• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Andrew Sullivan: Why Is Wokeness Winning?

Oct 2, 2017
646
895
410
They got the mass media on their side and refuse to tolerate any message that can be used against wokeness. Now they are outright silencing dissenting opinions through censorship. Any attempt to form a coalition against this machine is dismantled using the mass media and their claims of racism and nationalism.

Most people like me who hate wokeness have to just talk about it with their friends directly or visit smaller boards like this one. Even when "wokeness" is the minority opinion they are able to grind down the public using the gears of mass media. We saw it before with the more militant aspects of LGBTQ+++, climate change, and now as a cherry on top the biggest presidential election in our country's history, perhaps.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
5,400
1,803
545
*climbs up on soap box*

Because the arc of history is long and bends toward justice.
It is indeed. We are veering away from it now, but it will bend back towards justice soon enough.

Btw, glad you didn’t take that dumb bet and potentially lose your account. Who else am I and others supposed to discuss things with? I don’t agree with a ton of what you say, but I sure as hell some want this place to become an echo chamber.
 
Oct 15, 2019
329
590
340
New York
*climbs up on soap box*

Because the arc of history is long and bends toward justice.
I'm probably going to regret doing this, but what convinced you a post modernist view of the world is the correct lense to view the worlds problems through? Ive read the literature of people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, so I understand the core of the philosophy. Society is looked at from the perspective of outcomes, and any system that does not provide an equal outcome is racist and/or sexist and must be abolished. To create a system that ensures equal outcome, discrimination must be applied to counteract the social conditioning present in our society. This discrimination against the previous oppressors is justified in that it is the only way to create a truly equal world.

The core problem I have is even if you accept that the ends justify the means, and the experience of any given individual is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, you are still left striving for the nebulous concept of equity.

I cant get past the fact many indicators that people seek equal outcomes from are in direct conflict with each other. For instance here's the first example that popped into my head. For equal representation in all facets of life, you are limited by whatever the smallest minority is. You can not have more of any given group working than exists in that group, so others are limited by the amount present in any given industry. Say for instance there are 1,000 Native Americans in a given field. To mandate equity in hiring only 1,000 people of any ethnicity can be hired within that industry. That places a cap guaranteeing that any populations larger than the smallest minority will have at minimum an unemployment rate of their population size minus the minority's population size. You can invert this by mandating employment quotas to ensure equity of unemployment rates, and likewise doing so removes equity of representation. Even if the answer is we work towards the least problematic, how do we decide when the statistics presented are essentially apples to oranges? Is a system more racist for not achieving equity in terms of unemployment, or in terms of representation?

I just can't get past flaws like these in the postmodernist thought at the core of social justice ideologies. Like many others, I still try to fight for equal treatment on an individual level. I just can't see the ideology being pushed here where equity is the most important thing as leading anywhere but ruin. Maybe your story can give me some insight. So if you could tell me what convinced you social justice is the right path, I would honestly appreciate it.

Apologies in advance if I don't reply until much later. I work nights and will likely be asleep when you respond.
 

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
723
1,350
355
I'm probably going to regret doing this, but what convinced you a post modernist view of the world is the correct lense to view the worlds problems through? Ive read the literature of people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, so I understand the core of the philosophy. Society is looked at from the perspective of outcomes, and any system that does not provide an equal outcome is racist and/or sexist and must be abolished. To create a system that ensures equal outcome, discrimination must be applied to counteract the social conditioning present in our society. This discrimination against the previous oppressors is justified in that it is the only way to create a truly equal world.

The core problem I have is even if you accept that the ends justify the means, and the experience of any given individual is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, you are still left striving for the nebulous concept of equity.

