Poll: Is Woke a new religion?

[icehorse]

True, yes, I did, but there's still the issue your poll is loaded, limited and excessively biased.

For the sake of moving the conversation forward, I'll grant you all of that.

Now, do you agree that we have an issue with "extreme left thought police"?

 

[Wandering Monk]

As I've indicated, I'm not attached to using the term "woke".

Do you have any ideas what we should call "extreme left thought police" behavior?

Jiminy Cricket.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is my experience tiring for you?

Frankly, yes, but I'd also like to apologise for the lack of effort and context in my response. It wasn't supposed to sound like I was having a go at you personally, but at the same time it would be hard to look at it in any other way so let me try and explain.

One of my issues with the left...and most would say I'm left, to be clear...is the willingness now for nuance and discussion on certain topics to be subverted and seen as unhealthy. That the mere act of not adhering to agreed 'truths' is seen as some sort of deficiency.

There have been multiple instances in this thread of people stating with a conviction I don't share that concern about 'wokeness'...clumsy and unhealthy as I think that term might be...is the domain of right-wing fundamentalists, bad actors in the culture wars, or pearl-clutching religious types and transphobes.

I have concerns about the impact of social media and the quality of journalism on the ability of people...particularly younger folk, just to open myself to a charge of ageism...to see the world in non-binary terms (ironically in some cases), and to admit and measure competing purposes.

Instead, things are presented as clear, as black and white, and as obvious.
I'm used to the right doing that, and I'm used to arguing against it by trying to introduce facts, nuance and shade. The left doing it more than they used to is more disappointing to me.

Is that anecdotal? Sure, to a degree. But the article I linked to has some evidence and discussion on the types of thing I am talking about.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thinking back to my school days, I don't think I can recall a single time where we had anything like any kind of "story hour" at a local library, regardless of who was doing the reading.

I don't remember it at my local library when I was a kid either, but all three of my kids (now 14, 12 and 2) have regularly attended storytime, and we have a fantastic library. And when I was a teacher, I regularly read to my kids, regardless of which year level they were (prep through to grade 6). And I'd both read to my kids (taking especial pride in my voices...lol) and make up stories based on three random bits of info they'd give me.

Occasionally our teachers might read a story to the class, but that was also a good time to zone out. I never really cared much for "story time." We made up our own stories as kids, such as the story about how the fire started in the boys lavatory.

Ha!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

**chucking** And this surprises you?

*Laughs*

Kinda. Back in the day not only would I have been unsurprised, I would have been happy that I hadn't lost my phone entirely. But I'm entirely sensible these days. It was a mates 50th, I had my 2 year old with me, and I left before 10pm. I'd drink 2 whole drinks in 6 hours, but still didn't drive, since my wife had drunk 0 drinks in the same time. Party doesn't mean what it used to!!!

Here is what I find interesting about "woke culture".

When I am searching around for some sort of theatrical entertainment and find every streaming service buried in "woke" content because woke-ness is now apparently absolutely mandatory among entertainment content producers these days, and I feel annoyed, I then have to ask myself how committed I really am to the ideals behind this phenomenon. It pushes my own liberal idealism right back in my face.

And I like that.

I like having to look at myself and ask how committed I really am to progressive inclusion when I'm feeling annoyed by all the progressive, inclusive content I have to weed through and reject to get to some form of entertainment that I actually identify with. Call me a weirdo, but the very thing that conservatives hate so much about "woke-ness" (that in your face, forced inclusivity) is the very thing I find interesting about it. Not because I like it, but because I don't.

And I think this is the real difference between being a liberal or being a conservative these days. The conservatives just can't get past the "I don't like it" level of consideration, to asking themselves why not.

Makes sense to me. I used to force myself to watch some right wing media (not extreme, just kinda everyman type stuff) as a way to challenge myself.

But...and Im hoping I can articulate this with some clarity...my issue isn't with 'woke' expressions in the media, but rather the unwillingness of too many in the left to challenge their own views critically. They instead deal with the weakest or most parochial of opposition arguments.

