Wokeness is a problem and we all know it

[LFC]

People over 50 were significantly more likely than those ages 18 to 29 to agree that “America is becoming too politically correct”; that “critical race theory is a serious threat to public schools, workplaces, and the federal government”; or that “affirmative action has become so prevalent that white people now face reverse discrimination in hiring.”

Most of those don't even know what critical race theory is or why it's a thread (other than Tucker told them so). As for reverse discrimination well that's just the whine of snowflakes who can't compete or who won't accept that the politicians and policies they voted for are offshoring or automating their jobs away.

[AnBr]

Nov 15, 2021 0:03:41 GMT LFC said:

As for reverse discrimination well that's just the whine of snowflakes who can't compete or who won't accept that the politicians and policies they voted for are offshoring or automating their jobs away.

Attachments:

[LFC]

[Traveler]

Nov 15, 2021 0:03:41 GMT LFC said:

People over 50 were significantly more likely than those ages 18 to 29 to agree that “America is becoming too politically correct”; that “critical race theory is a serious threat to public schools, workplaces, and the federal government”; or that “affirmative action has become so prevalent that white people now face reverse discrimination in hiring.”

Most of those don't even know what critical race theory is or why it's a thread (other than Tucker told them so). As for reverse discrimination well that's just the whine of snowflakes who can't compete or who won't accept that the politicians and policies they voted for are offshoring or automating their jobs away.

Actually, I finally took a dive into CRT to see what all the fuss is about.  It is widely, and mistakenly, thought to be based on Critical Theory, which is a social construct comes from a distinctly Marxian viewpoint.  It actually comes from Critical Legal Studies (CLS), which has elements of same. But so does social security. Bottom line, its far more complicated than my preconception of it just recognizing past and present impediments to black advancement.  One quick source. 

[goldenvalley]

Nov 15, 2021 22:04:52 GMT Traveler said:

Nov 15, 2021 0:03:41 GMT LFC said:

Most of those don't even know what critical race theory is or why it's a thread (other than Tucker told them so). As for reverse discrimination well that's just the whine of snowflakes who can't compete or who won't accept that the politicians and policies they voted for are offshoring or automating their jobs away.

Actually, I finally took a dive into CRT to see what all the fuss is about.  It is widely, and mistakenly, thought to be based on Critical Theory, which is a social construct comes from a distinctly Marxian viewpoint.  It actually comes from Critical Legal Studies (CLS), which has elements of same. But so does social security. Bottom line, its far more complicated than my preconception of it just recognizing past and present impediments to black advancement.  One quick source. 

Good for you checking on it.  You've done what probably none of the agitators at school board meetings have ever done.  They are howling about CRT which appears to mean there could be a discussion of racism somewhere on the school grounds and they don't like it. That's CRT!.

I have heard people saying something along the lines of not wanting their white children to be told to feel guilty about what happened in the past.  My response to that, based on what my then 4th grader said after a school unit on Martin Luther King Jr and civil rights upon which she said it's kinda embarrassing that this happened in America, is that understanding history rests on recognizing that some things were good and some were not good.

[llewop]

I am so glad to see Alan Turing honored in the new 50 pound note.

[LFC]

Here's an interesting take on "cancel culture" that basically calls bullshit. There's barely any actual cancelling but there's a definite shift in our culture.

The phrase “cancel culture” has been used as a false flag by anyone who feels threatened by the idea of accountability. It’s a desperate shield used amidst a panic attack that changing norms, values, and, finally, the validation of marginalized voices might diminish a person of their cherished power: the ability to say and do anything without repercussions or the need to change and evolve.

The fallacy of cancel culture is that, in an age when social media mobs arrive with their megaphones any time a public figure trips a PC landmine, reactionary progressives and the unforgiving horde can cause these people to lose their jobs and all future opportunities. Say one wrong thing, and Twitter will ensure you never work again. Your life is ruined. You are “canceled.”

What is actually happening is that people are reacting in kind to public statements and behaviors made by rich and powerful people, the kind that hold influence in a culture obsessed with celebrity. When people are in the public eye, they make missteps. Those missteps are called out—yes, sometimes loudly and angrily, but most often rightfully.

