a defense of being "WOKE"

[Iwannaplato]

'Woke' was not pejorative to begin with. It was meant to describe people aware of racial discrimination and it came out of the African-American community. It has recently become pejorative, generally to members on the Right, but also to some liberals who are getting tired of today's version of a PC climate.

It is meant ironically, not as an attack on wakefullness. IOW the critics coopted the term and clearly think that, amongst other things, people who think they are woke are not conscious of (clueless about) many things (or an insincere, etc.) I don't think an argument pointing out the positive aspects of literally being awake or in being metaphorically awake really gets the point.

In discussions of 'woke' the Right can come up with hilarious and tragic examples of political correctness gone wrong.
In defense of 'woke' leftists could focus on certain core values and situations and not appear idiotic at all.

It's treated as binary, often, by both sides. If you are feminist lesbian lefty who thinks there is a problem with transmen playing sports against cis women, you get labelled transphobic and much much worse and a really rather large number of people will try to destroy your reputation and. if they can, your livlihood. That's wokeness gone wrong. No talking, no discussion, agree or be cancelled.

On the other hand, the critics of wokeness, often act as if everything once considered woke is confused and idiotic. It's a war between cherry pickers, absolutists, virtue signalers on both sides, hysterics and binary thinkers.

Truly, it's nothing new, but in my long lifetime, it seems to be at all time high. Choose one of two teams (why two?) and never betray the team manifesto by even questioning it, hate everyone who seems from one utterance to belong to the other team, and treat everything as the edge of THE slippery slope. It's a fun era to be alive in.

[Astro Cat]

'Woke' was not pejorative to begin with. It was meant to describe people aware of racial discrimination and it came out of the African-American community. It has recently become pejorative, generally to members on the Right, but also to some liberals who are getting tired of today's version of a PC climate.

It is meant ironically, not as an attack on wakefullness. IOW the critics coopted the term and clearly think that, amongst other things, people who think they are woke are not conscious of (clueless about) many things (or an insincere, etc.) I don't think an argument pointing out the positive aspects of literally being awake or in being metaphorically awake really gets the point.

In discussions of 'woke' the Right can come up with hilarious and tragic examples of political correctness gone wrong.
In defense of 'woke' leftists could focus on certain core values and situations and not appear idiotic at all.

It's treated as binary, often, by both sides. If you are feminist lesbian lefty who thinks there is a problem with transmen playing sports against cis women, you get labelled transphobic and much much worse and a really rather large number of people will try to destroy your reputation and. if they can, your livlihood. That's wokeness gone wrong. No talking, no discussion, agree or be cancelled.

On the other hand, the critics of wokeness, often act as if everything once considered woke is confused and idiotic. It's a war between cherry pickers, absolutists, virtue signalers on both sides, hysterics and binary thinkers.

Truly, it's nothing new, but in my long lifetime, it seems to be at all time high. Choose one of two teams (why two?) and never betray the team manifesto by even questioning it, hate everyone who seems from one utterance to belong to the other team, and treat everything as the edge of THE slippery slope. It's a fun era to be alive in.

Best response. This ^

[Alexis Jacobi]

It has been reported, that CRT, Critical race theory, which actually
isn't taught in high school or junior high or elementary school,
but it taught in college, makes people aware of the past,
in which their forefathers practiced slavery, made them feel bad
about being white... supposedly... anyway, this is, in part,
why we must not learn about CRT.... and I say, it is not only
good that people become uncomfortable with themselves,
and their race, I think it is GREAT.... the path to learning
is done through being uncomfortable... the great truths about
existence should make us feel bad, uncomfortable, awkward
about ourselves and who we were and who we are...

The way I have come to understand the general problem that you are referring to, but indirectly, is through recognition that the social problems arising today and very pointedly arise become of demographic conflict. Auguste Comte said "Demography is destiny". He may only have been referring to the youth or age of a given population but the understanding of the phrase was modified:

At least since the 2002 publication of The Emerging Democratic Majority, “demography is destiny” has increasingly been the battle cry of the left. Barely hidden behind the wonky platitude is the sinister wokey threat, “We can’t transform the country in the way we want to just yet, but wait until we have obtained a ‘majority-minority’ population.” Ethnic (and by implication, cultural) churning will transform our democracy over time, leading the United States in a direction different from the one it has taken for the past 240 years.
-- from an Heritage Foundation essay

So in order to be clear, and I think in order to be able to understand Kropotkin's position (a series of declarations and statements about ideological affiliation) one needs to state the facts about why the social conflict is arising.