I have ALWAYS thought it better to steelman your opponent's than strawman them.
Sounds like you have a different way of doing that, but would at least see what I mean. Too many on the left now (and too many on the right as long as I can remember) don't seem to share my approach.

 

[PureX]

*Laughs*

Kinda. Back in the day not only would I have been unsurprised, I would have been happy that I hadn't lost my phone entirely. But I'm entirely sensible these days. It was a mates 50th, I had my 2 year old with me, and I left before 10pm. I'd drink 2 whole drinks in 6 hours, but still didn't drive, since my wife had drunk 0 drinks in the same time. Party doesn't mean what it used to!!!



Makes sense to me. I used to force myself to watch some right wing media (not extreme, just kinda everyman type stuff) as a way to challenge myself.

But...and Im hoping I can articulate this with some clarity...my issue isn't with 'woke' expressions in the media, but rather the unwillingness of too many in the left to challenge their own views critically. They instead deal with the weakest or most parochial of opposition arguments.

I have ALWAYS thought it better to steelman your opponent's than strawman them.
Sounds like you have a different way of doing that, but would at least see what I mean. Too many on the left now (and too many on the right as long as I can remember) don't seem to share my approach.

I came up through art school. So my first inclination is to try and see exactly WHAT IT IS, first, before trying to understand why it's there or what it means. And what it is (woke-ness), is the revealed inclination to make society more fair and equitable for everyone. Which I believe is a good thing. The why and how of it, though, becomes circumstance-specific. So I can agree with "woke-ness" as an ideal while disagreeing with it as a specific practice, or agree with it as a specific practice. It depends on the specific practice.

What I find among "conservatives" these days is that they don't bother to look or think past their own visceral reactions. "I don't like it" is as far as they get. And if you press them to look deeper, (Why don't you like it? What's not to like? Why is your liking it even relevant?) they resist. Usually because they don't know how to question themselves and their perceptions. And often because they can't accept the possibility of being found "wrong" about anything. Conservatism does not refer to the same personality profile that it used to refer to in the U.S. when I was young. Now it refers to the emotionally and intellectually immature. To the willfully ignorant. To people that are PROUD of their ignorance as if it makes them wise, somehow. "I love my guns" is all they know and all they want to know about the gun issue. "I hate abortion" is all they know and all they want to know about the abortion issue. And on and on and on.

And because they are so willfully ignorant, they are very easy to plant "enemies" within. Now they hate liberals, and immigrants, and LGBTQs, and democrats, and atheists, and Muslims, and on and on and on and on ... because these people never bother to actually think about any of this beyond "if it's different, I hate it". And the media and the politicians have picked up on this easy manipulation. So the list just keeps growing. And "woke-ness" is the antidote to it. So now "woke-ness" is the new arch enemy of the ignoramus crown. And so now they hate it along with everything and everyone else they hate.

 

[icehorse]

So now "woke-ness" is the new arch enemy of the ignoramus crown. And so now they hate it along with everything and everyone else they hate.

While this is true, it does NOT mean that being skeptical of "woke" solutions makes you a conservative or an ignoramus. We have to be careful of slipping into identity politics ourselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For the sake of moving the conversation forward, I'll grant you all of that.

Now, do you agree that we have an issue with "extreme left thought police"?

Chappelle and Gervais are still on Netflix, Twitter and Facebook are private companies who require users to agree by the rules to use the platform, and when I was in college it was absolutely nothing like what I hear Republicans and Conservatives crying about (I even showed an image of Muhammad during a research symposium and nothing happened).
Yeah, there are some problematic worms on Facebook. But extreme? No. Extreme is killing, hurting, violent and severely repressive. It looks more like "women must cover up their arms" than "mind your mouth."

 

[icehorse]

Chappelle and Gervais are still on Netflix, Twitter and Facebook are private companies who require users to agree by the rules to use the platform, and when I was in college it was absolutely nothing like what I hear Republicans and Conservatives crying about (I even showed an image of Muhammad during a research symposium and nothing happened).
Yeah, there are some problematic worms on Facebook. But extreme? No. Extreme is killing, hurting, violent and severely repressive. It looks more like "women must cover up their arms" than "mind your mouth."

