Jump to content

"Woke" - what does it really mean?


Ser Reptitious
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Every single time I ever hear he’s mentioned it’s always in the context of demanding the left or liberals be nicer to conservatives and work with conservatives.

Heck, at this point, I'll take "not seeing people who disagree with you as a fascist, or an alt-right concern troll." Baby steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, good thing you don't also have an allergy to science, because I was talking about moral psychology, which is his field of study.

Heh.  Interesting "moral psychology" is apparently science to you but not other social sciences wherein he pretends to be an expert on.  I don't give two shits about Jonathan Haidt, but you clearly do.  Honestly, don't care why, just saying I don't respect his opinion because I've read his shit enough to know he doesn't know what he's talking about -- even if he's a "scientist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh.  Interesting "moral psychology" is apparently science to you but not other social sciences wherein he pretends to be an expert on.  I don't give two shits about Jonathan Haidt, but you clearly do.  Honestly, don't care why, just saying I don't respect his opinion because I've read his shit enough to know he doesn't know what he's talking about -- even if he's a "scientist."

You've been pretty vague about Haidt's supposed BS; why not give examples? Yes, I do give a shit; the Righteous Mind is a fucking awesome book. I myself did not study moral psychology, but I did do psych research for 10 years, and was impressed with what he laid out. 

I'm curious as to what his supposed BS is. But again: why is perfection needed here for you to accept information? Let's say he has espoused some views that go against sociology research. Or economics, etc. Okay. Easy to ignore that stuff, and focus on whatever falls within his area of expertise. You seem to be insinuating, without coming out and saying what the issue is, that he is "biased" or "secretly conservative" or some other unsavory thing. Which means, ultimately, "unworthy of my consideration." 

Whereas I merely pointed to a book by an expert in a specific relevant field (persuasion among differing moral viewpoints) which points to evidence that jived with the point I had been making.

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You seem to be insinuating, without coming out and saying what the issue is, that he is "biased" or "secretly conservative" or some other unsavory thing. Which means, ultimately, "unworthy of my consideration." 

Yes, I'm saying I don't like Haidt and therefore he's "unworthy of my consideration."  Last time I checked, I'm entitled to that opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yes, I'm saying I don't like Haidt and therefore he's "unworthy of my consideration."  Last time I checked, I'm entitled to that opinion

But you don't seem to be want to explain that stance. And, I will mention, are conveniently dismissing his expertise in moral psychology through this vague ad hominem approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But you don't seem to be want to explain that stance. And, I will mention, are conveniently dismissing his expertise in moral psychology through this vague ad hominem approach.

Not sure if you're trolling or just obtuse, but the reason I don't respect Haidt's opinions on politics is because he's not an expert on politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Kind of a straw man. I was using Deeyah Khan's work to make the point that if such extremes are possible (though impractical), then de-radicalizing someone like Rowling should be much easier.

It is theoretically possible to de-radicalize Matt Walsh and MtG.

Their personal individual betterment is less important than keeping them from turning the west into a theocratic state.

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The point being that Rowling is not nearly so entrenched and crazed as they were.

Neither where most segregationists probably. They also didn’t also want to exterminate all black people.

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

King of course would not work with a segregationist, but worked with many people he disagreed with.

But not segregationists because that’d be really stupid just as it’d be really stupid to suggest for the left to ally with Rowling on any trans issues because she literally doesn’t want to kill every trans person she comes across.

You should look up some of the debates he did with some of them.

One in particular eloquently described how the disagreement between them wasn’t different visions on how to achieve the same ends but genuinely different axioms that were irreconcilable.

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Heck, at this point, I'll take "not seeing people who disagree with you as a fascist, or an alt-right concern troll." Baby steps.

Can you take the baby step in acknowledging that sometimes that summarization  is correct?

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Would you work with someone like Billy Graham?

Bad example.

Graham’s contribution to the civil rights movement was tepid at the best of times outright obstructing at worst(saying sit ins are bad) A better example would be Lyndon b Johnson who was a conservative democrat who in his career actively opposed civil rights on numerous occasions:https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

But would I partner with virulent bigot end segregation? If you could make a particular case that getting that bigot to do a collaborative effort is too vital and necessary to not make the attempt.

And I don’t think that’s the case for Rowling.

I don’t think feminist movements should be more open to pro-life women who’d destroy reproductive rights but are salient about addressing things like maternity leave and the wage gap there’s more to lose than there is to gain.

