Right cuz it’s not possible at all that the Dems have responsibility for their own image and reputation. It has to be the evil Republicans who are poisoning the masses with lies, no matter what the Dem do. Or it has to be heretics like myself who have been seduced by the evil Republicans and simply cannot think for herself.
It is completely impossible that I arrived at my opinions because my own personal experiences, my own capacity for independent thought, or my ability to connect two and two together. Because if it’s one thing I’ve learned in all my years of life, it’s that middle-aged black women need Republicans to tell them what to believe. Thanks for spelling that out for me, man.
And when someone comes along and says “wait, this kind of divisive, absolutist thinking looks an awful like the concept of ‘woke’ being debated”, it won’t be frustrating at all that they will be told they are just imagining things.
I see what you are saying, but I don’t think excuses are what is needed. I know you are advocating for explanations, but they come across as excuses if they are said with the intent to deflect responsibility or justify past actions.
You linked to a video filled with lies about what progressives/“woke” believe - the exact same lies as those spread by Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and many other professional liars.
It’s a parody, @iiandyiiii. Seriously, just laugh (or not) and move on. It is not a literal representation of reality. But if it doesn’t make you think at least a teensy weensy bit, then maybe the problem isn’t the video.
Good parody is based on truth - that one is based on lies. Not just any lies, but Carlson/Shapiro style lies. If it makes me think anything, it’s sadness at how effective those lies have been.
This would probably be where my disagreement starts. It hasn’t been the last 15 years, it extends at least into the mid-80’s to early 90’s, if not back to the Southern Strategy days. Long before the whole “woke” argument. Further the Republican party has always been more strategic - Will Rogers was making jokes about it in the 1930’s. It is to some extent structural and inherent to the political philosophies at play.
The less said about the possibilities of youth activism, the better. I’m beyond cynical about the effectiveness of youth votes and campaigning in ANY era and that even includes to some extent Civil Rights and Vietnam. They are always entirely unreliable and scattered. Always.
I’m with JRDelirious here - wokeism did not lose Roe. Politics as usual, decades of socially conservative Republican laser focus and some bad luck lost Roe.
I should note that that argument is entirely separate from the argument of whether wokeism/social justice is a political problem more generally. It’s impact on the loss of Roe I consider utterly insignificant. It’s impact on the decay of the Democrat’s hold on the socially moderate working class in parts of the old Rust Belt might be another argument entirely.
The political debate should be centered (with utterly emotionless and impeccable Vulcan logic in a perfect world that will never exist ) more on whether that decay, if it in fact it is a real issue, is worth it from both a moral and political standpoint. Not whether the woke lost Roe. Because I’m pretty sure they didn’t.
In a thread on how people cynically distort what leftists say in order to discredit them, this is how you paraphrase me? A little bit on the nose there, @YWTF.
I think if you (or anyone who cares) rereads what I wrote, you’ll find that I said nothing like you “need Republicans to tell” you “what to believe.” I think you know exactly what you’re doing, and the flaw in your argument isn’t that you’re uncritically replicating Republican distortions. What you’re doing, I credit you with doing with full awareness.
It’s tremendously harmful to the left, and your replicating Republican distortions helps them win elections. Why you do this–your intent–is less important than the impact of your doing it. It’s a bad approach, and it’s not one that you or anyone else should do.
So you have no evidence whatsoever that Democratic politicians are doing anything of the sort. What you’re focusing on is that the electorate believes the Democrats are doing it.
They believe it because they’re being lied to. If there actually were truth in it, then examples would be available. You’re making the claim that there is truth in it; but you’ve shown no evidence for that claim.
What, precisely, do you think the Democrats should change about their actual behavior that would change the fact that people are lying about their actual behavior?
And why do you think it’s the Democrats, rather than the liars, who are responsible for the situation?
I disagree that it’s utterly insignificant, but at least you and I seem to agree that there is an alienating social phenomenon occurring. The Occupy movement is really when I started feeling a sense of “if we keep this up, we’re screwed” but perhaps it should have been well before then.
Sure, though we might differ on to the degree to which that is an entirely bad thing. Sometimes progress is only possible through some degree of alienation. Lots of folks were alienated by Civil Rights or more recently gay marriage, but IMHO it was worth it. The balance between naked realpolitik and morality can be a tricky one.
