I don’t, i think Biden is significantly more liberal on most axes than Harris. But it doesn’t matter. The Republicans claimed she was running on a woke agenda. And she wasn’t. She was running on a boring moderate Democratic agenda. This thread suggests we are all being “too woke”, without even saying what that means. Most of her governing would have been boring bread and butter stuff, too. Because what even is the “woke agenda”? Is it like the gay agenda? (Same sex marriage, don’t fire an employee just because they are gay… Um, I’ve run out of items.)
It’s a chimera invented by the right to scare people. " They’ll be eating your pets and peeping at you when you pee! "
That’s certainly what most of the trump voters i talked to cared about. A few were basically racist and angry. But most weren’t, they just said they had been doing better under Trump, and inflation was hurting them.
Intolerant rhetoric – the kind we always hear from those pandering to social conservatives – puts poison – drop by drop – into the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the environment in which we live.
Which may not harm most of us, but it creates profoundly increased risk to vulnerable communities.
Think about it: in pretty much every war, soldiers begin using slurs to ‘name’ the enemy. They do that as a way to dehumanize them – to make them seem less than human. And they do THAT so it’s easier to pull the trigger.
That’s the harm that comes from the intolerant rhetoric that we see so much of. Growing up as a minority in an environment with so much corrosiveness and toxicity directed toward you has to be exceptionally difficult.
And we’re back having to explain the difference between correlation and causation. (although that would be easier than defining “woke” in a way that makes sense in relation to this past election)
As flawed as the electoral system is, we still keep track of the popular vote. I can point out the popular vote went to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and went to Donald Trump in 2024. Margaret Thatcher didn’t win a popular election to become prime minister. I bring this up because often throughout my life I’ve seen prime ministers used as evidence that the United States is sexist. Why don’t we have a woman as the president when other countries have had women as prime ministers? Because prime ministers aren’t elected like presidents are in the United States. People are comparing apples to oranges.
When you ask Democrats to be “less woke” you are asking them to jump through an invisible hoop while doing a pirouette, then saying “No-that’s not what I want at all!”…without then giving a precise definition of whatever the hell it is you do want.
Do you recognize that many of the participants in this thread are members of groups whom Trump and his supporters have vilified and “othered,” and have already proposed legislation and restrictions that will harm those groups?
Do you also recognize that there are hundreds of years of historical precedents, both in this country and others, where groups that have been marginalized and vilified by those in power have been persecuted, and even killed?
If you recognize these things, then perhaps you should also recognize that people who are in those groups (and, honestly, that includes “liberals” in general) who are very worried about what’s going to happen starting in January…and some of them are, for good reason, worried that there are other Americans who are going to feel empowered and encouraged to harm or kill them.
If you think that’s all hyperbole, and that they are over-reacting, well, that’s an opinion. But, dismissing their fears, and then complaining that you’re the one being picked on when people disagree with you, is, at a minimum, tone-deaf.
If you think that this thread is full of overblown hyperbole, then perhaps you should consider that no one is holding your feet to the fire, and forcing you to continue to participate in it.
Arguing against the historical and destructive precedent of fascism and intolerance – even when using an extreme example as a cautionary tale/worst-case scenario – by saying:
Doesn’t actually argue against the premise … at all.
As far as I can tell the actual right wing definition of “woke” is what other people call “being a good person”. Which is why they are so reluctant to provide such a definition, they know how bad it would look.
If being accurate is being “woke”, then I’ll go on being “woke”.
My daughter attended Russian School of Mathematics for many years. The teachers were mostly PhDs in Math, Physics, Engineering, etc. Almost to a person they were also incredibly racist and believed that Russian or Slavic people were just inherently superior to other people. Western Europeans and Americans are considered weak, sentimental and not very bright. One was a Chemistry Adjunct Professor who thought his students had no business being in college. They are so stupid compared with Russian students (of course he went to a top tier school in Russia and was teaching at a fourth-rate school in the US). His rants were laced with racially derogatory terms for his mostly Black and Hispanic students.
I also worked for a company that had many stores in Russia during the early 2000s (they still do, I find work there). The casual racism and misogyny of Russian employees of every status from laborer to executive was quite shocking even to someone who grew up in Pakistan.
There are a lot of Russian emigres who long for a strong Russia taking its rightful place as the hegemon of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Just like there are a lot of Chinese Americans who want China to be strong and proud. Democracy is at best secondary to nationalism, if not an actual weakness of national character.
That is a characteristic of certain types of fanatics, not anything especially associated with the left. In fact I most often see it from some far-right Christians, who claim everyone knows they are right and people are just lying when they say they disagree.
If that’s “woke” then the Democrats can’t “tone it down” since they don’t do it.
