Wokeness has something for everyone, an all you can eat buffet where everyone gets a plate. Conservatives get their dose of rage porn, the "woke" get to signal that they're one of the good ones and get to make some hay out of exposure to liberal arts education, cynical dirtbag leftist types get to mock the woke for being absurd even thou…
Wokeness has something for everyone, an all you can eat buffet where everyone gets a plate. Conservatives get their dose of rage porn, the "woke" get to signal that they're one of the good ones and get to make some hay out of exposure to liberal arts education, cynical dirtbag leftist types get to mock the woke for being absurd even though they tacitly share many of the same views, elected leaders left, right, and center get readymade talking points.
And everyone gets to ignore the myriad of disasters unfolding around us as the wheels fall off the whole system. We get to fight the battles of the 90s today like Civil War reenacters, because we have no idea what to do about what we are currently facing.
I almost responded earlier that the most cynical take is the wokeness/political correctness is just a legitimation strategy by the status quo. This effort at legitimacy is two pronged. First it uses the woke discourse to make the current system seem good and worthwhile, or at a minimum more just than in the past. It's kind a dialectical flip, but the constant "US is bad, irredeemably racist, everything is problematic" attitude on many ways shores up the status quo. It makes it seem as though such woke people are working to overcome it, or at least gives off the idea that they can do better. HR departments love DEI for this reason.
The second is both simpler and more bleak. It keeps up this illusion that our participation in the political system matters, that those with the real power care in the slightest about what we think and what we want to happen. It gives an illusion of control over a system which is beyond our control for the most part. Arguing about "wokeness" like any other wedge issue, makes it seem as if there is far more consequence to these arguments than there ever actually was.
Also, I feel like I didn't articulate this thought very well. To give an example, Disney mostly works to promote socially liberal views within it's film franchises now. There's nothing inherently bad about this, but they're still Disney. It's a way to make it feel like you're doing more than just watching a high budget CGI animation or that Disney isn't a corporate behemoth anymore. Without this kind of veneer, it'd just be the 50th remake of Beauty and the Beast. They need this narrative to put on a mask.
"so true believers in universities and NGOs will get more combative as their numbers shrink, and "anti-woke," will continue to add popular energy to an ascendant right wing that grows more extreme by the day"
So those who are against the insanity on the left are feeding the right? This makes no sense. The actions of the insane are feeding the right. Those on the left who are against the insanity are trying to *stop* the insanity by policing their own. Something I wish we'd see more of on the right to police their own.
1. When I said "left" I didn't mean communist / socialist type leftism. I meant it in the way leftism was referred to typically in America during my formative years: "liberal" ideas (i.e., Democrat party ideas).
2. If it wasn't already obvious, I'm rather uninterested in expanding the appeal of Marxism (though I'm certainly sympathetic to some of labor leftism and their policy priorities that don't involve a revolution overturning capitalism in favor of socialism / communism). I favor well-regulated capitalism, like most "moderate" liberals. The leftist (as defined as communist / socialist) wing of the Democrat coalition has never been a priority of mine.
I am still completely unpersuaded by your argument that anti-woke is feeding the right -- unless you are referring to the right that is anti-woke (i.e., the entire right), in which case, we're not saying different things. The right isn't "attracting" moderates; the extremist liberals are repulsing them.
"Progressives have always been a small number, but now they are losing even more people, a loss the remaining progressives have compensated for by getting more moralistic and retrenched."
Are wokeists really progressive leftists who are worried about shrinking numbers? It seems strange in the context of the unprecedented (at least in recent history) popularity of a leader like Bernie Sanders.
My primary objection is to your characterization of the liberal anti-woke feeding the right. That's not true. The woke are feeding the right. Are there some moderates throwing their lot in with the right because of the woke left's excesses? Yep. But they are then the right, and not the anti-woke left. So the woke left is pushing at least some moderates to the right. But if you remain a liberal and anti-woke, you are not helping the right.
