"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[NovaKart]

The thing I keep hearing about over and over again in regards to cancel culture is about self censorship. People especially at universities are worried about speaking out on certain topics or in defense of certain people so they just keep quiet, and I realize this is anecdotal.

 

[Hygro]

I am not sure there's any point in continuing down the path of weaponizing misconduct, trumped-up or real, to in effect win territorial disputes within a space of limited elite institutional careers. Metoo cannot be a truly effective meme until it focuses more broadly on democratizing and decentralizing power in society rather than taking inequality for granted and just trying to correct for sexual or gender disparity within a regime of material inequality. Most women who don't have thousands of twitter followers, working in precarious jobs, are still just as vulnerable to these power dynamics as they were before.

I agree, but if powerful women can’t win, who can even dream? Until a large population of gun owning draftee veterans can easily sabotage weak points of industry and grind the country to a halt, driving union membership and class solidarity as our brief midcentury gains were made, what else is there than keeping clean at least the arena of big winners who then inspire courage and instill fear in smaller places?

 

[Berzerker]

In a 2019 interview with Sports Illustrated, Anderson said he feels "like today’s Jackie Robinson." After Saturday's game, Anderson indicated that Donaldson had used "Jackie" to address him in that May 13 game in Chicago.

“I spared him that time, and then it happened again. I don't play like that," Anderson said. "I don't think it was called for. Nobody has time to be playing like that."

Said White Sox manager Tony La Russa, after Saturday's game: "He made a racist comment, that's all I'm going to say."

Tim Anderson calls himself the new Jackie Robinson and Josh Donaldson started calling him Jackie so he's being accused of racism

I guess woke doesn't imply awareness

 

[Absolution]

Picking up on TMIT's claim in another thread, I think it's worth talking about.



I'm going with a short version and a long version of the OP.

Short version - litmus test. If someone says "political correctness" or "wokeism" they are not acquainted with any sort of the literature they're criticizing. Noone in the literature identifies themselves as such, and they're often diametrically opposed to each other. They're only identified as such when talked about between right wingers who, by the way, also have their speech reflected by virtue of not having read a damn article of the positions they don't like.

Long version.

I'm picking up on the claims specifically because they're representative how progressives are being talked about - other rather, talked over - in public conservative discourse. Whether TMIT is part of the right nor not, it's the structure of speech and discourse I often see. I'm going to talk about the post as presented and its nature as part of right wing discourse, this is not directed at TMIT.

What's most damning of posts like this is that, to me, it's completely telling in basically every way that such posters are not acquainted with how you speak inside "wokeist" circles, how they define themselves, what "wokeist" speech looks like, and such. Now, the nature of "woke-ism" is short and ill-defined here, but that's not TMIT's fault, since he noted himself it was getting off topic for the thread. Still, this kind of talking about "wokeists" is also reflected in the usage of "political correctness" and similar. Both basically serve as a simulacrum of a (very broad) number of movements that never really existed as a cohesive whole, due to ill-defined limits and lack of understanding of how "wokeists" actually speak. Or in layman's terms, it's a strawman, built directly into right wing language. It's like me arguing against a Keynesian by clamoring about Ayn Rand, usually not having read Keynes at all. Why are you an objectivist, Keynes?

Anyone acquainted with "wokeist" positions and literature - anyone having been within the circle and properly talked to them, anyone that have read the literature and engaged with it seriously - would not call them wokeist. Same goes for political correctness. Very rarely do the progressives in question ever define themselves as this. Rather, they define themselves as feminists, post-modernists, marxists, etc., which all vaguely lean left but are not the same thing and will often disagree on fundamental tenets of the literature.

The people that do define progressive movements as "politically correct", etc, are often bloggers, journalists and online influencers of different sorts foundationally on the right that also often have no acquaintance with what the disjunct people they group together actually think.

Basically, whenever you read an opinion online, there's a very basic litmus test. If they say politically correct or, well, wokeist, they haven't actually read the literature they're trying to debunk. Because they never define themselves as that. The problem isn't that they're supposed to be convinced by the literature, but rather that it's nonsense that they're trying to debunk something that doesn't exist. It's not healthy for good public discourse when your premise of the group you talk about is a strawman.

Like, can I be part of a religion when it doesn't exist in my world? If I don't acknowledge it and confess to a different faith?

This thread is not about TMIT no, but about such posts in general. Here the post appeals to all of progressivism (I think?) as a unified movement ("religion") and can be arbitrarily used against people that have very fundamentally opposed ideas quite often. I think it's, bluntly, wrong. Like, not morally. It's not reflective of the world. It's a tool of rhetorical function, willing or not.

Isn't it very natural, for the hater to group together what the insider sees as distinct parts?
Isn't it the nature of everything?
Is it really a matter of right wingers or wokeists? Isn't it just the nature of disagreements between humans in a society?

You should also not require anyone to read deep into the literature of the things they don't agree with. It is ok to form a basic opinion based on what you are passivley exposed to. More so in a vibrant, active, and pluralist society such as America's - which allows a common person to get a clue about these things without active research.