The people who make those missteps are held accountable, sure. But I can’t think of one case when that accountability has manifested as a “canceling,” at least not in the way that these people are projecting, like it’s some evil agenda to sanitize and neuter all culture and discourse by ejecting from it anyone with ideas contrary to a liberal-progressive utopia. If anything, whenever a person being criticized claims “cancel culture,” their career and financial situation improves.

The notion that cancel culture exists at all is bullshit, to the point that it’s swung in the other direction to empower bad-faith provocateurs. It’s become a joke; a satire of what its most anxious critics purport to be its intent and effect. Which, in the year of Dave Chappelle, Chrissy Teigen, Morgan Wallen, and more—the A-List of the so-called canceled—brings us back to Dr. Seuss.

Were you one of the people who criticized Chappelle and The Closer? If your experience was anything like mine, you were the target of death threats, doxxing, attempts at discrediting you professionally, and cruel insults left as comments on photos of your family—an impressive mobilization in reaction to the false idea that their favorite comedian’s career was being taken away because you had pointed out the harm his comments had caused. (And if you were a trans whistleblower at Netflix, you were fired.)

Anyone who has continued to write about Louis C.K., who continues to tour and release stand-up specials after admitting to masturbating in front of female comedians; DaBaby, who gave a horrendously homophobic speech before a concert; or Marilyn Manson, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault, has likely had a similar experience.

Louis C.K., as it were, was also just nominated at this year’s Grammy Awards, as were DaBaby and Manson, both of whom also appeared alongside Kanye West at a recent event.

Then there’s the case of someone like Morgan Wallen, the country singer who actually seemed to be on the verge of being canceled after a video leaked of him using the N-word. Saturday Night Live fired him as a musical guest. Country radio stations pulled his songs from rotation. He was dropped by his agent, and deemed ineligible for Academy of Country Music Awards. It was a rare example of actual accountability and consequence—until it wasn’t. In fact, his career seemed to explode.

Threats to family and career? Attacking one's personal life? That's not cancelling, it's much, much worse. And as we saw happen to honest election officials it is very danger to our very way of life.

The author has lots of examples that ended up being short episodes with little lasting impact and no real cancellation. Then there's this which really explains how ever increasing self-righteous outrage is simply becoming our "culture", mostly without the cancelling.

Here’s the thing about all of this: There is something negative happening here, something completely broken about our society as we spelunk further into the dark and unsavory caverns of the digital age.

It’s not cancel culture, per se, but reactionary culture. This idea that we all have permission to mercilessly attack anyone we don’t agree with with the intent to legitimately ruin their lives. To wish harm to anyone who makes you angry or annoys you. To make a mountain out of a molehill when a person does anything remotely upsetting—and then blow up that mountain.

That has nothing to do with accountability or consequence. It’s a malicious poison, and it’s infecting all sides of discourse. It’s to the point where we’ve become numb to the gravity of what that really means. As volatile as it is, we assume it’s everywhere, and sort of don’t care. We’ve started to shrug at the violence of it all and move on from it, like a fact of life.

The other day, the Vince Vaughn holiday film Four Christmases was on TV and I openly wondered, “Didn’t he get canceled?” Well, yes. But also no. He was photographed shaking Trump’s hand. It was a news story for about seven minutes.

“There’s more speech now than ever before,” Jon Stewart said earlier this year, calling the idea of cancel culture a myth. “It’s not ‘you can’t say it,’ it’s that when you say it—look, the internet has democratized criticism. What do we do for a living—we talk shit, we criticize, we postulate, we opine, we make jokes, and now other people are having their say. And that’s not cancel culture, that’s relentlessness. We live in a relentless culture. And the system of the internet and all those other things are incentivized to find the pressure points of that and exacerbate it.”

If you don't believe it's pervasive then just ask a few people on the right about failing their purity tests. Liz Cheney immediately comes to mind.