If it is determined, a priori let's say, that it is a moral wrong to be concerned about the demographic changes that will change or perhaps (according to some) upend social and political realities in the US, and if any realistic conversation, or a critical perspective in relation to the demographic shift, is wrong, bad or evil, then it is effectively impossible (unless one wishes to be a 'moral monster') to defend any other social and cultural project except that one described as 'woke' and also, and more importantly, the ideological project and stance behind critical race theory. CRT is, I think it fair to say, a set of ideological tools that can readily be used in an ideological war that, at bottom, is a demographic war. That is to say civil strife between competing demographic factions.

It seems to me that if this is clarified at the outset that it will help a great deal in sorting through the issues that are really in play.

A comment or two:

It does not matter where CRT is taught really. If it is only taught in universities, and there it is certainly taught, and if it is taught successfully (i.e. accepted at an ideological level) it will eventually and obviously percolate everywhere, including down into pedagogy. It is deliberate naivety to assert that it is not 'taught' simply because the *narratives* have quite literally penetrated everywhere. We are all aware of the arguments -- rather shotgun style arguments -- that left radicalism has penetrated all institutions. The 'march through the institutions' is a phrase often used by those critical of these ideologies.

"To become aware of the past"

Let me try to 'cut to the chase' here. CRT is composed of a set ideological tools that are designed to be 'interpretive' but also (and beyond doubt I'd say) activist. The activist aspect of the ideology cannot, it seems to me, be denied. So one has to state that the histories to which CRT refers are interpretive. CRT then involves itself in an activist, interpretive, and obviously extremely critical historical revisionism. I would not say that it falsifies certain historical facts but rather that it organizes an interpretive historical model that is a 'reduced' model that can be easily grasped, as a political and activist's tool, by those inclined to that activism.

One cannot deny that the interpretive model of CRT is highly (and intensely) critical of the very foundations of the US. So one can make an accurate statement: it is a revolutionary ideological tool whose object is, quite literally, the overturning of the pillars of America's 'national identity'. So without going into details (and there are hundreds of examples) CRT turns against, and undermines, George Washington as a national figure. It seeks to 'topple statues' of so many foundational figures by inculcating a radically critical frame of mind. This example demonstrates what its 'real purpose is' ipso facto.

If one is committed to this as a 'just position' and sees it as a 'necessary good', well it is pretty clear where one will locate oneself in relation to this *project* of revolutionary redefinition and interpretation.

However, there is a critical position toward the CRT ideology. And there is also a radically critical position of it that hinges into discomfiting territories of ideology and also of identity. And all who read and write here are aware that there is a critical position known as the Great Replacement Theory. For some even to listen to the enunciation of this *theory* is interpreted as an immoral act. But my suggestion (which will also be interpreted as immoral by some) is to get it 'straight from the horse's mouth'. It is not incoherent.

"anyway, this is, in part, why we must not learn about CRT...."

One has to remind oneself -- this is my opinion of course, my conclusion -- of what is really going on at a demographic level. The social and thus political conflicts arise due to causes that can be examined, let's say, rationally. So a statement needs to be repeated here: If an examination of the issue of 'replacement' (even only as demographic dilution) is an idea or a topic that is morally evil to examine carefully and critically, then those who frame it in this way have essentially won before any consideration or debate takes place.

And this is a feature of the present political and ideological landscape. There are zones of 'forbidden thought' which, oddly, is a strange twist on Noam Chomsky's assertions about areas of 'unthinkable thought'. Obviously, some of this hinges into so-called Orwellian zones of various techniques through which thought is constrained. If the very consideration of an idea is seen by one's own self as 'evil' one will obviously self-censor.

These are complex intellectual, ideological and also psychological issues.

"it is not only good that people become uncomfortable with themselves, and their race, I think it is GREAT...."

