This is gonna be one of those moments that goes viral....
-
Better to talk about component ideas. Then there's nowhere to hide.
That's what's so fantastic about this guy's definition:
Wokeness is a political and social movement characterized by the following:
-A strong and in practice unrebuttable presumption that certain salient group disparities are due entirely to oppression.
-A willingness to jettison longstanding legal, political, and social norms in order to eliminate those disparities.
-A belief that oppression operates through both impersonal power structures and unconscious attitudes.
-A hyper-sensitivity to the feelings, both real and imagined, of members of marginalized groups.
-An expansive, almost mystical conception of the self, which is inherited from the liberal tradition that wokeness seeks to overthrow.
-Distrust—and in many cases demonization—of straight, white, cisgendered males.Those are things you can point to as occurring through real examples, and argue about on principled and philosophical grounds. And not get bad faith responses like "they don't want us to teach black history..."
It’s always something.
-
@jon-nyc said in This is gonna be one of those moments that goes viral....:
Better to talk about component ideas. Then there's nowhere to hide.
That's what's so fantastic about this guy's definition:
Wokeness is a political and social movement characterized by the following:
-A strong and in practice unrebuttable presumption that certain salient group disparities are due entirely to oppression.
-A willingness to jettison longstanding legal, political, and social norms in order to eliminate those disparities.
-A belief that oppression operates through both impersonal power structures and unconscious attitudes.
-A hyper-sensitivity to the feelings, both real and imagined, of members of marginalized groups.
-An expansive, almost mystical conception of the self, which is inherited from the liberal tradition that wokeness seeks to overthrow.
-Distrust—and in many cases demonization—of straight, white, cisgendered males.Those are things you can point to as occurring through real examples, and argue about on principled and philosophical grounds. And not get bad faith responses like "they don't want us to teach black history..."
That's a well thought out definition. Who's is that? Some twitter rando?
-
@jon-nyc said in This is gonna be one of those moments that goes viral....:
I've long thought that it is unhelpful in real conversation to use phrases like 'woke' or 'CRT', they're not specific enough and they mean different thing to different people. That makes it easy for defenders of the ideas to gaslight people through Motte and Bailey fallacies (which constantly happens with both terms).
Better to talk about component ideas. Then there's nowhere to hide.
Arguments about definitions is not a bad place to start a conversation. In fact it's an inevitable place. I don't have an issue with the words 'woke' or 'CRT', unless the conversation stops there at a definitional impasse. Just because one side is invested in stopping the conversation due to an alleged impasse, doesn't make it so. That's what we see happening with the 'CRT' conversation, and the left's insistence that it's undefinable gobbledygook from right wing wackos. Any attempt to define the term, which are made, are met with whackamole politics where the leftists claim that any given example of something taught, was taken out of context and/or not representative of any large scale educational movement. The "CRT" wrapper remains a useful term, even if unfairly maligned by the left. The rules of that language game are not fair nor winnable by the right, so they just have to plunge ahead using imperfect language.
-
'Woke' can be used to describe people who are concerned with environmental issues by people who don't buy into The Big Green Lie.
Or somebody who refuses to invest in blood diamonds by somebody with a bunch of blood diamonds.
Of course, you could the say the same thing about the even more alarming term 'fascist'.
-
Intelligence Squared Debates had a debate this afternoon with Coleman Hughes, Ruy Texiera, a black Dem congressman from NY, and the founder of BLM. I think all four have never voted for a Republican in their lives, but Coleman and Ruy are considered conservatives in that group. The debate topic was whether the Democrats are too far left.
The event was absurd, with the two right-leaning guests willing and able to engage in rational debate, and the other two not so much. One thing I found interesting is that "define woke, {you conservotard}" is clearly an entrenched leftist debate tactic. The congressman went to far as to lay his cards on the table in his closing arguments about that. Any conservative who uses the word woke, just makes himself look stupid, and he loves it when they do. This is an identical tactic to the "define CRT" trick, which is where they got it from, I'm sure. Look for more "define <x>" tactics going forward, with no buy-in about a definition for <x> to be found, ever.
Basically, if a word associated with the left, begins to sniff of a negative connotation, the left will disown the word, and set up impossible rules for its use in any discussion.
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
He does have really weird eyes in the video, though. They are almost hypnotic…