Nobody can be expected to read deep into all of the things they don't agree with. It is simply unrealistic. And thus it is ok to have a negative opinion without this active deep reading.


It can be nice and even important of you - to bring to light your views as an insider, about the differrnces and the lack of cohesive notion in this so-called movement.
But don't expect every one of your opposers to just be familiar with all of that.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree, but if powerful women can’t win, who can even dream?

is it better to dream, or to be awake (woke, if you will)?

 

[Sommerswerd]

It’s a list cherry picked to show there are no consequences and as such has some questionable subjects. No Harvey Weinstein

Derek Chauvin went to jail (for now)... so... racism solved? BLM should declare mission accomplished?

That there’s no justice, and everything continued on as before.

That’s the point of the list. It was just blip in the careers of alllll these bad guys. “It should be noted he worked with Chappelle!” Grasping at straws, that’s the list is trash.

If nothing changes, then all of you shut up forever, because there’s no point in continuing down this path.

Except things did change, and trying to pad a list with a combo of people who didn’t do bad things and therefore were not canceled, with people who were canceled and are having their follow up careers presented as if they came out fine/even/ahead when they did not is a bad way of showing a good movement is a failed movement. Read that again if you need to.

If I'm imagining a hypothetical movie about Me Too, (which, I acknowledge upfront is not without substantial irony, since for one thing, I'm a dude) the movie would start with Clarence Thomas' confirmation to the SCOTUS, followed by a brief montage of that, then Clinton/Lewinsky, then Cosby, then jump forward to the more recent events, and ending with Susan Collins longwinded speech confirming Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS... cut to black, then an epilogue listing a bunch of things like the article @Synobun quoted. I think that Me Too really culminated (ended/died) with Collins speech confirming Kavanaugh. For numerous reasons, that moment was such a perfect capstone illustration of the Me Too movement and its legacy.

I don't regard Me Too as a "failed movement". I don't regard Me Too as having "succeeded" either. It moved "the window", Overton, or otherwise. One of the illusory cornerstones of how American history is taught, perceived etc., domestically, is that racism/racial prejudice/discrimination ended with MLK/the Civil Rights Movement. Me too didn't remotely end the issue it was focused upon fighting, and as a movement its lost grip on the popular narrative... people have largely moved on from caring.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No one's said everyone who's been aimed at w cancelling has been cancelled.

Correct. So you've answered your own question. That's sorted.

I dunno, alot of white people I know think they're secretly subconsciously racist cause of some online quiz

And they've done what about it?... anecdotally? You made the claim... I would actually be very interested to hear what these lots of people you know actually did to address their realization that they've been closet racists all along. You know them, so I'm hoping you have really specific details... Just a question.

 

[Samson]

And they've done what about it?... anecdotally? You made the claim... I would actually be very interested to hear what these lots of people you know actually did to address their realization that they've been closet racists all along. You know them, so I'm hoping you have really specific details... Just a question.

Not some online quiz, but the knowledge of the insights from fMRI studies into in group bias have helped me understand how my subconscious can react differently depending on how people look. Understanding that can allow me to avoid this developing into treating people differently.

 

[Angst]

Isn't it very natural, for the hater to group together what the insider sees as distinct parts?
Isn't it the nature of everything?
Is it really a matter of right wingers or wokeists? Isn't it just the nature of disagreements between humans in a society?

You should also not require anyone to read deep into the literature of the things they don't agree with. It is ok to form a basic opinion based on what you are passivley exposed to. More so in a vibrant, active, and pluralist society such as America's - which allows a common person to get a clue about these things without active research.

Nobody can be expected to read deep into all of the things they don't agree with. It is simply unrealistic. And thus it is ok to have a negative opinion without this active deep reading.


It can be nice and even important of you - to bring to light your views as an insider, about the differrnces and the lack of cohesive notion in this so-called movement.
But don't expect every one of your opposers to just be familiar with all of that.

i'm not asking for deep reading, moreso that it's clueless and not good for anyone to hate positions for what they aren't

 

[Narz]

Not some online quiz, but the knowledge of the insights from fMRI studies into in group bias have helped me understand how my subconscious can react differently depending on how people look. Understanding that can allow me to avoid this developing into treating people differently.

Knee jerk bias is unavoidable but it's not racism. Everyone gonna have different biochemical reactions upon seeing, for instance, a 70 year old Indian man, a 45 year old working class black man, a 20 year attractive white female, a 40yo white bearded man in a business suit, a 40yo white man in tatters.

You have your reaction/assumption and then treat everyone w equal respect.

 

[Samson]

Knee jerk bias is unavoidable but it's not racism. Everyone gonna have different biochemical reactions upon seeing, for instance, a 70 year old Indian man, a 45 year old working class black man, a 20 year attractive white female, a 40yo white bearded man in a business suit, a 40yo white man in tatters.

