was talking about your average progressive Democrat. Not the government. (At least not currently.)
Quoting Trump
Sounds like a tough meeting for the top brass. Im sure our military leaders can handle tough confrontations, dont you think? That meeting inspired and emboldened, as much as it drew any petty outrage or fear, and as much as it annoyed the media-leftist-democrat (woke) complex. More good than harm done there, if you ask me.
Quoting praxis
Why is that? There are many outsiders to leftist progressives. Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. (The right also uses identity politics - its a shitty tactic just as well. The right could screw up this moment easily with their own othering, but Im still trying to talk about the woke left.)
Unintentionally (with no self awareness) progressives are the kings of othering and dehumanizing and shouting down the outsider (fascist! Racist! sexist rapist, Hitler, Nazi, hater, gestapo, republican, white man, deplorable, redneck (rural-flyover country) etc ). And outside the buckets, the left makes outsiders on a case by case basis too. Plenty of progressives and democrats in the 1980s were pro life, but not any more. If you think you are left but think abortion is killing a person, are you welcome to the Democrat party? Or if you think men and women are just different, you cant be woke or left or progressive anymore. Today we no longer know if feminists are woke enough, because they seem to conflict with trans and general cutting edge sexist analysis.
That is the closest youve come to just saying you are a progressive. I appreciate the openness.
You are right. What I said above was imprecise. I should say this instead: On many issues relating to political power, culture and human interaction, Progressives cant fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions.
Nice! I was a camp counsellor one summer in Schwenksville, PA. Spent a few days in Philly afterwards. Great city. Possible World Series opponents, you and I.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think the 'mob' you are referring to here are essentially moral relativists, a trend beginning in the 60s and continuing today. Parents that teach their kids that there are no universal moral values, but also don't take them to church or provide them with alternatives beyond general cultural norms for being 'good'.
I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history.
Systems oppress, standpoint epistemology helps overcome historical bias, shared social justice endeavours are empowering ... these are sort of default beliefs today.
So for someone outside of these 'marginalized' groups, the correct stance becomes sort of a collective willingness to outsource moral claims to outsider voices, increasingly represented by privileged technocrats, which are then shared back to, and validated by, a group consensus or vibe.
Charitably, this is a moral belief system, and it could theoretically be valid, but it seems that it is failing a stress test in the social media age. This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse.
Of course, this mainstream 'mob' doesn't come to these conclusions alone - the true believers serve as the priestly caste, in many ways. It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example.
And both groups would be irrelevant if our global elites, across the political spectrum, weren't largely neoliberal technocrats, happy to outsource morality to HR departments, thus hedging their bets in case they get sued for discrimination, an idea I learned from Richard Hanania.
Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude.
The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters.
I used to teach a Christopher Hedges essay on 'turning a blind eye'. It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity.
I got much of my thinking here from dissonance theory, as outlined in "Mistakes Were Made, (but Not by Me)", Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's classic.
It seems to me obvious that woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. That's some tremendous cognitive dissonance.
I just can't understand not recognizing the weight of Pascal's wager here.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Even if people find my thinking here conspiratorial nonsense, pragmatically it feels urgent for the left to address the worst excesses of woke mob rule. The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left.
FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. But like you Fire, I agree that some people are left with no alternative but to plug their noses and vote for a party or leader they do not respect. I asked my tenant a hypothetical the other day - who would you choose between Trudeau and Trump?
I couldn't vote for either, morally. I identify as a conscientious objector and have voted only once since the pandemic. And as a Canadian, I have more options to chose from. I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology.
You can't do that if I renounce the experiment entirely.
Fire, have you seen the 'perfect rhetorical fortress' concept?
And do you read Jonathan Turley?
Sorry for the length of the post!
Trump Tells Generals the Military Will Be Used to Fight Enemy Within
Quoting Fire Ologist
You mean 'oppressor and oppressed', not othering, right? Remember, the first wokeist was Karl Marx. :lol:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Jesus, pull the hook out of your mouth. Numerous studies reveal that Americans are not nearly as politically divided as political rhetoric such as Trumps might suggest.
My grandmother began as a public school teacher and was forced to retire when was 65. Then she turned to private schools. One small private school interfered with her classroom discipline, and she quit. She demanded authority in her classroom, and there were enough small private schools for her to find a school that respected her as a teacher. Since her time, I have seen doctors and dentists belittled for spending too much time with patients. These educated and professional people were treated as assembly line workers.
What I am speaking of here is a matter of authority. Who has the authority to dictate what happens in the workspace of educated professionals or business owners?
Yes, we have social injustices, but is distroy individual liberty and power the best way to handle this fact of life?
Here is a reading of a book that explains the evil consuming us now. Brave New World.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FDwfNE6YE
Hi Athena. Great story about grandma. Education is in my family too - my maternal grandmother opened a nursery school in basement. One of the first women in her community to 'work'.
She raised my mom, who floated around teaching the younger grade levels until finding a home in kindergarten. When mom passed, she had families showing up at the funeral - from kindergarten! She had became something of a figure at the school, and loads of kids had cousins or siblings that ended up with her. I fear that identity - community teacher - is in decline as neoliberals seem to prefer teachers be interchangeable.
Quoting Athena
I fault neoliberalism - but more plainly, the fear of lawsuits seems the driving force of 'determining authority'. Teachers here only have the authority they are able to create for themselves - it is impossible in Ontario to count on admin to support them, in all but the most extreme cases.
Wouldn't it make sense to build schools around the best teachers - like your grandmother and my mom?
I used to be diametrically opposed to charter schools, private schools, etc. Given I fear that public education in Canada has been ideologically captured, I now wish we had more choice for students and teachers both.
Quoting Athena
Neil Postman wrote back in the 80s that our dystopia would be Brave New World not 1984. I agree with both you and him!
Me too! :razz:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Toronto? Yes indeed! Hope so for both of us!
And Schwenksville - thats crazy! Been there myself. Thats the home of the annual Philly Folk Festival, for 60 plus years now.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I agree - underneath it all when being honest - most adults are just people, and do share a few basic values.
But also, looking only surface deep at each other (which wokeism promotes with its focus on race and physical identity), people easily become reluctant to notice what we share in common. We all give in to fear and ignorance and tribalism too easily, and it becomes too hard to offer humility and respect (and the left chastises any show of respect for the other side). So any shared values we might identify never get a chance to help us come together.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes - this is ingrained. And although systems do limit us, oppress is the wrong word. So it is irrational to reify the insight that systems oppress as wokeism does. For people who think simply that systems oppress, what is not admitted or dealt with is this: when systems are toppled, new systems emerge, so we cant just say systems, like oppression, are always bad, and must never take hold. We need to make good systems, not no systems. There will always be systems and hierarchies, and the powerful and the weak. Period. We need to grapple with that, not imagine it doesnt exist and shoot for toppling all systematizers. We are all adherence to system. Period. So lets get to work on a good one, not blindly topple all of them.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
That is interesting. And I agree. The vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough. One mans good vibe is another mans vague confusion. This is the problem with consensus based conclusions generally. Reliance on a consensus to ground authority doesnt work as soon leadership conflicts with itself ans our leaders live to do, and also as soon as the populous is split 50/50, which it is. There is no moral authority. Too often, no one even wants to identify a consensus. They just want to shout louder and see if the loudest one wins the day. And consensus changes with the wind, as it has for female athletes and gay people, thanks to the new trans consensus.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I agree. DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesnt just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. Trump and his ilk are beneath reasonableness and worthy of contempt as evil doers. But as far as the positive proclamations of woke, that is now postmodern and amorphous, amenable only to posturing, confusion (often intentional confusion) and moral conflict. Total mess when the left runs things.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Dont you think that describes the vast, vast majority of leftists? They are so certain a man like Kirk gets killed annd they are so certain they can celebrate it, and vilify any/all who show any sympathy for the dead man. It takes some kind of certainty to act they way. Celebrating victimization is supposed to be the type of oppressive behavior the left hates and seeks to redress. But they cant see Charlie was a victim at all, despite the blood and the murder on a sunny day at a stimulus school for kids. They utterly blow the moral argument all of the time, utterly contradict any moral authority they think they have, and then, with zero self-reflection, they confidently act like the oppressors they are supposed to be resisting. Like affirmative action - it should be sour medicine at best, but instead, it is reverse racism to be celebrated for some reason.
Look, I obviously tend to be more harsh on the left than the right, because Im conservative. (And have been brow beaten all my adult life.) But I think the conservative counter-argument to the wrongs the left have been perpetrating in the name of political correctness/wokism are much more relevant today than the more shallow fears and purported injustices the left wants to focus on. Many might not want to admit it, but the US, and really the world, is in a better place today since Trump took office. The biggest threat to the US today is the same as it has been for 20 years - Democrat policies. Conservative racism and fascism is simply put, bullshit. The left is full of too much obvious bullshit, and too many people already see it, too many have seen enough of it, and too many people are leaving the Democrat Party everyday the left does and says another stupid thing.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
That is a problem. The left cant tolerate true diversity. The left drops all balls they think matter, and never picks up the balls that actually do matter.
I will say, I have less fear of those who are certain. What bothers me is what such people do when their certainty is challenged. If you are certain, ok, but if someone disagrees with you, you can shut the opponent down, or you can engage and convince them of the truth you are so certain about. I just want engagement, and certainly not more shutting down and shouting down. Rational certainty is fine (and should indeed be rare). Emotionally driven certainty - makes for a terrible conversation.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes! And they have turned a blind eye towards their own self - they will not look in the mirror. The woke are now the most asleep among us. And it is a loss to all of us, and to healthy debate.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes, but I wouldnt say may - Id just say clearly. How about gender, and children? How about women athletes? How about Jewish people? How about poor inner city folks? How about language - basic words are no longer supposed to have meaning. What does woman or fascist really mean anymore - when the examples they give of each are unrecognizable )or purposefully hollow)?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
100%. Liberal thought gave us the US constitution and the modern nation-state. Liberal thought gave us more faith in science and reason. You have to have some liberal in you to be an artist, and art is vital. There is a lot more work to be done, and the creative spirit of liberalism is always going to be needed. So I fully agree here.
But the left is too greedy with power and control to risk humility and partnership with anyone who isnt a parrot. The left would say my praise for the goods of liberalism are not enough, and so useless and shrug me off.
The left is destroying the good of liberalism, as it destroys everything it touches. In the name of sexual freedom, they promote and push chopping off body parts, and their reasoning is to affirm gender - so clearly irrational, or at least, chopping off adolescent body parts is valid as a debate topic. Except to a wokeist.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I know you do. Which is why I appreciate your voice of reason here on the forum. And thanks for making sure I knew that - that is your good faith and honesty coming through, which I already knew (but thanks).
The media image of Maga is insane, and there are millions of idiots to choose from as examples of what is wrong with MAGA. That is a worthy analysis to undergo.
The caricature of the conservative is so deeply ingrained in western culture, it is easy to find people who appear to be just another redneck, Nazi republican. It it so clear, in the media, who the bad guys are, and they (we) are so vilified, that the constant browbeating fuels actual bad guys, the worst elements of Maga.
But if you look closer, there are tens of millions of folks like me. We are lumped in with the media boogeyman that is conservatism, and with MAGA. But most of us are slightly less ignorant, not the least bit fascist, and not interested in race or whatever adults want to do with other adults in their pants and skirts. The conservative (not MAGA) movement can think, and we see through the slogans and posturing and ridiculous ideas on both sides. (but due to the destructiveness of wokeism are focused on the lefts bad ideas). There are armies of black people, and immigrants and women who are firm, politically literate conservative thinkers. To us, MAGA is just a campaign slogan.
People just want to be proud of where they live and their country. It should be ok to want to make your country great. It shouldnt immediate be distrusted by Americans.
Americanism and American culture (for Americans) is supposed to be a shared value. The left would never say that, and that alone is a problem. Its not reality to think America is nearly as bad as the left says America is. Its just not the case. Millions of immigrants understand that better than the Democrat party does.
That should give pause that the left never seems to take, even after a convicted felon who boasts about assaulting women wins election twice - thats how wrong voters see the left and they wont self-assess.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
The vast majority of human beings have some conservative ideas and impulses. That doesnt make everyone conservative. So any posters who think you are a conservative are not paying attention. I see you as more of a classic liberal. Like liberals were in the 1980s. Reagan was still called a Nazi then, but liberals had way more internal consistency (rationality) and way more respect and ability to debate back them.
Todays left doesnt tolerate debate with the right, and in the same breath they squander credibility as they shrink their tent, and leave reasonable people like you out.
There are a lot of people like you. The left has no tools or means to win you back because they dont have to win arguments - they only have to indoctrinate youth and shout down opposition, and tear down institutions - thats what victory is to them. Bad ideas masquerading as moral goodness defeating evil white Christian men.
But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad.
Cheers.
I am still looking for a way to actually connect on something (anything) with folks like @praxis and @Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS, while being so sure whatever I think IS NOT true, for some reason.
They want to take away all the cake from everyone, and eat it too.
But they must think I, a conservative who can actually find good things about Trump, I must like raping women, hurting trans people, and I must want to enslave all non-whites. That I am unreasonable, and willfully blind to facts. So I cant really blame them for not actually treating me with any respect or honesty. They may not know it, but I wouldnt debate with Hitler either, if that is what I thought about my opponent.
They may not want to admit, but we Westerners have a lot of good things in common with each other. We, and the culture that has been entrusted to us, is worth ironing out to include the left and the right.
The left needs to soul search and they are too prideful to do it.
How about this: MAGA wants to make things great again. Woke wants to make things great for the first time.
So lets show guys like Trump and girls like AOC some respect and just make things great period. Together.
(But, I know, we are all too invested in fighting to take that shit seriously ). Such a shame.
I dont get the fixation on this. Is it supposed to be a gotcha like asking a Democrat what a woman is or something?
As I illustrated in my previous post, @Fire Ologist has used "woke" to mean at least a dozen different things in this thread, as well as wondering out loud about what it means.
So we're the problem for not having a clear idea of what "woke" means -- even though we're not the ones trying to rehabilitate the word / concept. But also, it's true that it's not clearly-defined. And also you can define it however you want for whatever rhetorical point you want to make in the moment.
Hope it's all clear now.
Absolutely not. That would require me to be speaking in bad faith. So thanks again for that assumption.
Its just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isnt. And the woke people on the thread wont talk about it, and say they dont know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler.
I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is the End of Woke so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive.
So, while we're at it. Don't mind me just popping in here to say hello. :smile:
What is "woke" really? :chin:
I just searched the topic and I havent mentioned Hitler even once, and Im sure that I havent said that I dont know what woke means.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed by political (basically MAGA) rhetoric. Thats fine, literally millions of Americans subscribe to the anti-woke movement.
I am fully subscribed to looking at society (politics, religion, art, morality, language, etc) through the lens of power relations. I think its ignorant or foolish not to. Im not a social justice warrior though, and have become even less interested in that project since participating in this topic and being influenced by Nietzschean thought.
Whats wrong with that? The thread must have two dozen viable senses of woke at this point.
Like anything else, crystal clear definitions are hard earned, if earned at all.
But isnt it disingenuous to say that just because a definition is vague, the thing it seeks to define does not exist?
Whether you ever use the word woke or not, I dont really understand denying woke fits certain things/actions/ideas. As if you havent heard the word more than enough time these past 6-plus years - from the universities to the media and into our politics woke is clearly some specific usage.
Is maga any easier to define than woke? It isnt.
Quoting Outlander
Ok, Ill try.
Before just dropping another definition, allow me to give you the context out of which I see woke has emerged.
I go back to the at least the 1960s (could go further first) and point out the anti-Vietnam War western baby-boom generation - rebellion glamorized in music and for the first time the movies and then the press, but mostly in protests against government oppression, and rich mans oppression, and then male oppression of women and white oppression of colored.
These grievances became more pointed and sharp, as feminism started to really win the conversation - Although they failed to enact an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), women like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem represented a new place for women in political and corporate stages.
And the Civil Rights Act brought to the conversation grievances based on race, creed, and sex. Separately the Supreme Court told the states that they could not make any laws about abortion until later in the pregnancy. This becomes important later, because it cements a wedge between religion and the political left.
So having some sense of the things and happenings just mentioned above are necessary background to see woke emerge. The big items above are grievance (glamorized rebellion and protest), and substantive items like race (MLK, Black Panthers, Malcom), creed (abortion rights and the notion of potential life) and sex (highlighting equality through feminism).
Each of these items has its own contexts and much of that goes far back before the 60s. The philosophy in the Universities was firmly post-modern, going back in all directions but mostly through Continental deconstructionists and existentialists to the enlightenment humanists
Out this, CRT came to be in the early 1990s (Im sure I have the dates wrong but the dates dont matter).
And eventually we had some slightly firm concepts like these:
- male dominated patriarchical structure of society
- white colonial geo-political hegemony
- capitalism enabling the powerful to keep their power
- systemic oppression of non-male, non-white, and just generally inequitable systemic power relations.
Based on the dominance of rich, white westerners, the oppressive systems that have been instituted must be torn down, or replaced.
The term politically correct is a term that was used in exactly the same way as the word woke. Except not all politically correct ideas were left-leaning (most were); whereas possibly all woke ideas are left-leaning.
The left clarified something more specific than just politically correct.
The correctness of the woke is baked right into wokeness. In this way wokeness, like political correctness, is like a soft moralizing, comfortably sounding in speeches like a sermonizing.
(None of this is necessarily bad, by the way. I havent gotten into anything bad about wokeness so far. Any shortcomings you might find above do not render wokeness impotent, if there are any )
By the end of the Obama Presidency, wokeness was formally a thing.
Woke ideas addressed the above areas the right way, and such politically correct action stated to be called woke enough to where I first saw the word.
So we could write a book on the climate and environment out of which woke came to particularize something. But lets get back to the question:
[b] Quoting Outlander
Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. [/b]
Ok.
How?
Quoting Mijin
It is either active or inactive. There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. You're probably talking about translocation, which, if active, has happened in a male. Swyer is a female disorder and 46,xx are both male disorders of sex development. They have nothing to do with sex determination. If this isn't what you're indicating, please elaborate.
Quoting Mijin
This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. "how would we know" doesn't come close to even touching the security of the sex binary. Fwiw, as noted to you with evidence previously, we are 99%, approaching 100% accurate, in aggregate, asscertaining sex from facial features alone. So neither aspect of bringing this up seems to go anywhere.
Quoting Mijin
This is utterly untrue. You will quote me a couple of activists who had things published in Scientific American, probably. Biologists understand that SRY determines sex. Which is why I was able to provide a paper from a biologist explaining exactly this. A few responses from ChatGPT:
"What does SRY do?
The SRY (Sex-determining Region Y) gene is found on the Y chromosome."
"What happens without SRY?
In embryos without a functional SRY gene (typically XX), ovaries develop instead of testes.
The result is a female developmental pathway."
"Final Answer:
Yes biologists generally agree that SRY is the primary genetic determinant of male sex in humans. It acts as the initial switch that launches male sexual differentiation, though other genes and factors are also required to complete the process."
which you will understand means that SRY is for determination, and other genes (later in the process, after determination has occurred) affect phenotype. Not sex. It is also clear from this discussion (and, I think at least, you have already understood this) that XX,XY, XXY etc.. are a red herring for this issue.
The bold above is a bold-faced attempt to poison the well despite having absolutely nothing to back up your position. "conservative talking points" is the last bastion of the leftist who cannot understand the discussion they are engaged in.
