Wokeness is a problem and we all know it

[A Vestigial Mote]

I agree with the gist of what is being said somewhat, and language may be part of the perceived problem... but I would liken the image-issue that the people calling themselves "democrats" have, versus those calling themselves "republican" to the sort of issue that Christians have when discussing things in a heated manner with atheists. The Christians are trying to maintain some sort of "good guy" image - because their script tells them so, they must be "forgiving" and "merciful" and "loving," but the atheist doesn't have these as basic principles or prescriptions at all.

So in the case of "democrats" and "republicans," the democrats are like the Christians - who have "written" for themselves this narrative of tolerance, acceptance, "being the good guys", etc. - so that when they speak or act "out of character" they are really taken to task for it. But the republicans are more like the "atheists" in those discussions I alluded to earlier - they have proven themselves to have no discernable hard-line moral code, they play fast and loose with emotion and do or don't have compassion at will, and they are known for this - so nothing they do is "out of character." So they aren't called to task on it.

Just think about how easy it is to call out a Christian for saying something untoward, and how difficult it is to call out an atheist in the same way. The atheist doesn't have to care - they know they aren't being held to any sort of standard.

The democrats need to lose the "good guy" image. Be rational and reasonable, but use wit and cunning as necessary. Smack people down with intellect and facts - and when I say "smack down" that's exactly what I mean. No tip-toeing. Lay into them heavy with harsh and damning criticism of the ideas you disagree with while making sure you have the logic and reason to back you up. You don't have to be the "nice," or "forgiving" or "tolerant" party. Forget that crap. Go for the jugular and pummel the opposition in full view of the voting public. Just don't lie, cheat, or steal on the way, and there will be nothing left to call to task.

 

[Windwalker]

Democrats need to lay off of people. It's they who are causing all the pushback like some arrogant and pushy evangelist forcing a certain view and particular way on those who don't ascribe to their world view and are getting notably sick on continually being told on how they should act, say, and do.

I see it as an intolerance under the guise of tolerance.

Forcing what views, may I ask?

 

[Augustus]

Not so much that wokeness has been weaponised. More so that the Conservatives are good at identifying slogans, and then hammering it home time and time again.

Progressives are also good at identifying political slogans and hammering them home.

"Defund the police" for example. Who could possible object to that?

The best kind of slogan after all is one that produces a strong negative emotional reaction and must immediately be followed by a convoluted explanation of how it doesn't really mean what you think it means

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Progressives are also good at identifying political slogans and hammering them home.

"Defund the police" for example. Who could possible object to that?

The best kind of slogan after all is one that produces a strong negative emotional reaction and must immediately be followed by a convoluted explanation of how it doesn't really mean what you think it means

I remain unconvinced in the context of this topic (which is more specifically around slogan with actual cache at the polling booths).
But your post made me chuckle, and holds some truth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What Carrville is calling "wokeness" - i.e. actively working on equity, diversity and inclusion, being conscious of intersectionality, etc. - is very much part of front-line activism these days. It's even part of the very mainstream, corporate-sponsored charitites I'm involved with.

If he think it's only the stuff of "faculty lounges," I have to assume that it's because these days his social circle includes lots of professors and not many people out there "on the streets" actually getting stuff done.

You've read the article in a very different way to how I did, then.
I don't think he is talking at all about what he sees as the 'right' way to act, or what he sees as factual.

Indeed, he specifically calls out that, as he sees it, relying on facts and reason are the issue. His suggestion is that the Democrats need to target white, male, rural voters, and try to lose 72-28 instead of 80-20.

This is absolutely NOT about whether working on equity, diversity and inclusion are 'right' or 'wrong'. He's specifically arguing about election strategy.
Sure, you can disagree with his take on that. No issues if you do, really. But having read the article a couple of times, I can't even really tell what he thinks is 'right' other than he thinks the Democrats winning the election is 'right', and they need to adjust their strategy in order to ensure they do just that.

 

[SomeRandom]

I swear the “American right” do nothing but project their own issues onto everyone else.

I’m not directing at statement at anyone here to be clear.

I used to care about “wokeness” and so called “cancel culture.” Leaving that mindset essentially detoxified me and allowed me to think freely again. And maybe that’s just a specific subset of American conservatism, I’m not American so I legitimately don’t know. I mostly see this from people who seem to identify as “Alt right” but also stalwarts of American conservative movements as well.
But the people I see complain about so called “cancel culture” seem perfectly okay to cancel anyone they don’t like. They whine endlessly about politics in various geeky hobbies only to turn around and praise certain geeky franchises for being “pro conservative” (even when they’re leftist.)

I’ve come to the opinion that while corporate wokeness is annoying, at the end of the day a lot of this so called “wokeness” is usually just well meaning kids just figuring out their own terminology and trying to change the world for the better, in their opinions. Kids always do that and the establishment always admonishes them. Meh

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've already ranted about that at length in my second post of this thread.