I don’t think the lesbian community should collaborate with people who are outright bigoted to gay men and bi women but think lesbians need to be respected more in society.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The point here is what people are complaining about is an empty virtue signal by Hollywood to lazily replace old characters with new diverse actors as a form of tokenism and virtue signalling to hide the fact they are still shitty and making  bad movies. 

...

Pronouns in the bio, same thing. The problem the right have with it is that it’s seen as nothing more than an empty virtue signal to others that you have the right beliefs. It’s also one of those things which gets mandated through social pressure. 

1st part - funnily enough this is actually a thing that gets plenty of criticism from the left as well, we just use a framing that calls out the actual problem (corporations co-opting the symbolism of progressive causes as marketing without doing anything substantive) rather than mocking the idea of representation itself. I've seen different terms for it, but the one that springs to mind for queer representation is rainbow washing, which pairs up with pink washing (feminism) and green washing (environmentalism). This is pretty easy to do if that's the part of the equation you actually want to call out.

2nd part - it's only empty virtue signalling if you don't accept what it's actually signalling as important/worthwhile. The point of everyone declaring their pronouns is to allow trans people to do so, which is something we often need to do, without explicitly and easily outing ourselves as trans. A secondary signal is that this area is safe and accepting of us, something which is not the case in all spaces.

9 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

 Part of my job involves trading emails with university faculty and administrators. A pretty good portion of them have pronouns in their signature blocks. If only I had known what insidious virtue signalers they were!

The first time I got an email from a colleague doing this it made such a difference to my day, the more people I see adopting it the more it helps. It's not fucking empty at all.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

..Er, yes it does.  I'm sorry.  Maybe if we were talking about making treaties with foreign rivals or legislative bargaining or in some way wherein you have to institutionally negotiate with your enemies.  But an important public figure that continues to espouse transphobic views means she is not going to be an ally for trans causes.  That's the bottom line.

I feel like the recent article from Jeremy fucking Clarkson of all people is an excellent illustration of the difference. It's paywalled on The Times but this link has a photo of the print version embedded

https://transwrites.world/jeremy-clarkson-transgender/?noamp=available

Don't worry HoI, you don't have to read the commentary from a biased source around the article, it's just here so people can read Clarkson's article if they want.

It's not a good article per se, it's got a bunch of what I'd call problematic language and offensive jokes in it. It's also possibly the most "trans positive" article I've seen from British print media in years which is really saying something. Jeremy Clarkson is, and I say this with as much inherited Britishness as my bastardized Aussie heritage can muster, an absolute fucking twat. But I can still read that article, and recognise that it's something of an opening for a better dialogue than what's been going on and that it has the potential to sway people that genuinely don't give a fuck but have been falling for the wedge tactics of blaming us for the issue being constantly in the media.

That article is where you can kind of shake hands and take the pragmatic opportunity to make things better. JKR gives no opening of the sort. There's no opening to make an ally of someone that wants to eliminate you from public life. There's no potential to work with someone that views blatantly lying about things that take place as justified by the utilitarian value of "protecting womankind" from people like you, which is exactly what the TERFs were doing around the Posie Parker tour of the colonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add - that Clarkson article prompted a bunch of people that hyper fixated on the problematic parts and refused to see any opportunity for a positive outcome. I feel like they are the sort of progressives being decried by much of that thread, so I want to point out once again that they're just individuals and you don't actually need to worry about them. Just ignore them. 

The same as people that refuse to see any good in what John Oliver is doing because it's not perfect, despite him being literally the only mainstream media commentator I see with truly progressive takes on a lot of the issues he covers. On any issue there are of course going to be people that disagree with the substantive details, and I'm not dismissing that, but simple woker-than-thou discourse is best ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Not sure if you're trolling or just obtuse, but the reason I don't respect Haidt's opinions on politics is because he's not an expert on politics.

Again, my point was about evidence and arguments in his book. His book on moral psychology. His area of expertise. That's not the same as "opinions on politics," which again you don't feel like expounding upon.

If you're going to dismiss my ideas as "fantasy" as you've done, maybe at least be a little less lazy and yes, obtuse? I'll be generous and assume you were sleepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

so I want to point out once again that they're just individuals and you don't actually need to worry about them. Just ignore them. 