Quoting Mijin
Your misunderstanding/misguided level of comprehension between the three relevant responses makes me unable to actually clarify this for you.
You brought up the concept of doing X. I pointed out that I didn't. You're now having a fit over it. I don't care.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
A fair point, but I have to ask: What are you talking about? There's no comparison between the two responses. Celebrating a political assassination of a non-politician and wanting to further your non-violent political agenda aren't quite comparable. To be clear though, Project 2025 seems insane. Perhaps I'm just not across it, but I have not seen anything which would lead me to thin there was opportunism. The murder itself was expected. The right was correct to prepare for something like this - particularly after Mangione and the two attempts on Trump. I simply cannot draw the parallel you are i guess.
Quoting praxis
He was heavily religious. I should probably not need to elaborate. But if I do, the point is that if you are taught, and believe, that the Bible is the Big Man Word, then a word like 'abomination' is descriptive, not moral. I take your point, but this explication should make it quite clear what I'm trying to get across: a non-religious person using that phrase would be as you say. Charlie using it, generally, is not. There are plenty of clips of him being soft, tender and loving towards these same people. And I actually happen to agree with his overall conclusion: Being at peace in your body as it actually is in reality will be infinitely more satisfying than the alternative. We can have other discussions about how that might or might not play out, but conceptually it seems unassailable. Additionally, there are plenty of life choices and lifestyles i'd call abominable. Violent drug dealers, for instance. Charlie's values were different to mine (though, i also take it he would call those dealers abominable too).
I should also say, I didn't usually find his conceptual defenses of positions i disagreed with very moving. Banno has, for instance, made a point Charlie just seemed entirely dead to: A fetus is not morally equivalent to a living, breathing child. His conceptual arguments about it being difficult to choose when a fetus becomes unabortable are difficult for dumb people to argue against, so he often made people look bad around that. If life starts at conception, there is at least a conversation to be had. But again, his arguments were, at best, semi-worth-considering.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Ask the participants. Some have commented.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Some possible examples have come up. (Addressed to you I mean.) Are they "woke"?
Youve given me a lot to think about
It shows in your previous post. Can you really not see it?
AI verdict: Fire Ologists posts repeatedly use frames and metaphors common in MAGA / right-wing anti-woke rhetoric: mob rule, media bias, schools as indoctrination sites, victimization of conservatives, and reduction of woke to a leftist ideological orthodoxy.
The Bible contains numerous passages that endorse or regulate practices considered morally repugnant today, such as human ownership. Charlie Kirk has explicitly described slavery as bad and evil, suggesting that he does not view the Bible as a literal description of reality. If slavery is understood as part of societys proper organization under Gods covenant, then Kirks statement implies a judgment that Gods covenant itself would be bad and evil.
Everything is wrong with that. Off the top of my head:
1. You are the person that is throwing out these ever-shifting meanings.
2. While at the same time complaining about people that don't have a clear idea of what "woke" is (and, hilariously, saying that not knowing what woke is, is woke )
3. When the point has been put to you of how much of a mess the concept of "woke" is on the political right, going all the way to the president saying that the US lost in Korea, Vietnam etc because of "woke", your response was...well, I don't think you ever did respond to it.
And that's specificially the problems with this definition war you're having with your own brain.
I think there are many other problems with your perspective, chiefly that we're focusing on this boogieman while at the same time as human rights and freedom of speech is being trampled on a mass scale.
Bring it on. Let's see if you find even one inaccuracy.
Quoting AmadeusD
So you're choosing to say that only two genotypes "count" as genotypes and anything else is an aberration? So how is this any different to the special pleading you're doing with all other aspects of gender? (essentially: "it's binary except for the exceptions, which don't count")
Quoting AmadeusD
The facts are that your definition of gender is not scientifically accepted and therefore is worthless.
I was also pointing out that it's completely unworkable as a definition of gender in society but if you want to put that other issue to one side, then fine.
Quoting AmadeusD
So several issues here.
Firstly primary determinator does not mean only, secondly, once again, there are more than two genotypes for this gene.
And finally, it's farcical; you're saying if the SRY gene is male, that overrides everything else; it doesn't matter if the person was assigned female at birth, has breasts, a vagina, has lived as a woman and is married to a heterosexual man...this is the level people have to go to to avoid conceding that gender is more complex than we learned in high school.
Nicely done. No such thing as woke. No way to define it. It doesnt mean anything. Got it.
Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists. Whatever you do, dont talk about liberal progressive ideology with a conservative.
Does hate has no home here mean you hate Donald Trump? Im pretty sure it does. So woke.
How about pick a definition and work on it with me. Lets coin a new term woke right now:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thats a start. Revise it for us. Anything to add to the conversation besides times people say woke that confuses you. (If you see the president calling losing in Vietnam due to woke makes a mess out of woke, you must see something besides a boogieman, otherwise why didnt you pick trans childrens book readings or affirmative action as part of the mess of woke?)
You lose over and over with me. Nothing Ive said has been addressed let alone refuted.
The only reason the woke dont like the word woke anymore is because Trump and the right use the word.
Quoting praxis
Just because someone else (whatever a MAGA is??) sounds like me has nothing to do with the content of what I said. Maybe maga is right about woke! Sis yay for me for getting it right like AI said. My sense of woke seems to have impressed enough people to throw the democrats out of the presidency, the senate, the house, Florida. The best response the democrats have had to the anti-woke rhetoric is to shoot guns. And call people names. And avoid discussion. And bleed voters. And disappoint polls.
Keep up the good work.
You have said it's not clearly defined, you stupid shit.
And the reason I'm calling you what you are now, is because your accusation that I am "hoping people shoot more fascists" is absolutely despicable.
But is the question whether woke is clearly defined? Thats what you want to talk about. Without pointing to any definition at all!
I am trying to show you there is something there that exists and can take on a definition. Dummy.
Im trying to define it.
You are saying it isnt a thing; and, it is not a clearly defined thing. ??? Thats incoherent. Is woke a thing? If so, what is it?
Move the ball.
I am assuming its a thing because it convinced a country to put a felon in the presidency to beat it up and tear woke policy down. Make America Asleep and not Woke again. MAANWA. I am guessing that is no help to you. All while it vaguely happens before your very eyes.
You just wont talk about it. No self-reflection or self-assessment. You are like a kid with his hands over his ears yelling waaa waaaa - I cant hear you when you say woke waaaa waaaa.
Nice strategy. Its not like I gave you volumes of material you can use to make an actual point that might interest someone.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Key words you would be better served to address:
Behavior and ideas
Awareness
Inequities
Race, sex
Power
Diversity
Inclusion
Left-leaning
Those are all part of any idiots understanding of wokeness or appropriate use of the word woke.
Quoting Mijin
Dont be a baby. Put your big boy pants on. You can always refute something I said that matters.
Woke is consistently picking the wrong priorities.
Woke is focusing on who is talking not what they are saying.
Woke is never having to say sorry.
Woke is never having to say woke.
If you cant say something substantive, I will assume deep down you are convinced of the wisdom of my working definition and that you will be supporting JD Vance for president in 2028 (if Trump hasnt set up his dictatorship in time of course - and he isnt shot in the head).
No it's not "what I want to talk about".
My position has been, and remains, that the word "woke" is a meaningless scare word that a certain audience has been conditioned to be triggered by.
My cites are firstly all the examples of conservative media using the word to mean everything and nothing, like that it's the reason the US military has lost wars, or vaccines are woke, or that teaching accurate history is woke etc etc. You repeatedly played dumb and ignored these examples.
The second cite is your flailing in this thread; where woke has been used to mean just about everything, but we're not allowed to say woke is ill-defined because "not seeing what woke is, is very woke".
Quoting Fire Ologist
OK, let's see, can we refute this?
You said "Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists."
Firstly, no I don't want anyone hurt by political violence. So that remains a scurrilous accusation.
Secondly, you seem to be alluding to the word "fascist" as encouraging violence. But no-one calls his enemies "fascist" more often than Trump.
Is it OK when Trump does it? Or is Trump woke?
A new topic. Avoids the issue.
Its ok to call someone fascist. If they are fascist. But get us back on track.
You really need to deal with this:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thats what people are saying when they say woke.
You are just wrong and delusional if you think woke is just a word. Its modern American left ideology. Its what I said above.
Make an argument. That is about the topic of the thread. Assume everyone knows I am a despicable person - who gives a shit?
The subject is the end of woke. So do you think that means the end of a meaningless scare word? Is that what you see going on in America?
Yes and you brought it up
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sure, and Trump fits the definition to a tee. I seem to remember someone, not sure if it was you, that tried to claim Democrats were more fascist but when asked what part of the definition is met by whom, no response was forthcoming. But ok, let's return to "woke".
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't "need to" deal with anything. You've used woke to mean a dozen different things in this thread, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, so has MAGA media.
So more important than your (constantly shifting) claims about the word, is your repeated assertions of overreach in the name of woke. Do you have any examples of that? Something better than the anecdote of one guy who said some women were mean about men many years ago?
Or better yet; something even vaguely comparable to the silencing of universities, journalists, public protests etc happening under this administration?
And indeed, since the last time that I said that we've of course had an executive order, ostensibly about the "left-wing terrorist networks" that the government has claimed (without evidence) orchestrated Kirk's murder. But the order will crack down on groups that engage in anything deemed "anti-American," "anti-capitalism," or against "traditional American views,"
No problem there with free speech, eh? And nowhere near as bad as "something something woke".
When was that? :brow:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Lets start over.
Many times. For example, in the podcast by JD Vance and Stephen Miller, Miller said:
"It is a vast domestic terror movement [...] We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organised campaign that led to this assassination"
The executive order is similarly in weakly veiled language: the groups and entities that perpetuate this [left-wing] extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations
The point is that youve been influenced by divisive political rhetoric and are even proudly promoting it rather than seeing things as they truly are. For example, your definition of woke is inaccurate because it essentializes woke into a narrow, partisan frame. It portrays wokeness as treating race, sex, and power as the most important factors in all choices, when in reality most who identify with or are labeled as woke simply emphasize awareness of systemic inequities alongside other concerns. It also reduces wokeness to behavior and ideas tied to progressive liberals and DEI initiatives, reflecting a common conservative critique rather than a neutral or self-described meaning. In practice, woke is a broader, contested term rooted in social awareness, not just a partisan ideology.
We've had at least a dozen pages of whining about the definition, can you please address some of the more relevant points, like all the infringements on free speech and other human rights that are orders of magnitude worse than any of the claims of what "woke" has done?
I may have been unclear, but I am not trying to draw an equivalency. Not sure you read what I wrote,
I simply think that the right were waiting around for a Charlie Kirk moment, as they basically laid out in the 2025 project. Dude who cancelled Jimmy Kimmel wrote part of that document. Like how Trump told us all he would incite an insurrection months before the insurrection. None of this is hard to see.
MAGA wanted their own George Floyd. When they got one, they acted.
The 'right' are not represented by the Trump admin, nor the 2025 project. Assuming you and I are using the term the same way - to refer to the general population on the right.
Trump is not 'political' at all. He is an immoral opportunistic bully, aligned with colleagues who value his opportunism and weird charisma to empower their own opportunistic agenda. Sort of like how shitty leaders like Trudeau are the useful idiots of radical left ideologues who in no way actually represent the vast majority of people on the left.
You think the martyrdom of Kirk is somehow organic?
How about, race sex and power as among the top factors?
Seems like you are basically agreeing with me.
Quoting praxis
Systemic - we should work that concept into the working definition. Thats a good point.
Quoting praxis
Its not a critique if you like DEI. Woke is what it is - it is a left-leaning value system. That isnt a critique.
Quoting praxis
How broader? Wokeness came from the left. But it stands alone as well. Its roots are not the issue. Does it have any value for all people of all partisan flavors or not? Is it good for anyone to, as you say, emphasize awareness of systemic inequities or not?
And come to think of it, if we add the concept of systemic inequities to the working definition, instead of just any inequities, that systemic focus might push wokeness close to being rooted in liberal leftism than even my definition. The left is always more interested in systems and groups than it is individuals and particulars.
But it doesnt make sense for you to say to me that been influenced by divisive rhetoric when, 1) you have no way of knowing how I came up with my definition, and 2) you are showing signs of basically agreeing with it.
You sound like, if you wanted to help someone with a working definition of woke, you would be integrating some of the same concepts as I did. Which makes total sense to me, because I, and those spewing divisive rhetoric, didnt invent woke - we just live with it.
And the term divisive rhetoric sounds like something you picked up rather than seeing things as they truly are.
You can be reluctant to agree woke has to do with systemic inequities involving race, sex and power, but you are still agreeing with me. What is so bad about just agreeing with me?
You are talking about revising and supplementing my working definition, not tossing it. So your judgments of how wrong I am sound contradictory.
Quoting Mijin
Im pretty sure you are whining about me, more than Im whining about woke. Im not whining. If you were in the room with me, it wouldnt sound like whining or complaining. So thats dumb to keep saying.
Quoting Mijin
How is that more relevant than what I am trying to talk about on a thread call The End of Woke? I dont think you are concerned about the ways the woke seek to control and limit free speech, so how is it more relevant?
Quoting Mijin
Right, you want to talk about something else. Not what woke has done. Thats some other thread. Like maybe a thread about how Trump is fascist is some other thread.
Quoting Mijin
That is my line. You stole my line.
Because the OP is about what's happening in terms of authoritarian policies and freedom of expression. I doubt what he wanted was dozens of pages of definition debate.
And in any case, I've put to you that the people most against "woke", have used it to mean just about anything from why we lost Vietnam to vaccine mandates. You're not interested in discussing that, so if you won't engage in that issue with defining woke, why should I continue to engage in your hijack?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am asking you, what evidence you have of your so-called "woke" that compares to what's happening in the real world, like an executive order that now labels ideological dissent as terrorism at the same time as the military is being sent to Democratic cities.
As I say, it's farcical. We're living in the early stages of Project 2025 and you think the real problem is someone who got his feelings hurt by a woman in 1994 or whatever. If you've got better than that anecdote, let's hear it.
Rather, your fragile ego cant stand being inaccurate.
They sure are trying to make him a martyr.
They're not the only recent victims.
Kirk did have a following of outraged Christian nationalists, if that counts as organic.
Woke - the introduction of progressive values into traditional spaces that contain opposing values such as inequity, racism or sexism.
Is that a satisfying definition for the left/woke portion of this discussion?
You're one of the only posters here, aside from @Tom Storm whose online moniker or "screen name" I read aloud with ferocious excitement. Like, it just seems required. Sorry just had to mention that. Probably some latent movie-originated programming that has overtaken my sense of reason I've yet to discover.
Anyhow, to your point. The people who favor "wokeness" simply deem it, according to them, as your basic cookie-cutter "speaking truth to power." Something like: "Yeah, I'm not white, and you are, but as it so happens to be, the majority of this geographic or otherwise socio-policital region or sphere is, and so that means, I'm calling you out! (as one who holds power)" Basically saying, it doesn't matter whose in charge or why, all that matters is that you're in charge and I'm not, and per old adage, Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.
Which is interesting, because, in theory, hypothetically, being "woke" in a place where such is the opposite, say, Africa, talking about unfairness and inequity targeted towards that given majority and power structure (which yes, happens to be Black), should basically be similar.
Ok.
I know Trump and Christians, and old white men are authoritarian and they hate free speech. Those arguments are loud and clear. If that is what you want to talk about, fine, but I am more interested in getting some clarity on how wokeness is authoritarian and quashes free speech.
But you dont think wokeness is a functional term, nor do I think you care about any fascism coming from the left.
So maybe we should be done here, unless the authoritarianism that comes from the left is part of the discussion, on a thread with woke in the title.
Quoting Mijin
Yes I am. That discussion requires some sort of working definition of woke - that is how one could demonstrate how, for instance, the Vietnam thing sounds stupid. How can we say its stupid to think we lost the Vietnam war because of wokeness without some general framework for what wokeness is?
I think you want to disagree with me no matter what.
Recall @NOS4A2 on the free speech thread. You and me agreed there - Nos was not making sense. He has a strange notion of freedom and determinism as these relate to speech and choice and action.
But here on this thread, I can tell NOS has no fondness for woke ideology. I bet it is because woke ideology is so authoritarian and so destructive of freedom and free speech. So I agree with much he says here.
But you dont seem to see any fascism coming from left/progressive/woke - you seem to be more interested in showing how woke is a strawman (which undercuts the entire OP) and more interested in showing how the right spreads fascism.
Nothing wrong with that. You could just say yeah I guess that is what Im doing - but Im sure you dont think I have it right
Im not trying to hyjack the thread. Im trying to take careful steps - to build, together, some agreement on what woke means. This sounds like a good starting point to me.
You cant admit woke means anything clear at all? No boundaries at all encompassing what is woke?
I never thought it was so controversial. If I say girls can do everything boys can do - that aligns with woke. If I say girls cannot do everything boys can do - that doesnt sound woke to me.
So an interesting discussion is how oppression might be found by the woke mob yelling at anyone who wont confess that girls can do everything boys can do. Whether you see this or agree with this, or not, seems relevant to the thread.
A second discussion is how oppression might be found by Trump preventing girls from doing stuff because they just cant do what boys do even if they wanted to . But this second discussion isnt really about woke anymore is it. Unless you are arguing lower standards for girls in the navy is woke, and keeping girls out of the SEALs is oppressive.
We should at least talk about the left along with the right (if we need to talk about the right at all). On this thread.
BTW - I can see you have real concerns about Trump and what appears to be happening in the US. Is there any way to address your concerns without hearing out the concerns of right wing thinkers?
Dont we all need to hash this shit out?
We really cant find anything to agree on at all? Like whether there is a such thing a wokeness? You really dont see woke as anything other than a right wing strawman? You never hear left-leaning people use the word? I think the left coined the term around 2010. I just think that it is obviously - wokeness is a real thing influencing thought, action and governmental policy. Its hyper liberalism, focused on power struggles involved in racial and sexual identity.
Woke ideology gives us a lot to think about. Ive said from the beginning, analysis of implicit bias is important for ones own free-thinking and for communities to more humbly stay together and overcome fear, ignorance and stupid hate. But woke ideology also gives us some self-defeating, crappy policies - like the incoherent and impossible to fairly implement DEI policies.
Thanks I think?
Quoting Outlander
I would say this is an example of woke over reach not necessarily woke itself. That was the point I was getting at by starting with a definition of woke that can at least be a starting point for discussion. So far so the discussion has been mostly in the weeds.
You make it sound like just a couple of random guys. Trump is president, Project 2025 includes making America an explicitly Christian nation, and much of project 2025 has already been rolled out, right up to soldiers in the streets and executive orders describing people being "anti-christian" as terrorists.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Nope. Again, that would be like saying I can't say the emperor has no clothes unless I define exactly the fine silks which I believe he lacks.
It's trivial to point out that conservatives have used "woke" to mean anything and everything and thus it's a nonsense term. Why would the hopeless task of trying to forge a new word with a concrete meaning and get everyone to use it be on me?
Quoting Fire Ologist
The topic hasn't shifted in several pages, and I don't think you have presented me with any argument to even attempt to change my mind, so yes of course the disagreement stands.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct -- my position is that what the left is doing in terms of free speech is not even 1% of the threat of the right wing currently. Serious estimate. This does not always have to be true for all time. A different government, a different culture, things can change. But that's the reality right now, and I've asked you many times for examples that would convince an objective observer otherwise.
I think the premise the OP is based on is false. And I think "woke" is a meaningless scare word.
I've already explained why in multiple posts, so I may as well bid everyone goodday and bow out.
