Why the Left Doesn't Need to Be Woke

[Kyriakos]

The left isn't woke, imo. Usually the elements that can be termed "woke" are shills and on a mission to stir things up without any end to benefit the public - or even the minorities they pay lip service to. Of course that is meant about the actual political powers, not independent activists - they can have their own goals.
Another question, however, is whether there exists any meaningful "left" by now. When it does appear (as in under Corbyn with the labour party) it was swiftly attacked by the media, including supposedly "left" media like the Guardian.
Same, correspondingly, with Bernie in the US, when he dared to speak of low income as the core issue instead of the usual group vs group that is designed to keep things exactly where they stand.

 

[Zardnaar]

The left isn't woke, imo. Usually the elements that can be termed "woke" are shills and on a mission to stir things up without any end to benefit the public - or even the minorities they pay lip service to. Of course that is meant about the actual political powers, not independent activists - they can have their own goals.
Another question, however, is whether there exists any meaningful "left" by now. When it does appear (as in under Corbyn with the labour party) it was swiftly attacked by the media, including supposedly "left" media like the Guardian.
Same, correspondingly, with Bernie in the US, when he dared to speak of low income as the core issue instead of the usual group vs group that is designed to keep things exactly where they stand.

Bernie didn't seem to provoke the same backlash though and he has been consistent for decades. I liked Bernie best of bad options 2016.

Being woke isn't a problem by itself in a politician it's when you preach and adopt absolutes in the political sphere.

Your favorite NZ politian is Uber woke but she's very charismatic, is in the right party and is very good in interviews. Pans woke as well but doesn't lecture people on it generally depending on your idea of a lecture she campaigns slightly left of center personally she's very liberal socially.

 

[Arakhor]

I think this has been defined a million times on this board. Wokeism (Wokery, or Wokeness) is a leftist ideology that promotes social vengeance, rooted in conflict theory, against straight white cis males because they're classed as the "privileged" category and are the scapegoat to the ideology due to historical wrongs and having less "oppression points" within intersectionalism. The ideology is also highly authoritarian in which anything said against the cult or anything that goes against the dogma of wokeism are branded as a heretic (e.g. called all sorts of istaphobic names like racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist, Nazi, etc) and canceled/censored. The wokeists are favor making the marginalized rise to a privileged sacred cow social caste and bringing down white straight cis males to the lowest social caste.

Maybe you should spend less time on far-right sites and more time actually speaking to "woke" people about what they think it means.

If someone says they side with abortion being "safe, legal, and rare", they shouldn't have their heads bitten off because they've dared spoken against the dogma of wokeism.

Are you under the impression that people like having abortions? Again, maybe you should actually talk to left-wing people, rather than sniping at them on Twitter.

 

[Narz]

He misses the good old days when white males had all the power instead of just most of it.

People talk like "white maleness" as if it follows some trickle down economic theory.

Like Jeff Bezos & Warren Buffet's status is gonna affect some poor white trash guy living in Camden working two crummy jobs to barely feed his family. Being white in no way guarantees upward mobility anymore than being east Asian guarantees math skillz

As if white males in power give two sticks about white males as a group of people (maybe they'll pretend to if they're on the right and want to win votes).

Power respects power, getting the dumbass plebs to argue over the stars on their bellies or lack thereof and what it means while they continue to consolidate power is part of the plan.

Clinton, Obama, Harris, Buttijuice, it's all just window dressing. Sorting by colors is for toddlers and prisoners.

 

[Gorbles]

People talk like "white maleness" as if it follows some trickle down economic theory.

What you're criticising in the rest of your post is class privilege, which is absolutely a real thing, in addition to racism, sexism, and the rest. Using one to pretend the others don't exist is a very typical example of missing the point.

 

[amadeus]

you gotta be awake so you remember to go to the polling place you bimbo!

For Your Health​

 

[Zardnaar]

People talk like "white maleness" as if it follows some trickle down economic theory.

Like Jeff Bezos & Warren Buffet's status is gonna affect some poor white trash guy living in Camden working two crummy jobs to barely feed his family. Being white in no way guarantees upward mobility anymore than being east Asian guarantees math skillz

As if white males in power give two sticks about white males as a group of people (maybe they'll pretend to if they're on the right and want to win votes).

Power respects power, getting the dumbass plebs to argue over the stars on their bellies or lack thereof and what it means while they continue to consolidate power is part of the plan.