I cant get past the fact many indicators that people seek equal outcomes from are in direct conflict with each other. For instance here's the first example that popped into my head. For equal representation in all facets of life, you are limited by whatever the smallest minority is. You can not have more of any given group working than exists in that group, so others are limited by the amount present in any given industry. Say for instance there are 1,000 Native Americans in a given field. To mandate equity in hiring only 1,000 people of any ethnicity can be hired within that industry. That places a cap guaranteeing that any populations larger than the smallest minority will have at minimum an unemployment rate of their population size minus the minority's population size. You can invert this by mandating employment quotas to ensure equity of unemployment rates, and likewise doing so removes equity of representation. Even if the answer is we work towards the least problematic, how do we decide when the statistics presented are essentially apples to oranges? Is a system more racist for not achieving equity in terms of unemployment, or in terms of representation?

I just can't get past flaws like these in the postmodernist thought at the core of social justice ideologies. Like many others, I still try to fight for equal treatment on an individual level. I just can't see the ideology being pushed here where equity is the most important thing as leading anywhere but ruin. Maybe your story can give me some insight. So if you could tell me what convinced you social justice is the right path, I would honestly appreciate it.

Apologies in advance if I don't reply until much later. I work nights and will likely be asleep when you respond.
When you use ridiculous examples, of course the results will look ridiculous. No one is expecting that in a company of 10, you should expect there to be 1 Inuit team member. There aren't enough Inuits, or Native Americans period. I don't know anyone pushing for that, and that represents a minority opinion among even minorities. Some people would like to see representation somewhat resembling the country's ethnic cross section. I have no problem with that, but it's overly optimistic, and difficult to achieve in practice. I'd personally just like to see fairness applied in hiring practices, and the statistics suggest that is not the case. Where the target for that lies, is hard to lay out, but it's safe to say that it lies far away from where things are now.

As for the idea that discrimination must be applied in order to balance the scale, that's absurdist fear-mongering that predates even Jim Crow America. It suggests that the end of discriminatory practices is somehow discriminatory. Because the people getting jobs now, over minorities, due to discrimination, will no longer be able to enjoy the fruits of said discrimination. And that's somehow spun into being discrimination. That specious line of thinking has gotten multiple coats of paint over the century, but it's still easy to recognize.

I'm a man. I enjoy certain benefits over women when it comes to pay, and the assumptions of certain expertise. I'm also black. I suffer misconceptions about my knowledge and work ethic, and it's harder for me to get equal pay as my white counterparts with the same resume. I can see both side of the argument, but only one side rings completely hollow, the way a child whimpers about how taking their toy away is not fair. Historical wrongs need to be righted, because the reluctance to make those corrections has allowed these inequities to persist to this day. That's institutionalization. Sitting around waxing philosophical about why we shouldn't change due to the difficulty in fulfilling the minutiae of overthought perfect world scenarios only serves to delay said change, which I assume is the point. When you don't want something to happen, delay, delay, delay. Throw up road blocks and hurdles, to make it difficult for anything to get done.

Here's an easy starting point, pay women the same amount as men who do the same job. That's statistically not the case, so where we see that to be so, change it. Find what's broken, and fix it. No need to think of fantastical scenarios where an ethnicity that makes up a small percent of the country are expected to make up an equal percentage of the workforce as the majority ethnicity. No one expects that. But some small changes here and there, and some key ones on top of those, will move the needle in the right direction. Labeling people who want even this baseline level of equity as social justice ideologues only creates animosity where there should be a general consensus. That's why "wokeness" is winning. Most people can see there's a problem, and want to see it fixed. They might not have solutions, but aren't willing to denounce the movement outright, as some have.

I find the wildest thing about some of these complaints and outlandish SJW conspiracies is that it's largely white males making them. Yet, white males are the people who have the most power. If just the fear of not maintaining the status quo elicits this kind of response, imagine what it's like to be a minority. LOL. Must be tough.
 
Last edited:

Woggleman

Member
Jan 1, 2020
1,145
1,644
420
The ironic thing is that classical liberalism was organically taking us in a more progressive and accepting direction and then the SJWs had to show up sometimes around 2014 and screw it all up. Society is more tribal and polarized than it has been in a long time when classic liberalism was at it's core against tribalism. The woke brigade have helped to cause the exact opposite of what they claim to want by dividing everybody into identity groups.