Hmmm. :chin: Lots of things from lots of different directions. Did you see SB 771 in California? Fairly woke side fascist move. And a more concrete fascist move than anything Trump is doing. (Although it will be interesting to see if the law is enforceable or gets tossed by the courts .)
Quoting Mijin
Now that doesnt really foster dialogue, does it.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Mijin
Might be too late . But ok, bye.
Im here if you want to talk .
As in this:
Quoting Mijin
You certainly said this. But I dont think youve really explained why, or how.
I dont see how the word woke would function as a scare word and galvanize the right, and elect a president, twice, without enough content to it to stir emotions. To me, that content is DEI initiatives, white college kids protesting for Palestine and for trans normativity, and against ICE and Jews and Tesla cars. Thats all democrat/woke actual stuff. Plenty of fascism and violence to go around, eh? It used to be scary. Now, as college debaters are murdered and the woke counts its blessings, and none of the MAGA fascists rioted or retaliated with anything but more forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss, we all can see the woke emporer has no clothes. Except hes wearing a thong, and for some reason no one knows whether he was a boy or girl. (dont worry, the wonderful media will get him/her/them a robe)
Quoting Mijin
So the End of Woke brought you to the end of the conversation.
Quoting Banno
:rofl: The bubble remains intact - shrinking though isnt it?
I think the subject of lawsuits deserves its own thread. Lawsuits undoubtedly play a significant role in our lives, and I believe our legal system has lost its balance and become part of the problem.
A teacher at the 1917 National Education Association meeting in Portland, Oregon, quoted a seer. Tagore of India to make a point.
"Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power. " Tagore
I noticed elsewhere in this thread the use of the word "fascism". Germany was known as a mechanical society. The US adopted Germany's models of bureaucracy and education. This shifts power and authority from the individual to the government. I have a 1960 book for teachers, explaining the importance of being impersonal. If we are personal or not, is a matter of culture. Huxley and Orwell based their novels on what they saw happening, with concern that these forces would be overriding.
My grandmother's generation of teachers thought it was their duty to help every child discover his/her, talents and interests. Education was for everyone, and we were opposed to schools pathing children as we have done ever since the 1958 National Defense Education Act and IQ testing.
I don't know if anyone can see what this has to do with WOKE, but hopefully everyone will realize what being impersonal has to do with it. Private decisions have been taken over by the government's "rule by law". How can we not see that the excesses of our rule by law are destroying our liberty? That all children must be taught to accept sexual variations is a horror when compared to the culturally supported notion that sex is a private matter and not something we make public.
Nothing but forgiveness, aye? The anti-leftist hate mongering was monumental, and despite no public, verified ideological manifesto or affiliation having been established to date.
Once again your skewed view of reality shaped by MAGA propaganda on display.
I so wish people would drop the labels and name the subject of discussion. You all seem to be holding bags full of evils, but do not speak of the evil, other than to call it bullshit. Everyone is doing this, and I am left out of the discussion because I have no idea what bullshit everyone is talking about.
What are Democratic policies? Does every Democrat agree with all Democratic policies? Are all Republics fascist pigs? What are the forces under discussion?
If we want to stop the spread of fascism, we have to begin with education and the manufacturers of textbooks. There are two ways of having social order: culture or authority over the people. Education for technology ended using our schools to defend our liberty, by transmitting a culture and organic democracy.
The US stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Church. Christian Nationalism is the result. Christian Nationalism and its fight against evil favors fascism. That authority over the people that is made necessary by the people's evilness, according to Christian mythology. This is not a democracy based on classical philosophy and the Enlightenment, or an understanding of evolution. The US is not the democracy it defended in the two World Wars.
You don't think well-meaning Christians are alarmed by the evil spreading across the country? You don't have a problem with the government having more power to control the decisions regarding your children than the people living in your school district? I think for many people, Woke is equated with evil, and when this evil becomes part of our education system, "woke" raises serious fears.
It does seem to be, though. I mean, there are millions further into the 'Huh, i dont know what you're talking about" that I am (or, semi-pretending to be). Perhaps we're just not seeing things the same way.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I don't think so.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
That seems a little naiive to me. Trump is clearly highly political and cares deeply about political issues. He is, though, a moron with only glimpses of moral scruples. But I don't quite understand this characterisation - just as I don't when words like 'dictator' are thrown around. It's just not serious enough.
Quoting Athena
The ugly irony of this is beyond my ability to correct. The ignorant required to suggest fascist tactics to combat fascism is both egregious and no longer surprising on the left. You can reject labels all you want, but if behaviours are informed by your underlying ideologies, that is hte 'evil' you aren't talking about.
That's funny, I just had this same discussion with my wife. She said Trump cares nothing except for furthering his own ego needs. He would be a Bernie-bro open borders socialist if he thought that would give him power and narcissistic supply. I argued he has some core beliefs. If Trump had complete power, Trumplandia would be very right-wing conservative. She said that's only because right-wing authoratarianism (sp) appeals to his ego. I still don't know if she's right. I think she might be.
Why not just comment on what I say and not conjecture about where you think it comes from? (Probably because you think anything that even sounds like it comes from MAGA has to be wrong/evil/beneath your dignity.)
Its an objective fact that there were no riots or protests in response to Kirks assassination, isnt it? (Maybe the FCC and Trump are suppressing all those right wing fascist riot stories?)
Kirk was murdered. Leftists responded (saw the bright side, if not celebrating death). Rightists responded (mostly with prayer and inspiration to engage in more speech).
Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech (and the shooter was not rounded up because of his views - but because of the bullet he put in a mans neck)? Any businesses trashed and robbed? Any police stations burned to the ground? Any cities like Portland Oregon full of right wing protestors?
Any such thing as woke propaganda and a skewed view of conservatives? Is it even possible that sound bites dont tell the whole story?
Quoting praxis
It was? Monumental? Not enough safe spaces for you in the US? Seriously? Where did you get that - what shapes your opinion? Anything skewed or exaggerated there?
Another word for hate mongering is, speaking.
Maybe just make the better argument and be brave in the face of such monumental hate mongering.
You realize the left and progressive democrats are the ones who propose laws limiting and punishing free speech. Not the right. (Bondi was an idiot.)
And this thread is about the left, not the right - its about the end of woke.
The point is - who are the real fascists who openly celebrate assassination, who hate argument and dialogue with their opposition, who ironically want to control hate speech (which is just speech) with law and policy, who protest violently, causing damage, destruction and death ?
If there is an End of Woke, it will be because progressive liberals will not self-assess their ideology.
And they continue to misunderstand the moment.
Quoting praxis
Yes, Forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss. Just not on the lefts narrow limiting terms.
Look, I know and love many leftists. Truly. That doesnt mean I have to tell them they arent totally delusional and full of shit. I love them. I respect them. I make sure to be humble and respectful. I avoid politics. But if they ask me about their politics, I make sure they know the way they see things is messed up - utterly contradictory and inconsistent, full of half-truths (which are also known as lies), and just bad ideas.
Massive division sown and reaped by the left - along with politically driven assault and killing, attacks on basic institutions like the police and free speech, and utter destruction and chaos in our cities. Thats on the left. Thats, in part, due to woke ideology.
Again, there is plenty of stupidity and lies and contradiction to point out about the right. But this thread is about the End of Woke. And leftism needs to be evaluated in the open air. Enough with the cancelation of opponents to stupid leftist bullshit.
And Its not inherent to progressive liberalism that someone else be silenced or canceled or killed, and its not inherent to liberalism that their solutions are unworkable; but today it often looks that way and if we keep ignoring it, we have every reason to fear more killings.
We freedom lovers, left and right, should all be able to come together in horror at Kirks murder, but todays left hates the right way too much for that. The left refuses to see good in anything coming from the right. Period. And the left refuses to put partisanship aside to just console a wounded nation.
Kirks death should have been a unifying moment - but since 9/11 (which was a short left-right unifying moment), and these past 20 plus years, the division has metastasized, and its been packaged for consumption by both sides. So the possibility of the shallow but real unity we once were capable of, seems gone.
That is the real threat to democracy. All of the bad faith, clouding judgment, blinding us to basic facts.
@Mijin was saying woke is just a word used to scare people. That woke is not a real thing. I disagree with that.
Im saying if woke wasnt a real thing, it wouldnt function to raise fear like it does. But it is real. Obviously. I agree woke policy is some dreadful crap. Not just for Christians, but for freedom, and peace, and community. And of course for children. The school system is an utter mess because of what is woke.
Ok, so that sounds like woke propaganda.
Since when did Americans think the US government should control the content of the education of our children? Thats not smart. Government can be assholes, so why would we give them the power to select the curriculum for our children? Liberals want a strong Dept of Education. Repubs dont. That way control over textbooks gets closer into the hands of the parents.
So it is not republicans who would ever say that the US stopped educating for good moral judgment. Republicans say that parents got lazy and trusted the governments public schools to educate their kids and the public schools, infected by wokeness, have lost all moral authority.
No one is advocating moral training be left up to the Church. The Church is how parents train their own kids. But it is up to the parents.
But we see how parents do in school board meetings when they just want their kids to be left out of the delusional world of woke ideology.
I agree Church must keep its distance from the state, and the state must remain agnostic to any religion. So do most conservatives. But being a loud and proud Christian who loves his country why not? whoop-de-do for you. I dont see anything solid behind Christian Nationalism. Loving God and country is one thing (a good thing); but somehow incorporating Christianity into government, thats a caliphate. Thats not republican.
Christians fight against evil is also called, having a heated argument. Fascism and Christ are incompatible. Just worry about regular fascism. The notion of Christian Nationalism is more woke propaganda.
It amazes me how ill people think of Christians, even though its always been that way since Christ was hung on a cross. America was partially formed to escape persecution for saying Christ. Christians have always been at the helm of the country. I dont think Christian Nationalism is anything more than patriots who happen to be Christian.
Maybe we can chill out people. Christians arent a real enemy. Nor are they fascists. Any fascist is too concerned about earthly power to have any real understanding of Christian mythology as you put it.
So youre just denying it.
Do you believe Kirks killer was a leftist?
The head of the FCC said "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" and Jimmy Kimmel was suspended. Even Ted Cruz thought it went too far. It's not rioting, but for the federal government to put pressure on a network to remove a comedian is chilling in its own way.
You don't think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election? Do you think Jan 6th happens if Trump doesn't give that speech right beforehand? It doesn't concern you that Trump talks about running in 2028? Or that he wanted to suspend the Constitution to reinstate himself?
I know I said I'd bow out, but if someone @s me then I am summoned again.
I have asked you multiple times, at least half a dozen times now, for evidence. And the fact that you fall back to basically "lots of people believe this" is telling. It's the same argument used about the "stolen" 2020 election. Or the MMR vaccine causing autism.
Lots of people can believe false things, especially when it's a message being pushed in the circle in which they get their "news".
I believe he thought Charlie Kirk was a fascist. So yeah, probably. But its not important. The shooter wasnt playing politics anymore was he? If you think he was playing politics, then you need to know if he was leftist or not. He wasnt a white supremacist, was he?
I believe the people who celebrated Kirks death were on the left. They were playing politics. Using death as a statement.
I dont believe we should curtail their speech. I just believe they are sick or being immoral. And utterly stupid about how politics in a free society is supposed to work.
Quoting praxis
That the right hates leftists? Im not denying that. Whats not to hate? Im saying who cares? Besides children at recess on the school yard. Stinky pants hater!
Quoting RogueAI
1. That was wrong of the FCC and he was rebuked. (It wasnt just Ted Cruz who rebuked him. That says it all.). So I agree it was chilling speech, but he was rebuked.
2. Kimmel was suspended for a week. (That says Kimmel wins the speech battle.)
This all happened right before our eyes - no shady government corruption, just stupidity on behalf of the FCC.
It all played out the way it should. We should keep an eye on the FCC for sure, but what else is new?
Quoting RogueAI
Steal? By sending insurrectionists off to the Capital? No, that is stupid.
By messing with state delegates? Maybe he tried to work the system with every ounce he could muster. Maybe he pushed all limits. But steal? How do you take actions in court and appeal delegates, all in public view, etc as theft? Any improprieties are done in the light of day. Which is why he stepped down when he had to step down. This is hardball people. Was Al Gore trying to steal the election in 2000? No he wasnt either.
Quoting RogueAI
I never heard the speech so I dont know. I think the fact that it is a question and the answer is not plain as day speaks volumes. Maybe fools all see what they want to see, as they always are foolish - like anyone who thought Trump was hoping people would storm the Capital so they stormed the Capital, and like anyone who thinks Trump wanted to stay in office by force.
Quoting RogueAI
No, it concerns me (a little) that people dont realize hes messing with them. So silly.
I could see Trump trying to amend the constitution so he can run - but it will never happen.
So gullible.
Its like the sombreros on Hakeem and Schumer mean Trump is racist. So silly.
Quoting RogueAI
Trump stepped down from office in 2020.
Trump will not run in 2028. Trump will not be president after 2028. Period. If Im right, do you think the left and the media who are currently worried about this rethink anything? And Im definitely right about this.
There are way bigger threats to democracy in the US besides Trump messing with gullible lefties.
The hatred for Trump blinds people. And when Trump is gone, the hate will live on and breathe strong against whoever takes his place - and well get more conspiracy theories about elections and white supremacy and whatever else is easiest flavor of BS the media can push. Guaranteed that whoever takes Trumps place will be worse than Trump in the eyes of the media. The media thinks Trump is stupid and just an egomaniac. So if the next person looks smart at all, now theyll be an evil genius - worse than Trump if you can imagine that! And well see all of the same threats to democracy coming from them. Such tired BS.
Quoting Mijin
Evidence of what woke is? Are you serious?
Or evidence of how Trump is not a fascist - you want me to prove a negative, with positive evidence? My proof Trump is not a fascist is the fact that he stepped down from office in 2020 all while he seems to have believed the election was stolen from him.
You are the one who needs to prove how woke isnt a thing. How woke isnt all over the university system.
Pick your pronouns - thats of the essence of woke.
You dont need to climb back in here. I tagged you because I didnt want to use your name here without you knowing it. I had to reference you because @Athena didnt see the context. Thats all.
Happy to discuss things, but we should slow down.
Evidence of what specifically do you think I havent addressed 12 times?
Any evidence of the injustices and suppression of free speech and free assembly that you're saying is a significant problem on the left, right now.
Preferably comparable to what is happening in the real world, with ICE protestors being brutally put down, an executive order basically saying left wing ideology is terrorism and a speech to the military making it clear that ideological loyalty is a requirement. And this is just in the last few days.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Haha, that's hilarious.
You know, you and I have had our differences, but with wit like that, you're all right @Fire Ologist, you're all right.
Not what I was asking.
Ill leave you with a quote from someone who Charlie Kirk described as awful and not a good person:
I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Right wingers want to talk ideas at a university (you know, a university, where ideas are talked about and minds are supposed to be challenged). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maga-debate-group-at-tennessee-state-university-escorted-off-campus-after-chaos-erupts/ar-AA1NeoqB
And the media calls it "escorted off" - meaning threatened, bullied and scared into running for their lives.
Normal left tactics. When faced with someone who wants to....talk ideas, the left screams "hate speech" when they don't like those ideas. It's the policy of at least 95% of our universities to bow to left-leaning student temper tantrums. They are too scared of the woke mob, and more to the point, they don't know what to do even if they wanted to stop such nonsense. They are incapable of saying "sit down and listen and learn" to flakey college kids. They fear such behavior is fascist and authoritarian, when screaming mobs are actually fascist and authoritarian. So my example of injustice and suppression of speech is, today's university system. Right wingers need not ask to speak. Until Kirk was shot of course, now some of them feel embarrassed, but continue to misunderstand what their policies have built at the university. Today's university is just a re-education camp to anyone who doesn't pay attention. So that is teachers using the authority of their positions to tell millions of conservative thinkers (who are children looking for guidance) to keep quiet. Don't dare to say "my pronoun is obvious to anyone with half a brain." That's hate, and bad, and must be silenced, and you should be ashamed of yourself for all of the evil thoughts that must accompany such a statement. So just shut up. Try to be conservative on a college campus today. You will know what chilling is.
California legislation to force censorship. https://cabassa.substack.com/p/newsom-to-sign-bill-that-could-censor.
The law is intended to "prohibit discrimination, violence, intimidation, or coercion based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration status." In other words - it is trying to push woke ideology and silence the right. So only discrimination based on those things? How about unprotected characteristics, like, being a white man, or having a conservative ideology? And does "Christianity" count as a religion?? Any consistency to be expected Gavin??? Who gets to be judge of what gender is, what religion is, what race means...??
It won't fly in America. Watch. Totally Orwellian. Like in the UK, where laws like this land individuals in jail for saying mean words that hurt people's feelings. Utterly weak. The left wants to give the government all of the power, but then scream its the end of freedom when conservatives win elections - how about we just keep the government out of regulating speech?
So that is spot on legislation, giving enforcement power to the government, to tell whoever they want to shut up because the current government happens to think their ideas are "dangerous". This type of legislation is the beginning of the end of freedom.
The left doesn't see government power as a threat to freedom. They just see government power in the hands of republicans as a threat to freedom. That's incoherent and illogical.
How about government power in the hands of anyone? Let's not let the government regulate our speech.
How about when the FBI investigated parents who said they didn't like woke school curriculum shoved in their kids faces? https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/whistleblowers-the-fbi-has-labeled-dozens-of-investigations-into-parents-with
Sounds pretty big brother to me.
How about when the IRS targeted conservative organizations? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-irs-policy-targeting-conservative-group/ar-AA1NKVNs
Our government isn't allowed to judge winners and losers. We get to do that at the ballot box. The IRS can stick their opinions up their ass, which is what the court said.
This is government action chilling speech, and its not right wing dude. And it's not for nothing. The UK and Europe are in real trouble when it comes to freedom of speech and assembly. The US has become the last man standing for free speech. The left in America aren't helping. At all.
______
The FCC and Jimmy Kimmel thing was bad. Really bad. That is government abuse that chills speech.
Pam Bondi saying "there is free speech, but then there is hate speech" was utterly woke bullshit. Pam was wrong there too.
Trump's free speech threats: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5519888-trump-free-speech-threats/
Most of it is rhetoric (not law), and legal battles that we will have to see how it plays out. I agree, it is chilling.
But the press needs to watch their sources and their opinions - there has to be some check on the "press" and that check is lawsuits for defamation and fraud.
I agree Trump promotes threats to free speech, and so Trump can create a danger to freedom. He needs to be closely watched and managed (like, what politician doesn't?). But I don't believe he is doing anything that our system cannot handle.
Don't worry. He won't be president in 2029.
The left wants to change the system - Newsom's law is an example of that. Mamdani's socialism is an example of that. They want to give the government too much power. Trump is abusing the power the government already has. Trump shows us the weakness of the controls we citizens have over our current governmental officials. If we give the government an inch, people like Trump (and the FBI and IRS under Biden) can take it a mile.
But the left's solution is.....give this government more power to silence people.
Like Gavin Newsome, in the name of "misinformation" and "hate speech" the answer is more power to the government and keeping right-wing voices silent. Fucking brilliant. Poor California. Such a mess.
______
Quoting Mijin
It's also true. But ok.
____
EDIT ADDED:
All of Trump's talk about the "enemy within" and the deployment of troops to handle Democrat states, and statements like he "hates democrats" - that is all seriously bad shit. But there are extremist enemies within the US (some of whom are left wing). So it is matter of how Trump applies force; it is not simply bad because he even thinks there are "enemies within" (because there always have been). "Enemies" is a strong word though. Need to watch this play out a bit more to call it "fascist" though. It might be better called "law enforcement."