When examined, say, comparatively, would the one who makes this bold statement also make it in relation to the population, for example, of Nigeria? or Japan? or any place where there is a homogenous population? Is it simply a 'good', and a necessary good, that a people self-unified, contented, and even perhaps exclusive or proud and even let's say excluding -- must these people be indoctrinated and taught to be *uncomfortable* with themselves and their 'race'?

When you examine it in this way you see, or in any case I propose that it could be seen, what an absurd declaration the quoted sentence is. And again one must turn back to 'social engineering' and the process through which the demography of the United States has been modified over 50-60 years. One could do this neutrally. Or one could do it as an ideologue for the opposing sets of ideas. That is the activist perspective that it is 'good and necessary' and the obvious other perspective that sees it differently.

How will one finally decide?

"the great truths about existence should make us feel bad, uncomfortable, awkward about ourselves and who we were and who we are..."

While I understand what is being said, I cannot in any sense simple immediately agree. Rather, I think the statement should be carefully dismantled to discover its various 'moving ideological parts'. It does seem to be true that certain activist stances work very hard to inculcate discomfort. But is their project really beneficial? Again refer to a hypothetical in some other nation. What will result if you consciously and deliberately undermine their sense of 'comfort' with their own essential being? It seems to me it will lead directly to all sorts of different problems, social, psychological & mental. And anyway who will direct this project of cultivating vast social discomfort? It implies a vast social engineering.

Quo warranto? ["by what warrant” (or authority)]

Again, the core fact that needs to be placed on the table for examination and discussion is that pertaining to the social engineering of the nation (the US in this case) through a program of propaganda (advertising if you wish) to create what a few decades back was referred to as a 'multi-cultural nation'. The reasons why this social plan was set in motion -- well, those are complex. But they were set in motion and, I suggest, the social conflicts engendered by these actions are coming to fruition: a divided nation where people, in seriousness, begin to talk of 'civil war' and separation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC wrote: For anybody who really wants to know Wokism, I recommend James Lindsay's new book, "Race Marxism." It's all in there.

K: there is so much ignorance here, its hard to break it out... for example claiming
that being "woke" is Marxist in nature.. and that is simple not true...
I am liberal and I reject Marxism... the false belief that if one is liberal,
they must be Marxists..

[...]

In rereading your post, it is full of unsubstantiated and silly ass
assumptions, but nothing resembling any facts or evidence..
it is just a long opinion piece, full of badly thought out
prejudice and bigotry... it has no value otherwise...

It would be of some help -- if you are interested in the counter-proposition to and the ideological activism against 'wokism' and CRT to become familiar with James Lindsay. My impression? One, he has found a discourse that has become a business for him. It is wise to understand that renown in an ideological zone, and the creation of a YouTube channel, and then speaking engagements, book deals, etc., become a way to earn a living.

I say this even though or despite the fact that in many ways I admire what Lindsay does. He is on the mark in many senses but he also rushes through entire territories that require a slower, less 'breathless' approach.

He is also employing reductionism (a type of abbreviationism) in order to convince his listening audience of the veracity of his general claims.

There is a good deal of 'substantiation' in Linday's work. But you'd have to become familiar to know this. Lindsay refers to a liberal posture (in classical liberal Americanism) as a bulwark against activist CRT and its neo-Marxism (I accept neo-Marxist not only as a valid term but a very valid one). If Lindsay is anything he is an American liberal centrist.

And if I were to encapsulate what I understand he sees himself as doing it is to provide people who are ignorant of the penetration of neo-Marxist ideas into our institutions over a long period of time (about 100 years but especially in the Sixties) with defensive tools to resist activist CRT. But his personal affiliation is with standard American liberalism. Nothing radical there. So he appeals to people -- many who are progressives and liberals -- who have become alienated by the turn to extremist progressive neo-Marxist ideological positions bent, as indeed they are, on undermining the American nation (with the revealing symbol of 'statue toppling' as an example and a metaphor of what they actually desire to do).

His hope is to (heh heh) awaken people to what is actually going on through describing it ideologically in detail.

Here you can begin to get a direct sense of what his views and positions are.