[LFC]

Over here AnBr posted about John Oliver's brand of mixing comedy with real reporting. The example at the link was about his show on Critical Race Theory and how Republicans, aided by Faux News, have effectively turned it into an attack on any racial conversation they don't want to have. It's now their magic talisman against history and continuing racism. We see the utter meltdown over any decent treatment of trans people. And of course we're seeing a rise in book banning and even some book burning.

Here we have a particular hamfisted Republican desperate to screech about wokeness. And it's only going to get worse. Republicans are on the wrong side of these topics so they have no interest in engaging in them. Their tried and true tactic is to just screech about it at 11 while they cherry-pick, over-exaggerate, and outright lie about it.

Critical Space Theory

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) posted a brain-melting rant on Sunday about something called a “woke sky,” and someone should probably make sure he isn’t smelling toast:

“You millennial leftists who never lived one day under nuclear threat can now reflect upon your woke sky. You made quite a non-binary fuss to save the world from intercontinental ballistic tweets.”

The dictionary’s having trouble making sense of it too:

Per the famous speech in "The American President":

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson the Republican Party is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is They are interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

[goldenvalley]

Feb 28, 2022 14:23:29 GMT LFC said:

Critical Space Theory

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) posted a brain-melting rant on Sunday about something called a “woke sky,” and someone should probably make sure he isn’t smelling toast:


The dictionary’s having trouble making sense of it too:

Buzz words...you say them to provoke an emotional response so that no one actually listens to what is being said, let alone takes time to think about how it makes no sense.  

[pnwguy]

"Persecution of faithful Christians" is another rallying cry. Even Putin plays that card to his home audience.

[LFC]

The NY Times Editorial Board went on a rant about cancel culture, seemingly intermixing the legal freedom of speech with speech that they believe should have no consequences. This is ridiculous and has never existed in our country. This sentence shows how little understanding they have about what's really going on. Hint, gang. The vast majority of right-wing speech does not consist of "good-faith positions."

People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation.

Then there's this quote. It's like they found somebody who literally had NEVER studied any of these social movements. They didn't have actual government protected free speech. In every example given people were persecuted by or with the blessing of the government. How could any serious person not know this? Did they even read any articles about the things that happened during the recent BLM protests?

“Safeguards for free speech have been essential to almost all social progress in the country, from the civil rights movement to women’s suffrage to the current fights over racial justice and the police.”

There's a single sentence acknowledging the "deluge of misinformation and disinformation online." Online? What about in the right-wing media? What about in state and local governments all over the nation? What about in the U.S. Congress? Are they so ivory towered that they honestly don't know this is the a majority of the problem and has been for decades?

Here's another viewpoint of the NY Times op-ed.

I could get fired for what I’m about to say.

Mind you, that’s not something I expect. I’m just saying it’s theoretically possible. Somebody could object and complain to my boss. Next time you see me, I’m standing on a median strip holding a sign: “Will Opine For Food.”

That would not thrill me, to say the least. But I long ago recognized that the risk is present any time I (or anybody, for that matter) ventures an opinion. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You’d think most adults — and in particular, those who do this for a living — would know that.

But you would be wrong, as a recent editorial in The New York Times just made appallingly clear. Under the headline, “America Has a Free Speech Problem,” the Times analyzed so-called “cancel culture,” which it called a “social silencing” that has intimidated Americans out of voicing difficult opinions. Said the Times: “For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.”

It’s a stunningly incomprehensible statement for a jarringly obvious reason. The “right” to which the paper so airily alludes flat out does not exist, certainly not as a legal matter — the First Amendment contains no “unless somebody’s feelings get hurt” clause — but also not as a moral matter. To the contrary, it could be argued that morally, one is, in fact, obligated to “shame and shun” those who support, say, white nationalism, insurrection, child pornography or genocide.

Thus does the moral panic over an invented crisis reach a new apex of absurdity. We decry “cancel culture” as if it’s a new idea that people face repercussions for controversial opinions. Ask Andrew Dice Clay about that. Ask Al Campanis. Ask the Smothers Brothers.