You know a definition of a war zone is a place where there are 4 deaths per 100,000 people. That often describes our big cities. The Democrats aren't dealing with crime. The only cities where murder rates are down are cities where murders are not being counted the same anymore. There is danger coming from the left my friend.
Are you saying leftists don't hate the Maga?
Quoting praxis
What is your point? Tell me how it really is.
I am not Maga. Never was. I had to vote for Trump because.... Biden/Harris had no ideas, not a clue.
I never used social media. Right after Kirk was murdered, I first downloaded Instagram. I don't have twitter or facebook or TikTok accounts. Barely use LinkedIn. When I watch the news, I put on CNN until I can't stand it, then I watch Fox, until I can't stand it. I get my news from all over the place. I mostly think politics is a burden. I'm pursuit of happiness focused. And that comes from engaging with those in need and building a business for all of my employees.
But now young men are getting shot for political speech, and many others are celebrating it. So I said enough with holding my tongue. I think a few million others are saying the same thing. Around the country and around the world. The left's paper thin reasoning and rhetoric just isn't going to fly anymore.
Trump putting sombrero's on Hakeem Jeffries is monumental. The only people offended by that are the ones who are losing the arguments. They aren't offended because of its racism (although they of course say that bullshit). They are offended that Trump refuses to learn from them how to behave.
Woke-type ideology has been leading Western cultural changes since the 1980's. Woke peaked under Obama and spawned the Trans rights movement. (Trans rights ironically cause the woke to begin eating its tail, as Trans people pose big problems for woke homosexual policies, and woke feminist policies, as well as for basic security for children). Wokeness became untenable. And the right finally reacted. That was 2016 with Trump's victory over Clinton.
Now, the deep trench wokness dug of our culture is full of mud. Now the left is more outraged than ever, and less rational. Now people sympathetic to the left shoot people more often than they used to.
I think the world is realizing that only half of its population even wants to be free. Only half of the population really wants to be responsible for their own lives. The rest, the lefties, want government to take care of them and protect them (even from mean words and haters!). The left has been gaslighting about their interest in equal rights for all people. They don't give a shit about all people. They only care about the half that don't want freedom.
Still in denial.
We know you are Praxis, but hes trying very hard to get you not to be.
:up:
Do you also deny that MAGA used Kirks assassination for anti-leftist hate mongering?
It was a commentary on your denial not your politics. I was being cheeky, this thread could use some levity.
Maga anti left hate mongering is standard OP. I think the same can be said of the other side as well. (Not the left, the left Maga equivalent.)
Do you deny the Left hates MAGA?
Do you deny hatred from the left is behind all of the protests and assaults and deaths and billions in property destruction these past 5 plus years in America? No leftist hatred on the streets of Portland today?
Quoting praxis
Hate mongering, like wearing a red hat (punched in the face), or a shirt with an American flag (ripped off and beaten), or holding a vigil and burning some candles (stomped on and pissed on).
MAGA hate mongering like that? So scary when those MAGA folks monger that hate.
During the summer of Floyd a woman was murdered for saying all lives matter.
What a joke.
Which is?
That there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points. If Im wrong about that view then apologies.
You can look at approval ratings on sites like this I guess: New Marquette Law School Poll National Survey
Quoting Fire Ologist
Wasn't that about police brutality? If not, what exactly are you referring to?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Isn't that about ICE raids?
Quoting DingoJones
I've said that his views regarding what woke is are "inaccurate" and "skewed" by MAGA rhetoric.
The point is the left is way, way better at hate. Hate is an important ingredient to leftism.
The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to let your rage fuel you. Rage isnt hate. But the democrat candidate for attorney general in Virginia was caught fantasizing and texting about the death of republican rivals and piss on their graves.
My point is, your point about MAGA using Kirk to hate monger is just so inconsequential. Kirk was shot. Im sure the shooter bumped into some woke hate. What about woke hate? Anything there?
Forget it
I mean, he was a Democrat most of his life? He changes his mind weekly? What political issues does he care deeply about? Dictator, sure, pass, that gets abused.
I imagine the man does care about his base. Is that political?
I think it's fair to say that he is anti-war. Otherwise, I see little deeply held belief.
Quoting AmadeusD
You don't see people increasingly connecting the 2025 project to Trump's actions? I only made this connection myself after reading commentary making the connection. The Kimmel thing is the obvious example. Perhaps the rest of it 'remains to be seen'?
To me, he has been telling people what he was going to do for years, with the insurrection the most obvious. People are still surprised when it happens, but that's not because the statements aren't there to see. It's that the actions are so outrageous.
Ok. Inaccurate..sure, a broad stroke rather than nuanced. Skewed by Maga rhetoric? A broad stroke. Its possible to express opinions that overlap with Maga without being a maga drone.
If this interests you so much just read the damn thread. :roll:
Quoting praxis
This is a good example of how you let divisive rhetoric influence you.
Abigail Spanberger prefaced it by saying it was advice from her mother, responding to political frustration:
[i]Let your rage fuel you.
And so, Mom, I love you. I thank you for the sage advice. And to the rest of us, every time we hear a new story, we let it fuel us.[/i]
She went on to elaborate how she meant to use it:
Every time we turn on the news, we let it fuel us. Every time something bad is happening we say, Oh thats motivation. Every time something happens in the world we just say, Boy, am I motivated today. We write more postcards, we knock more doors, we make more phone calls, we tell more friends about the importance of this election.
She also said that disagreements over policy, perspectives or even worldviews should never lead to violence in the same speech.
Her Republican challenger Winsome Earle-Sears has been citing Spanbergers let your rage fuel you quote in ads, alleging that Spanberger is encouraging violent rhetoric.
Ive been following along.
It may get there. (Though the incessant us-versus-them thing is getting old.)
Federal agents knock down elderly couple during Portland protest ( The Oregonian / OregonLive · Oct 4, 2025)
Anyway, these trends have raised some concerns. You don't see anything to worry about?
In that case maybe you can show me where I said That there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points.
It was my summation of your view not a direct quote. I followed up by offering apologies if that wasnt your view.
I do view woke as a secular 'religion'. John McWhorter's "Woke Racism" is great on this issue - he refers to the leaders as "The Elect" - a self-appointed priestly class. Talks about the rituals (land acknowledgements), the genuflecting, etc.
McWhorter is essential on the subject of woke - a gentle, genteel, witty and insightful liberal, a musical theatre enthusiast, a black man who has condemned wokeness as racist, a 'tyranny of low expectations'. I really enjoy listening to him in conversation with Glenn Loury on the Glenn show - the kind of show you talk about as needed, a conservative and liberal discussing race and other issues intelligently.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thanks! I know there are plenty of conservatives like you - I grew up with them. When my life hit rock bottom, rocked by tragedy (and cancelled by woke) it was conservatives that showed up for me, more than progressives, despite my being surrounded by progressives.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Joseph Heath's "Rebel Sell" starts with this position, and then uses it to dismiss the 'radicalism' of the likes of Michael Moore and Naomi Klein. I loved Moore and Klein back in the day, still respect them, and yet agree with Heath completely. It's a morally empty stance.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Trans concepts of 'female' identity are pretty conservative. Grotesquely so, at times, if you read the likes of Andrea Long Chu. She seems to really value being on the receiving end of the male gaze.
Quoting praxis
I agree with you here, but you omit the fact that the influential voices within woke do not view things this way. Wokeness requires three groups - John McWhorter's 'Elect', the leaders (neoliberal technocrats, generally) who determine the policy, the 'true believers' who spread the word, and the masses, of whom you speak.
I agree that the average woke individual is well intentioned and well meaning. But they are also generally moral relativists, who can't see the moral failures of their leaders.
Quoting jorndoe
I imagine it does. The non-organic portion of his martyrdom are the opportunistic 2025ers. Plenty of regular people reacted organically.
Quoting Mijin
Seriously? 1%? Name another issue with that sort of disparity. Can't? Right. It's not a sane stance to take. Unless, of course, you fancy yourself objectively right? Which puts you in John McWhorter's self-appointed priestly caste.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Loads of people got fired for social media posts that were hostile to Kirk in the wake of his murder.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Amazes me too. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about how Islam needs it's own reformation. My opinion of the Old Testament is radically different than the New Testament. You know I'm an atheist, but I can still respect and value Jesus. It certainly seems to me that Christianity is more closely aligned with woke morality than Islam (speaking in wildly broad terms) and yet the woke tend to despise Christianity and venerate Islam.
Yet another example of the moral incoherence of woke.
Quoting Mijin
Okay. From my readings in the past few days.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/29/scottish-police-arrest-serial-speaker-women-arrested-for-holding-sign-offering-to-discuss-abortion/
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/05/freedom-shirts-reportedly-banned-in-kansas-elementary-public-school/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/02/how-the-west-failed-the-test-of-the-danish-cartoons-controversy/
https://unherd.com/2025/10/the-terror-of-the-anti-israel-machine/
https://courage.media/2025/08/16/ending-the-muslim-brotherhoods-american-experiment/
Some of these are directly on the topic of free speech, others less direct. That took me ten minutes, to review articles I've bookmarked and find recent examples.
But if you are blind, you can't see, no matter how urgent the images.
That ten minute effort of mine represents more evidence than I've seen from you this entire thread.
I do recall you correcting my spelling though. In case you've been reading my posts, you are the commenter that puzzles me via Andrew Doyle's question...
Am I talking to a twelve year old or a sociology professor? And yet other woke doctrinaires think you are doing 'good work'? Sigh.
I havent even suggest that there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points. Why are you being dishonest about this?
Im not. Apparently mistaken, but not dishonest.
:up:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Those added to my examples too. Too many examples of woke stifling, or just unjustly responding to, speech.
And what is happening in the UK is unbelievable to me. The loss of free speech and incarceration of violators (who say shit the government doesnt like) is way more real and tangible and more dangerous for more people than things like trans rights issues or even racism in the US. The average woke person has no idea of the harm they are doing.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Right. Is that the one when they are speaking about Thomas Sowell? I think I heard of Loury. But yes, people talking. Not as a black man or whatever identity box. Not as a victim pointing at oppression. Just as men. I will check that out, thanks.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
It may be that the woke thinks they are always right, but its certain that they think right wingers are always wrong. I mean a bit of both maybe.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I was saying what the Government did in response to Kirk, they only arrested the one person. They got serious about antifa now, but no one rounded up (and well see what comes of that).
But there was an intervening event regarding those who seemed hostile to Kirk being fired. No one was fired for being leftist or because of their political views, or even for hating Kirk. They were fired for being pigs about a murder.
Mind you, Im sure many people just made stupid mistakes and deserved a chance to apologize and move on, so I agree there may have been some injustice in the firing of many of those people.
But that said, all of that firing was in the private sector, and people get fired for all kinds of reasons. Its not the same free speech issue as government action against people for speech, as in the UK, soon in California (although I bet the law will be struck down, because speech laws make no sense ).
Quoting jorndoe
That seems to be the nature of politics. But I agree. Its next level now.
The trick is to pick your team and then play fair, be an example, with respect for the game both sides want to play. We have to play together to play at all.
The woke team got too greedy. They assumed too much. It backfired into Trump. Trump made a new team called MAGA, made of all the people the woke team shit on, shouted down, beat up, shot at, hated, called racist, called sexist, called fascist - team Trump is full of people fed up with being called bad for basic things, like being white, or being a man, or being conservative, or being a believer in God.
Woke took advantage, and went to far with the poor Trans people (who are all pawns now).
I hope it is ending.
What needs to be saved in the demise of woke is liberalism and progressivism. And it will be saved even if woke truly ends (which I doubt).
Here is a weakness on the left, and evidence of how it has been hyjacked by its extreme woke elements: the left thinks working together with republicans is losing to them, because republicans are subversive (and just always bad). So woke cant even try to cooperate with them. Its why the only unified message of the democrats is we must fight and resist Trump. They never have positive ideas, just plans to subvert all things hateful by republicans (which is everything republican haters say!).
So Dems cant just show common sense and reasonableness. If a conservative idea is a good one (like lets not over sexualize children or chop off their body parts), the left still cant even entertain the idea. Even if it is common sense. And unable to use republican totalitarian common sense it leaves them to have to work with nonsense so often.
And this is why delusion works to answer questions and calm woke nerves. As long as the language opposes conservative language, the argument is assumed to be sound enough and the facts are good enough. No need to question woke authority or logic or validity. And anyone who questions it can be dismissed. This is their main tactic - dismissal of debate. That is fascist, if you ask me.
I want to raise the sombrero cartoon again, because I think it is such a good way to see woke things more clearly.
The left sees the cartoon and see that a white guy like Trump and his team of evil doers is making a joke of a sombrero and Mexican stuff. The left assumes this is so racist they can be indignant, and call Trump out. That has to be racist, right? Everyone with any moral scruples will have to agree - Trump is a pig for mocking his opponents like that.
But are they really indignant for Mexicans or Mexican-American immigrants? Is anyone really so offended that the cartoon does more harm than good? Trump is always called Hitler - given a funny mustache and
all. And this image is used to smear all republicans who agree with anything Trump. So whats the harm in giving Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer a cartoon hat so republicans can laugh at them? And make it a sombrero, because they pretend to love illegal immigrant Mexicans so much. :grin: Guaranteed the people who are laughing the most are LEGAL Mexican American immigrants, many of whom love Trump because they love America.
The woke dont know what is important and what is not. According to the woke, the cartoon is about a white man using the poor downtrodden Mexican to make fun of someone. Well Im sure many Mexicans hear that from the woke left and think - screw you too - we arent downtrodden, and your policies suck, and why are you falling for such a silly provocation with your pretend outrage for me who isnt outraged at all - I think its funny too!?
The woke left calls a silly joke hate speech and wants to give the government the power to fine and/or arrest people who say things that might offend a protected class.
They are wrong about what is racist, and wrong about what to do with racist speech. And if such racist speech was finally stoppable by the good government policies, all we would be stopping is a few laughs. Its not offensive enough to warrant say it to my face bullshit from Jeffries. He seems self-important. And too woke for the current moment.
This is an example of their weakness - they see oppression where it does not exist and their solutions for oppression stink anyway.
The Dems keep blowing opportunities to take back the narrative. Jeffries should have laughed. Dummy. He was too worried hed further offend the seven Mexicans who were upset (3 of whom will still vote for Trump). Because he doesnt know how to handle racism (if it was even racist to make the cartoon.)
Quoting praxis
Maybe not nothing, but you certainly dont make much of all Im saying.
@DingoJones assessment that you over simplify and to simply categorize me doesnt seem far off to me.
It is insulting to say Im just parroting talking points, you know that right? Dingo was just trying to help, because I think he saw this too.
It would be kinder if you would just assume I am telling you what I think in good faith, my own observations (which is all I am doing), and just talk about it, or tell me what you think.
I mean, I could say you sound like woke propaganda and misinformation too, but instead, I assume you are a thoughtful person, like me. Just wrong a lot. :razz:
Yeah - that is weird to me too. Out of nowhere - fist bumps, like we reached peace in the Middle East.
I do it differently.
Decide on whatever topics/issues; work out who to vote for accordingly; if none found, then figure out if second best is good enough, or if there are additional concerns to take into account; ...
Someone (Goldwater?) once mentioned that politics involves compromise.
What exactly have I not made much of?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I just gave an example of you mindlessly parroting twisted political rhetoric a few posts above on this page:
Quoting praxis
It always cracks me up when people demean religion like this.
I'm sure that everyone at Fire's law firm has religious reverence for their DEI officer, and that the insurance discount they got for having a DEI officer wasn't an effort by the insurance company to lower risk but as a form of religious penance. :lol:
Thats how I hold a discussion, how I debate.
But then we have to elect leaders. Then we have to pick a platform (pick a team) and play fair to make a final selection of elected official.
Quoting jorndoe
Compromise is the result.
Extremists dont debate.
Extremists dont compromise.
The teams are always there on election night.
Ok I take that back. How about all 50 other points?
Quoting praxis
Thats is insulting, right? I mean yeah, I like parrots and yeah Im pretty stupid, but you dont really need to make this point here.
You think there is any hate or rage speak on the left somewhere else? You think I cant find AOC screaming hate?
My point is - who cares about hate from the right or the left.
What is the substance of their political views and efficacy of their policy solutions?
Ignore the hate. Its what conservatives must do to engage in a discussion with a liberal, because liberals hate racists and fascists and all conservatives are racists parrots.
Do you see? Screw the hate. It doesnt really matter. What matters is when people stop talking for any reason. Who cares if you think Charlie Kirk was a hater. Thats psychology and hidden dog whistle bullshit. What did he say and do right on the surface, right before your eyes. What matters is he was killed for talking.
Woke debaters dont debate with conservatives. If they cant crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot.
You and Dingo were pushing the point for some reason that I dont get. Dingo mentioned something about injecting levity into the topic. It doesnt seem funny to me either.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I liked that he openly debated people whose views were very different from his own. Many culture war grifters (both left and right) just sit behind a keyboard or mic and dont engage.
Quoting Fire Ologist
In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. Is he just crazy? Oddly, he was raised in a family situation that Kirk celebrated, and even graduated from a religious school. Did society fail him or is it biological?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Kirk disproves this claim. Shortly before his assassination I watched several videos of him debating Cambridge students. I think he used every logical fallacy known to man.
This ignores the new Testament. But I'm not particularly drawn to defending Kirk on religious grounds - that was where we parted ways. Unfortunately, that meant on most issues lmao. But his character is clearly, and inarguably, not one of malice or hatred.
No. I'll quote myself:
Quoting AmadeusD
I note you also quoted this, and then charged me with saying something very much different. Again. wiping my brow.
Quoting Mijin
They aren't exceptions and I've not claimed they are. Intersex is not an exception. Translocation is not an exception. I would appreciate not being charged with saying things I have never said, and can quote evidence to the opposite for.
You have also just conflated gender and sex. Unsure if you've noted that. We are talking about sex. Gender is another discussion, but if one takes hte position that gender does not vary independent of sex, then that's all that person would want to argue. I agree gender is a different thing. We're not discussing it. Please take care not to conflate, as we will be talking past each other.
Quoting Mijin
As above. Beginning to be fairly comfortable in assuming you're doing this on purpose due to failing entirely to refute these points.
Quoting Mijin
1. Yes it does.
2. No there aren't. We've been over this. You flat-out rejecting that translocation is not a genotype isn't my issue anymore. You are wrong.
Quoting Mijin
No. If the SRY gene is active. Truly, are you reading these responses before flying into an ideological screed?
Secondly, it doesn't 'override' anything at all. It is the determining factor for sex in humans. There's nothing to override. It is what it is. Your response makes absolutely no sense here.
Quoting Mijin
As this illustrates: We're talking about sex. It is entirely binary and there are no exceptions to that. You have provided none, and hten resiled into talking about social gender as a way to pretend I've not acknowledged the complexities of sex-related behaviour. This has become a non-debate. You are not playing the game.
Quoting praxis
Do you mean the Oxford debate society video where he utterly trounces everyone who speaks with him (or insults him) and has recently elected a president who celebrated the Murder? Wow. Cool.
Quoting praxis
This is perverse.
I don't think much of that is right. He is clearly a pretty egoic person, but i also imagine your wife thinks that what was squarely left wing thinking in 2010 is now far-right. Many do, it's not your wife's issue. But that will largely skew what's being said. An example is border control: Clinton, Obama and Biden were more aggressive with illegal immigration in terms of raw numbers. But a world in which we mass-deport criminals is a right-wing fantasy these days. I think thats ridiculous, myself.