This is a semantic argument, but on the basis that English is defined by use I think enough people would class in group bias based on characteristics associated with race as racism for the word to be appropriate. It is certainly a question though, how many people have to believe that Godwining a thread on Israel is racism for the word to be accurately used that way?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The thing I keep hearing about over and over again in regards to cancel culture is about self censorship. People especially at universities are worried about speaking out on certain topics or in defense of certain people so they just keep quiet, and I realize this is anecdotal.

I'll present another possible perspective to you. Another way to look at exactly what you've just identified... even if just anecdotally... is that people, especially at universities, are less comfortable than they were previously, about saying things that will be perceived as homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemetic, racist, sexist, bigoted etc., so they keep their racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemetic, etc., opinions/thoughts to themselves, unless they are speaking with someone who they think shares their views/ideas/opinions.

 

[Akka]

I'll present another possible perspective to you. Another way to look at exactly what you've just identified... even if just anecdotally... is that people, especially at universities, are less comfortable than they were previously, about saying things that will be perceived as homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemetic, racist, sexist, bigoted etc., so they keep their racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemetic, etc., opinions/thoughts to themselves, unless they are speaking with someone who they think shares their views/ideas/opinions.

The whole problem (sending back again to the "ability to distort language and dictate the discourse" that was claimed to be a right-wing superpower and that, precisely, I didn't find to be actually exclusive nor even especially lending toward it) being that the very concept of what is "racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, whateverist and whateverphobic" is subject to such breadth, span and lack of actual reliable definition, it basically becomes a weapon to shut people up and enforce self-censorship from anything that could lead to dissension.

 

[Senethro]

The whole problem (sending back again to the "ability to distort language and dictate the discourse" that was claimed to be a right-wing superpower and that, precisely, I didn't find to be actually exclusive nor even especially lending toward it) being that the very concept of what is "racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, whateverist and whateverphobic" is subject to such breadth, span and lack of actual reliable definition, it basically becomes a weapon to shut people up and enforce self-censorship from anything that could lead to dissension.

You've framed this in the scariest language possible, but basically you're saying that bad actors will misuse things, which isn't exactly a novel insight.

So I guess I'd ask are the bad actors real, are the weaponizable elements real, and are the consequences real.

 

[Narz]

Not some online quiz, but the knowledge of the insights from fMRI studies into in group bias have helped me understand how my subconscious can react differently depending on how people look. Understanding that can allow me to avoid this developing into treating people differently.

One shouldn't need mri studies to know unconscious biases are human. They're also no racism. It shouldn't take more than half a second to notice them and treat everyone w basic respect.

You unconscious doesn't make you who you are, your actions do.

 

[Samson]

One shouldn't need mri studies to know unconscious biases are human. They're also no racism. It shouldn't take more than half a second to notice them and treat everyone w basic respect.

You unconscious doesn't make you who you are, your actions do.

OK, perhaps I should have known before but it helped me understand myself. I am far from convinced our consciousness actually has any effect on our actions, but I have no doubt our subconsciousness does.

 

[Narz]

The whole problem (sending back again to the "ability to distort language and dictate the discourse" that was claimed to be a right-wing superpower and that, precisely, I didn't find to be actually exclusive nor even especially lending toward it) being that the very concept of what is "racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, whateverist and whateverphobic" is subject to such breadth, span and lack of actual reliable definition, it basically becomes a weapon to shut people up and enforce self-censorship from anything that could lead to dissension.

Diluting definitions also hurts the people it's claiming to help.

When you lump Ansari (who basically had an awkward date where a girl rejected his advances so he stopped and went home) in w Epstein you hurt the cause of stopping sexual assault.

 

[El_Machinae]

But surely the subconscious initiates actions and then rationalizes them.

But, I'll introduce definitions. We're literally distinguishing explicit bias from implicit bias. We try to snuff the first, but the 2nd has consequences

 

[Narz]

OK, perhaps I should have known before but it helped me understand myself. I am far from convinced our consciousness actually has any effect on our actions, but I have no doubt our subconsciousness does.

Can't open wiki @ work strangely (I'll look later) but if you don't think conscious awareness has an effect on actions why even engage in discussion?

 

[sophie]

One shouldn't need mri studies to know unconscious biases are human. They're also no racism. It shouldn't take more than half a second to notice them and treat everyone w basic respect.

You unconscious doesn't make you who you are, your actions do.

The problem isn't in the known unknowns that you consciously correct against, the problem are the unknown unknowns that you don't ever realize that you're doing.

Like I mentioned before, a huge component of Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory is in examining how even well meaning policies and laws designed specifically to be equitable and fair create harmful consequences for marginalized groups because the crafters of the law, however well-intentioned, are not only not aware of the problem at the outset, but also not even aware that such an awareness exists, so they're incapable of seeing the unfairness even when it's pointed out to them. Kimberlé Crenshaw's seminal 1989 article on the law and intersectionality is a classic critique of how this plays out in discrimination law.