Which isn’t to say the invented crisis has not proven useful for some people. Just a few days ago Vladimir Putin claimed the West is trying to “cancel” Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. You might marvel at his cynical appropriation of an American political trope, but don’t let that blind you to the fact that — at least by the terms of The Times’ argument — he’s actually correct. In imposing crippling sanctions on Russia for its behavior, America and much of the rest of the world are, indeed, “canceling” that nation.

Which only underscores how fatuous this trope really is. Or do any of us really weep over the way Russia has been treated?

[AnBr]

And the Old Gray Lady sinks even lower.

[indy]

It's one of those ivory tower debates. And by that I mean they don't ever wander far enough off campus to understand what people in the real world are like.

[LFC]

Another response to the NY Times article that is of the ivory tower "I'm above it all" style. There's little recognition of reality and what's going on. In fact the author, just like the NYT editorial board, seems to go out of their way to pick speech topics that aren't wildly controversial compared to common topics being pushed back on like white supremacy, misogyny, or sedition. How could anybody whose job it is to keep up on current events miss these?

When The New York Times in 2020 published a genuinely disturbing editorial by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton calling for then-President Donald Trump to send troops to quell post-George Floyd unrest in American cities, the left missed an opportunity. Instead of adding our voices to those of mainstream liberals scolding the “Paper of Record” and pressuring the then-opinion editor to resign, we should have asked why they didn’t publish it side by side with a response by someone like the leftist academic Cornel West. Do we really not believe that West would have been more persuasive than Sen. Cotton?

[If you have trouble getting to Cotton's op-ed due to paywall then try this link.]

I thought this part was particularly dense.

We shouldn’t shrug our shoulders when someone famous is fired or deplatformed. We should seize the opportunity to talk about how much less protection is afforded to the average person against such things happening to them. And we should push to rebuild the labor movement at American workplaces, as well as acting politically to change employment law, so everyone is free to speak their mind.

Nothing says "comfortable workspace" than being black and having a co-worker who is a loud and proud white supremacist that doesn't believe you have a right to exist in America. Or a woman whose supervisor believes that God(tm) made her inferior and that she has no place being in power over any man. Or a MAGAt who believes you have no rights if you don't bow before Dear Leader. These are the things that are causing people to be fired, not economic or foreign policy.

There is plenty of room for free speech in America and some wild, crazy shit is being spouted on the daily all over our nation without any real repercussion. There is much less where the speech states that this person or that person is inferior and undeserving of the same rights and treatment as everybody else. If they can't even acknowledge that this is the primary battle line then maybe they shouldn't be writing on this topic.

[LFC]

One of the leading voices of the right-wing American conservatives and Republican Party has just defined "wokeness" in court. As compared to the swimming pool sized bucket of shrill, white-wing grievance it's actually quite clear. From now on whenever anybody on the right uses the term "woke" we need to shove this definition up their noses and call them out on their callous immorality.

[goldenvalley]

Dec 5, 2022 14:52:24 GMT LFC said:

One of the leading voices of the right-wing American conservatives and Republican Party has just defined "wokeness" in court. As compared to the swimming pool sized bucket of shrill, white-wing grievance it's actually quite clear. From now on whenever anybody on the right uses the term "woke" we need to shove this definition up their noses and call them out on their callous immorality.

That was the beginning of woke maybe but these days it is much broader than that.  Now it's everything right wingers do not like especially anything related to racism or queerness.

[LFC]

Dec 5, 2022 16:43:29 GMT goldenvalley said:

That was the beginning of woke maybe but these days it is much broader than that.  Now it's everything right wingers do not like especially anything related to racism or queerness.

Yeah, but they just can't bring themselves to say that out loud because it destroys the power of the accusation. By now I view the term "wokeness" to be nothing more than an indicator that whatever is being said is merely right-wing whining.

[Bact PhD]

Dec 5, 2022 21:53:43 GMT LFC said:

Dec 5, 2022 16:43:29 GMT goldenvalley said:

That was the beginning of woke maybe but these days it is much broader than that.  Now it's everything right wingers do not like especially anything related to racism or queerness.

Yeah, but they just can't bring themselves to say that out loud because it destroys the power of the accusation. By now I view the term "wokeness" to be nothing more than an indicator that whatever is being said is merely right-wing whining.