Personal anecdotes aside, what did you think of the Atlantic article offered earlier in this thread? Again, since 2015, over 500 documented attempts to cancel scholars - and more attempts from the left than from the right.

For my money, another dangerous form of EXTREME is censoring speech that you find offensive. And remember, just because YOU might find some speech offensive, that doesn't make it offensive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We all struggle to separate the message from the messenger. So let me ask you this, what would be an acceptable level of self-censoring in a university environment? If you don't believe the 50% number, what's your intuition about a more realistic number?

1) That's too broad of a question. The acceptable or necessary degree of self-censoring depends on the university environment, the topic being discussed, and the audience present in the room.

2) I don't think this is a question that intuition can answer; such a statistic needs to be measured empirically. Giving my intuition would only reflect my own perspective, not an objective percentage.

I'm not talking about what's legal. Do you disagree with the idea that universities are SUPPOSED to expose students to a diverse - sometimes unsettling - range of ideas?

I don't disagree; I strongly agree with that, actually. However, I also don't think a professor who acts unprofessionally by intentionally misgendering students or poisons the teaching environment by stating support for, say, conversion therapy while on campus is exposing students to the sort of diverse and unsettling ideas that are conducive to education and critical thinking. It's not like most students haven't been exposed to such outdated and harmful beliefs elsewhere, sometimes at home.

I'm happy to cop to the "loaded question" claim (But notice what a strong response the OP elicited?)

Not quite sure I see how it's dogmatic or tribalistic?

In the current political climate where "woke" has become a heavily charged term, I can see why some responses are strong. I try to keep mine focused on the facts with minimal emotion, but I can see why someone else wouldn't or couldn't.

As for how it's dogmatic or tribalistic, I think rigidly adhering to a specific assumption about the answer to the question and then dismissing anyone who thinks otherwise as "offended" arguably qualifies as both. I'm not assuming this was your intention, but it can easily come across that way due to the wording of the question and answers, in my opinion.

BTW, did you read the Atlantic article? One point I think was very important was this:

"Since 2015, we documented 563 attempts (345 from the left, 202 from the right, 16 from neither) to get scholars canceled. Two thirds (362 incidents; 64 percent) of these cancellation attempts were successful, resulting in some form of professional sanction leveled at the scholar, including over one-fifth (117 incidents; 21 percent) resulting in termination … In 2001, the idea of one tenured professor being fired for protected speech seemed impossible, yet since 2015 there have been 30."

Another point I have made explicit (but apparently I'll have to), is that we see these sorts of tactics from the right as well. I just think it's less comfortable for classical liberals to acknowledge that sometimes left can be too far left.

The left is just like any other group in that it also includes extremists, ideologues, and demagogues. Acknowledging this is fundamental if one is to prioritize evidence and consistent values over identity politics.

However, where I find a lot of room for objection is in what different people classify as "too far left." A private platform banning anti-vax or homophobic rhetoric isn't being "too far left," nor is a university that fires a professor for intentionally misgendering students. Calling these "too far left" when pro-USSR communists and Marxists-Leninists exist is a stark dilution of the phrase.

As for the statistic about "cancellation" of professors, consider that the majority demographic both among students and professors in American universities is composed of liberals, so it makes sense that most of these attempts would be from liberals. Considering the vast difference between the number of liberals and conservatives in American universities, the fact that 202 out of the 547 partisan attempts, which works out to around 36.9%, were from the right means the right were possibly disproportionately represented in their attempts to get scholars fired:

Politics of the American Professoriate
Neil Gross and Solon Simmons conducted a survey starting in 2006 called the Politics of the American Professoriate which led to several study papers and books. They designed their survey to improve on past studies which they felt had not included community college professors, addressed low response rates, or used standardized questions. The survey drew upon a sample size of 1417 full-time professors from 927 institutions.[32][19]