"But I will credit FdB. He’s a Marxist who speaks to people. He’s a real Marxist, not just a guy on the left who doesn’t read books by women but wants a cool name for that, a real Marxist. And he speaks to people who are all points on the political spectrum, or all points on the antiwoke spectrum, which is all points. Pretty hard to do that."
Wholeheartedly agreed. It's why I'm here despite my general disagreements with him on economic philosophy.
I was indeed under the impression that you had some beef with anti-antiwoke. I didn't really understand it though, and that's why I responded. My apologies for misunderstanding.
You're raising an excellent point: what can this majority get behind? Given the numbers, whatever it would support, it's probably conservative. I can get behind protecting workers from being fired for political speech, and maybe even many Trumpish conservatives could, too. That seems a viable goal if presented as anti-establishment, anti-elite.
I dunno, the history of labor relations shows that it is entirely possible to have unionization without pronouns, and recent events in Ukraine show that it is possible to play Wokemon (at least when western donors are watching) and at the same time, gut labor protections.
In fact, the two have nothing necessarily in common with one another.
They don't even talk about the pie. They jaw endlessly, but the discourse is about discourse.
If we kill the white male living inside each of us, if we purify our hearts sufficiently, if we are only inclusive enough, then surely all things will follow. If Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism has not arrived, it's because we weren't worthy enough.
And I get to say to myself that I'm the moral equivalent to Sir Thomas More. Not the real Sir Thomas More, who I understand was pretty outspoken, but the "Man for all Seasons" Sir Thomas More, who refused to assent to that which he disbelieved, but if not put to it, could live his life.
Of course, I'm not Sir Thomas More. Not even close. And any adverse consequences I face at my workplace (a university) kind of (kind of!) pale to what More faced. Still, I get to claim say to myself that I'm like him.
Yup. Burn up the planet, watch the world reorganize around the end of the American empire, and keep grinding out crappier and crappier lives for the poor of all races, but if you celebrate Pride Month and mandate antiracism training your Global Oil & Guns Inc. can consider itself "one of the good guys."
Wokeness has something for everyone, an all you can eat buffet where everyone gets a plate. Conservatives get their dose of rage porn, the "woke" get to signal that they're one of the good ones and get to make some hay out of exposure to liberal arts education, cynical dirtbag leftist types get to mock the woke for being absurd even though they tacitly share many of the same views, elected leaders left, right, and center get readymade talking points.
And everyone gets to ignore the myriad of disasters unfolding around us as the wheels fall off the whole system. We get to fight the battles of the 90s today like Civil War reenacters, because we have no idea what to do about what we are currently facing.
I almost responded earlier that the most cynical take is the wokeness/political correctness is just a legitimation strategy by the status quo. This effort at legitimacy is two pronged. First it uses the woke discourse to make the current system seem good and worthwhile, or at a minimum more just than in the past. It's kind a dialectical flip, but the constant "US is bad, irredeemably racist, everything is problematic" attitude on many ways shores up the status quo. It makes it seem as though such woke people are working to overcome it, or at least gives off the idea that they can do better. HR departments love DEI for this reason.
The second is both simpler and more bleak. It keeps up this illusion that our participation in the political system matters, that those with the real power care in the slightest about what we think and what we want to happen. It gives an illusion of control over a system which is beyond our control for the most part. Arguing about "wokeness" like any other wedge issue, makes it seem as if there is far more consequence to these arguments than there ever actually was.
Also, I feel like I didn't articulate this thought very well. To give an example, Disney mostly works to promote socially liberal views within it's film franchises now. There's nothing inherently bad about this, but they're still Disney. It's a way to make it feel like you're doing more than just watching a high budget CGI animation or that Disney isn't a corporate behemoth anymore. Without this kind of veneer, it'd just be the 50th remake of Beauty and the Beast. They need this narrative to put on a mask.
"so true believers in universities and NGOs will get more combative as their numbers shrink, and "anti-woke," will continue to add popular energy to an ascendant right wing that grows more extreme by the day"
So those who are against the insanity on the left are feeding the right? This makes no sense. The actions of the insane are feeding the right. Those on the left who are against the insanity are trying to *stop* the insanity by policing their own. Something I wish we'd see more of on the right to police their own.