Clinton, Obama, Harris, Buttijuice, it's all just window dressing. Sorting by colors is for toddlers and prisoners.

Kind of how I see it as well. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and didn't feel very privleged.

What you're criticising in the rest of your post is class privilege, which is absolutely a real thing, in addition to racism, sexism, and the rest. Using one to pretend the others don't exist is a very typical example of missing the point.

You're also missing the point it's not about academia here but real life experiences.

If you grew up poor and white you're not going to relate to the wokeness type stuff espicially at political level.

I m case the one black south African family dad was a dentist, and the other PoC families in my school had double parents and we're in the police/army etc.

First job aged 13 on a farm, by age 15/16 buying my own clothes and shoes etc. Bring a cabbage home from work there's your weeks coleslaw.

I'm aware others had it worse I dodged most of the abuse others copped (sexual assault).

It's not about intellectual point scoring facts don't matter. It's about emotions and how that effects voting. Voting is power and it's how you get that power and what you do with it that terms.

If you can't get that power you're not helping anyone.

 

[El_Machinae]

Kind of how I see it as well. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and didn't feel very privleged.

I think "privileged" evokes the wrong idea. "Missing known disadvantages" works better when I'm translating for people in the real world.

This means that some people will be able to think of "hand ups" that other people have gotten that they couldn't. And other people will tell themselves that they can imagine it's true. The later are whiners. The former really might deserve empathy.

 

[GenMarshall]

I think "privileged" evokes the wrong idea.

For me, as it was drilled in my head growing up, privilege is used in a context of something you worked for to earn and that can be taken away for disciplinary actions. Such as a driver's license or computer access at school. A lot of wording and communication in social justice issues is built upon the idea of being provocative for the sake of shaking people out of complacency. However it ends up going overboard and straight up misrepresenting the issues, or using words that have a common meaning outside of academic and social justice circles, use them in a different meaning, then complain that people are ignorant and should educate themselves if they misunderstand. Obfuscating your message by giving them new meaning to words just adds in noise and confusion. Messages should be as clear as possible in a common spoken language, not borrowed academic jargon.

 

[Gorbles]

You're also missing the point it's not about academia here but real life experiences.

If you grew up poor and white you're not going to relate to the wokeness type stuff espicially at political level.

I didn't miss any point. @Narz wasn't talking about how people relate to "wokeness type stuff". He was flat-out claiming that racial privilege doesn't exist because there happen to be poor white people.

He even said "sorting by colour is for toddlers and prisoners", lol. And here you are trying to say he meant something else? Okay

Obfuscating your message by giving them new meaning to words just adds in noise and confusion. Messages should be as clear as possible in a common spoken language, not borrowed academic jargon.

The incredibly funny thing about this is that "obfuscating" counts as "academic jargon", and yet here you're using it as self-explanatory. It's almost like the discussions we have here online aren't the same as the discussions we have offline with other people.

So why do you assume they are?

 

[Narz]

He was flat-out claiming that racial privilege doesn't exist because there happen to be poor white people.

I said nothing of the sort. That's in your head.

He even said "sorting by colour is for toddlers and prisoners", lol.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

 

[Gorbles]

I said nothing of the sort. That's in your head.

You said that rich people don't care about poor people, but you related it to the colour of their skin, which is immaterial to the dynamics you were discussing.

You literally said being white doesn't guarantee social mobility. Whoever said it did? Why the strawman? What does this mean, except as an argument against the notion of white privilege?

What conclusion am I supposed to draw? The alternative is "you don't know what you're talking about", lol. Would you prefer that?

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Nice, an MLK quote. He has some other quotes, you know? If we're citing him on the topic of equality and privilege (which I have no problem with doing).

 

[El_Machinae]

For me, as it was drilled in my head growing up, privilege is used in a context of something you worked for to earn and that can be taken away for disciplinary actions. Such as a driver's license or computer access at school.

Sometimes you need to earn a privilege. Even more importantly, you do need to maintain a privilege. If you have a driver's license, you have to drive sober. If you're in a good school district, you still need to study. If you inherit money, you still have to spend it wisely. So, someone can lose all the benefits of a privilege, for sure. And, privileges kinda compound. I'd rather have vision than be blind. I'd rather inherit money than not. I'd rather live where there is Rule of Law than not. But, each of those are independent advantages, and sometimes running the math of "what's best" isn't easy.