In 2007, Gross and Simmons concluded in The Social and Political Views of American Professors that the professors were 44% liberal, 46% moderates, and 9% conservative.[32][21]: 25–26  Inside Higher Ed reported that economist Lawrence H. Summers made his own analysis of the data collected by Gross and Simmons and found a larger gap among faculty teaching "core disciplines for undergraduate education" at selective research universities, but the report also concluded that "there was widespread praise for the way the survey was conducted, with Summers and others predicting that their data may become the definitive source for understanding professors' political views."[19]

Gross published a more extensive analysis in his 2013 book Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?[11] and, with Simmons, in their 2014 compilation Professors and Their Politics.[21]: 25–26  They strongly criticized what they saw as conservative political influence on the interpretation of data about faculty political views, arising from activists and think tanks seeking political reform of American higher education.[21]: 20  Sociologist Joseph Hermanowicz described Professors and Their Politics as "a welcome addition to sociological literature examining higher education, which, in the case of its intersection with politics, has not received serious attention since Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Theilen's classic study of 1958 and Seymour Martin Lipset and Everett Carll Ladd's 1976 work."[33]

Political views of American academics - Wikipedia

Furthermore:

The research on the ideological orientation of students uncovers a similar imbalance. Three weeks ago FIRE released the largest free speech survey of college students conducted to date of almost 20,000 students across 55 colleges and universities, both public and private. According to their findings just over a quarter of the surveyed students identified as conservative to some degree compared to 50% who are liberal.

New data from the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute compares the ideological breakdown of undergraduate students to the Gen Z (Americans between ages 18 and 24) population and the American population as a whole. Among Gen Z the breakdown is 42% liberal and 19% conservative — showing that there are actually more conservatives on campuses than in the Gen Z population more generally. But the representation of conservative students on campus is still below that of the American population (see graph below); conservative students are a minority on campuses and there is a marked liberal skew.

Are Colleges and Universities Too Liberal? What the Research Says About the Political Composition of Campuses and Campus Climate

More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal | News | The Harvard Crimson

I also don't think it's possible to accurately comment on the specific attempts to get professors fired without knowing what the reasons behind each of them were. You're presenting them as if they were a bad thing by default, but one couldn't determine that without knowing what motivated the attempts in the first place.

The same goes for the survey about conservative students who feel they have to keep their thoughts to themselves on certain issues: what thoughts, what issues, and in what context? For instance, if someone believes that LGBT people are abominations who shouldn't have equal legal rights, it seems to me that they should feel like they can't freely share that opinion in some circles. You don't go into a place and tell people there that they're inferior or unworthy of equal rights and expect a warm welcome.

I can't go into a church and tell Christians that they should be arrested and have their Bibles confiscated without expecting repercussions. If I had such a belief, I would know to keep it to myself in most settings, and rightfully so. This seems to me a general issue of social etiquette that isn't necessarily tied to liberal or conservative politics.

(To be continued in the following post due to the character limit.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

(Continued.)

Another thing that I think is important to take into account is that different political groups use different tactics either in perceived self-preservation or advancement of their ideology. The right wing has pushed forward legislation to curtail gender-affirming care, some preventive measures against COVID-19, and abortion, among other things. Even interracial and same-sex marriage are potentially on the chopping block now.

With the above in mind, why would the right even need to "cancel" university professors? Their tactics are vastly different and more forceful than that. When was the last time the left has advanced legislation that encroached on the rights of Christians to practice their religion, for example? Or legislation that has threatened conservatives' access to certain forms of health care (e.g., reproductive health care)?

This is why I think looking at the bigger picture is crucial in such a discussion. If we just zoom in on "cancel culture" and don't examine the larger cultural, legal, and political context in which it is occurring, we're bound to get an incomplete and biased picture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personal anecdotes aside, what did you think of the Atlantic article offered earlier in this thread? Again, since 2015, over 500 documented attempts to cancel scholars - and more attempts from the left than from the right.

