WOKE and proud of it....

[Gary Childress]

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

I think "Woke" more or less means "aware" which in their case means "awareness" of social injustices. In that sense, it may not necessarily be the case that the Woke are picking a fight, but rather siding with victims of what they perceive as unfairness.

[Gary Childress]

“Woke” is a vague term, too vague to be of much use. It is a fighting word.

It's the chosen honourific of the movement. They're proud of it, as the OP suggests.

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

You cannot be relied on to offer any reasonable perspective in this conversation.

You are a walking talking contamination.

And you must become the subject of examination.

That seems like an overly harsh statement to me. Just saying...

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot be relied on to offer any reasonable perspective in this conversation.

If that's your feeling, fine; it really doesn't bother me. Refer to James Lindsay, instead. He's got it right.

[Immanuel Can]

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

I think "Woke" more or less means "aware" which in their case means "awareness" of social injustices. In that sense, it may not necessarily be the case that the Woke are picking a fight, but rather siding with victims of what they perceive as unfairness.

Well, think about what it implies on the backhand, Gary. Imagine somebody calling himself "the good" or "the intelligent." What's he saying about anybody who disagrees with him?

Just so, the Woke are saying, "You idiots are all asleep, and we're the only ones who are alert to how things really are." It's just that it's more implied than stated, because they only say, "We are the awake ones."

[Alexis Jacobi]

However, what surely doesn't make any proper sense is to equate the Woke Left's birth with the birth of Marx (in 1818).

The so-called Woke Left (uniquely American is it not?) is a social and cultural phenomenon best understood (it occurs to me) through the term pastiche.

It is uniquely postmodern and might make better sense if examined through a postmodern grasp of the absurd.

But isn’t it also a pathology? That grammar of self-intolerance Bowden refers to?

But one thing it is not: genuine old-school Leftism.

It is influenced by derivative impulses or currents. It has morphed and become something unique and distinct.

[Gary Childress]

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

I think "Woke" more or less means "aware" which in their case means "awareness" of social injustices. In that sense, it may not necessarily be the case that the Woke are picking a fight, but rather siding with victims of what they perceive as unfairness.

Well, think about what it implies on the backhand, Gary. Imagine somebody calling himself "the good" or "the intelligent." What's he saying about anybody who disagrees with him?

Just so, the Woke are saying, "You idiots are all asleep, and we're the only ones who are alert to how things really are." It's just that it's more implied than stated, because they only say, "We are the awake ones."

I mean, to be fair, that's not much different than a religious person implying that he or she alone or as part of a group have it right and all others who have different religious views must have it wrong. It's not so much that they think that way but whether or not they are correct in their beliefs. And that is an admittedly difficult answer to work out. Far beyond my capacity.

I mean, you have valid points also and are part of the overall conversation, that is for sure. We all are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I mean, you have valid points also and are part of the overall conversation, that is for sure. We all are.

Mr Get-Along ….

In my view you are not willing to see into the core, the operative core (of Christian Zionism).

Name those “valid points”.

[Gary Childress]

I mean, you have valid points also and are part of the overall conversation, that is for sure. We all are.

Mr Get-Along ….

In my view you are not willing to see into the core, the operative core (of Christian Zionism).

Name those “valid points”.

He has stated often that we must be civil in our responses and discussions with each other and that seems like a valid point. Aside from that, I have a lot of disagreements and tend to get frustrated and heated with IC but he is right in that sense of keeping things civil. It's not easy to do all the time but he is right. So I've been working on my discussion habits trying to improve them and think I've had some success with it.

[Immanuel Can]

I think "Woke" more or less means "aware" which in their case means "awareness" of social injustices. In that sense, it may not necessarily be the case that the Woke are picking a fight, but rather siding with victims of what they perceive as unfairness.

Well, think about what it implies on the backhand, Gary. Imagine somebody calling himself "the good" or "the intelligent." What's he saying about anybody who disagrees with him?

Just so, the Woke are saying, "You idiots are all asleep, and we're the only ones who are alert to how things really are." It's just that it's more implied than stated, because they only say, "We are the awake ones."

