That wasn’t my question.
I have no idea where you get this from.
But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? If we are really dealing with the issue of negative consequences we are dealing then with every prior variation of Cancel Culture or Internet Shaming or “PC” going back to when Dinesh was an undergraduate. And actually giving it an -ism name, so it’s “wokeism if it’s on the left” means that there will be note taken of the content and not just the consequences. Forever we have been dealing with the matter that people want their own speech to be free of consequences.
…can you quote the parts in this thread where I said something that gave you this impression?
And can we get back to the part about death threats? What was all that about?
And what does that have to do with anything woke?
What is it, exactly do you think “anti-wokeism” is, and who do you think is in that camp? How are you defining woke, and how did you come to that definition?
The last is easy. The people behind www.quillette.com. Bari Weiss. A half-dozen or so American Black tenured professors, most previously mentioned, who write newspaper columns and op-eds you wouldn’t like (not a slam, meant as a neutral statement) and I mostly do. And, in a tiny way, and not to endorse everything other people in the anti-wokeism camp say, me.
Gee… I suppose having a couple of married gay friends visit our home yesterday doesn’t count for anything, huh?
My point is that it wasn’t what they were saying in college, it was how they were saying it that bothered me. I wasn’t uncomfortable with the message, it was the indoctrination aspect. As in, I was expected to think a certain way to have a job, not just perform a certain way. That didn’t sit well with me then, and it doesn’t now. It wouldn’t matter to me if it was something I agreed with; the point is that being employed by someone doesn’t require ideological purity or believing certain things, especially in a public sector job.
You can’t go around telling people they’re wrong, and expect them to change their attitudes; that rarely works, even if they’re absolutely wrong and you’re absolutely right. People don’t work that way.
And most of the woke/cancel culture types do just that- it’s not as much a matter of the message, it’s the medium. It’s not that people are necessarily opposed to anti-racism or LGBTQ rights, it’s that they bridle at being told they have to accept someone else’s whole package on that stuff lock, stock, and barrel, or they’ll be castigated for it. There doesn’t seem to be any diversity of thought on the matter- there’s an orthodox view, and everyone else who doesn’t conform is condemned.
I mean, if you read @PhillyGuy’s article by Dr. Vincent Lloyd, you’ll get the absolute absurdity of it- how exactly DO you claim a black professor of political theology is somehow anti-black and making an unsafe space for black students? That doesn’t even make sense, unless you’re looking at it from the perspective of someone who’s looking at this stuff through a very narrow lens of orthodoxy, and challenging them is “making it an unsafe space”. Which to me, seems to be the exact opposite of what you want in an academic environment of vigorous debate - you want your assertions to be challenged, and have to defend them, because that’s how you come to the truth. But making noise about “safe spaces” in that context does the exact opposite of that- it allows people to cower in places that are comfortable, without actually having to be confronted about things that are uncomfortable.
…hmmm.
ROFL.
I mean, yeah. I suppose that’s a thing. Go on. Who’s next?
ROFL.
So if I’m woke, then I’m not in the same company as the eugenicists at Quillette or one of the “Intellectual Dark Web.”
Looks like I’ll be on the right side of history.
A half-dozen you say?
You mean six?
How are you defining woke?
More on quillette, concerning its Libertarian leanings, hoax articles and poor fact checking.
Quillette - Wikipedia
This is true of every one on earth now and In the past, except maybe for a few masochists.
The question is whether you want consequences for other people’s speech you strongly disagree with.
Almost everyone wants some speech limitations, such as against death threats. That’s why there’s a lot to discuss when it comes to free speech. But I am more on the almost-always-no-consequences end.
Some, not all of this, arguably comes down to style. Do I agree with Bari Weiss on the badness of the New York Times? No. Do I use terms like ROFL, used by another poster to describe her statements, when I disagree with her? Obviously not. Such complete disrespect for non-progressive views strongly contrary to one’s own is close to my personal definition of wokeism.
Which happens to be…?
…gee, back in the 90’s, those married gay friends wouldn’t have been married, because that would have been against the law. That’s the backdrop of the training you had in the 90’s. It was a period of time where gay people had less rights than you had.
And how were they saying it?
Are you able to be a little less general, and a bit more specific?
I mean: if you are wrong, you are wrong.