This is an odd thing to say. He wants a secure border, to deal with crime, reform spending and then yes, reduce war and war casualties. He also believes one law for all.
I don't know the guy personally, but these seem to have been threads through everything including criticisms of him. I'm unsure there's a good argument for him being a sort of hollow actor. Just a bad one.
It is inarguable to closed minds only.
He was a culture war grifter and deliberatly cultivated social conflict for profit. You can see how his views became more extreme over the last 10 years with his income growth.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't remember if it was Cambridge or Oxford. And of course you're persuaded by logical fallacies.
dozens of police interventions in speech daily? Yeah, mind-boggling. Pro-woke commenters here on TPF, from the UK, unaware of this? Evidence of dystopia now.
Quoting Fire Ologist
McWhorter and Loury do a monthly non-paywall chat about 'black' issues, and it's always great. They did a talk on Sowell, but you can go back years with those two for good conversations. The Glenn Show.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I keep hammering on about moral principles, and free speech absolutism is one. Don't make any justifications of abuses of that principle aligned with your 'tribe' or you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy. The spike in firings was political, even if in some individual cases it may have been justified.
It's a conservative talking point. You may believe it sincerely, you might be right substantively, but that's the danger of binary tribalism. I assume good faith, but if I believe you are compelled to 'pick a side', that taints my impression of your integrity.
I mean, that's the problem with affirmative action, right? It sits wrong with human moral decision making. Decades of evidence of this. Yet another reason to doubt woke - psychologists told us
decades ago that it was causing cognitive dissonance for the people it was supposed to help
My free speech beliefs are protecting those nazis marching down mainstreet, protected by Jewish lawyers, back in the early 80s.
Quoting Fire Ologist
National paper here in Canada with a front page story on the abandonment of 'de-transitioners'. They certainly believe they were pawns. Great to see this getting covered. It's tip of the iceberg on trans issues, the primary weakness of woke.
Lets see how yall compare the regressive left with woke (not mine, it was created by someone else):
The Regressive Agenda
1. Fuck white people. White people are racists.
2. Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq
3. Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.
4. Fuck the cops
5. Fuck conservatives and Republicans
6. Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.
7. Disregard linear time. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.
8. Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.
9. It someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.
10. It someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.
11. Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible.
How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?
12. Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers.
And then Id like to reference Evergreen University and the insanity of the above in operation. The incident was based on woke nonsense learned in the classes there. Woke in principal may not be problematic but there IS a version of it that is problematic and those DO have something to do with certain tenets of woke ideology. It will be very amusing to watch this reference get hand waved away. Telling. I mean it will be telling.
Trump does not believe this.
I mean, he thinks he can shoot people in public and get away with it. He can 'grab em by the pussy' because he is famous. Pardons for the violent fringe of the Jan 6 insurrection.
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay, fine, he is consistent with expressing things that ALL PEOPLE want.
Expressed in ways inconsistent with his previous platforms and beliefs.
Things inconsistent with his own actions for the decades he has spent in the public eye.
I was rewatching old Wrestlemania's on Netflix while cleaning today. Vince McMahon loves Trump. He gives him mic time. The man's moral hypocrisy back in like, 1993, was proof of what I'm talking about.
Quoting AmadeusD
It feels you have a problem with what other people are saying. What I am saying about Trump is accurate. Perhaps you don't know enough about this subject?
This is unhinged. The far right and the racist populists in the U.K. are trying their damnedest to import this anti woke narrative into the U.K. Even with the help of 95% of the U.K. press, its not sticking.
The lady arrested for holding a pro-life plackard near an abortion clinic was arrested for holding it within a 150m exclusion zone around all abortion clinics. If she had held it 160m away she could have continued holding it and shouting etc for as long as she wanted. The zones were introduced because emotionally vulnerable women were being intimidated by these protesters as they entered the door of the clinics.
God help us.
Have to say I've listened to many of their shows. It is truly great. If only the discussion of race issues would be on this level. Actually the US needs these kind of academics who engage in public discourse.
Besides, Glenn Loury is quite an inspiring person, as he earlier in his life had fumbled up, had gone to prison, yet then did make an academic career and ended up as an professor of economics. Not bad from an black ex-convict.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't see any evidence of violence, it looks like the students exercising their free speech; the same reception left wing journalists get at Trump rallies.
But let's just give you this one: let's say that those guys were physically threatened and intimidated off campus. Let's put that on one side of the ledger as evidence of the left wing shutting down speech on college campuses.
What do we have on the other side, of the right wing shutting down speech?
BTW @Jeremy Murray do you appreciate now why the 1% figure was not a number plucked from nowhere; it was an attempt to weigh up the attacks on freedom of speech, leaning towards being generous towards the MAGA side.
I am not "charging you" with anything. I am pointing out that your own cite said there are more than two genotypes for this gene, and you think just asserting that there isn't is a refutation.
Quoting AmadeusD
The only reason that we're discussing sex is because of the context of the gender discussion; your position seems to require asserting that the underlying sex is binary, and you're failing to find support for that assertion. Quoting AmadeusD
Cite please: an actual biologist, not your misreading of what chat gpt told you.
That just means the taxpayers arent going to be forced to pay for whatever the college wants to say and promote. It has zero impact on freedom. If Columbias professors had balls and really believed in their fascist ways towards conservatism, they would say screw the money. And just rely on their $14 billion dollar endowment to tide them over during hard times. This is adolescent whining - the tone of the modern university.
Quoting Mijin
Im sure you are right about some improper arrests. Point one out. Who was arrested for speech?
But do you think all 3,100 people didnt commit any crimes and they were all just arrested for speech? Were all of them charged with crimes? Did all of them get convicted? Show me a specific case of impropriety and I agree with you. But 3100 seems like a small number to me. Why are white liberals in America concerned about Palestine anyway? Is every killing of civilians all the same, or is torturing and kidnapping civilians of any value in an assessment of who needs justice?
Quoting Mijin
I agree, those things are divisive, and just wrong. They are woke, and I like the idea of the End of woke. But if you like them, dont sign up. Teach them for free if they are important to you. Funding cuts from the federal government have zero to do with free speech. I only care about the freedom from government coercion, not some sort of lack of financial support. Are the Feds telling anyone what to say or think, or what not to say or think? No. The feds are telling them what the federal government is not going to pay someone to say or think. That is a totally different issue than rights and justice and oppression. That is a teenager whining that daddy wont pay his bus fare or give him lunch money to go play activist with his friends.
Quoting Mijin
Id have to look into the specifics of how the law bans content.
You may be right here that this is Orwellian. Ill let you do the homework though for now.
Because you may be wrong.
We are talking about kids K-12. These are almost entirely minors. Ok? Kids.
Does the woke act get specific enough to restrict speech about white men are bad and talk about penises being cut off, or that Daddy wears a dress and that is just as good as Mommy - and bullshit fantasy theories revolutionizing sexuality foisted upon little fricking kids??
The government is allowed to curtail speech based on time and place. You can say we need to be free to have sex with anyone and everyone we want as long as we all consent among adults - but you cant teach that to 9 year olds. Parents need to be allowed to control the state curricula.
But if this law is not well written, it is Big Brother fascism and you are right. Look it up if you are worried Florida is up to no good. Im not worried. Speaking to other peoples kids is different and should be regulated. And lets see what happens with any challenges to the law in court.
Quoting Mijin
Again, so raise your own money to indoctrinate Marxism and white supremacy conspiracies and that girls can have penises or whatever. In America the government cant stop you. Doesnt mean the government needs to help you.
Quoting Mijin
State funded colleges and universities? Or all of them? If all of them, the laws are a problem. If state funded, be brave my anxious friend.
Quoting Mijin
Yes because you are including acts like the above as equivalent to physically shutting down speech with force. Unless all of those 3100 people were not arrested for trespass, assault, impeding lawful process, noise violations, failure to obtain a permit, and other crimes, even that isnt a threat to free speech.
:up:
I would love it if anyone around here could make the case on behalf of the woke.
My friends, what is not problematic about woke in principle? Anyone list one thing?
I think wokes fetishizing of implicit bias is onto something good (just over reified). Implicit bias needs to be dealt with. That is my best attempt at saying something positive about wokeness.
But this is why I pushed us to come ip with some sort of definition of woke for all of us. As far as I can tell everything woke touches is infected and decays. Knowledge of the notion of implicit bias is not enough to justify so much woke destruction.
A perfect example of wokes infectious nature: The way the Trans rights folks (woke) are angry with the Feminists (also woke), and vice versa. They are both correct about themselves according to woke and yet they are both wrong about each other according to woke. And so they fight each other, decaying themselves and each other, due to wokeness.
Well, I think woke has some good principals. Equity is good, racism and sexism are bad, traditional values need to be updated those all seem good in principle.
Over reified? Wokeness is concerned with both implicit bias and social organization, but the modern form emphasizes structural inequality more than individual prejudice. It's more accurate to say that woke fetishizes "systemic racism".
Do you think concern with systemic racism is onto something good?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I mentioned earlier in the topic that I read Kathleen Stock's book [i]Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism[/I]. It addresses this conflict in detail from the material feminist point of view.
In her own words: Im not anti-woke if by that you mean caring about social justice I just dont think justice is served by denying reality.
Both material feminists and trans activists claim to defend vulnerable groups but define vulnerability and justice differently when it comes to policy-level consequences (sports, prisons, language, healthcare, etc.).
Your argument commits the fallacy of division, relies on equivocation of the term woke, and employs a false cause to link internal disagreements to wokeness itself. Are you actually a lawyer?
Everything new comes from somewhere. The kid is responsible for what he thinks and does too.
Are we not each individuals, responsible for our own lives and actions? Or do we have to look beyond the person for whatever caused that persons actions?
Family situation that Kirk celebrated.
I dont know why it is relevant to say that Kirk celebrated. So if someone thinks the military needs to practice shooting accurately, and then the military loses a battle, should we rethink whether it is important that they shoot accurately?
Because the shooter came from a traditional Kirk-supported family, do we really have to wonder what is wrong with the traditional family? Or might there be something more particular to the specific kid involved?
Whatever was good about the shooters upbringing can still be good for people. Just certainly not good enough for a kid who thinks it is ok to murder someone like that because his disagreed with him.
Im sure his parents are destroyed, unless they are psychotic as well. Their traditional lives are over.
Quoting praxis
Ok. Thats fair. If that is what you found. A fallacy is a fallacy. A fallacy knows no political party or ideology. Wed have to take each debate one by one to point out the fallacies to show how the leftist out-debated Kirk. Ive seen some of those
That said. If we broaden this to debates between any conservative and any woke liberal, there are times when the woke side cant debate well. In many of those cases, instead of admitting they need to rethink their position, they just shrug off the whole debate, learn nothing, avoid self-reflection, do not improve their argument, go ad hominem and write off their opponent as hopelessly lost to immoral irrationality. My point is, from my experience, the woke liberals do this A LOT. And usually they dont even need to lose the debate - they just need to be challenged and they get indignant. A lot.
No.
Quoting praxis
Dude - I am not writing a brief. I am just talking. Woke social justice contradicts itself in theory, and in practice.
Either the feminists or the trans are wrong. They cant both be right. But any definition of woke Ive seen provides no means to adjudicate that dispute.
Quoting praxis
We need a working definition of woke to debate equivocation between two definitions.
I have been all about what is woke. Show me the equivocation.
What social movements do not contradict themselves in theory and practice? Oh, and no need to think critically, just say whatever you feel.
Equity is good.
Racism and sexism are bad.
I, a conservative traditional person, agree.
(Of course I do.)
I also agree that liberalism is the greater teacher of us these things. Although republican conservatives fought to preserve the union when they abolished slavery of black and other people, it was another liberal idea, like the US constitution was a liberal idea. Lots of good liberal ideas.
But that isnt woke. Woke is liberalism turned into something else.
Woke thinks equity means girls and boys are the same (just social constructs).
Woke thinks equity means we need more black Board members in corporate America.
Woke doesnt see the different between equality before the law (fairness), and equal capability of identity groups. Just because in the pool of all Hispanics there are many great doctors, it doesnt mean we need there to be more Hispanic doctors. Woke is all confused on the priorities. Quotas, affirmative action - these are born of wokes idea of equity, and are actually racist and sexist (just with a reversing effect). Fine if you want to think equity means affirmative action, but dont tell me affirmative action isnt a kind of racism. That type of contradiction is woke.
And woke didnt invent racism is bad. Liberals didnt even invent that. The Catholic (means universal) Church had more do with introducing to human history the notion of opposing tribalism and racism than the enlightenment did. By the time of the enlightenment and birth of modern liberalism, there were already beloved saints coming from every corner of the planet.
I know of too many black Americans and Hispanic or Asian Americans who could care less about the notion of systemic racism. They agree with me. Racism really isnt everywhere. Woke thinks it is but it just isnt.
Added: the woke are the ones keeping racism alive, along with the seven or eight actual white supremacists.
Racism is real. Dont get me wrong. Its bad. Dont get me wrong. But I didnt learn this from woke arguments. And woke solutions are even worse than their assessment of woke supposed problems, if you ask me.
I am glad you are interested in the subject. I have a bookcase filled with books about education. To narrow what I know to your question, I ask you to consider Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and what federal dollars have to do with education.
Those Republicans are not well-informed. You might want to check with Christians about public schools teaching children morals. Christians operate out of a belief system, not gather facts. They hated John Dewey and hate the National Education Association, and in Texas, the Republicans did all they could to prevent their schools from teaching the Higher Order Thinking Skills that are vital to making moral decisions. This struggle for children's minds and the democracy founded on the Enlightenment, has gone on long before Woke.
Please try to convince me of that. I want to know what you base your belief on.
This battle has gone on since the early 20th century. Led by John Dewey, Noam Chomsky, and others. It is basically a battle between Christians and those who favor the thinking of the Enlightenment.
Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and it has not been defended in most states that cater to getting federal dollars since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. We taught history to transmit our culture, and it was our culture that made our liberty possible. That education was ended, and we are in a hell of a situation.
We stopped preparing the young for moral thinking, and Texas Republicans made that the priority in 2012. Those good Christian folks argued that education for thinking skills led children to go against their parents. Education for technology is not education for science. Texas teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court so they would not be forced to teach that creationism is equal to science. Christians are defending Christianity, not our democracy.
Nationalism that becomes fascism is Christian. Germany was a Christian Republic and our world war enemy. That authoritarian nationalism is built on Christian mythology, not Enlightenment thinking.
No one killed more Christians, than Christians. That victim story is for the Jews. :vomit: Please, this psychological BS is repulsive. It is bull shit that anyone was killed because of their relationship with a God. It is also BS to call a nation evil and invade it for imperialistic reasons. Christians are so taken advantage of by oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, sending their sons and daughters to die in immoral wars, with men like Billy Graham convincing parents that God wants them to send their young into a war.
Christians may not be the enemy, but their mythology must be destroyed for the good of the earth. Oh yes, they are fascist. They believe God chooses their ruler and God is in control, God wants them to enter wars, because people are evil by nature and must have authority over them, and they must follow their leader into war. Bush made a huge mistake when he used Christianity for the New Century American Project, tying Christianity to war, just as the civil war and world wars and slutter of native Americans were all tied to Christianity and God's will.
Their stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood come from Sumerian mythology. What they believe is true is a combination of pagan mythologies, and people who disagreed were wiped off the earth.
Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above??
Quoting praxis
Ive given 10 times more analysis to chew on here than you have. WTF is this insult for?
No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. Ive said that ten times. So just because you dont like my criticism, and just because you wont critique most of what Im saying, doesnt mean you have any idea of my willingness to think critically.
Looks like a good statement for those willing to defend the will of God. Hitler and Trump built their campaigns on people's fears and anger. It is psychological warfare before action is taken.
Quoting Athena
So someone who is a nationalist who becomes fascist can also go the church (and understand what church is) and say they are a Christian? Just because someone says they are Christian doesnt make it so. Like just because someone says they are woman, doesnt make it so.
Hitlers Germany was a Christian Republic?
I get it. You dont like Christianity and religion.
Ok.
Ill just say that, besides all of the religious wars and oppression that you probably think were about Christianity, and not about politics, the Catholic Church brought hospitals and universities to the world before anyone else did anything close to that.
If you could for an instant just consider only the good things people have obviously done for the poor, to stop injustice, to educate and to heal - that is all Christianity is. These and love of God and all persons - these alone are Christianity.
Christianty can be used and abused for politics like anything else. Doesnt mean those uses are Christian.
But Im guessing the evils done by quote Christians are too great to find the good.
There is no nationalism essential to Christianity, Hitlers Germany is the antithesis of Christianity.
But again, I get it. You dont seem to like religion and you think it infects our politics too much.
See, I can agree with you that religion should be kept out of government policy. So we could agree on many things you might want to make policy (like maybe no teaching Bible in public school without teaching about all world religions, and no teaching Intelligent Design in science class - maybe in a philosophy class discussion about Aristotle )
And I agree history is crap these days (but I blame wokeness for that). And I agree the education system is full of issues to work out. It would take a long history and discussion to address all youve raised.
But a discussion like that, with a motif and theme of all the ways Christians qua Christians have hurt the world with someone who doesnt seem to see the vastly greater goods many people have done, in their attempts to be more like Christ - seems unproductive to do like this, or on this thread.
It can be. As I told Praxis you are using a broad brush here. Your points about problematic woke land with me (See my previous post about the regressive left) but as long as you use that broad brush you arent landing your points with your actual target. I know, I know you asked for a definition. The cowardice of wokesters here in not providing one is duly noted.
That would be item #9 on the regressive agenda.
9. If someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.
I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. You did not comment on that other than to openly admit to relying on equivocation of the term woke to make poor arguments against woke.
The purpose of your feigning ignorance of what woke is wasn't clear until now, page 30. Definitive proof of how slow and dull witted I am.
But fine, all social movements are perfectly consistent in theory and practice only woke social justice contradicts itself.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am just talking.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I looked up the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be as follows:
Her Republican political opponent uses that line in their campaign, promoting fear and anger indeed.
How so?
I think Ive made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.
One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few.
And why do you think my points wont land because of their broadness? Is it something to do with the nature of broad points, or something to do with the nature of the target? Or both in combination?
A little more detail about your broadness analysis would be appreciated. Thanks
No you didnt. You said this:
Quoting praxis
That defines the problem. That doesnt address anything.
Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists.
Ask the feminist or the trans person to point to reality and to denying reality and the problem with woke I have pointed out will be on display.
Quoting praxis
I never feigned ignorance of what woke is. Did you think me asking people to define woke is because I dont know what woke is? Well, in case you thought that, the reason I asked, I figured we all have an idea of what woke is, and I figured it would be helpful on a thread like this to see where people are coming from and see where we overlap and where we differ. So we could talk about those things and clarify them as well
I mean how would you understand me saying woke sucks if you dont understand anything about woke, or anything about sucks for that matter.
Quoting praxis
Ok. Insults are a type of talking. Addressing content is another way to talk.
Quoting praxis
Is that what you think? Or are you just parroting something you looked up? You said these are supposed to be the tenets, as if you didnt think they simply are the tenets.
Is this good faith? Am I being unreasonable asking you if this is good faith?
What is the overall point of your very last post? What are you trying to say to me as a response to my previous post? I dont think I can tell the overall point of your last post from the words alone. There is something you arent saying to me. Something is not express that I am supposed to understand.
