Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness
-
Moving on down in the article, in any discussion, Sullivan writes, "An oppressed person’s word is always the last one."
Is that because the other is struck dumb by the surreal stupidity with which he is confronted? He stands there, mouth agape, with nothing to say, while the SJW struts off, satisfied at having silenced another disgusting heteronormal.
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Moving on down in the article, in any discussion, Sullivan writes, "An oppressed person’s word is always the last one."
Is that because the other is struck dumb by the surreal stupidity with which he is confronted?
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
Education is extremely important.
-
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.)
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
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.
He is, and he's gay. And English. One out of three ain't bad
I was only joking
-
Except not. If you criticize and make fun of both Trumpism and wokeness you don’t make too many friends. Look at some of my threads next door criticizing wokeness -you can practically hear people sputter and point. And here, look at the grief I get from you for refusing that orange pill.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
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.
He is, and he's gay. And English. One out of three ain't bad
@Doctor-Phibes said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
He is, and he's gay.
Oh, boogersnot.
-
Except not. If you criticize and make fun of both Trumpism and wokeness you don’t make too many friends. Look at some of my threads next door criticizing wokeness -you can practically hear people sputter and point. And here, look at the grief I get from you for refusing that orange pill.
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Except not. If you criticize and make fun of both Trumpism and wokeness you don’t make too many friends. Look at some of my threads next door criticizing wokeness -you can practically hear people sputter and point. And here, look at the grief I get from you for refusing that orange pill.
I think the word Trumpism is a convenient one used to integrate anybody who prefers Trump to his current political opposition, with Trump himself. Wokeness on the other hand is a blatant large-scale cultural movement, permeating every aspect of this culture we all have to exist in.
-
Except not. If you criticize and make fun of both Trumpism and wokeness you don’t make too many friends. Look at some of my threads next door criticizing wokeness -you can practically hear people sputter and point. And here, look at the grief I get from you for refusing that orange pill.
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Except not. If you criticize and make fun of both Trumpism and wokeness you don’t make too many friends. Look at some of my threads next door criticizing wokeness -you can practically hear people sputter and point. And here, look at the grief I get from you for refusing that orange pill.
If you don't fit in a handy little compartment it upsets people. You need to either embrace The Woke or The Orange.
-
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says. Which is exactly an issue of fitting people into compartments.
Education is extremely important.
-
Or to reconcile with the many lifelong GOP stalwarts who couldn’t pull a lever for him. Including at least 4 here.
Trump definitely started a movement, and it was a fairly radical departure from the GOP that preceded it.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says. Which is exactly an issue of fitting people into compartments.
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says.
Nonsense. Surely one of the reasons we post his most ridiculous tweets here is to watch you guys squirm a little.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says. Which is exactly an issue of fitting people into compartments.
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says. Which is exactly an issue of fitting people into compartments.
Some people here do seem to support just about everything he does. I also realise lots of people who voted for him didn't much like him. I find there's a huge difference from what people say here and what people say to me in real life. In real life I find it's much easier to have actual discussions without it descending into idiocy. And I fully realise I'm as guilty of that as anybody else. I've always had a very low boredom threshold, which generally leads to bad behavour. If you actually take half of what I say seriously, then what can I say?
-
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Moving on down in the article, in any discussion, Sullivan writes, "An oppressed person’s word is always the last one."
Is that because the other is struck dumb by the surreal stupidity with which he is confronted?
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
Which is saying the same thing in Horace-speak.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
Or to reconcile with the many lifelong GOP stalwarts who couldn’t pull a lever for him. Including at least 4 here.
Trump definitely started a movement, and it was a fairly radical departure from the GOP that preceded it.
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Or to reconcile with the many lifelong GOP stalwarts who couldn’t pull a lever for him. Including at least 4 here.
Why would I need to go to any pains to reconcile that? People find Trump viscerally revolting because he sniffs low class. That sort of visceral revulsion is a red-line issue for some. I've explained that here at length. It's far from inscrutable to me.
Trump definitely started a movement, and it was a fairly radical departure from the GOP that preceded it.
His personality is a radical departure from GOP politicians before him. The movements he started were mostly in reaction against him, on the left.
-
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
Which is saying the same thing in Horace-speak.
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
Which is saying the same thing in Horace-speak.
No, it wasn't the same thing. Nobody is silent against the cancel mob because the cancel mob is too stupid. It's because the cancel mob is too dangerous.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says.
Nonsense. Surely one of the reasons we post his most ridiculous tweets here is to watch you guys squirm a little.
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
But neither you nor jon display much willingness to differentiate support for Trump over his political opposition, from some caricatured devotion to everything he thinks and says.
Nonsense. Surely one of the reasons we post his most ridiculous tweets here is to watch you guys squirm a little.
Well, you enjoy giggling at people you think are stupid. Meanwhile, as far as i know, most posters here, even his supporters, wish he'd calm down with those stupid tweets.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
Or to reconcile with the many lifelong GOP stalwarts who couldn’t pull a lever for him. Including at least 4 here.
Why would I need to go to any pains to reconcile that? People find Trump viscerally revolting because he sniffs low class. That sort of visceral revulsion is a red-line issue for some. I've explained that here at length. It's far from inscrutable to me.
Trump definitely started a movement, and it was a fairly radical departure from the GOP that preceded it.
His personality is a radical departure from GOP politicians before him. The movements he started were mostly in reaction against him, on the left.
-
@Catseye3 said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
No, that's because of the weaponized cancellation of anybody who questions whether oppression grants ultimate authority in cultural/political discussions.
Which is saying the same thing in Horace-speak.
No, it wasn't the same thing. Nobody is silent against the cancel mob because the cancel mob is too stupid. It's because the cancel mob is too dangerous.
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan on The Roots of Wokeness:
No, it wasn't the same thing. Nobody is silent against the cancel mob because the cancel mob is too stupid. It's because the cancel mob is too dangerous.
How about both?
As for the dangerous, yes, they are. But I can't accept that a movement this goofball can last forever. Like Phibbs (?) said, they're good at tearing down, not so much at building back up. And conditions don't remain in torn-down status indefinitely.
I remain enough of a Randist to believe that in the end, above all, competence must prevail. I want to say to these people: If you want the goodies, do the work. Clear the starry-eyed crap out of your vision, study your human history, and accept that rising to the top demands more than painting big yellow letters on the pavement. Didn’t nobody promise you a rose garden, babe, and ain’t nobody gonna carry you but so far, for so long.
