Democrats can stake the most milquetoast centrist position imaginable and Republicans will still call us woketard Marxist Commie socialists.
If that’s what they’re gonna accuse us of being no matter what, then we may as well own it on our own terms.
One of the ways that folks get accused of being woke is to take a well-meaning text and criticize it for leaving out an identity group, as though their omission implies some form of bigotry against that identity.
On the other hand, sincerely, you make a good point here. A section on issues that affect men would be very reasonable, and criticizing the website for leaving out this identity group is a solid criticism.
(Come to the woke side, Demontree! We have cruelty-free cookies!)
I might go even further and suggest that this oversight on the Democrats’ part could be due to the invisibility of default. Too often, people take the identity that holds more social status and treat it as a default, not as an identity. There’s regular people, then there are women; there’s normal people, then there are people of color; there’s just plain folks, then there are trans folks; and so on. The writers of that page may have fallen into that trap. If you’re talking about the issues specific to certain groups, why would you talk about the issues of the population in general, i.e., men?
Yeah. This is “The Devil” @Der_Trihs referred to earlier. The idea that all the world’s evils originate from one single source. You’re not even offering a good critcism of capitalism here. I guess it feels good to have your righteous indigniation but I can’t imagine how you’re helping anyone anywhere. If the Democrats went that route they’d never win an election again.
Thirded.
I feel I’m on crazy pills here with several people saying the issue is some democrats being too absolutist in their wokery.
I don’t know who such democrats are, or what positions they hold that are so extreme, but I do know they had sod all to do with this election. Because the woke issues that people actually heard about were all bullshit.
And in a way I get it: it’s nice to imagine dems just need to tweak the message and they can completely turn their fortunes around. Plus the MSM has tried to blame everything on the progressive wing for at least the last decade, so that scapegoat comes easily to mind for some.
The reality is that dems have been left behind in the new media environment, and fixing that is going to be much harder than just engaging in the old political solutions.
I’m not sure citing the Unabomber is quite the way to go to convince people us Leftists aren’t nuts.
Yeah; the distinguishing feature of the Democrats for decades now has been a lack of distinguishing features. They stand for nothing and are passionate about nothing, relying on not being the Republicans to get elected while trying to fake being Republicans to court the Right. That’s part of why so many of their base dislikes and distrusts them after all, they’ve collectively got the spines of wet noodles and are more interested in sucking up to the Republicans than helping their base.
They don’t resemble the left wing fanatics the Right likes to talk about at all.
What if they aren’t posing? Let’s say you are voting in a primary and these are your two candidates. It’s a difficult question, but not an unrealistic one.
There are plenty of issues where the most progressive position is unpalatable to many voters: Immigration is the big one, but there’s also treatment of the homeless, policing and crime, anti-racism, climate change policies, level of abortion restrictions, and of course Gaza/Israel.
The actual consensus in this thread seems to be that no one needs to make difficult decisions because the right-wing media is all powerful, and nothing the Democratic party can do matters anyway. That’s awfully convenient. But real politicians make these choices all the time: balancing between satisfying their own moral convictions, pleasing dedicated parts of their base, and appealing to a larger share of the electorate. Voters make these choices too, when they decide who to support in a primary, or which party to vote for in an election.
But if the issue is wokeness, it’s a bottom up cultural one, and the actual Democratic party has very limited influence over it. They can embrace it or distance themselves, and it will be hard for them to do the latter when the younger people who are interested enough in politics to work and volunteer for them almost all embrace it.
D voters chose an old man who still exemplifies pre-woke politics in their last real primary, but he governed in a pretty woke way nevertheless. Maybe it would have been different if he’d been more ‘with it’ and less influenced by those around him? At any rate, this is unlikely to be an option next time.
I think more people have been espousing the positions that 1) we need to face the proximate problem first, that of not having a voice, and most people’s view of the left apparently being crafted by the right and 2) on some issues the bravery is to stand for the progressive position and not repeat these clearly ineffective tactics of trying to offend no one and not standing for anything.
