Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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 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.
@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.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@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.
-
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.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
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 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.
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
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.
@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.
-
@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 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
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.
You don't think it has even a little to do with the challenges of searching a 15 year database of posts?
-
One of the problems with our populist movements, like populist movements in general, is they are very keen on what they want to destroy and very vague on what or how to build in its place.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
One of the problems with our populist movements, like populist movements in general, is they are very keen on what they want to destroy and very vague on what or how to build in its place.
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
One of the problems with our populist movements, like populist movements in general, is they are very keen on what they want to destroy and very vague on what or how to build in its place.
is that as big a problem as people's psychological blocks against distinguishing a preference for one candidate over the other, from full unqualified love of that candidate?
-
And by the way, the reason you remember what I allegedly wrote so vividly, is because it confirmed your bias that there's something psychologically wrong with Trump supporters. It's been your ground truth about my Trump support ever since, and from that seed of contempt grew your comfortable total dismissal of me as a tribal pill swallower. It's all very lazy of you.
Education is extremely important.
-