I am certainly no supporter of white nationalism and the red pill MGTOW stuff but at the end of the day they are forms of identity politics and this is what happens when you promote that way of looking at the world.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
15,461
36,489
1,035
Intersectionalism/CRT is the most dangerous mind virus I have ever seen.

I've posted about this before, but our minds have various methods to evaluate ideas and throw out bad ideas. One is cognitive dissonance. If you believe X, but are exposed to conflicting information in real life, it causes cognitive dissonance. In theory, you are supposed to throw out your old bad idea, and create a new one.

Woke turns this 'defense mechanism' into what I call a fuel source. Instead of cognitive dissonance being a warning sign that something is wrong with your ideology, it is a badge of honor that you are among the faithful. This is why so many woke ideas are so blatantly contradictory: believe all women unless they aren't woke. Men can be women, gender is fluid, but you are born that way. 2+2=5. Silence is violence, speech is violence. Men should be able to go into women only rape centers. You can only be racist if you are white. Asians are white. Afro-Cubans can be white supremacists. BLM related deaths do not count. Famous feminists are now evil TERF fascists.

People think these contradictions prove how dumb woke people are, but it's more that it proves how deep into the cult they are. The cognitive dissonance no longer serves as a warning system, but a reward system, like that little burst of endorphins from likes on social media.

Questioning the narrative is taboo, the ideology literally rewards accepting contradiction and has permanent penalties for questioning the narrative: say the wrong thing, and you are Cancelled. Your social circle will turn on you in an instant, evict you, burn you for their own protection and virtue points. If any defend you, they too will face the wrath.

However, radicalization is rewarded. How do you secure your woke rank? By using CRT related theory to prove your woke credentials. So you need to point out a beloved song is sexist. Or a pancake syrup is racist. Or a game is fascist. Create more enemies, endlessly, and the race to radicalization only speeds up. Kissing a girl on a date becomes sexual harrassment.

CRT then teaches everything is transgression. Helen Pluckrose has a great example I quote often: if a barista serves a black man slowly, it is because she doesn't respect him, too quickly, because she wants him gone. CRT teaches everything - and I mean everything - is racist, and if you can't find the racism in an interaction it is because you yourself are racist. It's a cult.

James Lindsay has done great research on how wokeness infects and replaces entire organizations. High ranking members get accused of woke transgressions, removed, replaced. Non-believers are purged. Nobody wants to be the -ist or -phobe. Diversity and inclusion training. Dissidents either join the cult or are forced to remain silent out of fear of losing everything.

All of this has a smiling facade. Nobody wants to be called a racist. The wordsmithing is endless. Nearly all white Antifa groups get the nod, while minority led groups defending free speech become 'fascists'. 2+2=5 goes from obvious reference to 1984, to a national conversation a out 2+2=4 being 'white supremacy'.

All it takes is standing up and denying it all. Standing your ground. Refusing to apologize. Refusing to accept the authority of the political correct word police.

The mind virus of wokeness is a strange mess of other bad ideas [intersectionalist power stacking, Marxism, post-modernity, CRT], all combined into something new and very dangerous. You can cure people of most bad ideas by presenting facts, reasoning, examples, etc. Wokeness has repositioned all attacks on itself as 'white supremacy ' or 'systemic racism' or 'patriarchy'.
 
Last edited:

TTOOLL

Member
Mar 22, 2012
4,207
3,246
860
I believe we are at peak wokeness, and that's the result of years. This the consequence of neo-marxism, the revolution will come from the inside. This is Hydra in Captain America 2.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,207
17,106
1,585
The ironic thing is that classical liberalism was organically taking us in a more progressive and accepting direction and then the SJWs had to show up sometimes around 2014 and screw it all up. Society is more tribal and polarized than it has been in a long time when classic liberalism was at it's core against tribalism. The woke brigade have helped to cause the exact opposite of what they claim to want by dividing everybody into identity groups.