Why did you just now post this? We could have used this pages ago.
Quoting praxis
There is some good stuff in there to incorporate into the discussion.
But why are you posting it now, so I dont fall down the wrong rabbit hole?
Ok Ill bite.
Language shapes reality - huge. I agree. That is a part of wokeism. Its a part of post-modernism too. It explains a lot about how a conversation with the woke goes.
I think reality shapes language. What do you think? Not what someone else thinks or what someone else said what the tenets are supposed to be. What do you actually think? Does language shapes reality explain reality to you?
How do you think the feminists and the trans people would handle what language to put on the door to the bathroom? Get it? If language shapes reality how would the feminist and the trans person choose what language to put on the formerly girls locker room?
Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks.
You made a point earlier about Christians claiming to be Christians but arent actually Christians. Its just like that. Woke principals include equity (in principal if not in practice), anti racism, anti bigotry etc but also the things you mention. What I mean by your points not landing is you say woke is so and so your targets are hearing anti racism and equity are so and so and if your so and so was a critique then they think you are being critical of anti racism or equity. So its like if some says christians are murderers in reference to a abortion clinic bombing and a Christian hears that and dismisses it because of how crazy it is to call the peace loving turn the other cheek folk murderers. The point doesnt land.
Anyway, what I said doesnt stand as Praxis has offered a definition which totally undermines my point above because the definition includes some of the things you are criticizing. ???
So yes it is both the target and the point. The target (unspecific) of course has a pretty standard dogmatic reaction. Point arent landing.
Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it.
Stocks core proposal is epistemic, about how we think and talk about sex and gender.
She argues that feminism must continue to recognize biological sex as real and politically salient and that society can respect gender identities without pretending they replace sex. Policy, law, and medicine must be built on empirical reality first, and social identity second.
We should acknowledge both sex and gender identity, but not conflate them.
Kathleen Stock
Quoting Fire Ologist
The core woke principle to adjudicate the dispute would be allyship: support marginalized groups definitions of justice. Stock doesn't deny the validity of gender identity or that trans are a vulnerable group. Trans activists may also respect this principle and act accordingly.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Don't be a whinny bitch. You're welcome. :lol:
And you'd be saying that if it was the other way round, with conservative ideas banned and liberal ideas explicitly mandated under financial penalty?
I didn't mention the threats to the media because we were talking about colleges for that example, but in the context of also pulling licenses, it seems government is pulling every lever to restrict speech.
So what is even the point of the first amendment?Quoting Fire Ologist
Almost all of the arrests are for "criminal trespass" and disorder, hence why Human Rights Watch described it as an assault on free speech and free assembly. But if you consider those arrests "proper" then it was 100% proper for those two conservative guys to have been considered to have been trespassing and disorderly.Quoting Fire Ologist
No I was talking about the "stop WOKE act" impinging on the freedom of higher education institutions. I just quoted the press release that also happened to mention it included K-12. I don't expect it to make much of any difference at that level, since CRT wasn't taught to kids anyway. But it may have a chilling effect on teachers who may choose to just avoid topics like slavery outright.
Quoting Fire Ologist
So again, you don't care about the government impinging on free speech as long as it's your side and your ideology.
I'll hold you to this. If a Democratic government comes in, and forces universities to push "woke" content (whatever that means), and ban conservative ideas about immigration or marriage, say, or get their funding cut, you don't get to say anything. It's all fine, and not a problem for freedom of speech, according to you.
You misunderstand me. It is principled, and I seek actions consistent with that principle. My principle is in response to the infringement of free speech (and free assembly and association) by the government, through legislation and force. Thats what I find is an important issue. Protecting against the government is what allows us the freedom to fight out the rest of the issues for ourselves, as we are here. Freedom from the government is the whole ballgame to me.
Youve said, not in so many words, hypocrisy as I am hammering on about justifications of abuses and tainting my own integrity.
So please, let me back up.
Jimmy Kimmel says, for example, Kirk was killed by the right wing. Thats an opinion. That is an example of speech.
The FCC hears that, and concludes Kimmels opinion is false and/or dangerous.
The FCC can shut down broadcasts, and it threatens ABC/Disney.
So, between ABC/Disney and the government, there is a conflict, over an opinion.
What should we allow the government to do about it?
Nothing.
Because the government shall make no law abridging speech .
So what Brendan Carr (FCC chair) did to ABC/Disney was an attack on free speech. It was akin to government making a law and seeking to enforce a shut down of what ABC was broadcasting.
Plain and simple. That was dangerous government overreach.
So what should we do, or, how should we rebuke Brendan Carr at the FCC?
Im satisfied there was enough public outcry and rebuke from the legislature (and lack of support from his own staff) that there has at least been a lesson learned at the FCC. Carrs bullshit didnt get past anyone. If anything, Carr made such a stupid mistake the FCCs speech has been chilled. The government will always have to be watched from all angles. As it was watched by our legislators here. And Kimmel is back on the air fairly quickly.
So the First amendment controls, and Carr was in violation. I would certainly hear opinions that maybe the FCC chair should be fired, for knowingly or negligently over-reaching, or for incompetence in not knowing he was over-reaching. Because the First Amendment principles are that important to freedom.
And someone can reasonably fear that this FCC move was some unprecedented power grab to institute fascism if they were so inclined, but I just dont. It was/is a big deal, but so far it looks to be playing out towards justice. As I said, we always have to watch the FCC and Kimmel is back on the air.
Is anything truly hypocritical so far? Make your case there is more to it and that this isnt consistent. But even if so, why are you assuming I might behave hypocritically of I was presented with more relevant facts?
Let me back up again.
So again, Kimmel says, for example Kirk was killed by the right wing.
His boss hears that opinion and doesnt agree or hates it.
So we have a conflict of opinions in the private sector now between Kimmel and his boss, ANC/Disney.
First of all, a conflict of opinions in the private sector is called .speech. Its called a debate. Its called this TPF thread. That is exactly what we are fighting so hard to protect the government from abusing by the First Amendment. We need to keep that in mind. Free speech lives among people who also happen to be employees, bosses, studio audiences, other companies, government officials (although government officials are prohibited making chilling opinions public policy, so they have to be careful what they say, as in Brendan Carr).
Si this conflict between Kimmel and ABC is not the same conflict as between ABC and the government. Its not governed by an amendment that says government shall make no laws
Kimmels restrictions and freedoms from restrictions by ABC are governed by an employment agreement.
That agreement certainly has terms of employment and termination clauses, and clauses related to rights surrounding triggering events. Events that can trigger contract clauses can relate to decency and moral turpitude, public displays and these include speech. Especially for a broadcaster.
Kimmel was never free by contract to say whatever opinion he wanted and not risk violating his contract or being fired or suspended. ABC can put terms in the contract the allow them to fire Kimmel for all sorts of things. Lets say Kimmel goes nuts and puts out a string of nonsense and foul language, insulting everyone. Two days in a row. Just awful crap about puppy abortions - no one likes him. Whether ABC can suspend or fire Kimmel only has to do with contract, and so, is not a threat to anyone elses freedom of speech at all. Nor is it a threat to Kimmels freedom of speech by the government. Besides being free to say and think whatever he wants, Kimmel just also agreed with ABC to whatever he agreed to say and not say by contract.
This is true for all of the employees who were fired when their boss saw them making public statements and associating with people who are glad Kirk wont be spewing hate or whatever anymore. Everyone is free from government restraint. But not free social normativity.
So permit me to back up a third time.
I dont want this to go on forever so Ill sum up.
1. The first amendment is the principle held relatively absolute when it comes to opinion and political debate versus govt power.
2. Carr violated this principle at the ABC Kimmel broadcast.
3. Enough was done for now to check Brendan Carr and FCC over-reach.
4. The contract is the principle regulator of employees and employer rights. (Along with employment law which you would have to argue is on point here, but I dont..)
5. Employees are free to agree by contract to limit their speech in order to be paid for services performed.
So if I wanted to make a book of how this is all consistent (doesnt taint my integrity) Id explain in more detail how:
6. Though the government cannot legally shut people up for their opinions, employers can legally fire employees for whatever is allowed by contract (which can be for no reason at all or because they dont like what they say). If we infringe on this right of employers, we are limiting freedom for all people, not protecting rights. Government laws to stop employers from firing regardless of contract would be the end of free speech anywhere.
7. It can still be immoral or unethical to fire someone for speech. But this problem can be handled by more speech, as long as we remain free from govt restraint.
If I really wanted to make this more of document, wed talk more about the constitution, how speech can in narrow circumstances be limited by government, and contract law, and employment law, and about moral versus political/criminal law.
And wed talk about ABC leadership, who are chickenshit (so likely immoral).
And wed go through some more specifics for the other people fired from jobs for being pigs about a murder. Nothing the government can do for having the opinion of a pig after a murder. But since when do we want to force employers to continue to pay people whose public displays can make the company look like assholes too?
There is a lot more to talk about.
But are you going all woke on me in your tactics? Et tu? Am I a hypocrite with no integrity who parrots talking points, or just another citizen trying to think for himself?
When I said lock a side, I meant vote for your beliefs. I didnt mean grab your protest gear and shout down the enemy like a fascist, or go shut down speech, or shoot people, or dig in and not debate, or be unreasonable.
I am open to constructive criticism.
Yes. Its called Hillsdale College. Its called private school.
Quoting Mijin
Wrong. This isnt government impinging on speech. Its government saying you can say whatever the hell you want, but that they wont pay for it anymore. And Im fine if the government decides not to give money to any college.
Got it yet?
Yeah, but you said you addressed it.
And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.).
So we could be back in the same page (regarding woke), but were not for some reason.
Quoting praxis
See, were not really making headway.
Quoting DingoJones
You may be right. But I think it is pretty hard to say affirmative action and quotas are anti-racism. That is cognitive dissonance, in the name of good racism.
Like @Mijin saying federal money is what permits woke ideology being taught in college, so withdrawing funds impinges on free speech - that whole worldview of the situation means government is making laws (budge/funding laws) based on the content of speech. Which is always bad. I dont want government paying for any political views in any college.
Seems to me that that Im not hitting the target because Im using logic, and that doesnt seem to register.
I clearly presented them as Stocks thoughts and that she addressed the conflict. Are you high?
Looking into it further, apparently trans activists reject Stocks compromise.
A couple of Judith Butler quotes
[i]The category of woman can and does change, and we need it to be that way. Politically, securing greater freedoms for women requires that we rethink the category of women to include those new possibilities.
The TERFs [trans-exclusionary radical feminists] and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact in favour of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism.[/i]
So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. Well, no ones perfect. :brow:
Sorry man, I still don't. I included five links that are contrary to your generalization, two articles from John Turley who wrote this exhaustive review of free speech and rage politics in the US in 2024.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/199897939-the-indispensable-right
My links aren't long - why not consider them?
I know I don't know anything about you but your posts. I can't 'know' anything about your motivations, personal reading habits, etc. But it sure seems like you live in an information bubble. Prove me wrong - which conservative / heterodox / anti-woke thinker(s) do you agree with? On what issues?
I mean, this is also me attributing positive intent to you. If you don't see something, how can you act upon it? It seems your intentions are positive. If you are 'guilty' of anything, it is a crime of omission rather than commission.
It was only when i stepped outside of my own bubble and began pursuing conservative and heterodox voices alongside the liberal and progressive voices I was immersed in that I began to see the excesses of the left.
The excesses of the right were highly visible to me and they seem to be to you. I paid a terrible price for my awakening - cancelation, mental illness, despair.
As a teacher though, I felt the debt owed to young people to receive information from across the political spectrum outweighed my debt to 'my tribe'.
On issues like trans affirmation, two-tier policing and prioritizing, in some ways/cases, immigrants over citizens, affirmative action and the costs to 'white adjacent' groups like Asians (everything about that sentence is crazy), the explosion of anti-semitism, etc. - it is entirely plausible, in fact, perhaps as far as your 99% certainty, that 'woke' will have gotten some of these issues wrong, therefore 'harming' the very groups woke asserts to empower.
I continue to wrestle with morality, finding moral systems that make sense. Only one fundamental principle has emerged for me - meaningful morality needs to be resonant with the children we raise. Not prima facie, but with instruction, mentoring, modelling. Transmissible through ritual and story, through family and community.
I see young people everywhere struggling with a morally incoherent universe. What we are doing is not working for our generation, but worse, it seems to be harming the next ones.
I believe that if you are as certain of the moral urgency of your beliefs as you appear, that you have a responsibility to stress-test your thinking.
I see no evidence of you doing this. Further, I see no evidence of anyone woke doing this. To do this, in fact, seems judged a sin in the eyes of woke.
Refusing to consider alternatives seems antithetical to philosophy.
Sorry!
I agree with you that government, representing all citizens, needs to be held to a higher standard.
I do see a lot of repetition of the 'private companies' line, and while this IS true, it is also true that some private companies are simply currying favour.
This was my main problem with institutions all going woke a few years ago.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I was only commenting on my own ham-fisted responses ... I struggle to manage my emotions to my liking on this topic, and find myself being curt or harsh without meaning to ... so my bad. I do not mean to suggest hypocrisy in you. I am the one hammering on here, not you, and not out of sense of rightness or anything. More a despairing kind of hammering.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Agreed.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I still agree. But here I note that this is part of a broader movement. Plenty of journalists / comedians / etc. are saying things that people disagree with now, but which are things that people were fine with even a few years ago. This is the problem to me.
It can be construed as part of the culture wars. It likely is, although it is also entirely possible that Colbert, to switch hosts, was cancelled simply because he was costing the network money.
This leads to the same problem I read about in 1992 in my psych 100 text with affirmative action. Recipients were likely to doubt themselves in the context of affirmative action.
It is too easy to assume that punishing Kimmel in the moment is opportunistic, rather than principled, even if it is principled. In some cases, the moral urgency of the issue outweighs this concern, but not for Kimmel.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Again, I agree, I just argue that context matters. I think as a Canadian I just have a different perspective. If you want to participate in politics as an American, you (hypothetical you), are forced into a binary choice.
It is that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars.
Quoting Fire Ologist
We definitely don't. But missing in this discussion is the existence of these new public spaces - social media, amplified by the smart phone - that older norms are not equipped to handle.
Of course, objectively, these are 'public' spaces. But they were not conceived as such in the way they have become. Anyone can say one thing in the wrong way, on the wrong day, and have their life changed - even ruined - forever. This has a fear-generating effect, which in part explains the rise of woke. (Too big a topic to cover here, but this is Richard Hanania's argument for why corporations went woke - risk aversion).
I don't even know where to start with this topic. Screen-based existence if altering our lives more profoundly than any technology since, uhh, fire? Nobody was carrying printing-presses around in their pocket in Gutenberg's day.
And the moral systems that dominate - liberal era utilitarianism and deontology - are not flexible or fast enough to process our new world.
Adaptive norms that stabilized societies for generations no longer work the way they are expected to.
Sorry, I am very far off topic here.
Again, sorry for implying hypocrisy - I do not see hypocrisy in your statements. I do think it is pragmatic to consider more than just legal obligations between employer and employee. And that, ultimately, some of those fired should have been fired, and some should not have.
Now I'm exploding my own credibility in terms of 'principles' like free speech. But that's why free speech is such as useful principle - the 'letter of the law' is far too complex. The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it - no hate? what's hate? whose hate definition? Incitement?
We have those qualifications here in Canada, and I see the advantage that exists clearly with the streamlined US version. Trudeau wanted to make 'thought crime' illegal. Terrifying.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No chance! "Thinking for oneself" IS free speech embodied.
While on the topic, can you think of other norms on which to build non-partisan consensus that rival 'freedom of speech' in terms of possible utility? I could see norms limiting corporate interests influencing government, the think-tanks, the McKinsey influence, lobbyists. Should corporations be 'citizens' in terms of free speech?
It feels like I am moving to the premise of 'issue-based politics'. Can I call this heterodox? I have renounced the political spectrum and party affiliation. I have only voted once in 5+ years, for a candidate I know from his years knocking on doors in my hood, chatting with me on issues. He recommended "Left is not Woke" to me.
I guess he is part of my tribe (despite his membership in a party I no longer believe in)? People I perceive as aspiring to be good and acting on those aspirations, at personal cost? Does choosing a 'side' not mean compromising your beliefs on specific issues? What 'sides' remains to me? Those 'condemned to be free'?
Good point ssu. I wish his 'redemption' was more typical, more available to more people. Certainly, people who have made massive mistakes in life can bring unique insights to good-faith efforts made today!
Quoting ssu
Great guests too ... Coleman Hughes, Wilfred Reilly...
Any recommendations for older episodes to watch, other thinkers to recommend operating in this mode?
I think your opposition would say the same about you. I guess Im less interested in whose right or wrong and more interested in the two sides actually communicating. Right or wring is the discussion part. The points need to be set up to land first.
Which reflects my point about woke eating its own.
The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. But if you look closely, allyship merely facilitates sidestepping the problem, and doesnt address it. Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans cant think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve.
But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.)
Systemic Power Analysis, Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category and Language Shapes Reality - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups.
So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with its factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesnt agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists dont agree).
Maybe you dont agree this conflict is a function of how woke slices up the world and adjudicates disputes.
Maybe you dont agree the problem stems from woke process reliance on Systemic Power Analysis, Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category and Language Shapes Reality. But you seem to agree now that Trans and Feminism dont share water fountains, despite the fact that both of these sub ideologies are both woke liberalism.
Quoting praxis
Right now, no. But thanks for asking!
I think I am being very plain and thorough in my set up. I give a lot of background and context.
In good faith, I openly admit I am a conservative thinker, so people have that factual reference point. (Like most discussions with woke people, the fact that I a conservative says it enough - it means I am only capable of inaccuracy, irrationality, and evil - so they dont use logic.)
I lay out the facts I am interested in analyzing.
I provide my own analysis (which I cant help and could care less if it sounds like MAGA), and call it my own opinion (so people arent confused about strawmen or arguendo.)
I lay out areas where non-conservative ideas are good ones (like forming the US Constitution, like recognizing all races and sexes are equal before the law ).
Quoting DingoJones
Me too. Id love to dig deeper into this:
Quoting DingoJones
But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy.
For instance, Fuck white people. White people are racists.. That seems to me to be a core tenet of the modern left in America.
Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.
Love it. That type of thing is happening to me right before our eyes, written into this thread. No one wants to define woke (except now @praxis for some reason throws out someone elses definition, but offers no analysis.). But the problem with all is the problem woke has with essential definitions. Woke doesnt stand for essence, as it wants to say all things are in flux, with the exception that all conservatives are bad always.
It seems, perhaps you are not a serious person. This type of response tells me your mind is closed, and the surrounding thread makes it quite clear. Making claims in the face of opposing evidence is no reasonable, and not something that can be taken seriously on a forum like this.
It's only left to wonder how far Mill was right about social opinion being a restrictive, dictatorial aspect of group membership. The left has taken this to an extreme recently (the extreme left, obviously).
Quoting praxis
This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. Ironic, isn't it?
Quoting praxis
It seems you've decided to remove yourself from the adults table. That is fine by me.
Quoting Mijin
So, that is, in fact, charging me with something (in this case, ignorance or perhaps manipulation). My own 'cite' did not say that. At all. And I have explained to you why, in detail: translocation is not a genotype. I even gave you room to say that this is not what you mean. You have not. I presume it is what you mean. Translocation is not a third genotype.
There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. Go and ask ChatGPT (I don't want to just post a quote because you'll charge me with altering it). Go and put this prompt in "are there three genotypes for SRY". I do not require an apology.