I mean, to be fair, that's not much different than a religious person implying that he or she alone or as part of a group have it right and all others who have different religious views must have it wrong.

Everybody does that, Gary. Everybody, religious, ideological or even those who imagine they are simply neutrally concerned with truth. Everybody thinks that what they think is more right than what everybody else thinks. If they didn't, then why would they continue to think it? Would anybody want to embrace a belief they KNOW is wrong, and they think has no relationship to truth?

The Woke are just more overt in their self-congratulatory stance and their contempt for all dissenters than most people are willing to be. And a step further; they're eager and willing to do violence against those who disagree with them. They're into silencing, deplatforming, bullying, harassing, doxing, parading, threatening, slandering, screaming, rioting, and burning and bludgeoning. Not all ideologies, beliefs and religions will go that far. Some will. But those that will betray their own lack of confidence in the power of reason to support their case.

I mean, you have valid points also and are part of the overall conversation, that is for sure.

Yes, of course. As are you.

[Consul]

“Woke” is a vague term, too vague to be of much use. It is a fighting word.

Yes, but one can nevertheless try to use "the Woke Left" as a purely descriptive label (like "the New Left") referring to some distinctive phase in the history of the Left. Of course, doing so requires clarification and disambiguation on the basis of objective criteria—which is a difficult thing to do, because the Woke Left (like the New Left) is anything but a readily identifiable and circumscribable homogeneous, monolithic phenomenon. It's like a network of many rivers rather than like one river.

[Gary Childress]

I mean, you have valid points also and are part of the overall conversation, that is for sure.

Yes, of course. As are you.

Thank you.

[Consul]

However, what surely doesn't make any proper sense is to equate the Woke Left's birth with the birth of Marx (in 1818).

The so-called Woke Left (uniquely American is it not?) is a social and cultural phenomenon best understood (it occurs to me) through the term pastiche.
It is uniquely postmodern and might make better sense if examined through a postmodern grasp of the absurd.
But isn’t it also a pathology? That grammar of self-intolerance Bowden refers to?
But one thing it is not: genuine old-school Leftism.
It is influenced by derivative impulses or currents. It has morphed and become something unique and distinct.

Yes, the culturalist Woke Left is an ideological, theoretical "pastiche" or "potpourri"; and it's conspicuously different from economic Paleo-Marxism, even though the house of the Woke is still haunted by Neo- or Post-Marxist "Specters of Marx" (to quote the title of a book by Derrida).
It is influenced and informed by postmodern philosophy, which term itself refers to a miscellaneous collection of theorists and theories, especially (but not exclusively) French poststructuralism (Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, Baudrillard, et al.).

No, the so-called Woke Left isn't uniquely American. We find it in Europa, Australia, and New Zealand as well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

… and that seems like a valid point.

That’s manners. Not points.

[Gary Childress]

… and that seems like a valid point.

That’s manners. Not points.

He had a point about manners. So yes, his "point" was valid.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, the so-called Woke Left isn't uniquely American. We find it in Europa, Australia, and New Zealand as well.

Yes, I guess that is right.

My question is: I wonder if that Hyper-Liberal and Hyper-Liberalism (my term and one I think gets closer to a workable definition) originated in America and in americanism which, they say, is an American export?

From Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, Tomislav Sunic:

In this book Dr. Tomislav Sunic describes the origins and dynamics of America's founding myths. Quoting and translating from many long-forgotten or suppressed sources from the fields of literature, history, anthropology and philosophy, the book represents an interdisciplinary compendium dealing with the topic of Americanism. The genealogy of early Calvinist Puritanism mixed with the techno-scientific religion of boundless economic progress and legally veiled in the obscure para-Biblical and Jewish-inspired sense of political self-chosenness, created a system that has little in common with its original design. Postmodern Americanism, with its abstract theories of multiculturalism and its global desire for world improvement, turned America into a menacing and self-destructive continent that puts not only the survival of America's European heritage at risk, but threatens the heritage of other peoples worldwide as well.