I agree that there is an alienating social phenomenon occuring. What I disagree about is that I say it’s being caused by something the Republicans are doing, and not by something the Democrats aren’t doing.
Certainly not by anything regular people are doing. The politicians themselves could, I think, do a better job of explaining things. Let’s say the topic of wokeness comes up in a debate. The Democratic candidate could say something like “What wokeness is really about is not being a jerk to your fellow human beings. Treat other people with respect and decency. Don’t be an asshole. That’s what wokeness means.”
What would make alienating important voting blocks good, if there are ways to keep those blocks on board without alienating them? To my mind “woke” activism is counterproductive because it isn’t really aimed at changing hearts and minds or engaging the political process in an organized fashion. It’s more about drawing attention to a person or thing for the sake of it.
Again, how do you suggest that the Democrats stop the Republicans lying in order for the Republicans to alienate voting blocks from the Democrats?
No. That’s exactly what the lie is: that nobody complaining about racism, sexism, or other bigotry actually is upset about it, but that everyone doing it is only an attention hog.
Attempts to stop or at least decrease injustice, including by changing hearts and minds and by engaging the political process, whether or not in an organized fashion, cannot possibly work without drawing attention to the injustice. If injustice is ignored, it most certainly doesn’t go away.
– no, discourse, I don’t want to send YWTF a personal message instead. I don’t think this is a personal matter, it’s a public one.
Since the youth activists of the civil rights movement were mentioned, it’s instructive to look back on that time period, in which Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had a 75% disapproval rating among Americans. Should he have changed his message and tactics, as so many moderates encouraged him to do? Were the campaigns he led and supported “unwise and untimely”? To what degree was he to blame for an “alienating social phenomenon,” and to what degree were other civil rights activists? Or should we lay the blame not on King, but on the bigots who opposed him?
His Letter from a Birmingham Jail is as close as I come to a gospel for my own activism, and I figure folks should read it at least annually. Consider what he might say about die-ins outside of Chappelle shows:
This “anti woke activists are counterproductive and alienating reasonable people” narrative has been ongoing since at least the 1950s. I’ve written before about the Victor’s Virtue, in which people are 100% behind the activists of yesteryear, who already won their struggles, but are opposed to today’s activists who haven’t won anything yet.
It’s easy to ally with the victors and to feel virtuous for doing so, but virtue doesn’t lie in siding with activists from history; it lies in fighting with the activists who are hated today, and in helping today’s activists make things better.
And the reason that answer will not be convincing (to people like me) is that it negates the reality that people are seeing.
My husband teaches at a small liberal arts college. In the span of his lengthy career he has seen a big change in how tolerant his students are towards any opinion that is even a half a standard deviation from their own central tendencies. Last year he taught a class on Lincoln (which he has taught many times over the years) and for the first time, almost every student was adamant that Lincoln was a racist who didn’t really care about slavery and doesn’t deserve to be respected as a great leader. They could not see past this very superficial characterization of him. The lone dissenter was a black student (which might be surprising to some but not to me) who could somehow appreciate the man as a product of his time but still pretty damn progressive and bold.
These students, who are the type to see themselves as woke in the most earnest sense of the word, don’t think they are simply embodying “don’t be a jerk”. And “don’t be a jerk” is certainly not the impression that people who interact them are getting either. It means something much more ideological than that.
Gaslighting the public by telling them they don’t know what their own eyes and ears are telling them will fail. I’m just being honest here. “Woke” needs to be dropped altogether from the Dem platform. The term had its run and now it should be retired.
A better tack will be for them to say this “There are those who mistakenly think progress comes from shouting at and judging people, but history tells us that approach is flawed, especially in polarized times. What we need to do is connect on the issues that matter the most to people and work on where there are differences in the most effective ways possible.” In other words, messaging that is not condescending or gaslightly.
I hope it’s not terribly crass to quote what I told other people, some years back, about the Victor’s Virtue (I called it the Victor’s Distinction then, but I like the alliteration better):
Swap “woke activists” for “NFL player actions” and the post fits perfectly in this thread.
) more on whether that decay, if it in fact it is a real issue, is worth it from both a moral and political standpoint. Not whether the woke lost Roe. Because I’m pretty sure they didn’t.