Clearly not enough, see below.
So, you're implying you cannot conceive that this is a genuine position that I actually, sincerely hold rather than some sort of bad-faith pretext to win internet points?
Actually, and that's the sad part, I think you're mostly of good faith, and just don't realize you're doing it to this level.
I guess the ironic thing is I agree with you that there is a degree of bullying that goes on, couched in the terms of "calling out" whatever injustice. But the reason these kinds of appeals are so effective to a certain kind of person is that plenty of people are genuinely convinced that bigotry and injustice are more widespread than you seem to think. And the people who engage in this kind of bullying are generally not cynical about antiracism or whatever other kind of anti-___ism they're invested in.
Oh I do believe that. The problem I'm talking about is fanaticism, not cynicism.
Evidently so, since your "boxes" do not seem to admit the possibility of simultaneously believing bigotry is a real, widespread problem and also being critical of whatever is termed "woke."
That's a lot of projection here. It's actually pretty easy to see this possibility, I'm afraid you aren't blowing any mind here. I do remember pretty well how you criticized echo chambers and described how you saw communities tearing themselves apart in purity contests.
But you know, that doesn't mean you're immune to it nor does it mean we both agree about the degree to which it happens - for example you see the LGBT news thread as a display of -ism, I see it as a blatant case of having shrieking wokists throwing insults and abuse at everyone for the slightest disagreement, well past the point of ridicule (and in fact even pouncing on people who don't even disagree but just ask questions rather than simply falling on their knees and saying "you're right !").
I don't think there is nothing to what you're saying but you are making a really strong (and imo demonstrably false - at least it is falsified by my direct experiences in some of these spaces) claim when you ascribe this "silencing criticism" motive to all 'woke' people.
As said above, it's more about a noticeable degree of fanaticism in the woke movement exarcebating the human tendency of wanting to convince and enforce one's own ideas, than a deliberate and calculated attempt.
I'll get more detailed about this below.
I know you already say that you're describing a stereotype here, but that's also kind of the problem. This doesn't describe me well and is usually not why my views are called woke. It's also kind of vague; there is naturally overlap in vague left-wing policies, but egalitarian leftist economics, environmental policy, left-wing identity politics and intersectional feminism is not the same box. I have an acquaintance who's an outright TERF whose views are called woke.
You mean just like every single other political leaning, there are overlaps and differences ? Some communists were tankies, some others were violently opposed to tankies, both were communists still. Nothing surprising here, you're getting caught up in details.
Can you rephrase this, I have some difficulties understanding ^^ It probably has to do with my coalition outline above. My guess is that the left generally overlaps in some SJW stuff but are generally not inclinated to call themselves SJW's or woke because of it generally being a pejorative, and woke people are considered those of that caliber that are abrasive? If that's what you mean, again, I'm not sure I agree, because I mostly don't hear woke as "leftists who are abrasive", but rather, "vague leftists who are innately abrasive because they're vaguely leftist".
You know, you look really intent on just seeing the negative connotation of "woke" being a deliberate smear from people who don't like the left (i.e. mainly right-winger) and being somehow powerful enough to convince everyone to join them in a smear campaign, rather than this negative aspect being just something people notice being part of a political movement...
But to get back to the main point : the
values which are defended by the "woke" side are mainly left-wing basic values, just more weighted toward identity than economy. The problem is more the "mindset", that is not
what the person think but
how they think.
Like you have this neighbour who believes in god and participates in charity with a smile and do general good all around, and even if you were an atheist, you'd disagree with some of his values but you'd also find a lot of worth in what he preach and you would probably get along just fine. And then you have this other who believe in the same things as the other, but is always about telling you you're a sinner that will burn in hell, and who organizes protest around abortion clinics and want to make children chant prayers at school. And he does all that because God loves all and there is only redemption through Jesus so if you disagrees it's because you want people to suffer in the afterlife, so you're a terrible person that should be punished for trying to cause harm.
Both people share the core values of believing in God and Jesus teachings, but both have a pretty different mindset on how these values translates.
I'd say the core criticism at the woke movement (that was already hinted several times in this thread IIRC) is that it's leaning heavily on what I can only call a "religious" mindset, where the dogma takes over the source from where it springs (to the point of often betraying what it stands for) and participants treats it (even if somewhat unconsciously) as something sacred that is true by default and can't be questioned, and needs to be pushed on unbelievers. There is a reason why people often refers to "wokes" as "a cult", it's because the behaviour seen is very analogous.
(no, really i do)
You literally started your first reply to me with "I'll bite".