But in this context, it's usually the 'hand up' that you actually didn't do anything to earn. Oh, you can build upon a privilege - we usually suggest that you do. I don't have a good reason why some people understand "missing a disadvantage, through luck" better. Sometimes it's a bit of a slog, because they've already internalized the misunderstanding of 'privilege' that their cohorts like to misrepresent.

 

[Narz]

What conclusion am I supposed to draw?

You could just read what I wrote and conclude that those in power like to turn those not on power against each other over superficial differences. Divide and conquer, it's not new.

I never said I don't think racial privilege isn't a thing. I'm just saying there are bigger things. Ask OJ Simpson.

Sometimes you need to earn a privilege. Even more importantly, you do need to maintain a privilege. If you have a driver's license, you have to drive sober. If you're in a good school district, you still need to study. If you inherit money, you still have to spend it wisely. So, someone can lose all the benefits of a privilege, for sure. And, privileges kinda compound. I'd rather have vision than be blind. I'd rather inherit money than not. I'd rather live where there is Rule of Law than not. But, each of those are independent advantages, and sometimes running the math of "what's best" isn't easy.

But in this context, it's usually the 'hand up' that you actually didn't do anything to earn. Oh, you can build upon a privilege - we usually suggest that you do. I don't have a good reason why some people understand "missing a disadvantage, through luck" better. Sometimes it's a bit of a slog, because they've already internalized the misunderstanding of 'privilege' that their cohorts like to misrepresent.

In a world where some rich people have more wealth than hundreds of thousands of poor people is it really smart to obsess over which amongst the poor has the least to complain about?

If I was an ultra powerful rich person I'd think it was smart, for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't miss any point. @Narz wasn't talking about how people relate to "wokeness type stuff". He was flat-out claiming that racial privilege doesn't exist because there happen to be poor white people.

He even said "sorting by colour is for toddlers and prisoners", lol. And here you are trying to say he meant something else? Okay


The incredibly funny thing about this is that "obfuscating" counts as "academic jargon", and yet here you're using it as self-explanatory. It's almost like the discussions we have here online aren't the same as the discussions we have offline with other people.

So why do you assume they are?

He hasn't phrased it very well but for most people they probably don't sort by colour etc.

There's pros and cons to that.

 

[Gorbles]

You could just read what I wrote and conclude that those in power like to turn those not on power against each other over superficial differences. Divide and conquer, it's not new.

I did read what you wrote. You wrote a lot about being white and male, despite it being pretty irrelevant to the problem you were complaining about.

What you're actually describing is what I already said - class privilege. Warren Buffet being a white guy is relatively immaterial compared to him sitting on a literal dragon's hoard (relevant to his life story I'm sure, but irrelevant when discussing his current fortune).

But alright. Tell me who exactly talks about "white maleness" like it follows some kind of trickle-down theory. Who are these people?

 

[Zardnaar]

In a world where some rich people have more wealth than hundreds of thousands of poor people is it really smart to obsess over which amongst the poor has the least to complain about?

If I was an ultra powerful rich person I'd think it was smart, for me.

This is essentially my arguement. The big problem is wealth inequality which causes all sorts of problems.

It's also a big problem in societies where woke barely exists.

The right won't do anything to fix it it's a feature not a bug. But they can weaponize liberal stupidity.

 

[Narz]

But alright. Tell me who exactly talks about "white maleness" like it follows some kind of trickle-down theory. Who are these people?

Dunno. Same people who think "the patriarchy" is an actual thing maybe?

 

[Rg339]

But alright. Tell me who exactly talks about "white maleness" like it follows some kind of trickle-down theory. Who are these people?

I’ve heard the argument made in several places.

I leave ESPN on during the day. It’s sports. Subject of diversity amongst NFL coaches comes up. Few talking heads put forth the argument that since the vast majority of owners are white, they hire white head coaches, who then hire white assistants, and white trainers. Not out of racist leanings, but more out of shared origins, commonality.

Putting aside whether the argument the talking heads made is correct or not aside, I would say I’ve heard media figures claim a trickle-down effect does exist

 

[El_Machinae]

In a world where some rich people have more wealth than hundreds of thousands of poor people is it really smart to obsess over which amongst the poor has the least to complain about?

If I was an ultra powerful rich person I'd think it was smart, for me.

It then becomes this weird conversation about complicity and how to reduce it and how best to sway people.

And then the conversation gets even more confusing once people start to put different moral weighting on the word 'complicity'.

Honestly, it's a mess.