Quoting Mijin
I've provided air-tight support for it. You moved back into talking about gender to get around it. We're not talking about gender. We are talking about sex. And in that context, you are point-blank wrong. Sex is a binary and is dimorphic in humans. We have two sexes and there are no exceptions. This is absolutely true, biologists agree, and you are not being serious with your responses here. I do not need you to agree - you are wrong. If you want to talk about gender we can, but this is in the context of whether it varies independently of sex (it does, so we're probably closer to the same page than you think there). Sex, though, is arguable binary. Let's go through it, based on your response here:
Quoting Mijin
*sigh* I quoted ChatGPT. And I presumed you make this bad-faith move if I were to use ChatGPT further - but apparently - lo and behold you've already made that move. That, as I'm sure you'll understand, makes it hard to take seriously.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken-Mcelreavey/publication/311361881_Mechanism_of_Sex_Determination_in_Humans_Insights_from_Disorders_of_Sex_Development/links/5d1c9bcd299bf1547c933773/Mechanism-of-Sex-Determination-in-Humans-Insights-from-Disorders-of-Sex-Development.pdf
This one is quite hard to grab on to because the point of the paper is not to illustrate that SRY is the determining factor. It implicitly accepts that it is, the entire way through, explaining how DSDs are sex-specific. It is also kind of a boring paper.
Given that DSDs are sex-specific, they present no exception to and in fact reinforce the sex binary in humans, conceptually speaking. Even later genetic aberration cannot change one's sex - as will be apparent in this sources.
Here's another, clearer paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3701250/ and the most relevant section, with my commentary after:
"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence; but what is the genetic pathway by which SRY creates hormonally competent testes? This proved to be difficult to disentangle, despite the expectation that once the Y-chromosomal male-determining gene was discovered, the elucidation of other genes following in the cascade from the bipotential gonadal rudiment to testis formation would quickly follow. Even after the discovery of further sex-determining genes, their relationship to SRY remains unknown. When a pathogenic mutation has been identified, the phenotypes can also be variable, even within the same family. It has been suggested that new genomic techniques might be required for better diagnoses of patients with disorders of sexual development. But might there be a simpler alternative pathway?"
To clarify the first italicised line, this is clearly pointing out that males can have varying phenotype. That means physical presentation. Not sex. Has nothing to do with whether one is male or female. Having a big nose is phenotypic. This is not news. This is not affecting sex determination.
The second line, then, gives us pretty robust indication that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that further genetic information is secondary, as one would expect, to the determination of sex and instead relates to the differentiation of sex.
here's some more;
https://www.nature.com/articles/348452a0?utm_ this one makes clear that SRY must be active for male sex development to begin. The abstract is enough to grok this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/346240a0?utm_ - the original paper outlining SRY. Take that as you will, as we've come along way in 35 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1516467/ a cute line from the abstract here
"A strategy based on determining the precise chromosomal location of this locus has been used to clone a new gene which has been called SRY in humans (Sry in mice). A variety of studies now show that this is indeed the testis-determining gene."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44162-023-00025-8?utm_ and this one, from the short conclusion:
"The peculiar translocation of the SRY gene in 46,XX males strongly supports the inclusion of cytogenetic testing for establishing diagnosis and genetic counseling for infertility and/or hormonal imbalances in individuals."
Males.
And for a bit of a slam-dunk here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22246/?utm_
"Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness."
All of this clearly shows a relatively stable consensus in the biological literature that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that DSDs are sex-specific. This really isn't a debate.
Just an aside, anyone calling Kathleen Stock anything but principled, forthright and courageous is looking into a void and seeing what they want to.
When did I not recognize it as a problem?
Quoting Fire Ologist
:roll: If Stock were a biological essentialist she would have titled her book The Essential Girl or something. She explicitly rejects biological essentialism.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I already mentioned allyship. I guess you don't believe in it.
Quoting Fire Ologist
For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism physical attacks for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what?
Quoting Fire Ologist
How does systemic power analysis factor into the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.
Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals.
Quoting AmadeusD
What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war?
Cool cool - good man for even saying it. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
So I dont disagree, but I think a small nit-pick will keep my position clear. Because government can have lawful authority to incarcerate people, government is held to the only standard - no laws abridging speech.
As far as some sliding scale of lower, medium higher, that standard might exist between say corporations and universities and small groups and individuals. There might be some degrees of a standard that allows for diversity opinions be expressed, but that is all outside of the one standard involving the government.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Then I misunderstood you, and its my bad. And anyway, we sound a lot alike on some this stuff. I bounce up against despair on occasion and I use plenty of hammers.
Life is more complicated than this, but one issue that exists for all people with conservative ideas is this: how to align with those ideas without being maligned as a racist, facist, homophobic, hypocritical, bigoted, sexist evil doer. The woke had snuck their coolaid well into the water supply for 30 plus years, so for some reason even conservatives feel like they have to confirm whether other people on the right are baddies. It sucks. I think the second election of Trump is finally making a dent in this sense - how could there possibly be this many black, Hispanic, female voters who still vote for a man like Trump? How, because the whole world isnt about racism, sexism, etc. Conservative ideas are NOT essentially tied to badness. Its becoming cool to be conservative and speak your mind. More regular folks, of all races and genders and sexual orientations, are coming out of the closet that helped elect Trump the first time.
So, now I have to make clear, Trump is no angel. I held my nose biting for him. But the weakness of the woke left required me to bite against them, as it did for enough people to usher in Trump 2.
Have you seen the interaction between Trump and Carney in the Whitehouse this week? Trump gave Carney a lot of credit calling him a great man, and when asked if that is the case why isnt there a trade deal yet, Trump said because I want to be a great man too and Carney loved it. I believe we are all too harsh on Trump. He is doing a lot of good, and many just refuse to see it.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I agree - comedians/artists are always at the very tip of the spear, maybe even beyond journalists. I think the woke mob canceled and tried to rule them for years - only geniuses like Chapelle and Burr could mock woke and not be canceled.
But I think you are saying that formerly left leaning journalism that was acceptable a few years ago, is now under fire.
First, I agree, formulated that way, it is the same problem with a new bad taste in new mouths. That is the same problem.
However, I think sometimes what can appear to be this problem, isnt in fact a problem. Like calling what happened to Kimmel an attack on free speech. Or better, calling what happened to Colbert, an attack on free speech. What happened to these guys is that their take on life just isnt as popular anymore. So its not a problem for speech they are being fired or suspended; its just response to the winds of popular opinion.
Journalists need to learn how to focus on the facts, how to present all angles, how to refrain from even hinting at their own opinions and analysis, and how important it is that they rebuild credibility. Four years of unanimous conviction of Trumps Russian collusion and then unanimous Hunter Bidens laptop didnt exist and was more Russian misinformation - the press sucks.
This doesnt justify backlash that is partisan based. Republicans cant push their narrative through the press like the Dems seem to always do. But the press sucks. Thats its own problem as well.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
That is interesting. It took until the year 2024 for enough minorities to allow themselves to admit the truth of things like this.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I agree one hundred percent. Both sides are guilty of thinking the other side is by default bad.
Honestly, I dont like any labels because of what they mean to other people. I am honestly a conservative thinker most often, see no need to change certain traditions . But I dont really consider myself a conservative for two reasons: 1. I do and think things that not conservative, and 2. I am sure I would disagree with how most people might define what a conservative is. So I use the label to facilitate generalizations, but what I really think is, everyone is an individual and there are no conservatives or liberals - these things should be used to help make general points, not to stereotype and dehumanize anyone.
That said, woke ideology, (not all woke people), holds that identity generalizations are really important. So I think the worst proponents of that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars comes more often from proponents of woke liberalism. It is just more part of wokeism to hold white republican men as all bad, full stop. Repubs can be just as bad. And it is equally bad for society no matter where is comes from. But one problem with woke is this moralizing of political issues and judging opposing political views and immoral views. I think.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Interesting stuff. I was tempted to raise social media in some of my posts but felt the same sense of where to start. I agree, Social Media is a net new monster in the world. Its akin to posting a flyer on the street corner, but damn, it is not that at all just as well.
We need to struggle through how to deal with it, but I dont think I will ever be convinced that government censorship or force of law should have very much place in any management of the shitstorm social media creates. I just know what the UK is doing is utter unjust. I truly cant fathom some of the outcomes I am hearing about over there.
The internet and social media has had an equalizing effect on people - anyone can get a million likes for anything at all. This has good and bad aspects to it. No one is safe from being hated by the world. And confirmed facts are now doubtful as AI generated content or hallucination. Even fact and fiction have been levelized.
Humanity has been advancing its technology faster than its moral scruples for probably 100 years. Our inventions surpass our ability to use them to improve society. Because we still dont agree on what needs improving and what an improvement would actually look like. But we keep inventing
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Full agreement. The total discussion of adult, responsible free speech has as much if not more to do with morality as it has to do with the government and politics. The political half is the baseline and priority discussion in the world today as I see so many threats from woke police and FCC fascist types. But the real discussion is about what we do with that political freedom, what we say and how we protect each other from each other. We need to make sure everyone is free from our own governments ability to shut down any political opinion; but then we need to make sure we arent shouting down difficult conversations or dehumanizing people as a form of canceling legitimate debate. It will always be tricky. Mistakes will always be made. We all need to remember that.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Exactly!
Permit me to add: The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it, free speech ceases to exist.
That is the whole political discussion in a nutshell. (Happy to relitigate it with some hate speech legislation proponent, but I doubt I will ever be convinced otherwise.).
Quoting Jeremy Murray
At times, yes. But the world is goin to keep rotating and revolving. No matter how strong one feels about any issue, someone is going to be elected representative, and make laws and spend taxes and make decisions on behalf of all people. I dont think there is anything compromised by choosing the lesser of evils between an inevitable winner. That literally describes me in the polls every time I vote - I pick who I think might screw up and piss me off and hurt my family the least. Who might, because chances are they likely are going to hurt me. I have never voted for a candidate I thought was really good.
If you feel alone my friend, all I can say is that is a great sign of strength if you you ask me. I just sucks to feel strongly about the truth in a world of sheep who care only about consensus with other sheep who also identify as sheep.
Umm..
Twice now I said you recognized the problem.
I dont think you and I can communicate through a message board.
You are all over the place and dont explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me.
I said you restated the problem (so therefore recognized it) (twice) but you didnt address it (meaning resolve it).
Then I noted that you offered allyship to address it. (So I was working with you, though you dont appreciate that.)
But I also noted how you showed that allyship was not a solution to all trans arguments. That makes sense to me.
Quoting praxis
Exactly.
And, now based on these two things that you presented (namely allyship, and trans rejection of allyship), I supported my statement that woke ideology is incapable of bringing trans and feminists back together in a coherent partnership. Its woke versus woke.
There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities.
And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you dont want to build any bridge.
I may be wrong, but, are you just trying to win a debate with me or something?
I am trying to understand and develop the notion of the end of woke.
Quoting praxis
Or:
Quoting praxis
So in the words of Roger Daltrey, who the fuck are you?
Tell me what you really think.
The process doesn't end with a vote, though.
fyi, found the old quote on wikiquote
Quoting Barry Goldwater (1994)
As I said, I read Stock's book so I'm familiar with the conflict. That's why this branch of the topic interested me.
If you insist on being limited to 'woke eat woke', well then, you do you.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I haven't avoided agreement. In fact I wrote:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Why don't you point them out?
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is truly hilarious. Classic Fire. :lol:
If Wokeness is a religion, who is the greater heretic, Sock or Butler? If I were to indulge the ignorant notion that wokeness is a religion, I would say that Butler is the heretic for rejecting allyship. Yet, generally speaking, Sock is regarded as the heretic within wokedom and was effectively cancelled for her heretical speech acts; resigned her position at the University of Sussex.
The punchline here is that Stock built a bridge that was rejected by the wokest of woke, and by you. You might see her as a champion of reason within the woke community, but no, all you see is 'woke eating woke'.
On page five of her paper What Is Sexual Orientation there is evidence to the opposite.
"Sex is appropriately characterised in terms of a cluster of endogenously-produced morphological, genetic, and hormonal features. None of them are individually essential for human femaleness or maleness, though possession of some vague number of them is sufficient for it. This view accommodates the many existing disorders or differences of sexual development well, whilst remaining compatible with realism about biological Sex. Variation can be, and in fact is, endemic to biology generally, without threatening the existence of natural kinds (Dupré 1993)9."
Quoting praxis
The position on the left (and posited by officials, in many cases: See Australia's Racial Discrimination minister) is that white's cannot experience racism. I'm not saying that's your position (clearly not) but it is a position taken.
Quoting praxis
This is true. But neither is 'the far right'. It would seem naiive to pretend we cannot talk about either group, though, surely. As far as I can tell "wokeism" is a position that requires that social opinion and 'lived experience' trump logical, reasonable or factual arguments - with the result that the stick comes out before the carrot can even be sufficiently described to the opposite side. I don't see it as deeper than that, but almost all instances people call woke I've been able ot break down to this, somewhere.
Quoting praxis
While recognizing hte nature of this question: You must be hateful to posit this, the way you have (which is not exactly what you've said above. You've called him a bigoted grifter).
You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis.
He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million.
Oh yes, please. Don't hold back on my account.
I've "got it" that I think you're a hypocrite, because this thread is about you and others losing your shit over things that are orders of magnitude less invasive and less restrictive on speech than what MAGA is doing daily.
And I even forgot some pretty significant stuff, like student visas being revoked on the basis of political views, and academics who tweeted negatively about trump not being allowed into the country.
You quoted the bit about government funding and ignored the rest because that was the one comeback you could think of. And I call BS even on that -- that you'd be excusing a left-wing government making funding of all major institutions provisional on political views.
You've linked a book here. I am not going to buy and read a book to try to find evidence for you.
I'm absolutely open to having my mind changed. I should mention by the way that I used to be a member of the Conservative party here in the UK, and still consider myself a centrist. But if we're talking about freedom of speech in the US, nothing that happened under Obama or even Biden (who was involved in some of the gagging of Palestinian protests) compares to what's happening under MAGA and project 2025.
It goes to show that all the stuff of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" (or whatever the exact quote is), was bullshit. The people that whined about trans people choosing their own pronouns don't give a toss about people being deported, defunded, fired, imprisoned etc on the basis of their political views.
I have explained you that I am not talking about translocation; that's your word, not mine. I said the genotype and mentioned alleles.
And the part where your cite disputes your conclusion is this:
"Mutations [of the SRY gene] lead to a range of disorders of sex development with varying effects on an individual's phenotype and genotype"
So it's not binary. Now sure, you can, as this cite has, call all the other genotypes "disorders" but the point is, it hasn't got us any closer to a supposed binary gold standard.
If we're going to arbitrarily say we only accept two forms as "correct", then we could have just done that with genitals, chromosomes etc. The problem remains that you have millions of people worldwide that don't fit in the two boxes.
Quoting AmadeusD
And then your own cites say:
"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence"
"Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness" (emphasis added)
I don't understand why you don't read your own cites.
Look, I'm not your enemy here. Consider this helpful because one day you could be on a debate stage trying to defend these talking points.
I am glad you could do such a fine job of raising awareness of the good things Christians have done. However, I have heard Catholics are not Christians. For me, that judgment is one of the biggest problems with the whole Christian mess. Christians seem to disagree with each other even more than they disagree with Jews and Muslims about who knows God's truth and who does not. These three religions have the same fundamental stories. Those are pagan stories and beliefs adjusted to different cultures. I do not understand how people can continue to live in those ancient stories when it is so obvious a God did not make us of mud and then leave us in a Garden of Eden with magical trees. It is also a fact that both the Garden of Eden and the Flood stories were Sumerian stories of creation and the flood. These beliefs are not supported by logic when people are working with a scientific explanation of life. How can we have good judgment when we are living with a false understanding of how we came to be?
However, I very much like the Catholic men who were the presidents of the U S or tried to be. I would love to take us all back in history to when Kucinich ran against Bush, and then take us down the path Kucinich, a Catholic, would have followed. He was strongly opposed to the Neocons' efforts to take military control of the Middle East, the Bush and Cheney "New Century American Project" that was a disaster, with Christians cheering for our war against "evil" and being thrilled by the US Shock and Awe attack on Iraq. As though this war game were equal to a football game.
You really do not know enough about what I think to judge if I am speaking about religion or politics. I see the good Christians as ignorant of their enemies, and that they are a threat to the world because their beliefs are not separate from their political judgment. THEY GO TO WAR COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THEIR "ENEMY" AND DO SO IN THE NAME OF GOD AND BELIEF ABOUT EVIL. I hate the reality Bush and Cheney gave us; instead of a world of peace, Kucinich would have given us. Today, it is almost impossible to find any mention of Kucinich. It is as though those in control of what is on the internet have an agenda to disappear this man.
If you agree that religion should be kept out of political matters, and what nations we attempt to control with military force, why don't you see the Christian Nationalism? The evangelicals and men like Billy Graham have played a strong role in creating our story of who is the "evil" and our enemy, and who we must defend or ignore. I can not use AI to raise awareness of "proof of Christian Nationalism", but people can Google for the explanation of why it threatens our democracy and the world. Since the beginning of the US, the citizens have believed it is God's will that they control the political decisions, including wars. The Civil War was really nasty, as both sides believed God was on their side and they were doing the will of God to kill those "evil people" who opposed God's will. I want you to think about this- how do humans know God's will?
Yeah, Lincoln had "In God we trust" inscribed on pennies, taking advantage of religion to win the war against the South. Much later, Billy Graham advanced the power of Evangelicals by once again equating our government and Christianity as the same thing- a war against evil, uniting the US against those godless communists. Creating those godless Russians as the "evil" our God fearing country must oppose.
If the Bible were not Hebrew propaganda, and later Christian propaganda, and then the bases for Muslim propaganda, and the citizens of the US were not such stooges, we might have a better world and not the racist struggle we still have, with these "dark skinned people cursed by God", and not be all tied up with Woke following a long history of persecuting homosexual people.
How can God forgive people who believe they are God's favored people, and who take no responsibility for the wrongs done to "those people"? Christians are not the only human beings with viable spiritual and moral systems. And the democracy of the US is not based on the Bible, a book about kings and slaves, and God's promise to give people the hierarchy of rulers that humans require because they are born in sin. You know that evil spiritual ether in the air that somehow ties us to Satan and demons. Thank goodness we are not superstitions, right? But we have to do something about "those evil people".
When bad things happen, is it God punishing us, or Satan, or is it our own evilness that causes this wrong?
That is pretty sexist comment. :gasp: And it has no intellectual appeal.
Sorry, I was in an emotional frenzy.
:lol: I can relate to that.
my bad, I was trying to link to my review of the book, written by the author of the links I posted. Those links are what I encourage you to read.
Quoting Mijin
Yup, I agree, and have written as much throughout.
I object to violations of free speech rights on both sides of the political spectrum. If you don't live in the US, why are you defaulting to their oppositional binary?
If you care about free speech, you oppose all violations.
Personally speaking, I was cancelled from my teaching job for playing a hiphop song, which essentially destroyed the rest of my life. That's a left-wing offense against free speech. There are millions of other examples.
If you are genuinely open to changing your mind, you should be able to conjure a solitary example of your differing from woke orthodoxy.
It appears to me that you cannot?