Okay. I went and read your post. I'm quoting it here, just for my own convenience sake.

I don't care for the Democratic Party, but I do care for the way elites like this guy continue to frame anti-racism and anti-sexism.

These people act like as if their words weren't signals for their political followers to behave likewise, and in ways that have real and material effects on factually existing people, because they seem to only care about their personal convenience and the reactions of people who dwell in their social bubbles.

Hmm...it's hard for me to frame counter-arguments on behalf of him, but he's a political strategist responding specifically about political strategy. You can...of course...take an idealistic high ground here, and I'm not suggesting you're wrong to do so.
However his job, and what he's responding about in this article is about how to ensure the Democrats don't lose the next election. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect his position would be that a Democrat win using repetitive messaging and catchy slogans built around Climate Change is better than a Republican win where the Democrats have avoided repetitive messaging and catchy slogans. Basically, he's encouraging a type of centre-left popularism, as I read it.

The consequence of this lifestyle, so hermetically sealed inside their social bubble, is their personal conveniences are taken to be equivalent to crimes against humanity, whereas they only ever understand antiracist and antisexist talking points as fashion statements and cutesy decorations, instead of concrete policy statements intended to impact real people's lives.

You'd need to spell out for me where you are getting that from this article. He's not arguing against antiracist or antisexist action. He specifically suggested using allegations of molestation for political gain. There is nothing in there about rolling back policy that I saw.

We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people

That doesn't seem to suggest antiracist talking points are 'fashion statements'. He is talking about these things from a political strategy point of view.
Conservative popularism and demagoguery have gained traction in many countries. As he notes in the article,

Democrats are in power for now, but they also only narrowly defeated Donald Trump, “a world-historical buffoon,” and they lost congressional seats and failed to pick up state legislatures.

Fighting fire with fire is a different approach to taking the moral high ground. But it's not a position of moving away from social action. It's one of prioritizing getting into power...hopefully as a WAY to implement social action, or at least prevent the opposite side from running amok.

As I mentioned in a previous response to @9-10ths_Penguin ...I'm fine if you disagree with his take on political strategy. At the very least, it feels distasteful to me. But the argument against him would seem to be one of suggesting an alternative political strategy. He is attacking the messaging of the Democrats, not their intent, or the need for social action.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He has probably observed how well anti-intellectualism is received among right-wing supporters, perhaps he is trying to ape their methods in an effort to ape their success, too?

I think there is some truth to that.

 

[PureX]

If you mean that Democrats accept big donor money like Republicans, sure. If they didn't they probably couldn't afford to compete. So they are caught by the existing election laws. But let's note that many corporations are run by decent people and support the good policies of Democrats, so not so much bribery as it is they recognize a need to have the society Democrats are working for.

Bribery is why we still don't have a decent health care system even though we pay more for the corrupt mess that we have than any nation on Earth. When Obama ran for office on the promise to fix it, he had a democratic super-majority in the legislature, so the republicans couldn't stop his reforms if they wanted to. So as soon as he was sworn in, he set out to fix that system as he'd promised. But then the bribe money started to fly, and suddenly all those democrats in the House and the Senate couldn't come up with a single idea to fix our broken health care system even though most of the rest of the world has already done so. And instead, all they could manage to muster up was 20 year old republican plan forcing people to pay for health insurance.And grudgingly, they expanded medicaid a little to help insure some of those that couldn't afford it.

Biden himself has voted against universal health care many times. He has also voted against raising the minimum wage many times. He's voted for every war and military action ever posed to him. He's only pretending to be in favor of raising the minimum wage, now, because he knows it's not going to happen. He knows that bribe money will flow and the corporate lobbyists will get what the want - no wage-raise. Because he knows his fellow democrats in the House and the Senate are on the corporate payroll just like the republicans are. And when they take that bribe money, they have to deliver the legislative vote that the bribes are paying them for. And so they do.

We see Democrats consistently advocating for members of society who don't have health care access, whose civil rights are compromised, who face discrimination, and for more fair tax rates, etc. Compare that set of priorities to republicans whose priorities seem to be to help the wealthy retain more wealth and help business get more advantages in our economy.

They advocate with their mouth, an then vote as their bribe-masters tell them to vote. They've been doing that decades. Biden is a classic example.

I think part of the woeness problem is how much it exposes the faults in conservatism these days. There is a lot of emphasis on progressive issues and solutions. The more push back from conservatives the more press it gets. I suspect conservatives are looking less tolerant and more divisive as a result, and instead of conceding the issues they push back on words like "woeness".