Note I recognize you were making statements about IC's views but IC is echoing, as it were, Lindsay's views).

It is important -- that is if one wishes to understand the larger situation going on around us better -- also to understand the radical right position(s) as one examines those of the radical left. Lindsay defines himself as opposing a radical left faction as a centrist.

And here, with Jonathan Bowden, we have an enunciation of an ideological position that would see James Lindsay as complacent and even complicit insofar as it defines a radical anti-liberal posture as needed and necessary.

Lindsay would I suppose reject Bowden's critique of Marxism and neo-Marxism. Yet he works some of the same angles. It is a fraught territory and the age we are in an ideological minefield (mind-field?).

[Immanuel Can]

James Lindsay. My impression? One, he has found a discourse that has become a business for him. It is wise to understand that renown in an ideological zone, and the creation of a YouTube channel, and then speaking engagements, book deals, etc., become a way to earn a living.

Wow.

This is petty and ad hominem, even for you. I didn't think you'd go that low. What's your intended implication: that succeeding in contradicting Wokism somehow should make his motives suspect? That he got into this question in order to scam some money? That his success as an author, such as it has been, marks him as corrupt?

Really? Because apart from that, I cannot even imagine why you thought to mention it. But that seems so patently absurd I can hardly imagine anybody would try that.

Still, it looks like you did.

Here's another interesting factoid: not only is Lindsay a classical liberal and a Humanist, but an Atheist as well. He's also probably the foremost expert on American Wokism in the world, currently. And ironically, the guy who agrees with him entirely on his analysis of Wokism is me...a dyed-in-the-wool Theist and Christian.

Now, when two people from such disparate camps end up agreeing so completely, you've got to ask yourself a question.

Why?

Why would they agree? They agree on practically nothing else of importance. Give them the topic of religion, say, and they'll go opposite ways. Give them the topic of politics, and they'll take different sides. Give them the question of morality, and Lindsay will defend things IC will excoriate. They sure don't have the same friends or hang out with the same people...

So why would they agree on this?

And the answer is very simple.

It's true.

Yep, that's it. Both Lindsay and I have read the foundational documents of the Woke movement. Not the fun little tracts, but the complex, academic stuff, as well as the sponsoring philosphers such as Marx, Foucault, Derrida and Marcuse. We both know more about the movement itself than most Wokies do. And we know that what each other is saying...at least about the Woke movement...is absolutely true and verifiable.

So even an arch-Atheist, a friend of Peter Boghossian, author of "A Manual for Creating Atheists," ends up agreeing with an outright Theist.

Imagine that.

Maybe it's because we're both right.

There is a good deal of 'substantiation' in Linday's work. But you'd have to become familiar to know this.

No kidding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wow.

This is petty and ad hominem, even for you. I didn't think you'd go that low. What's your intended implication: that succeeding in contradicting Wokism somehow should make his motives suspect? That he got into this question in order to scam some money? That his success as an author, such as it has been, marks him as corrupt?

It is not ad hominem in any possible sense of the word. Except if you wish to use the accusation of ad hominem to cast aspersion on what I am saying. I said, and still say, it is wise to understand that in our present situation we must be aware when a given personality, commentator or intellectual has a platform, and that platform is monetized, and it operates like a business, that it is a very good idea to be aware of this.

Because apart from that, I cannot even imagine why you thought to mention it. But that seems so patently absurd I can hardly imagine anybody would try that.

Very very simple, and very common sense.

Here's another interesting factoid: not only is Lindsay a classical liberal and a Humanist, but an Atheist as well. He's also probably the foremost expert on American Wokism in the world, currently. And ironically, the guy who agrees with him entirely on his analysis of Wokism is me...a dyed-in-the-wool Theist and Christian.

Yes, he began his project dismantling and exposing Evangelical religious fanaticism. Later he shifted focus to his work exposing 'wokism'. In my own view his present work is valuable and I have learned a great deal from him.

That you agree with him, and seem incapable of holding at the same time to a critical stance, does not reflect well on you -- a dyed in the wool religious fanatic who is incapable of self-examination (and self-criticism).

Now, when two people from such disparate camps end up agreeing so completely, you've got to ask yourself a question. Why?