I just read Orwell's "The Road to Wigan Pier", written in 1936. His descriptions of the contempt the bourgeois display towards the working class was remarkably resonant - I think the trends you are describing go back much further. I can think of myriad examples in American movies (I like horror) of working class / rural people terrorizing the middle class. It's all part of the same stew.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Parts of it. Plenty of coverage here. The most consistent take is that it's 'humiliating' for Carney, but that Carney is playing the right cards. I don't know why Trump seems to like him more than other leaders, tbh.
Quoting Fire Ologist
If the peace in Gaza holds, that's a major win. He has certainly restored some semblance of non-partisanship in certain sectors, some universities, etc. He has normalized opposition to open-door immigration. But the DOGE fiasco is / has killed people reliant on medical funding, for example. I imagine more consequences - from say, mass firings - will reveal themselves over time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yeah, mainstream press has zero credibility overall. Individual journalists continue to do good work, but the rise of DEI departments divided the young from the old and choked out dissenting voices. Major corporations, being risk-averse, just go with the flow. Interesting about Bari Weiss at CBS eh? That feels like a good example of the pendulum swing you describe.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Agreed. The conservatives I know will mock / dismiss lefty points I might make with glee, but they won't judge me evil for making them.
Quoting Fire Ologist
It's the addictive nature that governments could address, or the monopolistic nature of these huge corporations. We haven't been able to post Canadian news on FB for several years now, as Zuckerberg battles our attempts to regulate social media. That's the scary part - these companies are more powerful than states, and we have almost no choice but to participate in online life.
Frankly, I'd like to see governments protecting individual rights to NOT have to interact via devices.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That's better, I like it!
Quoting Fire Ologist
The thing I fear most around tribalism is that these tribes - perhaps woke most egregiously - are now more virtual, less local. The tribalism is accelerating the sense that people communicate with those who share their beliefs online, and I fear breeding suspicion in more local interactions.
It certainly feels like people are more suspicious of one another in person than it did even 10 years ago. Online norms are being downloaded IRL.
At the end of the day, my dislike of woke starts with the fact that wokeness seems to breed suspicion in others. How could it not, if we are hypothetically all guilty of subconscious bias, all pawns of invisible, machiavellian systems of oppression? When truth is relative and objectivity to be feared?
Quoting Fire Ologist
100%.
Cheers man.
I *do* oppose all violations, I am just focusing on the currently most widespread and dangerous.
As I said in my initial post in this thread, something akin to woke outrage has been the case for decades in the UK, under the banner of "political correctness gone MAD". It was almost always exaggerations if not outright bollocks, but it reliably sold newspapers. It's also made us vote against our own best interests several times (e.g. brexit).
And right now we're on the edge of the same cliff that the US is hurtling down. There's plenty of disinformation about migrants and trans etc in the UK, the latest one being that migrants are eating swans (why is that familiar)? We're in a weird place where accusing someone of racism is treated more seriously than actual racist propaganda.
Which has helped a far-right party lead in election polls. If they get in, I think it's just a matter of time before we have universities, journalists, broadcast media etc gagged in the name of "protecting" us from "woke".
That said, the UK is a more symmetrical situation than the situation in the US. There are things that the left (-ish) wing government has done that I strongly object to, like proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and the recent arrest of a screenwriter for offensive (but not illegal) views.
The 1 : 100 estimate of severity earlier was meant for the US.
I love Hitler: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans racist chat
Up-and-coming politicians that I wouldn't want for mayor, or other representative.
They picked up some of that Trump.
Outcry after US strips visas from six foreigners over Charlie Kirk remarks ( Guardian · Oct 15, 2025)
18 of Charlie Kirk's alleged quotes, investigated ( Snopes · Oct 11, 2025)
Quoting Mijin
This is not contrary to my position. It really does look like you cannot read a biological paper. That is no problem, but continually making it clear you cannot handle this conversation is not helping. You have not addressed anything I have come back with. You are simply repeating yourself in the face of contrary evidence. Again, ask ChatGPT. I do not require an apology. But you are exactly wrong.
Quoting Mijin
I responded to this in full which you have ignored.
Quoting AmadeusD
This does not indicate anything other than a binary. It actually reinforces the binary, which I explained in detail. You just charged me with not reading my own citations. You aren't even reading my posts. This is perhaps the most obviious disingenuous thing you have done so far. Utterly bereft of any integrity at all. It is lying.
Quoting Mijin
There is no third genotype. Translocation is the only "third option" for SRY and it is a location aberration. It has nothing to do with sex. Alleles don't come into this. You are wrong.
Quoting Mijin
You are not doing anything, Mijin. You are flailing and repeating yourself in the face of overwhelmingly clear evidence against your position.
Sex is binary. You have no presented any possible way for that to not be the case. Taking some kind of intellectual high ground over not being capable of addressing your interlocutor's points, arguments, citations or anything else it seems, is not something i need advice on. It would be far more reasonable for me to sit you down like a child and explain that evidence is not your enemy.
Quoting praxis
That is hateful, given it's not true. But that's...yknow. Your opinion man.
Its my informed opinion, yes. Its not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing.
I think his point was, he genuinely believed in everything he expressed (and perhaps quite a bit he chose not to, as a nod to your suspicious sentiment). At least, that's what the poster you're replying to believes that he believed.
Well, in my opinion, I honor Kirk by seeing the real person. People like Amadeus want to erase the real Kirk and replace him with a cartoonish cardboard cutout of the man, complete with a cheap neon halo. That's not hate, but it sure ain't love.
You are hateful towards Charlie, evidenced by your inability to engage with the reality of his character. You're stuck on some conclusionary belief about his character which is evidenced by nothing. You cannot present anything that could support your position. So it is dismissed.
I wasn't a fan. I am not right-wing, I am not religious and I'm not particularly concerned with constitutional issues beyond free expression (as makes sense here). I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... when he literally said absolutely nothing that they claim he said. Given there are droves of leftists having to eat their words on this, I'm pretty comfortable saying I made a good decision to step away from the hateful, death-celebrating (not you, praxis) ideology behind beliefs like yours.
I informed you about how, for example, Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an abomination.
And you wonder why some people disliked him and thought he was a bigot. Its not a mystery if youre willing to see the truth.
This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see.
There is no third sex in any organism that exists or has ever existed. There is, at best, "budding" or self-replication, and species that change genders due to established DNA coding that science can detect. But no mammals.
This is about "societal norms" and "gender roles" that can be forced upon any individual by a larger or prevalent enough person or majority.
It was scientifically impossible to alter one's body to conform to that of a different sex until 50 years ago due to surgical invention. Humans or human-like species have allegedly existed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. They'd gladly kill a person, perhaps who is famous, even if they end up in jail or shot. So, to kill a concept, such as man and female, and to keep oneself alive despite disfiguring oneself through mutilation or surgery, just seems like a better option.
No one has yet to explain why people who choose to surgically, permanently, and irreversibly alter their body were 90% of the time bullied, ostracized, abused, or otherwise treated differently, often at a young crucial age of development. Because it's self-evident. A mind, especially a vulnerable or young one can be led to believe anything. That's documented, scientific fact. Like I said before, No happy and accepted or appreciated man wakes up one day and says to himself "You know what, I should have been born with a vagina." Not one.
It's miserable people seeing how far they can push other people while getting away with it and not technically breaking any laws. No laws that currently exist, at least. Cowardice laws are the one thing missing from this world to make it utopia. I pray you don't find yourself on the wrong side of them when they arrive. And they will soon.
But I do see. I see the situation clearly.
The twisted notion that anything is an abomination springs from moral absolutism or the sheepish belief in a hierarchy of objective values. It is the epitome of bigotry. The essence of bigotry is irrational attachment to ones own group or viewpoint, coupled with hostility or contempt (aka abomination) toward others who differ. Bigotry isnt just disagreement, its closed-mindedness elevated to moral certainty. A bigot like Kirk didnt merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just [I]'you are wrong,'[/i] but [I]'you should not exist.'[/i]
There's only so many times I can point out to you that your own cites allude to multiple genotypes of SRY (as there are multiple genotypes for any non-fatal gene), so let's just cut to the chase.
Which human biologists have claimed that human sex is a function of the SRY gene and is binary?
No, I don't wonder why. People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about because it scores them social justice points. This isn't controversial or profound. This is what people have done since time immemorial and social media has simply made this the social currency of the generations below mine. That's why, in the main, the people who have a problem with Kirk 1. Don't know what the fuck he actually said or meant (your abomination example is perfect. I've already addressed it even). 2. Are genuinely wanting to find dragons to slay where there generally are none and 3. are fucking stupid. They are inexperienced, undereducated, generally socially compromised and unable to handle criticism.
Forgive me for not taking too seriously what young, inexperienced and unable-to-articulate-anything-meaningful-about-their-positions students think of Charlie Kirk.
Quoting praxis
You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here.
Quoting Mijin
I have now addressed that exact thing four times. You repeating your patently, demonstrable and obviously false position doesn't change it. I have provided ample evidence, with highlights ,providing that you are flat-out, dead wrong and I have provided direct, ample evidence for such. You can pretend this isn't the case if it makes you feel better, but reality will be waiting for you when you are mature enough. You asked me for certain things. I gave them to you. Your now have your fingers in your ears.
Quoting Mijin
All of the ones I posted, including providing quotes and explaining hte slightly nuanced technical language in a way that is easily understood by those who cannot read a biological paper except to cherry pick buzz words they think, but are wrong about, supporting their erroneous view.
my friend, you are wrong and all of the evidence is in front of you. There is no third genotype for SRY. Nothing I've posted suggests this and I['ve given you the opportunity to challenge your erroneous belief and you have absolutely and purposefully failed to even clearly read my comments let alone follow references. At this point, you are lying. That's on you. Unless you're trolling (which seems the most logical conclusion). In which case that's on me. Touche.
Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people.
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?
Quoting AmadeusD
This is the part that I believe is liable to cause confusion. First sentence might suggest he's only doing it for the money i.e. doesn't really give a hoot let alone believe a word he's saying and is simply saying so to pander to a given audience for a strictly financial incentive. Second sentence would seem to suggest he genuinely espouses these views, and any profit made is simply icing on the cake or otherwise "just comes with the territory." That's probably what the poster whom you're replying to is a bit hung up on.
I'm very good at bridging the gaps between people. A bit too good, really. I was run out of the last town I tried to enlighten, Socrates-style. (Not really. Not yet, at least.)
I have changing views about the topic, really. I think people who identify as transgender (who have or are seriously considering permanent, irreversible surgical alteration) are vulnerable people, and vulnerable people should not be targeted. On the other hand, I can agree with the idea that the medical system (and others) are doing more harm than good, possibly, to echo your earlier frustration, strictly for the money without any genuine compassion or concern for the well-being of those they choose to involve themselves with.
Human (or human-like) beings have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first transgender surgery took place barely a century ago. I don't see how one can comport a recently-invented surgical procedure (and resulting movement) to something critical to humanity and human rights.
Perhaps that's what he meant was the "abomination": a greedy (and possibly nefarious) system that exploits vulnerable people. Hey, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt once. :wink:
Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. If you want to take that line, I'll bite. But I still conclude you're absolutely wrong and simply projecting your disbelief that someone could in fact, be Charlie Kirk in good faith. That's a shame.
Quoting praxis
Yes. They do. And he said so plenty of times. You genuinely do not know what hte fuck you're talking about. If you want to be an adult, make a claim in my DMs and I'll take you through why you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. Otherwise, this is pointless. You just make shitty claims and don't back them up.
He used the word in a strictly biblical sense. He did not use it in a moral sense. When you actually listen to what he says, it's pretty fucking hard to misinterpret him as badly as Praxis has (though, i presume he's actually never looked past chopped up clips designed by lefties to make him look as bad as their emotional state requires to avoid embarrassment).
Oh good, you do understand what Im talking about. I cant help it if youre unable to see Kirk as a culture warrior. Pretty much everyone else on the planet sees it clearly though, including his supportersespecially his supporters.
Quoting AmadeusD
What does that mean?
He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."
This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."
He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it.
This is the lounge and this thread is as dead as the subject of the topic.
Kirk publicly statedto cheering audiences no lessthat people he doesnt even know are abominations. As Ive pointed out, this is the epitome of bigotry.
Because of its tribal nature and claims to absolute truth and divine sanction, religion is structurally susceptible to bigotry, so it doesnt take much for a firebrand like Kirk to stoke the flames of it.
But he didnt say that verbatim, therefore he isnt really a bigoted culture warrior who made millions off of gotcha clips debating college kids.
The video details somewhat the difficulty of getting the PhD topic accepted by any university, and funded because it was seen as negative towards women. It's quite interesting and important, I think, to anyone concerned with the caring professions.
Wokeness: is to behave AS IF only white males ever did anything bad.
Is that right, chaps?
And from that place,
Wokeness: is to treat any and every criticism by any white male in particular, or any white dominated institution, of an oppressed group, "X" or any member thereof as "Xist", without consideration as to the possible truth or validity of that criticism.
So herewith, my apology and retraction of any sexist wokeness in relation to psychopathology.
The irony of this kind of statement, when the whole tangent about transgender is recreational outrage. A tiny number of people are transgender, and are disproportionately victims of crime rather than perpetrators. As I say, it's a drummed up boogieman, the moral panic of our time.
Quoting AmadeusD
So once again your response is "nuh-uh!".
Your own cites told you that there are multiple genotypes for the SRY gene, to summarize:
"Functional" SRY (XY): The typical male genotype, usually resulting in the development of testes and male characteristics.
Non-functional / Mutated SRY (XY): Loss-of-function mutations or deletions in the SRY gene in individuals with an XY karyotype can cause Swyer syndrome (46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis), where the individual develops female sex characteristics.
Translocated SRY (XX): In cases of 46,XX testicular DSD, the SRY gene is translocated onto one of the X chromosomes. These individuals develop male characteristics despite having a female-typical chromosome pattern.
Various Point Mutations and Variants: More than a hundred different variants (missense, frameshift, and truncating mutations) have been identified in patients with DSDs, especially within the HMG (high mobility group) DNA-binding domain of the protein. These variations can have different impacts on the protein's function, leading to a spectrum of conditions from complete to partial gonadal dysgenesis.
IOW this is useless for the purpose of claiming sex is strictly binary, unless, that is, we just arbitrarily group everyone as functional SRY or "other". In which case, we may as well have grouped genitals, chromosomes etc in a similarly arbitrary way, except even there the problem comes when genitals and chromosomes etc don't align.
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh, all the experts agree with you. Great, so let's start with one.
Which one of the experts here has said that SRY is the singular, and strictly binary, determinator of sex?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/larry-bushart-charlie-kirk-meme-charges-b2855116.html
I think the rational response to that would be it's about ANY given "majority." Any given majority needs to be kept in check. Period. Doesn't matter if that majority is white, black, or a race of hyper-intelligent gerbils. If you're a majority, that means you have power, and power [s]is[/s] should be fair game to be scrutinized. Any society where power cannot be scrutinized is totalitarian. It's always been that way, since the beginning of time, to right now in 2025. "Heavy hangs the head... (that wears the crown)."
It's literally what the whole Declaration of Independence was about, separation of powers to prevent abuse of power. It acknowledges that men are not strong enough to remain moral and faithful to the ideals that made life worth living and that have given us every invention and human work we use and hold deargiven enough time, opportunity, and/or lack of supervision. That's why I like it. It not only acknowledges but codifies a hard truth without blurting it out brashly and turning people off from it.
That said, this isn't a popular definition because the fringe of the majority (who actually wish to do harm to minoritiesor otherwise treat them less than equally because "what are they gonna do"simply for not being like they are) don't like being told the reality that they're nothing special without their numbers. Similarly, those that have legitimate grievances derived from their state of being a minority also don't like that definition because it's dismissive of the legitimacy of their personal sufferings and grievances (i.e. basically, it's easy to interpret that message incorrectly as: "well, if the situation was reversed, you would be no different so your plight really isn't all that big of a deal.")
Well yes, that is the argument. I reject it. Respectfully. I think that's okay, too.
Quoting Mijin
You can read the quote you quoted. But you are literally incapable of taking in information which is counter to your emotional position. Fortunately for my attitude, I have demonstrated that you are wrong. Several times. With absolutely no retort other than repeating a claim which is incorrect.
Quoting Mijin
This is so abysmally disingenuous. I have repeatedly specifically addressed this in detail. You are now lying, directly, about what has occurred in this exchange.
Good bye.
Correct. @praxis Outlander is right. You are wrong. There is no version of this where you can present non-chopped-up, manipulated excerpts to support some point you're making. You also seem to be stuck on a single word (which has been explained to you as not illustrating Charlie's emotional/moral position personally). That is disingenuous. So come to the DMs if you want a discussion. If not, we can drop it.
Quoting praxis
Your view of hte world seems to be derived from your personal wishes and not reality. The majority of the world agrees with Kirk. The majority of the world is both religious, and not predisposed to hate people based on their opinions.
I didn't want Kirk to be a culture warrior. I wish he were not a culture warrior. I wish there were no culture warriors on either side of the war, simply because you can't have a war without warriors.
You might ask yourself why his supporters saw him in that position.
White men, few women, no other ethnicities, inconspicuous blue collar recognition, stereotypical, roles, clean(-shaven), interchangeable, uniform, non-inclusive, anti-woke, Christian, nationalism, ...
Aug 11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28, 30, Sep 2, 4, 6, 15
[tweet]https://twitter.com/USDOL/status/1967705273646346495[/tweet]
23, 27, 29, Oct 18, 21
[tweet]https://twitter.com/USDOL/status/1980752675093221701[/tweet]
23
Similar campaigns have been seen before (e.g. Italy and the USSR came to mind). Personally, I don't find blue collar recognition particularly suspicious, more that they determine "the good" and "the enemies". You won't find anything feminist in there, for example. What is included and what is excluded is telling. As government campaigns go, I (personally) find it beneath a top-tier democracy, but, much more importantly, what do you think?
Department of labor brands white dudes on social media and it's :up:
You think that a quote that says that there are hundreds of observed genotypes for the SRY gene, supports your claim that it's strictly binary? WTF level of gaslighting is this?
Anyway, I asked you directly for which biologist has stated your position of SRY being the singular and binary determinator of sex. Say a name or admit that none do.
Somebody in the US Department of Labor has noticed just what kind of messaging the White House and Trump approves of. At least they won't be fired by Trump. :)
Welcome to Trump's America.
The majority did not, but to the extend that they did it's because the saw themselves constantly attacked for having reasonable opinions and he spoke to that. Respectfully, and without insult. In fact, a democrat did a dive into his videos and found that his only examples of personal name-calling were about himself.
Again, DM me if you care to understand what you're talking about a bit better. If not, let's leave it.
They literally do not. They discuss translocation and mutation. They do not discuss several allele variations. I presume you can quote the passages you are referring to, as I was able to do?
You can read the names of the authors. I assume. But am getting less certain of your capabilities in this regard. Luckily, you've simply whittered. So no worries mate.
You took a poll?
Quoting AmadeusD
So he was their champion (cultural warrior).
Quoting AmadeusD
A culture warrior isnt defined by being insulting.
All genotypes originate as mutations.
Look, let's even take a step back. I'll give you credit for the fact that you tacitly accept that the standard arguments for sex determination to be binary and trivial (on the basis of internal or external genitalia, sexual dimorphism, chromsomes etc) don't work. Because these things can sometimes be equivocal and even when, say, chromosomes fit cleanly in one bracket, another thing like external genitalia might fit in a different bracket.
The problem is that you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge exactly the same issues with the SRY gene. There are hundreds of different observed genotypes for this gene, and it also may not align with other markers of sex.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah an ad hominem, that totally works as a cite of even one biologist that agrees with your position.