"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Evie]

Ideologies are just repackaged religion - the opium of the internet masses.

That aside, it, seems to me you are just describing the constellation of social justice (sans the extraneous "warrior")/ social progressivism. Which is less a well-defined ideology than a general aspiration toward greater equality, acceptance and understanding of human diversity. There are a variety of ideologies within that comstellation, and many ideas that belong to the constellation but no specific ideology within, and many people who have their own selection of belief from across that comstellation without associating with any particular ideology becsuse they find themselves only in partial agreement with any given ideology.

Trying to lump all of the constellation together, as one ideology is about on par with trying to lump all forms of economic justice/economic progressivism together as "communism", which is a clasic reactionary move that much all economic progressive except the actual communists (because they dream of hijacking all economic progressives to their worldview and they think this will help) rightly reject.

 

[Lexicus]

The term “dogwhistle” is a way for people to simply impute attitudes you don’t hold onto you, to make it easier to dismiss criticism, for the record

This is either a lie, or the author doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

 

[Lexicus]

Noting a falsehood like that in the just the second sentence of that excerpt, I looked up Freddie DeBoer and it turns out he's associated with something called "the hereditarian left" marked by a belief that social policy needs to take genetically-determined intelligence into account.

The idea that genes determine a person's life outcomes is deeply, deeply reactionary (it is the latest verse of the song called "Our Social Order is Timeless and Grounded In Unchanging Nature") and it is an interesting feature of postmodern reality that a person who believes this can simultaneously identify as any kind of Marxist.

 

[Evie]

Oh, certain wings of Marxism and Communism (not all, mind) do a fantastic job of embracing social reactionary thinking.

Sadly, when you read everything from the perspective that all real problems are questions of class, it's easy to buy into the notion any social probelm that doesn't neatly fit this framework is actually part of the natural proper order and thus not a problem at all except to bourgeois with too much time on their hand.

 

[sophie]

Freddie deBoer sucks, dude. Might as well cite some Singal and Greenwald while you're at it, complete the trifecta of horsehockey left-punching "journalists" that can't seem to go more than 2 or so articles without letting their raging transphobia shine through.

Oh, certain wings of Marxism and Communism (not all, mind) do a fantastic job of embracing social reactionary thinking.

Sadly, when you read everything from the perspective that all real problems are questions of class, it's easy to buy into the notion any social probelm that doesn't neatly fit this framework is actually part of the natural proper order and thus not a problem at all except to bourgeois with too much time on their hand.

Yeah the trans/feminist/race exclusionary Marxists are just the absolute worst. They really should spend less time reading Stalin's impression of what Lenin and Marx wrote and start reading what Lenin and Marx actually wrote, because anybody coming away from Marx under the impression that gender or identity politics represent a "bourgeois idealist distraction" has just completely missed the point.

 

[Lexicus]

Freddie deBoer sucks, dude. Might as well cite some Singal and Greenwald while you're at it, complete the trifecta of ****** left-punching "journalists" that can't seem to go more than 2 or so articles without letting their raging transphobia shine through.



Yeah the trans/feminist/race exclusionary Marxists are just the absolute worst. They really should spend less time reading Stalin's impression of what Lenin and Marx wrote and start reading what Lenin and Marx actually wrote, because anybody coming away from Marx under the impression that gender or identity politics represent a "bourgeois idealist distraction" has just completely missed the point.

It's unfortunate because I agree with a lot of his criticism of neoliberal antiracism and the NGO-industrial complex. I just do not understand how someone can say "social inequality is caused by nature (genetics)" while still claiming to be any kind of materialist or Marxist with a straight face.

 

[Angst]

On the use of the label "woke", Freddie deBoer has a short blog post which I can't link because the URL falls afoul of the autocensor, so I'll post it below-



I largely agree with this. The term "woke" is criticised for being vague, but the thing to which it refers is readily recognised even by those who reject the label. (Perhaps it is a vague term because the thing it describes is itself nebulous and lacks clearly-defined boundaries?) There is evidently something here, but because of the way that something has emerged- as a universal common-sense among educated professional-class urban liberals- it refuses to acknowledge itself as anything other than the inevitable tide of history.

