Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness

[Rainman]

Very good article, gives an easy to understand overview.
Peter Boghossian, along with Pluckrose and Lindsey, were the three that submitted bogus research papers to various "studies" disciplines, and created an explosion as several of their made-up papers were accepted for publication after being peer-reviewed. Boghossian is, very surprisingly, a prof at Portland State Univ. I'm not sure where he stands now, in terms of employment. He was reprimanded for not submitting their research for approval, given they were supposedly doing research involving interviews of people.

Frankly, Jon, I'm surprised you would post an article such as this. You do come across to me as someone that is very much "woke" or at least trying to be. Glad you are not as closed-minded as I thought, or maybe I'm simply keeping up my ability of not being able to read people's minds!

For anyone that doesn't know already, there are numerous YouTube videos of interviews and lectures by Lindsey, Pluckrose and Boghossian, several of which are all three especially when shit hit the fan once they were exposed for their fake academic submissions.

[Horace]

jon's contempt for members of the conservative tribe is similar to a woke person, but he isn't one of them. He's gradually becoming more comfortable expressing his contempt for the progressive left, but he knows where home is, just the same.

[jon-nyc]

@Rainman said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Frankly, Jon, I'm surprised you would post an article such as this. You do come across to me as someone that is very much "woke" or at least trying to be.

Wow. This surprises me. I think I’ve been quite vocal and consistently anti-woke.

Maybe you see I’m anti-Trump so you just lump me in vaguely with ‘the other guys’? Maybe you don’t read my posts? Maybe I’m just not nearly as good a communicator as I’d hope.

But the reality is I am vehemently anti-Trump and vehemently anti-Woke. Horace thinks that makes me ‘objective‘, I just think it makes me sane.

[Catseye3]

I've been snooting this article, not wishing to know nuttin' about no roots of wokeness (the flowering of it is hideous enough), but I finally decided that since Jon is not in the habit of posting useless bullshit, I'd better give it a look-see.

The Pluckrose etc book theorizes that "The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and 'problematized’ whenever possible."

This comes as close to philosophical obscenity as is possible to get. Not to mention that people who actually utilize a ghastly non-word like 'problematized' deserve to go before a firing squad.

Not even to be offered a last pre-fusillade cigarette, either. I know, this is harsh, but there are sins of usage too appalling to be permitted and must be stamped out without mercy. They scorch the eye and horrify the brain. They cross far over a line which may not be crossed in even a semi-literate society.

Rats, I seem to have digressed somewhat from the article. Though I hardly ever do that, I think I'll stop here and go back and finish reading, with thanks to Jon. Loving Andrew Sullivan. Is he married, do you know? Asking for a friend.

I like this, too: "Most normal people have never heard of this [critical] theory . . . that is nonetheless changing the very words we speak and write and the very rationale of the institutions integral to liberal democracy." (Italics mine.)

[Loki]

Liberalism rode on the tails of social justice when it was convenient and created the monster.

Centrists should take little comfort in the hope that liberalism wins back the day.

But I agree that Jon never came off as woke. First of all he is too old.

Good article! Thanks for reminding me to read him weekly.

[Catseye3]

@Loki said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Centrists should take little comfort in the hope that liberalism wins back the day.

From the article: "[A]ll that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed."

[Klaus]

@Rainman said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Frankly, Jon, I'm surprised you would post an article such as this. You do come across to me as someone that is very much "woke" or at least trying to be.

Errr... did you ever actually read any of Jon's posts? You could just as well claim that Larry is in love with Hillary Clinton; the amount of evidence for that you'd find in the archives of TNCR would be similar to that of your statement.

[Klaus]

Now about the article: The one thing that leaves me a little dissatisfied with it is that I think most "woke" people aren't very familiar with critical theory. I have a hard time imagining that all those adolescent ultra-progressives read works from the Frankfurt school or Foucault.

So, while it may be true that "critical theory" has been the origin of the "woke" philosophy, it seems to me that there is a narrative that justifies being "woke" that doesn't require familiarity with critical theory.

[LuFins Dad]

I would never consider any person with a purity score as low as Jon’s as being woke. I don’t think that’s possible.