And in my world, you can go around telling people they are wrong if they are wrong. Sometimes that won’t result in them changing their attitudes. But that doesn’t make them any less wrong or me any less right.
I’ve asked you for concrete examples of this stuff. Others have asked for examples in this century. I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. Can you provide any examples?
It depends. Have you got a link to Keisha’s account of what they said happened? Let me know when you do.
When a professor chooses to rant about one of their students on an online forum that is “shaped by our desire to defend their community from the libertine left and a libertarian right”, that also publishes articles like “Why DeSantis is right to reform universities”, I’m not particularly interested in taking anything they’ve said as anything more than a ranty anecdote.
And I’m not sure what any of this has to do with “woke.”
…ROFL.
Which views from Bari Weiss am I supposed to be respecting? Can you be more specific? Exact quotes, if you can?
So, tone policing? At least, that’s the charitable reading of what you said.
Given that the majority usage of the word for self-identity is African-American, a less-charitable reading would likely involve opening the “uppity” door again…
Yes, there can be but I don’t think there is a clear dividing line between the two extremes you suggest.
The natural expansion/clarification of the word, its extended reach and relevance, by those who would identify with it has also provided fertile ground for those who would use it as a pejorative or a term of ridicule.
(Heck, my kids and their friends use the term “racist” “homophobe” “sexist” etc. as terms of ridicule for much the same reasons, mocking the overreach of applying those once serious terms to anything and everything)
That expansion also necessarily widens the scope of what “anti-wokeism” can mean and that is relevant to the thread.
It no longer can reasonably just mean people who are against the concepts of injustice awareness it can mean people who are against specific concepts and policies that sit under that expanded umbrella.
Way back in post 5 I opined that anti-wokism ultimately boils down to a matter of who has the power to define social rules, and pretty much everything since then has been consistent with that interpretation.
That isn’t what your original cite suggests. It didn’t magically morph from the original pure coinage of the 1930’s into a pejorative. Of course there are more than two points of view here and a more complex history of usage and definition.
Do you dispute that the definition of the word “woke” has also been expanded by those who see themselves as identifying with it’s core concepts?
Of course there is an end goal we are working toward: treat everybody like a fucking human being. That is the whole of the “Woke agenda”.
That’s it. You don’t have to say 20 Hail Mary’s before breakfast, you don’t have to wear any funny clothes. Nothing: just put some effort in not being an asshole to anybody.
If you want to call that a progressive indoctrination with ever shifting goals I don’t know what to say to you.
"I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgemental as possible about other people.
“If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because ‘Man, did you see how woke I was? I called you out!’”
[…]
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re politically woke, and all that stuff – you should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.”
– Former US president Barack Obama, October 2019
Please explain how this statement from President Obama is racist or sexist.
If that were truly the whole of the “woke agenda” then you are unlikely to find anyone who would be “anti”. I’ve certainly never had a conversation with a living human who thinks otherwise.
If bump’s residential advisor role training consisted purely of being told “treat everyone like a human being” then I highly suspect they would have had no complaints at all.
…the history isn’t complex. And the two sides are the way it is defined by the scholars and the dictionaries, and :: waves hands :: all the bizarre, differing, conflicting, subjective definitions you can see in this thread.
And it didn’t magically morph. I never claimed that. It was deliberate. An intentional shift.
What are the core concepts of woke?
…I called bullshit on him when he said that at the time, and I call bullshit on it now.
Do you know what young people have to deal with now?
Global climate change. The carceral state. School shootings. Abortion bans. Gender affirming care bans. Book bans. Rampant police corruption. Unaffordable healthcare.
I’m a big fan of Obama. But we aren’t going to be able to negotiate our way out of the mess we are in. The other party? They want trans genocide. They want to rewrite the history books. They want to protect the millionaire class. If I were talking to a young person in America today I would be telling them its okay to be judgemental because they are doing things the deserve to be judged.
Do you really think this is about “tweeting a hashtag” about somebody using the wrong verb? Get-out-of-town. That isn’t what young people are angry about. They are angry about the fact that the world is going backwards. That rights are being taken away. And that there is nobody out there fighting for them. So they have to do it themselves.
The kids don’t need to be lectured. They need to be listened too.
Dammit. The news about Brianna Ghey is still upsetting me. They deserve to be protected. This is what they are fighting for.