“Woke”

[jt512]

Yep, everything can be racist if you want it to be.

What outsiders don't generally realize is that the Woke believe that everything is racist. This can be comical when applied to trivial things (see the YouTube video linked below), but is destructive when applied to non-racist institutions, such as universities and science, where, due to woke activism, "identity" is becoming evermore important than ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKlvCkhEik

 

[shuttlt]

the critical, ESSENTIAL feature of any label is its vagueness: "Woke" is great, because it never gets defined and can apply to anything demagogues don't like.

Can it apply "to anything demagogues don't like", though? Many people in the populist right would say that libertarians are hopelessly naïve, their ideas can not work at scale, and are even destructive, but I don't think I've seen them described as "woke". Similarly, one often sees conservatism criticised by the same people as just defending past progressive gains, but again.... I don't think it is generally described as woke by such people. Lots of demagogues are very concerned about Islam, but I don't think I have ever seen them describe Islam as woke. As jt512 indicates, wokeness is associated with a particular ideology. If you agree with that ideology, presumably there is no shame in being woke.... if you think that ideology is civilizational syphilis, then wokeness is not viewed so positively.

 

[shuttlt]

What outsiders don't generally realize is that the Woke believe that everything is racist. This can be comical when applied to trivial things (see the YouTube video linked below), but is destructive when applied to non-racist institutions, such as universities and science, where, due to woke activism, "identity" is becoming evermore important than ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKlvCkhEik

Isn't there equivocation here between two definitions of racist here? It looks like you are talking about the "not explicitly discriminating based on race" definition, but the "everything is racist" crowd go with something like a "does not produce uniform results for all races" definition. As I think Kendi points out, to be non-racist in one sense is pretty much to guarantee you are racist in the other sense.

 

[jt512]

Isn't there equivocation here between two definitions of racist here? It looks like you are talking about the "not explicitly discriminating based on race" definition, but the "everything is racist" crowd go with something like a "does not produce uniform results for all races" definition. As I think Kendi points out, to be non-racist in one sense is pretty much to guarantee you are racist in the other sense.

Critical Social Justice theory assumes axiomatically that structures of oppression are baked into every human endeavor, which to put it simply, means everything is racist. That's the sense that I'm using the word "racist."

ETA: Well, wait, I see what you're getting at. And that's the problem. The Woke (at least of the Kendi ilk, and that's the dominant strain) observe, say, that across U.S. University chemistry departments, only 2%* of faculty are Black—whereas, to be demographically proportional to the US population, there should be 13%—and they claim that that means chemistry is racist. On the other hand, chemistry is not racist in the sense that there is no present-day discrimination against Black or other "minoritized identities" in University chemistry departments. The reasons for the numerical discrepancy lay elsewhere.

*Made up for the sake of illustration; I have no idea what the actual percentage is.

 

[Lplus]

Critical Social Justice theory assumes axiomatically that structures of oppression are baked into every human endeavor, which to put it simply, means everything is racist. That's the sense that I'm using the word "racist."

Maybe use the word "unfair" instead of racist, because that seems to be the underlying mantra;

"It's not FAIR!"

closely followed by "Something must be done"

resulting in "Something Must be seen To Be Done"

(Even if it causes more problems than are being solved)

resulting in inevitable own goals.

 

[shuttlt]

ETA: Well, wait, I see what you're getting at. And that's the problem. The Woke (at least of the Kendi ilk, and that's the dominant strain) observe, say, that across U.S. University chemistry departments, only 2%* of faculty are Black—whereas, to be demographically proportional to the US population, there should be 13%—and they claim that that means chemistry is racist. On the other hand, chemistry is not racist in the sense that there is no present-day discrimination against Black or other "minoritized identities" in University chemistry departments. The reasons for the numerical discrepancy lay elsewhere.

I believe they would say that there clearly is discrimination, otherwise the numbers would not come out different. The subject of chemistry is an arbitrary human construction, we might have broken the sciences up on different lines. We see this with physics attracting relatively more men vs biology. The definition of the subjects is like drawing electoral boundaries. The boundaries always favour somebody. Then you have what constitutes "success" in a subject? Who decides what topics are weighted and how? All of these things and others can be viewed like you were setting electoral boundaries from which you can produce a multitude of different results. In this case, a subject called "chemistry" has been set up that is taught and examined in such a way that it produces these skewed results. Why?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can it apply "to anything demagogues don't like", though? Many people in the populist right would say that libertarians are hopelessly naïve, their ideas can not work at scale, and are even destructive, but I don't think I've seen them described as "woke". Similarly, one often sees conservatism criticised by the same people as just defending past progressive gains, but again.... I don't think it is generally described as woke by such people. Lots of demagogues are very concerned about Islam, but I don't think I have ever seen them describe Islam as woke. As jt512 indicates, wokeness is associated with a particular ideology. If you agree with that ideology, presumably there is no shame in being woke.... if you think that ideology is civilizational syphilis, then wokeness is not viewed so positively.

do you think demagogues are self-consitent?
being self-contradictory is a feature, not a bug.

 

[shuttlt]

do you think demagogues are self-consitent?
being self-contradictory is a feature, not a bug.

I was told "woke" can apply to anything demagogues don't like. That doesn't seem to be how it works though. It seems to be focused on a specific left wing ideology. What jt512 was calling the Critical Social Justice worldview.

 

[pgwenthold]

On the other hand, chemistry is not racist in the sense that there is no present-day discrimination against Black or other "minoritized identities" in University chemistry departments. .