[89th]

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Wow. This surprises me. I think I’ve been quite vocal and consistently anti-woke.
Maybe you see I’m anti-Trump so you just lump me in vaguely with ‘the other guys’? Maybe you don’t read my posts? Maybe I’m just not nearly as good a communicator as I’d hope.
But the reality is I am vehemently anti-Trump and vehemently anti-Woke. Horace thinks that makes me ‘objective‘, I just think it makes me sane.

FWIW that’s how I see you too. You’ve been consistently anti-woke and critical of Trump. I’m in much of the same boat, so maybe I’m biased.

[Mik]

I have always seen Jon as just a bit to the left of me - fiscal conservative, pro business, socially a bit more liberal.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

But the reality is I am vehemently anti-Trump and vehemently anti-Woke. Horace thinks that makes me ‘objective‘, I just think it makes me sane.

I don't think your Trump hatred is some affectation you use to balance your opinions. I think it comes from a real and visceral place. But I don't think that all the destruction you will happily watch in service of it could be termed strictly sane or rational.

[Catseye3]

@Klaus said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

I think most "woke" people aren't very familiar with critical theory

But that's the beauty of it; they don't have to be. They don't even have to know the theory exists! In fact, pursuing acquaintanceship with the theory would call for the application of reason! Wouldn't work!

No, in this case the woke need only glide along on the coattails of the other zillion social media lambkins. Nothing deeper required. They don't even have to mount any kind of defense for their position. They have catch phrases a-plenty they can grunt at anybody who asks.

[xenon]

@Loki said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Liberalism rode on the tails of social justice when it was convenient and created the monster.
Centrists should take little comfort in the hope that liberalism wins back the day.

Sullivan is talking about philosophical Liberalism - not liberal used to denote left-wing.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But I don't think that all the destruction you will happily watch in service of it could be termed strictly sane or rational.

This is quite ironic given my main opposition to Trumpism is its nihilistic tendencies. Very anti-conservative in the Burkean sense.

In fact my opposition to Trumpism and the progressive left comes from an identical place.

Some day when I'm bored I'll even find your early confession of supporting Trump simply to watch him tear things down. This was before you were fully orange-pilled, it was pure ressentiment talking.

[Klaus]

@jon-nyc Many adjectives come to my mind when thinking about Trumpism, but I must admit that "nihilistic" isn't in the top ten.

[jon-nyc]

Think of his posture and actions with respect to the post-war global order, for example. (Nato, WHO, TPP, NAFTA, WTO, UNESCO, G7, etc. etc. etc.)

But also on a national institutional scale. Norm-breaking is part of his brand.

As Horace himself approvingly noted, he is the horse in the hospital.

[Klaus]

Hm. Norm-breaking isn't necessarily nihilistic. His foreign policy could be seen as a return of a kind of "splendid isolation" policy, which also isn't necessarily nihilistic. A nihilist is somebody who doesn't care about anything. Trump does care about some things. Not about the right things, but some things are very important to him and have meaning for him (such as: being admired).

Let me think about the top three adjectives that come to my mind. I think they are: Narcissistic, impulsive, populistic.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But I don't think that all the destruction you will happily watch in service of it could be termed strictly sane or rational.

This is quite ironic given my main opposition to Trumpism is its nihilistic tendencies. Very anti-conservative in the Burkean sense.

In fact my opposition to Trumpism and the progressive left comes from an identical place.

Yes, I understand you give yourself that much credibility.

Some day when I'm bored I'll even find your early confession of supporting Trump simply to watch him tear things down. This was before you were fully orange-pilled, it was pure ressentiment talking.

Your track record of understanding what I write is not as perfect as you'd like to believe, jon. But your willingness to say that - that my Trump support is by my own confession based on my affinity for mindless destruction - without a willingness to back it up, is in fact revealing of a certain character.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:

Think of his posture and actions with respect to the post-war global order, for example. (Nato, WHO, TPP, NAFTA, WTO, UNESCO, G7, etc. etc. etc.)

But also on a national institutional scale. Norm-breaking is part of his brand.

As Horace himself approvingly noted, he is the horse in the hospital.

It is part of all prominent political brands to selectively destroy and rebuild.

The horse in the hospital was a joke by John Mulaney which I said was pretty good but didn't lead much of anywhere funny, in the act.