I’ll often use the description “Boogeyman word/phrase” to encapsulate this sort of talk — “I kinda sorta know what it is, and I think it’s realllly scarey, so everyone ELSE who thinks like me can be likewise afraid…of THE BOOGEYMAN!!!!!”

[indy]

If you question any idea, attitude, or 'deeply held belief' that any self-proclaimed conservative has on any topic, then you are definitely woke and a good candidate for being antifa as well.

'Social justice warrior' appears to have fallen out of favor. It never seemed to really catch on anyway.

[LFC]

Dec 6, 2022 12:04:24 GMT indy said:

'Social justice warrior' appears to have fallen out of favor. It never seemed to really catch on anyway.

Too hard for the MAGAts to spell.

[LFC]

That about sums it up.

[LFC]

More evidence that "wokeness" is nothing more than "shit a right-winger doesn't like." Bethany Mandel co-authored a book about how wokeness is harming children, a pretty bold claim. Furthermore she uses forms of the work "woke" repeatedly in this interview. Then she's asked one simple question: "Would you mind defining "woke" because it's come up a couple of times and I just want to make sure we're on the same page."

She failed the test, babbling that it's difficult to define and that they have a whole chapter defining it but she can't sum it up despite having written an entire book about it. And she knows she blew it because she said it was one of those moments that would probably go viral. Well yeah, because everybody's bullshit detectors have gone off on this. I can predict right now that the chapter defining it is brimming with lies, obfuscations, sleights of hand, incomplete information, and a host of charlatan's writing techniques.

Finally, someone asked the question.

During a Tuesday interview on The Hill’s online program Rising, conservative author Bethany Mandel was stumped when co-host Briahna Joy Gray pressed her to give a definition of the word “woke,” which has been used incessantly by the right to criticize all things vaguely liberal.

Mandel spent much of her chat with Gray and libertarian co-host Robby Soave promoting her new book Stolen Youth, which she co-wrote with fellow right-wing columnist (and Ron DeSantis superfan) Karol Markowicz. The book’s premise largely centers on the belief that the far-left has indoctrinated today’s youth with racial ideology, a “victimhood” culture, and “gender madness.”

Gray, a left-leaning commentator and former Bernie Sanders adviser, argued that there is indeed a recent movement which posits there’s a “cultural cache that’s emerged of hierarchies of oppression” within the education system. At the same time, Gray said she’s seen “frustration” with that language across the political spectrum, and wondered how Mandel sees this solely as “a war” being waged by the left on conservatives.

“Because framing it that way when I think this is a broad concern that a lot of folks have a problem does also recreate this kind of victim paradigm, where you have people saying we're being under attack by the left instead of kind of coming together and trying to resolve what I think is a broadly understood phenomenon.” the Rising host added.

While saying she hoped that “parents of all political stripes” would pick up her book, Mandel claimed that “this is sort of a woke reimagining that is very, very, far-left.” Additionally, she asserted that “only 7 percent of Americans consider themselves very liberal, and probably fewer of them consider themselves woke.” Gray, however, wasn’t going to just leave it there.

“What does that mean to you? Would you mind defining woke?” Gray pressed. “It’s come up a couple of times. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.”

Mandel, unfortunately, was unable to get on that same page.

“So, I mean, woke is sort of the idea that, um,” the conservative writer stammered before presciently adding: “This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.”

Here's the snippet. It has over 22M views.

[LFC]

So Bethany Mandel, the Queen of Anti-Wokeness, tried to recover today. Ugh, she's just made it worse.

From the comments.

[goldenvalley]

Of course Mandel said that.  It's the way to spread the word in the social media world.  You don't have to explain anything to anyone who doesn't already agree with you and you get to denigrate anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

[LFC]

Mar 15, 2023 21:34:06 GMT goldenvalley said:

Of course Mandel said that.  It's the way to spread the word in the social media world.  You don't have to explain anything to anyone who doesn't already agree with you and you get to denigrate anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

And as multiple people ponted out, she STILL didn’t define what she meant by woke.