Some of the issues at hand: Black people's lives matter. Transgender people want basic rights. Police brutality is a systemic problem. Tax rates for the wealthy so the USA can afford social programs and infrastructure investment. Reproduction rights. Access to voting.

The democrats make a big deal of these social issues because they know that their corporate overlords don't care about social issues. All their overlords care about is money and power. And the democrats also know that they aren't going to do anything about the huge economic problems and corruption issues facing this country. BECAUSE THEY ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.

 

[Kooky]

You've read the article in a very different way to how I did, then.
I don't think he is talking at all about what he sees as the 'right' way to act, or what he sees as factual.

Indeed, he specifically calls out that, as he sees it, relying on facts and reason are the issue. His suggestion is that the Democrats need to target white, male, rural voters, and try to lose 72-28 instead of 80-20.

They could stop the gerrymandering and push for proportional representation, thus increasing the weight of a diverse urban electorate that has been firmly voted left for decades and securing a stable voter base for their party's. long term success.

And yet it seems that among the Democratic establishment, pandering to a dwindling minority of old white men from rural areas, who haven't given them the time of the day since the early 1970s, is still seen as the winning strategy by comparison.

Even devoid of moral judgement, this sounds extremely counterproductive to me in the long run.

 

[questfortruth]

"Wokeness is a problem and we all know it"

“Wokeness is a problem,”

No. The finding proof for Riemann Hypothesis is a real challenge (which I have solved in a viXra paper), but human mental sickness should be cured by medicine.

 

[F1fan]

Bribery is why we still don't have a decent health care system even though we pay more for the corrupt mess that we have than any nation on Earth. When Obama ran for office in the promise to fix it, he had a democratic super-majority in the legislature, so the republicans couldn't stop his reforms if the wanted to. So as soon as he was sworn in, he set out to fix that system. And then the bribe money started to fly, and suddenly all those democrats in the House and the Senate couldn't come up with a single idea to fix our health broken care system even though most of the rest of the world has already done so. And instead, all they could manage to muster was 20 year old republican plan forcing people to pay for health insurance.

The big error Democrats made in 2013 was trusting Republicans to be part of the legislative process in crafting the ACA bill. Republicans submitted a large number of amendments that ended up removing critical parts of covering the poorest citizens, and also created some of the many problems and loopholes in the law. It ended up giving a lot of authority to states who then could simply opt out of the solutions that needed national cooperation. Then most all of the Republicans didn't even vote for it. Since then Republicans have tried at least 72 times to repeal the ACA, and promised a better solution yet never offered even an outline of a better plan. The ACA needs fixes yet the majority of Republicans in Obama's last 6 years stopped any chance of that.

So did bribe money really influence Democrats? Give us real examples of that causing problems for the ACA.

Biden himself has voted against universal health care many times. He has also voted against raising the minimum wage many times. He's voted for every war and military action ever posed to him. He's only pretending to be in favor f raising the minimum wage, now, because he knows it's not going to happen. He knows that bribe money will flow and the corporate lobbyists will get what the want - no raise. Because he knows his fellow democrats in the House and the Senate are on the corporate payroll just like the republicans are. When they take that bribe money, they have to deliver the legislative vote that the bribes are paying for. And so they do.

Biden has definitely become more liberal as time has gone on. Good. While it's fine to look at his past actions it's apparent he's not holding on to those positions and is adjusting his views to what is happening in 2021 and the future. This is what makes a great statesman, the ability to adjust to the reality as it unfolds for the benefit of society as a whole.

They advocate with their mouth, an then vote as their bribe-masters tell them to vote. They've been doing that decades. Biden is a classic example.

Give examples of this happening now. And be sure you're referring to actual bribes, and not just lobbyists who are doing their work as allowed by law. Bribes are crimes. If you're just embellishing that is a poor way to debate.

If you want to talk about the influence of lobbyists, that's another issue.

The democrats make a big deal of these social issues because they know that their corporate overlords don't care about them. All their overlords care about is money and power. And the democrats also know that they aren't going to do anything about the huge economic and corruption issues facing this country. BECAUSE THEY ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Corporations do have a huge priority for profits. The dilemma is how influential social media is today and corporations have to be careful about their public image. they do have pressure to be more ethical and show moral concern. The exception is those businesses that can use anti-social positions to attract conservatives. One example is how Chik-fil-a had policies against gay people and while some liberals boycotted more conservatives supported the company. Another example of a backfire is the MyPillow guy whose extreme politics has really damaged his reputation and sales.

Companies need to be careful about offending anyone, and that includes who they support for government positions.

 

[Yazata]

"Wokeness is a problem and we all know it"

“Wokeness is a problem,” he told me, “and we all know it.”

Wokeness is essentially neopuritanism for a secular age. It's aggressive moralism, the tendency to proceed through life by pointing fingers at others and shrieking "sinner! sinner! sinner!".