I am certainly no supporter of white nationalism and the red pill MGTOW stuff but at the end of the day they are forms of identity politics and this is what happens when you promote that way of looking at the world.
Yup. As Douglas Murray put it "Just as the train appeared to be reaching its desired destination it suddenly picked up steam and went crashing off down the tracks and into the distance. What had been barely disputed until yesterday became a cause to destroy someone’s life today."
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Apr 12, 2020
1,680
2,737
490
My impression is that this same climate already happened in the 60s. From all the "peace" talks and identity politics, down to violent protests.

The biggest difference, however, is that the modern version is mainly caused by media alterating the fabric of reality and mass producing outrage.
I don't need to point out who's the most important figure between Martin L. King and George Floyd
 
Last edited:

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,044
7,393
895
The first, it seems to me, is emotional.
Uh, doh, come on...
It wins the way most (all?) aggressive ideologies won: if you are not agreeing with them then you are some sort of "human garbage".
That is the first, the last and the only reason.
 
Last edited:

BigDeadFreak

Member
Jul 7, 2018
195
573
335


Good read by Andrew Sullivan on why woke culture went mainstream, and why it's difficult to push back against:


"




A question I’ve wrestled with this past year or so is a pretty basic one: if critical race/gender/queer theory is unfalsifiable postmodern claptrap, as I have long contended, how has it conquered so many institutions so swiftly?

It’s been a staggering achievement, when you come to think of it. Critical theory was once an esoteric academic pursuit. Now it has become the core, underlying philosophy of the majority of American cultural institutions, universities, media, corporations, liberal churches, NGOs, philanthropies, and, of course, mainstream journalism. This summer felt like a psychic break from old-school liberalism, a moment when a big part of the American elite just decided to junk the principles that have long defined American democratic life, and embrace what Bari Weiss calls “a mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality.”

It’s everywhere. Across the country, schools and colleges are dumping SATs so they can engineer racial equity, and abolish the idea of merit. The Smithsonian backed the idea that working hard, showing up on time and perfecting a task are functions of “whiteness”. In California, there’s a ballot initiative to legalize government discrimination on the basis of race; and a new mandate that company boards add members from under-represented communities. Corporations who haven’t publicly committed themselves to the full woke project are being hounded by their employees into doing so, meaning hiring and firing on the basis of race, or forcing employees into re-education sessions, guided by DiAngelo and Kendi. The NBA, for Pete’s sake, is now a festival of wokeness, even as viewership collapses. CRT propaganda like the NYT’s 1619 Project can be exposed as untrue and unethical, but the paper can both debunk it in its own pages and still hail it as a triumph. And the pièce de resistance: 21 percent of liberal students in the Ivy League favor some level of violence to stop campus speech they disapprove of.

There seems no stopping this. But why? Why this powerful, seemingly inevitable shift, especially among white elites? I’d posit some obvious reasons, but this is a rough guess and I hope we can start a conversation here about the reason for this astonishing change — and how better to engage it.

The first, it seems to me, is emotional. The reason so many people marched this summer was because of a righteous revulsion at the visceral image of a black man being murdered slowly on the street by a bad, white cop. This revulsion is a vital and important thing — and it’s completely compatible with a liberal attempt to reform the cops and criminal justice to ensure equal treatment under the law for everyone of every race. In fact, there is considerable bipartisan support for a pragmatic shift.

But this was emphatically not the core message of the Black Lives Matter movement, rooted in critical theory. BLM’s critical race activists do not support reforming the police, they want to abolish them entirely. In fact, they demonize all cops as “bastards”, and they justify violence and exonerate crime as legitimate resistance to the far greater crime of white oppression.