You might want to ask the opinion of black or other "minoritized identities" in University chemistry departments and see if they encounter discrimination.

They would probably tell you otherwise. I can say that for a fact, because I have listened to those of "minoritized identities" in a University chemistry department and have heard them talk about the discrimination they have faced.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I was told "woke" can apply to anything demagogues don't like. That doesn't seem to be how it works though. It seems to be focused on a specific left wing ideology. What jt512 was calling the Critical Social Justice worldview.

not true: the teaching of Christ are also regularly considered "woke".

 

[shuttlt]

not true: the teaching of Christ are also regularly considered "woke".

Are they? By who? The only examples I can think of are woke atheists and maybe some cringy liberal Christians. I don't think I have ever seen anybody who thinks wokeness is a bad thing calling 1st century Christian teaching woke. The nearest you get is the Nietzsche slave morality argument about Christianity undermining Rome. The claim was that demagogues are using woke to mean anything they don't like. Which demagogues do you have in mind who claim Jesus was woke?

 

[theprestige]

Are they? By who?

I'm pretty sure it's a common progressive talking point: "Jesus's teachings are practically indistinguishable from socialism. Check, and mate in two, fundies!"

1. Fundies say socialist ideals are woke.
2. Therefore, Jesus's teachings are woke.
Checkmate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

not true: the teaching of Christ are also regularly considered "woke".

Only the actual teachings, though. The love everybody, don't amass wealth, be nice to people stuff. The interpreted teachings of Christ, however, are all about acquiring wealth and power and looking out for yourself alone and policing other people. I don't think anybody calls that stuff "woke", either in earnest or as criticism.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm pretty sure it's a common progressive talking point: "Jesus's teachings are practically indistinguishable from socialism. Check, and mate in two, fundies!"

Well, if you squint at it and interpret Jesus's teaching to be woke, then I'm sure that interpreted that way they are woke. When I've seen this argument done, it seems to involve taking the ideology out of wokeness, and claiming it's just about being nice to people, and taking the ideology out of Christianity and saying it's just about being nice to people.

 

[Hercules56]

Only the actual teachings, though. The love everybody, don't amass wealth, be nice to people stuff. The interpreted teachings of Christ, however, are all about acquiring wealth and power and looking out for yourself alone and policing other people. I don't think anybody calls that stuff "woke", either in earnest or as criticism.

Jesus banned divorce, only vouched for heterosexual marriage and ordered his followers to love their enemies. Thats not very Woke or Socialist

 

[theprestige]

the critical, ESSENTIAL feature of any label is its vagueness: "Woke" is great, because it never gets defined and can apply to anything demagogues don't like.

It tells you everything when a the problem is something that is never clearly identified and that can never truly be fixed is singled out as the one problem above all others.
It tells you that the goal is not to solve problems, but to make people angry.

Woke has been defined several times in this thread.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Jesus banned divorce, only vouched for heterosexual marriage and ordered his followers to love their enemies. Thats not very Woke or Socialist

He preached that a Rich person was unlikely to get to Heaven which is the exact opposite of the Prosperity Gospel so common among Evangelicals.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Jesus banned divorce, only vouched for heterosexual marriage and ordered his followers to love their enemies. Thats not very Woke or Socialist

I don't recall Jesus being quoted as being against gay marriage. Loving your enemies sounds like something people would criticize as "woke". As for socialism, socialism is a political and economic system wherein the production and regulation of goods and services is controlled to some degree by the people. I'm not familiar with any teachings of Jesus that either advance or oppose socialism. It can (and has, for centuries in the monastic orders) be interpreted that Jesus was in favor of small-scale community communism, the holding of all possessions in common, but that has not been applied beyond monastic orders on practical grounds. (It was also controversial to what degree possessions should be held in common, what counted as possessions, and who was included or excluded in said community -- it was a frequent sore point between some orders and the papacy during the Middle Ages; a clerical devotion to poverty was sometimes seen to be a criticism of a hierarchy which was spectacularly --in both senses-- wealthy.)

But I suspect you know this and are merely misusing the term "socialism" as so many do.

 

[theprestige]

Nah, loving your enemies would mean renouncing ACAB, leaving all those statues up, and remonstrating with "nazis" rather than punching them. It would mean giving up riots, vandalism, and looting as forms of protest. It would mean countering vicious speech with virtuous speech, rather than with cancellation. Etc.

"Woke" is very much about waking up and fighting back, instead of meekly turning the other cheek and trying to find a charitable response to the people complicit in the systematic injustices that plague you.

 

[tyr_13]

Nah, loving your enemies would mean renouncing ACAB, leaving all those statues up, and remonstrating with "nazis" rather than punching them. It would mean giving up riots, vandalism, and looting as forms of protest. It would mean countering vicious speech with virtuous speech, rather than with cancellation. Etc.

"Woke" is very much about waking up and fighting back, instead of meekly turning the other cheek and trying to find a charitable response to the people complicit in the systematic injustices that plague you.

First highlight, no it wouldn't.

Second hightlight, the money lenders would like a word but they weren't allowed one.

The rest, the fact that 'woke' is both actively standing up to unjust systems and passively opposing them isn't evidence that Jesus' teachings were not 'woke', but it is evidence that it's become a label for anything reactionaries don't like.

The critics of 'woke' even make up things like pedoes being called 'MAP' and saying the left supports protecting them along with the LGBTQ community. Raping children is 'woke'. Fighting Putin is 'woke'.