…nah. He wasn’t woke on prisons. He wasn’t woke on cops. He wasn’t woke on immigration. He wasn’t woke on Gaza. He wasn’t even moderate on those issues.
I’m about as woke as woke can be. I’m the official Straight Dope Social Justice Warrior. If you want to know the official woke position I can quote chapter and verse from the official Woke Charter as ratified in the International Social Justice Accords of 2019. (That may or may not be made up.)
But the TLDR version, Biden was tolerated by many of us woke, but he lost us at in October last year. And the idea that he “governed in a pretty woke way” is simply not true. We are talking about the President who in the wake of the massive BLM protests for George Floyd, stood up at the the 2022 STOU and pledged to “fund the police.” And in 2023, the police in America killed a record number of people.
That isn’t woke.
That was a slap in the face to activists. And the slaps kept coming.
Were you planning on voting for him before October?
LHoD, the cruelty was what drove me away in the first place. I’m not going to join the Trumpy right since they are worse, but I will keep my own conscience.
Judging from the reactions of people I’ve spoken to about it, a major reason is the idea that men are privileged and thus cannot suffer systemic problems, or need any help directed specifically at them. But it’s very possible the two things synergise. Something I see men complaining of on social media is that traditional notions of male stoicism and self-reliance combine with the woke idea that men are privileged to make it impossible for men to get their needs met and problems addressed. If they complain, they are seen as weak and unmanly and get no sympathy for that reason, and they are dismissed as whiners because men have it better overall, even if their specific issue is important and valid.
A major issue with ‘wokeness’ is that all these rules are extremely one sided. If some other group is left out, it’s a big deal, if men or white people are left out, they are supposed to accept it. Similarly, prejudiced or insulting views towards majority or privileged groups are frequently given a pass in progressive groups, while those towards minorities are severely punished. Many white men especially feel that these rules bind them but do not protect them, despite them having personally done nothing wrong. It’s completely unsurprising if they feel alienated.
And how about adding White Americans to the list? I felt this would be more controversial, though I’m not exactly sure why.
…considering I don’t live in America and can’t even vote, no.
…what rules?
The point of Black Lives Matter isn’t to suggest that black lives should be or are more important than all other lives, but instead that black people’s lives are relatively undervalued in the US (and more likely to be ended by police), and the country needs to recognize that inequity to bring an end to it.
Reddit user GeekAesthete made this point in a thread explaining why the phrase “all lives matter” is offensive:
Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment – indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!
The point here is that the right wingers and their media just dismissed the problem as being woke, that is the easy way for the right to deal with the issue, not the way moderates and leftists are doing it.
Notice I explicitly said “caused or exacerbated.” You don’t have to cause a problem to make it worse. Obviously, things like poverty and inequality have existed as long as civilization has. This doesn’t change the fact that certain systems and ideologies rely on them to exist.
Or, as if often posted here,
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
It isn’t, tho. What you’re calling “cruelty” is “people pushing back angrily against views they consider bigoted.” What I consider “cruelty” is “systemic denial of rights, or the deliberate or conscious inflicting of significant suffering.”
It isn’t, tho. Just because people aren’t throwing folks under the bus doesn’t mean people aren’t making difficult decisions.
This is really interesting and is a poor understanding of identities, that shows up across the political spectrum. You’re asking to add White people to the list, not because you’ve identified issues that genuinely affect White people more than they affect people of color, but because you think they might feel left out. That’s very silly. If there are genuinely issues that affect White people significantly more than they affect people of color, and if there are policies that would fairly and effectively address those issues, then maybe they should be added. But just adding White people so they don’t feel left out? Come on.
What the anti-woke think woke means,
What the woke thinks woke means,
I’m guessing the Maga mob is responding to the cartoon with, “Why aren’t those three moochers paying to watch from the stands like everyone else? What is it, maybe eighty bucks a ticket? Those scum probably tore down the fence so they could watch for nothing. Throw them in prison!!
Deport their brown asses!!”
Don’t give me that bullshit. The entire point of equity is that it isn’t the same as equality. I’ve seen this used a million times on social media, and it’s always to someone complaining about actual unequal treatment. No one’s buying it anymore.