I think it’s okay to rebut them but keep it in proportion and don’t do it obsessively.

There’s nuance from the position of the left needing to metaphorically castrate itself and assume a begging servile  position in response to anyone with a showing reactionary viewpoint in hopes of winning them over vs canceling everyone who has a disagreement with say the practically of insinuating universal healthcare but is still generally liberal.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is theoretically possible to de-radicalize Matt Walsh and MtG.

Their personal individual betterment is less important than keeping them from turning the west into a theocratic state.

Again, I don't know why you are going to extreme cases like this. I never argued that it was worth trying to convert fascists, just that it is possible.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Neither where most segregationists probably. They also didn’t also want to exterminate all black people.

Rowling is nothing close to the segregationist of our time. That is someone like MTG! It's true that Rowling doesn't exactly share your vision of equality, just as people who worked together in the early civil rights struggles soon began to bicker about policies regarding economic justice. She may not believe that trans women are women in every sense of the word and all contexts, but she believes that trans people are people, who deserve protection and the freedom to live their lives in peace. She would be potentially amenable to all sorts of policy ideas, though clearly not all. 

I'd say your sentence about working with anti-abortion women on other issues of women's rights and healthcare is a much better analogy to engaging someone like Rowling. Strongly oppose them on issues when the difference matters, and work with them on other issues when it doesn't.

You asked for examples of possible policy overlap with Rowling earlier. I myself can't speak for her! I'm just going on the statements she has made. Right now it's clear that even the idea of individuals trying to initiate a good faith dialogue with someone like her about a possible pragmatic alliance would be politically toxic for said individuals. Purity over pragmatism, as ever. 

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "it's ok to ignore them" is meant in contrast to treating them like they're a bigger threat than the establishment right wing actively going after peoples human rights. Of course you can and should try to make the culture inside your group be the best it can be, I just find amplifying the influence of the voices you don't like in response to the propaganda of the right wing to be doing exactly what that propaganda wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

She may not believe that trans women are women in every sense of the word and all contexts, but she believes that trans people are people, who deserve protection and the freedom to live their lives in peace. 

I don't feel the body of her comments on this issue support your conclusion here. I don't know how much of her comments you've read, and if you don't have the energy or inclination to find out I certainly don't blame you. Just saying that in my opinion I don't think you can actually assume this to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, karaddin said:

I don't feel the body of her comments on this issue support your conclusion here. I don't know how much of her comments you've read, and if you don't have the energy or inclination to find out I certainly don't blame you. Just saying that in my opinion I don't think you can actually assume this to be true.

Well, I certainly don't spend a lot of time reading people's tweets, but I would argue that reading crap like that doesn't give much insight into someone's beliefs on a topic, just the stance they've decided to take in a given moment.

The reason I brought up Rowling in the first place is that I recently listened to an interesting podcast mini-series: "the Witch Trials of JK Rowling." It's done by Megan Phelps-Roper, who was raised into the Westboro Baptist Church before eventually deciding to leave them.

Despite the title, it's a very sober look at the situation. Given her own background, Megan is always asking the question, "what if you are wrong like I was?" She includes trans perspectives as well as Rowling's (Natalie Wynn was one of the few people who agreed to be on it; most people asked did not want their name attached to something that included an interview with Rowling), as well as a larger historical context for the controversy.

So, I did hear her try to expound on her thoughts, at least in that interview. I'm sure she was trying to put her best face on, but it sounded like there was plenty of potential ground to work with, politically speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Again, I don't know why you are going to extreme cases like this.

In terms of trans issues I genuinely don’t think Rowling is actually that much off from them no.

And I think her disgust towards trans people takes primacy over any particular progressive sentiment on other social issues

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Rowling is nothing close to the segregationist of our time.

The analogy was more to poke fun on the incredibly low standard you’re using to say the left should see Rowling as a potential for trans issues which is that she literally does not desire to see all trans people dead.

 

Pat Robertson doesn’t literally want to kill all trans people too and years ago told his viewers to mind their business when a co-worker of theirs transitions

Why isn’t the left s

11 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Rowling doesn't exactly share your vision of equality,

She sees trans women as mentally predatory men and trans women as abused mentally little girls. I fully expect by the end of the year she’ll come out against adults medically transitioning and calling social transitioning for youth grooming.

16 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

She may not believe that trans women are women in every sense of the word and all contexts, but she believes that trans people are people, who deserve protection and the freedom to live their lives in peace.