The only one of the two, at least right now, that I was concerned about in my post here was James Lindsay. As most know it is entirely possible to be thoroughly correct and grounded in one area (of one's discourse, one's views, one's understanding) and somewhat or thoroughly wrong in another area or field. I think this is something most have noticed. Being on the mark in one area does not mean one will be on the mark in others.

Why you, a religious fanatic, agree with the general thesis of James Lindsay, who has been and still may be an atheist, is really not a question that need be asked. I assume you agree with Lindsay for some of the same reasons that I and others also agree with him: he makes a cogent argument.

And the answer is very simple.

It's true.

I did not at any point say that I thought that his critical position was not true. I would put it differently for the sake of caution: he has a worthy and a valid criticism and makes many statements and observations that seem true to me. Perhaps I am just more cautious in the dangerous ideological minefields of our present.

Why you surrender (as you seem to) all cautious critical posture -- that is something I could only guess about.

Yep, that's it. Both Lindsay and I have read the foundational documents of the Woke movement. Not the fun little tracts, but the complex, academic stuff, as well as the sponsoring philosphers such as Marx, Foucault, Derrida and Marcuse. We both know more about the movement itself than most Wokies do. And we know that what each other is saying...at least about the Woke movement...is absolutely true and verifiable.

Yes, you fanatic, and I made no statement at any point discounting the work he does and I also agree with his critical stance in respect to Marx, Foucault, Derrida and Marcuse.

So you have 'gone off' here on an unnecessary tirade since I understand and support Lindsay and I still recommend caution and holding to a critical posture. Specifically because he now has a business to run (similar to Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Candice Owens and numerous others)(here I mention just those of the center'-right) who have turned their critical postures into very high-dollar enterprises. And I have also noticed that in some areas he (Lindsay) gets a bit sloppy and careless.

So there is no part of what I previously said that I would modify:

One, he has found a discourse that has become a business for him. It is wise to understand that renown in an ideological zone, and the creation of a YouTube channel, and then speaking engagements, book deals, etc., become a way to earn a living.

I say this even though or despite the fact that in many ways I admire what Lindsay does. He is on the mark in many senses but he also rushes through entire territories that require a slower, less 'breathless' approach.

He is also employing reductionism (a type of abbreviationism) in order to convince his listening audience of the veracity of his general claims.

There is a good deal of 'substantiation' in Linday's work. But you'd have to become familiar to know this.

NB: Every time you use the emoticon a poor little Christian girl's puppy explodes covering her with gore. Please IC, please, reconsider!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Woke' was not pejorative to begin with. It was meant to describe people aware of racial discrimination and it came out of the African-American community. It has recently become pejorative, generally to members on the Right, but also to some liberals who are getting tired of today's version of a PC climate.

It is meant ironically, not as an attack on wakefullness. IOW the critics coopted the term and clearly think that, amongst other things, people who think they are woke are not conscious of (clueless about) many things (or an insincere, etc.) I don't think an argument pointing out the positive aspects of literally being awake or in being metaphorically awake really gets the point.

In discussions of 'woke' the Right can come up with hilarious and tragic examples of political correctness gone wrong.
In defense of 'woke' leftists could focus on certain core values and situations and not appear idiotic at all.

It's treated as binary, often, by both sides. If you are feminist lesbian lefty who thinks there is a problem with transmen playing sports against cis women, you get labelled transphobic and much much worse and a really rather large number of people will try to destroy your reputation and. if they can, your livlihood. That's wokeness gone wrong. No talking, no discussion, agree or be cancelled.

On the other hand, the critics of wokeness, often act as if everything once considered woke is confused and idiotic. It's a war between cherry pickers, absolutists, virtue signalers on both sides, hysterics and binary thinkers.

Truly, it's nothing new, but in my long lifetime, it seems to be at all time high. Choose one of two teams (why two?) and never betray the team manifesto by even questioning it, hate everyone who seems from one utterance to belong to the other team, and treat everything as the edge of THE slippery slope. It's a fun era to be alive in.