I'm a bit confused at this. Left wingers are not generally secretive about attributing their views to a movement. It's rather the reverse infact. Like, the stereotypical left winger is mocked as so loud and proud that they become framed as obtuse, rude and zealous.

 

[Ajidica]

Freddie deBoer sucks, dude. Might as well cite some Singal and Greenwald while you're at it, complete the trifecta of ****** left-punching "journalists" that can't seem to go more than 2 or so articles without letting their raging transphobia shine through.

How convenient that everyone who disagrees with you disagrees not because of it being a legitimate difference of opinion and perspective, but because they are actually bigots so you have no need to engage with their points when raised.

 

[Evie]

If all the effort a participant in the conversation makes is to copy-paste a non-participant's opinion, they should expect just as little effort in return.

An offhand dismissal is fairly comparable.

 

[Ajidica]

Engaging with everyone who disagrees with you is a great way to have no existence beyond internet debate.

Which, I suppose, appeals to some. For the rest of us, dismissing third-party opinions from those we have learned not to give consideration to is a necessity.

Yeah, but OT is, at least in theory, a discussion forum. If you don't want to participate in certain threads where there is the particular discussion, don't enter them. There are plenty of other threads in OT to participate in.
If you don't want to participate in any OT threads, well, we are all big boys and big girls and we know of other places we can post online.
Schlaufuchs seems like she is trying to have it both ways, participating in a discussion thread without actually doing any discussing.

I have no idea who this deBoer guy is, Greenwald's gone firmly into loony-land, and we've been over and over on Singal (who I only know from their Atlantic article, because I don't follow Twitter drama) and I have no wish to dive into that again.
But if I am in a discussion thread and someone raises an article from Greenwald on Biden, it is only fair that if I call Greenwald a nutcase I provide reasons for why I don't take Greenwald seriously on that topic. (Such as the fact he was fired from the news organization he started, screwed up the handled of almost all serious stories he was given, and hasn't done any serious investigative journalism in years.)

 

[Evie]

See my edit.

If it's a discussion forum, discuss.

If you instead limit your efforts to copy-pasting someone else's opinion (essentially, what TF did), expect just as little effort in return, an offhand dismissal of the person you're copy-pasting being appropriate. They are not part of the discussion, their claims cannot be discussed with them, and there is very little validity to debating them.

Otherwise it's far too easy to just dump copy-pastes in left and right (a low effort contribution to the discussion) and demand everyone else spends hours countering those points. Disturbingly similar, in that way, to s...posting and trolling.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, but OT is, at least in theory, a discussion forum. If you don't want to participate in certain threads where there is the particular discussion, don't enter them. There are plenty of other threads in OT to participate in.
If you don't want to participate in any OT threads, well, we are all big boys and big girls and we know of other places we can post online.
Schlaufuchs seems like she is trying to have it both ways, participating in a discussion thread without actually doing any discussing.

I have no idea who this deBoer guy is, Greenwald's gone firmly into loony-land, and we've been over and over on Singal (who I only know from their Atlantic article, because I don't follow Twitter drama) and I have no wish to dive into that again.
But if I am in a discussion thread and someone raises an article from Greenwald on Biden, it is only fair that if I call Greenwald a nutcase I provide reasons for why I don't take Greenwald seriously on that topic. (Such as the fact he was fired from the news organization he started, screwed up the handled of almost all serious stories he was
given, and hasn't done any serious investigative journalism in years.)

I provided some substantive reasons not to take Freddy seriously, but I guess those were ignored in favor of....this.

 

[Synobun]

How convenient that everyone who disagrees with you disagrees not because of it being a legitimate difference of opinion and perspective, but because they are actually bigots so you have no need to engage with their points when raised.

Not sure it's really all that convenient. The rejection comes as a direct result of a big voice having direct harm to a fundamental aspect of their being. Trans people and other targeted minorities have to ration their effort. Deconstructing a guy's post to his newsletter fanboys and treating it like a serious academic contribution to the discourse is probably not effort well spent for someone facing weird and overt anti-identity attacks from several fronts.

Someone's whingy treatise on wokeism is also more difficult to give level consideration to if the writer has, shall we say, unsavory opinions about certain populations, especially populations that are conveniently covered by the wokeism cudgel. But I mean, you don't have to care about his views in this case anyway. The blog post itself is poorly thought out and kind of nonsense. It doesn't say anything particularly insightful.