Liberals, concerned about resilient racial inequality, have simply decided to ignore this. Or they think that a little radicalism is no bad thing in a polarized time: the usual “no enemies to the left” mantra in the era of Trump and white nationalism. I can see why people take this path of least resistance, but what we’ve seen is simple avoidance of the deeper issue of CRT’s profound illiberalism, a dismissal of it, or an anti-anti-woke position that sees opponents as mere hysterics (and maybe racists).

And the CRT advocates have brilliantly managed to construct a crude moral binary to pressure liberals into submission. Where liberalism allows neutrality or doubt or indifference, CRT demands an absolute and immediate choice between racism and anti-racism (defined by CRT) — and no one wants to be a racist, do they? Legitimate anguish about racial inequality and the sheer terror of being publicly labeled a bigot have led liberals to surrender their core values to the far left.

The second reason for CRT’s triumph is that it’s super-easy. Social inequalities are extremely complicated things. A huge variety of factors may be in play: class, family structure, education, neighborhood, sex, biology, genetics and culture are some of them. Untangling this empirically in order to figure out what might actually work to improve things is hard work. But when you can simply dismiss all of these factors and cite “structural racism” as the only reason for any racial inequality, and also cover yourself in moral righteousness, you’re home-free. Those who raise objections or complications or cite nuances can be dismissed by the same easy method.

Then there’s the deep relationship between CRT and one of the most powerful human drives: tribalism. What antiracism brilliantly does is adopt all the instincts of racism and sexism — seeing someone and instantly judging them by the color of their skin, or sex — and drape them with a veil of virtue. You don’t have to correct yourself when your tribal psyche makes you more cognizant of someone’s visible racial differences, and pre-judges them. You don’t have to resist this any more. You can give in to your core nature, and feel pride, rather than shame. You get to have all the feels of judging people entirely by their involuntary characteristics, while actually dismantling racism and sexism! What’s not to like?

Social aspiration also plays a part. The etiquette of wokery is increasingly indispensable for high society. They mark you as someone high up in the American social hierarchy. The right words and phrases signal your ease in this elite; the wrong ones — “sexual preference”! — expose you as a rube, a bigot or, worse, a middle class provincial. Rob Henderson argues that this aspiration to be in the upper classes helps explain why Asian-Americans, who are targeted for direct race discrimination under CRT, nonetheless often support it: “While money and education are tickets to the middle class, prizing diversity is a requirement to join the upper class. It’s part of what the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu referred to as cultural capital — tastes, vocabulary, awareness and mannerisms which give social advantages to those higher in the social hierarchy.” Reihan Salam has also written brilliantly about this.

There’s little doubt, either, it seems to me that there is a religious component to wokeness. A generation of nones can feel bereft of transcendence and meaning, and “becoming woke”, like being “born again,” fills that spiritual hole. In an atomized and lonely age, feeling as if you are on “the right side of history”, banishing doubt, joining with countless of your fellow converts in marches and seminars, can abate the isolation and emptiness of it all. Many moderns want the experience of religion without God. With CRT, as in the past with communism, they can have it.

But what also make CRT so successful is ruthlessness. Those who hold a view of the world in which only power, and the struggle for power, matters, have few qualms in exercising it. After all, under CRT, power is always on the side of the white cis-heteropatriarchy, so payback is always fair play. Discriminating against the unwoke or whites or males or the cis-gendered or Asian-American, is not just fair, but vital. Shutting down speech protects the oppressed; bullying on social media and in the workplace becomes a form of virtue; mercy and forgiveness are mere buttresses for white supremacy; HR departments diligently identify dissidents, and discipline them. Once you set up this system of censorship and fear, persecute a few prominent sinners pour décourager les autres, and encourage snitches, dissidents will increasingly self-censor, and dissent peter out, until the new orthodoxy is the only one.