Best response. This ^

It's a stupid response. Another moronic American who has to box everyone into 'left' or 'right'. I've always been left wing and liberal, but I loathe wokism. It has actually destroyed the so-called 'left'--not to mention the word 'liberal'. People of all descriptions are fed up with being told what they are 'allowed' to say or think, and be called the usual arsenal of stock insults for even the mildest and most rational of viewpoints when they have science on their side.
People use 'woke' as an insult because they don't necessarily want to say 'hypocritical, virtue-signalling wankers'. It's too long-winded.
Didn't the leader of the original 'woke' movement buy herself several very expensive houses with donations? They are no different from religious leaders. Anyone who puts themselves in a position of 'moral supremacy' is going to be a hypocritical arsehole by default.

[Astro Cat]

'Woke' was not pejorative to begin with. It was meant to describe people aware of racial discrimination and it came out of the African-American community. It has recently become pejorative, generally to members on the Right, but also to some liberals who are getting tired of today's version of a PC climate.

It is meant ironically, not as an attack on wakefullness. IOW the critics coopted the term and clearly think that, amongst other things, people who think they are woke are not conscious of (clueless about) many things (or an insincere, etc.) I don't think an argument pointing out the positive aspects of literally being awake or in being metaphorically awake really gets the point.

In discussions of 'woke' the Right can come up with hilarious and tragic examples of political correctness gone wrong.
In defense of 'woke' leftists could focus on certain core values and situations and not appear idiotic at all.

It's treated as binary, often, by both sides. If you are feminist lesbian lefty who thinks there is a problem with transmen playing sports against cis women, you get labelled transphobic and much much worse and a really rather large number of people will try to destroy your reputation and. if they can, your livlihood. That's wokeness gone wrong. No talking, no discussion, agree or be cancelled.

On the other hand, the critics of wokeness, often act as if everything once considered woke is confused and idiotic. It's a war between cherry pickers, absolutists, virtue signalers on both sides, hysterics and binary thinkers.

Truly, it's nothing new, but in my long lifetime, it seems to be at all time high. Choose one of two teams (why two?) and never betray the team manifesto by even questioning it, hate everyone who seems from one utterance to belong to the other team, and treat everything as the edge of THE slippery slope. It's a fun era to be alive in.

Best response. This ^

It's a stupid response. Another moronic American who has to box everyone into 'left' or 'right'. I've always been left wing and liberal, but I loathe wokism. It has actually destroyed the so-called 'left'--not to mention the word 'liberal'. People of all descriptions are fed up with being told what they are 'allowed' to say or think, and be called the usual arsenal of stock insults for even the mildest and most rational of viewpoints when they have science on their side.
People use 'woke' as an insult because they don't necessarily want to say 'hypocritical, virtue-signalling wankers'. It's too long-winded.
Didn't the leader of the original 'woke' movement buy herself several very expensive houses with donations? They are no different from religious leaders. Anyone who puts themselves in a position of 'moral supremacy' is going to be a hypocritical arsehole by default.

Hmm, but the comment that you called "stupid" is saying the same thing that you're saying. The "right" and "left" compartmentalization is true in the US. The post starts with a factual description of the history of the term, a description of how it was co-opted as a snarl word, describes how some people are "too" woke, describes how reasonable people get attacked from extremists on either side. I guess I just disagree it was a stupid post, it was very poignant. But you do you!

[Iwannaplato]

Best response. This ^

It's a stupid response. Another moronic American who has to box everyone into 'left' or 'right'. I've always been left wing and liberal, but I loathe wokism. It has actually destroyed the so-called 'left'--not to mention the word 'liberal'. People of all descriptions are fed up with being told what they are 'allowed' to say or think, and be called the usual arsenal of stock insults for even the mildest and most rational of viewpoints when they have science on their side.
People use 'woke' as an insult because they don't necessarily want to say 'hypocritical, virtue-signalling wankers'. It's too long-winded.
Didn't the leader of the original 'woke' movement buy herself several very expensive houses with donations? They are no different from religious leaders. Anyone who puts themselves in a position of 'moral supremacy' is going to be a hypocritical arsehole by default.