 

[Ajidica]

I provided some substantive reasons not to take Freddy seriously, but I guess those were ignored in favor of....this.

There's a reason I quoted shlaufuchs and not you.

Not sure it's really all that convenient. The rejection comes as a direct result of a big voice having direct harm to a fundamental aspect of their being. Trans people and other targeted minorities have to ration their effort.

Then don't post?

 

[NovaKart]

Jesse Singal has actually done a lot of research and reporting on the issues he’s talking about so I don’t think he can so easily be dismissed as a transphobe.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you instead limit your efforts to copy-pasting someone else's opinion (essentially, what TF did), expect just as little effort in return, an offhand dismissal of the person you're copy-pasting being appropriate. They are not part of the discussion, their claims cannot be discussed with them, and there is very little validity to debating them.

Otherwise it's far too easy to just dump copy-pastes in left and right (a low effort contribution to the discussion) and demand everyone else spends hours countering those points. Disturbingly similar, in that way, to s...posting and trolling.

Wouldn't that accusation be best specific to the poster rather than a general position? They either abuse it or they don't, and the treatment they should receive should reflect their history.

Like, obviously the gish-gallop exists and needs to be neutered effectively. But, I don't know, crapping on someone just because they found a paragraph that encapsulates their concern will be on the other end of things.

Now, granted, it's easier to ad hom a quoted piece of text than to ad hom the person who said "this is similar to my argument", but it's still an ad hom with the intent to deflect the conversation. Even more weirdly if someone spent time to research in order to ad hom.

 

[Evie]

The expectation that a quote deserves very little deference should be generalized, IMO. Don't go posting a quote expecting people will take significant time writing long cases against it. It might happen ; but it should not be expected.

How you actually respond to the quoting should be more about how much you think the quote deserves your engagement, rather than about whether you think the person posted it in good faith. In this case, Lex and Slaufuchs pointed out to serious red flags they were aware of or had just discovered with the sources - genetic determinism/eugenicism and transphobia, respectively, although Adjidica seem to consider one a valid criticism and the other an offhand dismissal. I'll grant that the tone of the two posts is rather different, but the ultimate meaning the same.

(Note that my own post did adress - curtly for sure, but address nonetheless - the points in the quote, so obviously I'm not saying you should never address points in quotes).

 

[El_Machinae]

The expectation that a quote deserves very little deference should be generalized, IMO. Don't go posting a quote expecting people will take significant time writing long cases against it. It might happen ; but it should not be expected.

Very interesting! I mean, I can see how excessive quoting diminishes the deservedness of a response. I mean, in the same way that not selectively cutting a pasted news article means that I'm less likely to read it. And everybody knows 'excessive youtube videos' guy. It's sad, but if you're communicating then it makes sense to predict your audience.

But the amount of work I will put into something is going to be a reflection of my opinion of the poster, regardless.

I do find it weird to put in labor in order to ad hom the quote rather than engage it, though. Especially if "it's not worth the labor" is the excuse. And there's a risk to doing so, because once someone becomes known for lying about political opponents, then their ability to usefully point out risks diminishes. So, the value of engaging the messenger rather than the message is variable.

 

[Evie]

I mean, speaking for myself my opinion of the poster probably plays into it, but I try not to let it do too much...in most cases, sometimes it's a struggle. It feels like an extension of the basic principle of respecting fellow posters. That principle I do not extend to third parties who are not on CFC.

(I mean, they're still entitled to basic human respect, but that's a much lower requirement than what I feel the people I engage with here on CFC to be entitled to.

And in that same vein, I can understand leaving a note in the thread of why you feel the source of the quote is worthy of dismissal, if you have particular reasons to do so.

NovaKart - Singal's research has largely involved interviewing and talking to opponents of trans identity, the rare detransitioner (a real phenomenon that's worthy of study and support, but a very slim minority of transitioners) and discredited therapists. I don't presume to know his motives, but his methodology in and of itself invalidates his conclusions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, of course! "You're listening to a bad man!" is useful feedback. Just don't build a reputation for false risk detection, I guess, or build a reputation for mischaracterizing people in order to diminish their sway. Ad hom is a fallacy, even if it's also useful.