In the past, a new set of ideas could be engaged in a clash of argument and debate. But you’ll notice that the advocates of what Wes Yang has called “the successor ideology” never debate any serious opponents of their position. This is because debate in a liberal society implies equal standing for both sides, and uses reason to determine who’s right or wrong. But there can be no “both sides” within CRT, no equation of “racists” and “antiracists”, and debates are inherently oppressive. Logic, evidence, and reason are, in this worldview, mere products of white supremacy, forms of violence against the oppressed. In CRT, remember, there is no truth or objectivity; there are merely narratives. So, yes, 2 + 2 = 5, and math is inherently a function of whiteness. And what racist is going to deny this?

The truth is that liberal democracy is hard, counter-intuitive, complicated and requires self-restraint, reason, and toleration at levels most humans are incapable of. That’s why it is such a rare and fleeting exception in the world today and all but non-existent for the vast majority of human history. Critical race theory is much more attuned to human nature. It gives you the simplest template for understanding the world, it assigns you virtue if you assent, it gives you instant power over others purely because of your and their identity, and it requires nothing more than tribal instinct to thrive. That’s why it is here to stay. And why the fight for liberalism is going to be long and hard and require as much courage, steel, and rigor as we can muster.
"
This is such a brilliant article, it should be stickied for everyone to read.
 
Jun 24, 2019
129
170
250
It is almost futile to dismantle the idealogy of an SJW/Woke type with facts and logic in one sitting. They would only dig their heels in.

It seems to me we can only approach this point by point. A bit of neuro-linguistic programming, or deprogramming in this case.

Start with a single idea or premise that the SJW can agree with you on and then go on from there, point-to-point till they have their minds opened up. Of course, they use similar tactics all the time, e.g. using the term anti-fascism to shield themselves from criticism of their thuggish-ness.

So where do we start? What is the initial idea that will lead the 'Woke' back to recovery?
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
2,506
1,731
770
Well, now is a good time to quote again Solzhenitsyn

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one's family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one's children and contemporaries.


And from that day onward he:


  • Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
  • Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
  • Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
  • Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
  • Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
  • Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
  • Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
  • Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.


But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.


And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul—don't let him be proud of his “progressive” views, don't let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a merited figure, or a general—let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It's all the same to me as long as I'm fed and warm.


Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.


A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven't they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?


You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is the only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.


So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.


If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.


And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:


Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
2,506
1,731
770
Another angle to consider.


It is a power struggle but not to free the "oppressed" but to purge the older generation - and a witch hunt is a very good way to get rid of your competition. The nastier, the more intolerant one - the better.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
5,639
9,940
1,015
Wokeness is winning because people on the left are too cowardly to stand up and speak up against it. Either because they're just pussies or because they think staying quiet will help them politically.
 

BigDeadFreak

Member
Jul 7, 2018
195
573
335
When you use ridiculous examples, of course the results will look ridiculous. No one is expecting that in a company of 10, you should expect there to be 1 Inuit team member. There aren't enough Inuits, or Native Americans period. I don't know anyone pushing for that, and that represents a minority opinion among even minorities. Some people would like to see representation somewhat resembling the country's ethnic cross section. I have no problem with that, but it's overly optimistic, and difficult to achieve in practice. I'd personally just like to see fairness applied in hiring practices, and the statistics suggest that is not the case. Where the target for that lies, is hard to lay out, but it's safe to say that it lies far away from where things are now.

As for the idea that discrimination must be applied in order to balance the scale, that's absurdist fear-mongering that predates even Jim Crow America. It suggests that the end of discriminatory practices is somehow discriminatory. Because the people getting jobs now, over minorities, due to discrimination, will no longer be able to enjoy the fruits of said discrimination. And that's somehow spun into being discrimination. That specious line of thinking has gotten multiple coats of paint over the century, but it's still easy to recognize.

I'm a man. I enjoy certain benefits over women when it comes to pay, and the assumptions of certain expertise. I'm also black. I suffer misconceptions about my knowledge and work ethic, and it's harder for me to get equal pay as my white counterparts with the same resume. I can see both side of the argument, but only one side rings completely hollow, the way a child whimpers about how taking their toy away is not fair. Historical wrongs need to be righted, because the reluctance to make those corrections has allowed these inequities to persist to this day. That's institutionalization. Sitting around waxing philosophical about why we shouldn't change due to the difficulty in fulfilling the minutiae of overthought perfect world scenarios only serves to delay said change, which I assume is the point. When you don't want something to happen, delay, delay, delay. Throw up road blocks and hurdles, to make it difficult for anything to get done.