Hmm, but the comment that you called "stupid" is saying the same thing that you're saying. The "right" and "left" compartmentalization is true in the US. The post starts with a factual description of the history of the term, a description of how it was co-opted as a snarl word, describes how some people are "too" woke, describes how reasonable people get attacked from extremists on either side. I guess I just disagree it was a stupid post, it was very poignant. But you do you!

Thank you. Yes, I was critical of the whole binary team concept in the US and elsewhere, and I said more or less what he says, after he calls me moronic. It could be self-hatred on his part, but this is mere speculation. I did also mention that some on the Left had problems with wokism or facets of it. I would include myself in that category.

[Astro Cat]

It's a stupid response. Another moronic American who has to box everyone into 'left' or 'right'. I've always been left wing and liberal, but I loathe wokism. It has actually destroyed the so-called 'left'--not to mention the word 'liberal'. People of all descriptions are fed up with being told what they are 'allowed' to say or think, and be called the usual arsenal of stock insults for even the mildest and most rational of viewpoints when they have science on their side.
People use 'woke' as an insult because they don't necessarily want to say 'hypocritical, virtue-signalling wankers'. It's too long-winded.
Didn't the leader of the original 'woke' movement buy herself several very expensive houses with donations? They are no different from religious leaders. Anyone who puts themselves in a position of 'moral supremacy' is going to be a hypocritical arsehole by default.

Hmm, but the comment that you called "stupid" is saying the same thing that you're saying. The "right" and "left" compartmentalization is true in the US. The post starts with a factual description of the history of the term, a description of how it was co-opted as a snarl word, describes how some people are "too" woke, describes how reasonable people get attacked from extremists on either side. I guess I just disagree it was a stupid post, it was very poignant. But you do you!

Thank you. Yes, I was critical of the whole binary team concept in the US and elsewhere, and I said more or less what he says, after he calls me moronic. It could be self-hatred on his part, but this is mere speculation. I did also mention that some on the Left had problems with wokism or facets of it. I would include myself in that category.

Pretty sure vegetariantaxidermy is a chick, just FYI

[Iwannaplato]

Pretty sure vegetariantaxidermy is a chick, just FYI

Nice 60s slang. Thanks for the heads up.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Best response. This ^

It's a stupid response. Another moronic American who has to box everyone into 'left' or 'right'. I've always been left wing and liberal, but I loathe wokism. It has actually destroyed the so-called 'left'--not to mention the word 'liberal'. People of all descriptions are fed up with being told what they are 'allowed' to say or think, and be called the usual arsenal of stock insults for even the mildest and most rational of viewpoints when they have science on their side.
People use 'woke' as an insult because they don't necessarily want to say 'hypocritical, virtue-signalling wankers'. It's too long-winded.
Didn't the leader of the original 'woke' movement buy herself several very expensive houses with donations? They are no different from religious leaders. Anyone who puts themselves in a position of 'moral supremacy' is going to be a hypocritical arsehole by default.

Hmm, but the comment that you called "stupid" is saying the same thing that you're saying. The "right" and "left" compartmentalization is true in the US. The post starts with a factual description of the history of the term, a description of how it was co-opted as a snarl word, describes how some people are "too" woke, describes how reasonable people get attacked from extremists on either side. I guess I just disagree it was a stupid post, it was very poignant. But you do you!

I can see that now. He has me on 'ignore' anyway (apparently) so he wouldn't have seen it

[Astro Cat]

Pretty sure vegetariantaxidermy is a chick, just FYI

Nice 60s slang. Thanks for the heads up.

Wait til you see me call groups “y’all”

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Pretty sure vegetariantaxidermy is a chick, just FYI

Nice 60s slang. Thanks for the heads up.

Wait til you see me call groups “y’all”

Actually I like ''y'all''. Here, idiots say 'yous' when attempting to address more than one person. It just makes them sound even more stupid than you thought they were in the first place.

[Immanuel Can]

Nice 60s slang. Thanks for the heads up.

Wait til you see me call groups “y’all”

Actually I like ''y'all''. Here, idiots say 'yous' when attempting to address more than one person. It just makes them sound even more stupid than you thought they were in the first place.

Hey, they could be smart "irregardless." You say that again, and I'm going to go "nucular," and call out the "calvary." Who "axed" you, anyway?