She’s actively right now pushing for states to do away with the protections and freedoms they’d enjoyed for years.

Your  standard for calling someone a potential would have to include calling someone like MTG who can say trans people are people who’ve been duped by the woke mind virus.

20 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

She would be potentially amenable to all sorts of policy ideas, though clearly not all. 

She is currently, actually pushing for regressive policies.

22 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Strongly oppose them on issues when the difference matters, and work with them on other issues when it doesn't.

No, that’d needlessly  give legitimately to the people working to destroy reproductive rights as simply having different opinions and alienate people who don’t want to around people who’d force children to give birth.

You know Israel is an apartheid state that deserves a lot of criticism—it’d be bad for a group dedicated to protesting its expansion of settlements to just let in and promote actual Nazis because of a specific agreement of Israel acting inappropriately in Palestine.

27 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You asked for examples of possible policy overlap with Rowling earlier. I myself can't speak for her!

Then don’t say she’s a potential ally for the left who they should they should endeavor to work with on trans rights Jesus Christ.

11 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I just started that, only on episode 2 but it’s a good listen so far. I didn’t know much about her life during the period of writing the first book.

I do not mean offense.

But I must say I am 100% certain when Britain begins the process of banning medical transitioning for trans adults you will downplay it, be outright be supportive or be silent on it and give a thumbs up to those saying the angst over it is hyperbolic

Least theocratic fascist Matt Walsh owns his views on these matters. Well most of them.

I admit I can be wrong and if I am I apologize.

 

20 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, I certainly don't spend a lot of time reading people's tweets, but I would argue that reading crap like that doesn't give much insight into someone's beliefs on a topic, just the stance they've decided to take in a given moment.

Yeah her hundreds of tweets expressing bigoted sentiments on aren’t different from her on camera statements doing likewise.

31 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm sure she was trying to put her best face on, but it sounded like there was plenty of potential ground to work with, politically speaking.

There as much potential political speaking as there is with Matt Walsh who Rowling as directly praised for his fear mongering on trans people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sigh I hate to use the phrase since the people who came up with are fascists  but it’s accurate here:

Politics is the downstream of culture.

How regular or Indic people talk about certain things can eventually manifest into more substantive based policy changes.

The constant attachment of the word “groomer” in reference to trans people has made it a easy for states to flat out ban medical transitioning or socially transitioning.

Hmmm...there's some truth to be had here, but it's very complicated.

First thing is that, yes, sure: Policies stem from cultural norms and values. Changing cultural norms and values can lead to changes in policies and other political efforts. That's why I mentioned the importance of persuasion politics to change hearts and minds.

But we've got some real problems here. Right wingers have got some real issues of not caring about what most Americans want, and recently played some good hands rather poorly in the States by overreaching and showing how crazy they truly are. But nevertheless, overall, they still are much better than the left at telling stories and framing arguments in ways that the US populace finds understandable, relatable, and compelling. It's usually grievance-based, and often untrue, but that's a different issue.

To put it bluntly, Democratic establishment types sound like robots, while the activist types sound like aliens to people outside the bubble.

But also: there's a huge difference between facilitating cultural shifts through persuasion and the top-down policing of language that the orthodox left is obsessed with. Real cultural change doesn't come that way. Persuasion first, then language trends will follow organically. All these tactics do is annoy and alienate, and give ammunition to the right wing. They are in fact the ones who are out of touch, but so many people on the left sound out of touch. We've got to stop that.

I used to be in academia, but now my job is to translate research ideas to people with other areas of expertise, many of them non-academic. So I basically had to learn how to stop sounding like an alien. I really recommend that people take stock of that and try to communicate beyond their sphere of nerds/radicals/critical theorists/whatever. The culture will change if you can meet people where they are and persuade them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

In terms of trans issues I genuinely don’t think Rowling is actually that much off from them no.

Tldr: You think that Purity politics is getting the cause somewhere substantial. I think that it leads to thin skins, alienation, and inevitable fracturing from within.

You're fine when it's Rowling. Less so when it's Natalie Wynn and Lindsey Ellis. Maybe more confused when it ends up being Michelle Goldberg too. And probably you at some point. Then a court overturns all of the things we've been fighting for, and shouting "you're on the wrong side of history" doesn't mean a fucking thing. Maybe then you'd deign to do a little persuasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...