Here's an easy starting point, pay women the same amount as men who do the same job. That's statistically not the case, so where we see that to be so, change it. Find what's broken, and fix it. No need to think of fantastical scenarios where an ethnicity that makes up a small percent of the country are expected to make up an equal percentage of the workforce as the majority ethnicity. No one expects that. But some small changes here and there, and some key ones on top of those, will move the needle in the right direction. Labeling people who want even this baseline level of equity as social justice ideologues only creates animosity where there should be a general consensus. That's why "wokeness" is winning. Most people can see there's a problem, and want to see it fixed. They might not have solutions, but aren't willing to denounce the movement outright, as some have.

I find the wildest thing about some of these complaints and outlandish SJW conspiracies is that it's largely white males making them. Yet, white males are the people who have the most power. If just the fear of not maintaining the status quo elicits this kind of response, imagine what it's like to be a minority. LOL. Must be tough.
The problem is that society has changed massively under the principles of liberal democracy. I can't think of any society in human history that has been as diverse as the modern west and has also made as much effort to treat women and minorities as well as we do. Things aren't perfect but look how far we've come in the last 3 generations. Junking that approach because we haven't arrived at the destination yet is madness.

When you come up with examples like the gender pay gap it proves why the modern left/SJW/wokeness is such a bad idea. In 99% of cases women are paid the same as men for doing the same jobs. But, such is the desire to see injustice everywhere that people have to twist reality with dishonest statistics in order to create fake causes to fight against.

You also state that you are black and male therefore you can see both sides of the argument. Here's the thing, I don't care what race or gender you are; I only care whether you're right or wrong. I don't have to be Jewish or German to have a valid opinion on the Holocaust. Once we start saying that black people have some special knowledge that white people can't have then there's no point in us talking to each other.

What we figured out in the west is that it's better to not focus on race and focus instead on our common humanity. That doesn't mean we have the perfect solution but it is certainly better than all of us identifying strongly with our race. We've been there before and it doesn't end well, particularly for disadvantaged minorities.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
16,828
31,832
870
39
wokeness is winning because it is a performative act done by white racists, and there are many of them, so they will continue to do this.

honestly that's what i think is driving all of this. read the Critical Race Theory book, White Fragility, the author talks about how when she walks into a room and sees a black person, she starts feeling scared. that isn't normal. i don't feel that way. that is just the confession of a white racist. yet because she has marketed herself as this woke person, she is able to do a performative self sacrifice (white guilt) which cleanses that Original Sin of being a white racist person.

it's like a religious practice to these people, except religions have community (this has being the best informant on your friends/family), they have morality (which is satanically inverted by modern feminism), they have legacy and tradition paving a way for the future. the latter, the feminist Woke Death Cult denies entirely. "kill the past" is their rallying cry, as if throwing your cereal on the floor because you don't like it is the key to getting the breakfast you want from your mommy, as if destroying and tearing down is the only goal. the problem with destruction is that you leave nothing for the future.

part of why they scream so loud is that deep down, these people will leave no legacy. a few statues here and there, some name changes, some woke grifters getting jobs, but the system will remain, traditions will remain, history will remain. after all, they have nothing to replace them with.

they honestly haven't given it that much thought. it's an emotional tantrum. the corporate stuff is just there to cash in on the trend.
 
Last edited:

Woggleman

Member
Jan 1, 2020
1,145
1,644
420
Another irony is that when the only people willing to brave the pushback and stand up to the woke brigade are so called rightwing extremists then that is who people gravitate to. People might not agree with it but they figure that at least somebody is standing up against the mob. Another example of the hard left making their worst nightmares come true.