1. When I said "left" I didn't mean communist / socialist type leftism. I meant it in the way leftism was referred to typically in America during my formative years: "liberal" ideas (i.e., Democrat party ideas).
2. If it wasn't already obvious, I'm rather uninterested in expanding the appeal of Marxism (though I'm certainly sympathetic to some of labor leftism and their policy priorities that don't involve a revolution overturning capitalism in favor of socialism / communism). I favor well-regulated capitalism, like most "moderate" liberals. The leftist (as defined as communist / socialist) wing of the Democrat coalition has never been a priority of mine.
I am still completely unpersuaded by your argument that anti-woke is feeding the right -- unless you are referring to the right that is anti-woke (i.e., the entire right), in which case, we're not saying different things. The right isn't "attracting" moderates; the extremist liberals are repulsing them.
"Progressives have always been a small number, but now they are losing even more people, a loss the remaining progressives have compensated for by getting more moralistic and retrenched."
Are wokeists really progressive leftists who are worried about shrinking numbers? It seems strange in the context of the unprecedented (at least in recent history) popularity of a leader like Bernie Sanders.
My primary objection is to your characterization of the liberal anti-woke feeding the right. That's not true. The woke are feeding the right. Are there some moderates throwing their lot in with the right because of the woke left's excesses? Yep. But they are then the right, and not the anti-woke left. So the woke left is pushing at least some moderates to the right. But if you remain a liberal and anti-woke, you are not helping the right.
"But I will credit FdB. He’s a Marxist who speaks to people. He’s a real Marxist, not just a guy on the left who doesn’t read books by women but wants a cool name for that, a real Marxist. And he speaks to people who are all points on the political spectrum, or all points on the antiwoke spectrum, which is all points. Pretty hard to do that."
Wholeheartedly agreed. It's why I'm here despite my general disagreements with him on economic philosophy.
I was indeed under the impression that you had some beef with anti-antiwoke. I didn't really understand it though, and that's why I responded. My apologies for misunderstanding.
You're raising an excellent point: what can this majority get behind? Given the numbers, whatever it would support, it's probably conservative. I can get behind protecting workers from being fired for political speech, and maybe even many Trumpish conservatives could, too. That seems a viable goal if presented as anti-establishment, anti-elite.
And best of all, other than a few token hires, a diversity committee here and there, Woke does little or nothing to change the way the pie is sliced.
I dunno, the history of labor relations shows that it is entirely possible to have unionization without pronouns, and recent events in Ukraine show that it is possible to play Wokemon (at least when western donors are watching) and at the same time, gut labor protections.
In fact, the two have nothing necessarily in common with one another.
They don't even talk about the pie. They jaw endlessly, but the discourse is about discourse.
If we kill the white male living inside each of us, if we purify our hearts sufficiently, if we are only inclusive enough, then surely all things will follow. If Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism has not arrived, it's because we weren't worthy enough.
*Queer not gay, silly
Shit, sorry 'bout that. I'll report to the pound for diversity reeducation.
Maybe the next term to be neologized as a synonym for "same-sex attracted" will be "silly." Unless- did that already happen?
Bread and circuses
Definitely one kind of circus....
And I get to say to myself that I'm the moral equivalent to Sir Thomas More. Not the real Sir Thomas More, who I understand was pretty outspoken, but the "Man for all Seasons" Sir Thomas More, who refused to assent to that which he disbelieved, but if not put to it, could live his life.
Of course, I'm not Sir Thomas More. Not even close. And any adverse consequences I face at my workplace (a university) kind of (kind of!) pale to what More faced. Still, I get to claim say to myself that I'm like him.
whatever gets you through the day, friend. I'm a Leo, which I'm told does a lot to explain my grand internal self narratives.
Yup. Burn up the planet, watch the world reorganize around the end of the American empire, and keep grinding out crappier and crappier lives for the poor of all races, but if you celebrate Pride Month and mandate antiracism training your Global Oil & Guns Inc. can consider itself "one of the good guys."
oh. Noticed that, did you?