Looks to me the RW is far worse with banning books about slavery, the Holocaust, queers, Hispanics and much, much more. And they're succeeding.
Attempts are just that, and when all you can do is compile attempts and not much success then it looks to me like it's just some powerless weasels foaming at the mouth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't disagree; I strongly agree with that, actually. However, I also don't think a professor who acts unprofessionally by intentionally misgendering students or poisons the teaching environment by stating support for, say, conversion therapy while on campus is exposing students to the sort of diverse and unsettling ideas that are conducive to education and critical thinking. It's not like most students haven't been exposed to such outdated and harmful beliefs elsewhere, sometimes at home.

My own time in college has made me wonder about the full depths of all these cancel culture allegations. Jerks are one thing. ******** are one thing. But honest research presenting factual observations? I should have been made a pariah and expelled if we are to believe RW ideas about what goes on at college. But it didn't happen. I even twice complained about a teacher who is black. I wasn't dismissed and was taken seriously, with the first complaint being over him docking me a point on an essay over style preferences (what I had was grammatically correct), and the second time because he had me needlessly hobbling all over campus while I was on crutches to get him a paper I could have and should have been able to email him. Nobody called me a racist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My own time in college has made me wonder about the full depths of all these cancel culture allegations. Jerks are one thing. ******** are one thing. But honest research presenting factual observations? I should have been made a pariah and expelled if we are to believe RW ideas about what goes on at college. But it didn't happen. I even twice complained about a teacher who is black. I wasn't dismissed and was taken seriously, with the first complaint being over him docking me a point on an essay over style preferences (what I had was grammatically correct), and the second time because he had me needlessly hobbling all over campus while I was on crutches to get him a paper I could have and should have been able to email him. Nobody called me a racist.

One of the things I find most unfortunate about this whole "academia is too biased!" controversy is that it seems some conservatives don't even consider that perhaps education and critical thinking can indeed foster specific beliefs that differ from theirs. Yes, some academics are too prejudiced, but when a significant number of university students and professors in different countries lean left compared to the rest of the population, what does that tell you? Just that those big bad liberals are "indoctrinating" people?

For every instance where I think that the left needs more introspection and self-criticism, I find that there are five or more where the right does.

 

[Wandering Monk]

My own time in college has made me wonder about the full depths of all these cancel culture allegations. Jerks are one thing. ******** are one thing. But honest research presenting factual observations? I should have been made a pariah and expelled if we are to believe RW ideas about what goes on at college. But it didn't happen. I even twice complained about a teacher who is black. I wasn't dismissed and was taken seriously, with the first complaint being over him docking me a point on an essay over style preferences (what I had was grammatically correct), and the second time because he had me needlessly hobbling all over campus while I was on crutches to get him a paper I could have and should have been able to email him. Nobody called me a racist.

Too attend many RW religious colleges you have to sign and affirm a statement of beliefs to be admitted.

 

[SomeRandom]

As I've indicated, I'm not attached to using the term "woke".

Do you have any ideas what we should call "extreme left thought police" behavior?

I thought they were known collectively as “wokescolds?”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the things I find most unfortunate about this whole "academia is too biased!" controversy is that it seems some conservatives don't even consider that perhaps education and critical thinking can indeed foster specific beliefs that differ from theirs. Yes, some academics are too prejudiced, but when a significant number of university students and professors in different countries lean left compared to the rest of the population, what does that tell you? Just that those big bad liberals are "indoctrinating" people?

They do know this. This is why in America they have for so long now been antagonistic towards a proper education because they know their beliefs don't stand a good chance at surviving them. This is why America has Yoder v Wisconsin, because conservative parents know their children will very likely believe differently if they go to school, get a proper education, and especially go to college.

 

[Father Heathen]

No trans person is.
I meant that kids don't understand this thing and get confused, that's it.

Educating kids helps to clear up confusion. Sheltering kids contributes to confusion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Educating kids helps to clear up confusion. Sheltering kids contributes to confusion.

I think kids should be educated with Disney movies, filled with romance and chivalry.
They should be their bible.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think kids should be educated with Disney movies, filled with romance and chivalry.
They should be their bible.

Do you believe this will prepare them for the real world, or are you just posting nonsense because you don't have a real answer?