It just viscerally repels me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wokeness, you mean?
What's your thoughts on the article itself?

Obviously, I meant wokeness. The video clip should've made that clear. He's just saying what a lot of people are saying. It's hardly a bombshell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To go with Woke in general, a very big problem with it is it is the Left Wing version of Conservative Protestant Evangelicism. Down to the inherent guilt behind original sin/being white or male, an element of "Amazing Grace" is present reading accounts of people who converted, being highly judgemental of people who don't agree, and a high degree of desire to see all of society brought under heel and conforming to their dogma, and, of course, lots of hypocrisy and double standards.

 

[PureX]

The big error Democrats made in 2013 was trusting Republicans to be part of the legislative process in crafting the ACA bill. Republicans submitted a large number of amendments that ended up removing critical parts of covering the poorest citizens, and also created some of the many problems and loopholes in the law. It ended up giving a lot of authority to states who then could simply opt out of the solutions that needed national cooperation. Then most all of the Republicans didn't even vote for it. Since then Republicans have tried at least 72 times to repeal the ACA, and promised a better solution yet never offered even an outline of a better plan. The ACA needs fixes yet the majority of Republicans in Obama's last 6 years stopped any chance of that.

The democrats had a super-majority. They had no need or reason whatever to haggle with republicans. They could have passed whatever they wanted. But they didn't want any real reforms. They were being paid to make sure no real reforms, happened. And so no real reforms happened. And instead, they fixed as little as they could get away with. While the republicans immediately started blaming any and every flaw on them. Even though is was a 20 year old republican plan they settled on.

So did bribe money really influence Democrats? Give us real examples of that causing problems for the ACA.

If you can't see the affect of legalized bribery on our legislature, nothing I bother to dig up will convince you. The lobbyists now commonly write the legislation, themselves, and hand it to their bought and paid for legislators to pass into law, often without ever even reading it. This is common behavior, and common knowledge. Legislators even admit it (occasionally). So how you missed it is beyond me.

Obama wanted universal health care. And he said so. But all those democrats magically fell into a stupor and just couldn't seem to figure our how to do that even though 30 other major nations have all managed it. We could simply have picked one and copied theirs. Why do you think all those democrats suddenly became mentally incapacitated? Especially when every one of them was getting huge campaign contributions from the insurance lobby, and the pharmaceutical lobby, and the hospital conglomerate's lobby, and the medical manufacturer's lobby, and every other lobby related to health care. All of whom are desperately afraid of our establishing a national health care system because every other nation that has done so has realized that they had to set pricing limits to stop the rampant price-gouging that goes on in health care. And all these corporate entities involved in U.S. health care are making fortunes by price-gouging us for EVERYTHING involved in it. From insurance, to medication, to hardware to hospitals and doctors, to whatever.

Biden has definitely become more liberal as time has gone on. Good.

Correction: Biden has been TALKING more like a liberal, lately. But keep in mind that he has not actually done anything but talk. And he knows he can blame his apparent inability to do anything on the republicans. So such talk is cheap and easy for him. For 30 years he's basically voted like a republican in the Senate. Because that's what kept the campaign money rolling in, that in turn kept him in office. He's a career political toady for those that paid his way. It's why the democratic party ran him. Because that's what they ALL are.

While it's fine to look at his past actions it's apparent he's not holding on to those positions and is adjusting his views to what is happening in 2021 and the future. This is what makes a great statesman, the ability to adjust to the reality as it unfolds for the benefit of society as a whole.

I repeat: he has done NOTHING but talk. And since he knows he can't do much with the republicans choking the Senate, he can talk like a big fat liberal all he wants to, because he knows none of it is ever going to come to fruition. He can play Mr. "I'm for Joe Sixpack" and then blame the republicans for his having done absolutely nothing at all for Joe Sixpack his whole term as president. Just like he's done the last 30 years in the legislature.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It has turned into a cult at this point. It's a parody of itself.

It's out of control at best.

What's amazing is how obsessed people are over terminology and identity these days. I can't remember last time when it was this bad.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Forcing what views, may I ask?

I think a lot of stems from media and through the legislative process.

Things like making previously protected forms of speech subject to enforcement action. Ie hate speech, pronouns etc. I'm talking about things that were previously allowed or legal.

Censorship and/or bias in private and public forums via algorithm or panel. Good examples are with YT and Google search engines.

Just a few for starters.

 

[Ponder This]

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.”
― Laozi, Tao Te Ching​

The one who claims to be woke is not one who is woke.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Obviously, I meant wokeness. The video clip should've made that clear. He's just saying what a lot of people are saying. It's hardly a bombshell.

Yeah, but there's a difference between saying 'wokeness is wrong' and 'wokeness causes us to lose votes'.
I was trying to work out to which...or both...you were addressing your comments.