But the core principles of being woke require ruthlessness (“silence is violence”, etc).
That being said I do think it’s dumb for putting ones pronouns or whatever. But I think when we paint “wokeness” with this extremely broad brush we’re just doing the same bullshit that we’re accusing “wokeness” of doing.
Surely they are only alleged witnesses until they testify?
How else do you tell the difference between a witness who actually saw nothing? [Or do you just declare that scenario to not exist?]
And that there is the violence in the woke - no due procedure. If the claimant said it happened, then it happened - let's move on to sentencing.
If you are silent then you are not explicitly with us.
And if you are not explicitly with us then you are guilty of violence. That is to say, against us.
Thus "silence is violence" = "if you are not with us then you are against us".
> What links these developments is a loose constellation of ideas that is changing the way that mostly white, educated, left-leaning Americans view the world. This credo still lacks a definitive name: it is variously known as left-liberal identity politics, social-justice activism or, simply, wokeness. But it has a clear common thread: a belief that any disparities between racial groups are evidence of structural racism; that the norms of free speech, individualism and universalism which pretend to be progressive are really camouflage for this discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled. These notions were incubated for years in the humanities departments of universities (elite ones in particular), without serious challenge.
We can add to this list: meritocracy, capitalism. Both are considered racist and oppressive.
Tl;dr Woke means being opposed to Western ideals while pretending to uphold those same Western ideals.
This is maybe too broad but mostly true. I mean, has the author read like any American history?
- that the norms of free speech, individualism and universalism which pretend to be progressive are really camouflage for this discrimination
I’d say this is largely not relevant but the thing people see as this is largely just individuals no longer “playing along” with other folks using terms & language that demean them.
- and that injustice will persist until systems of language and privilege are dismantled
Language? No. Privilege? Probably! It’s easy to point out political dynasty privilege or obvious hollywood nepotism but it’s not the only type of privilege that gives some of us a leg up and others of us a massive hill to climb just to get to zero.
They believe that it's the same outside America as well, so American history doesn't matter. E.g. Turks in Germany (who immigrated in the 60ies) don't achieve as much as native Germans after three generations => structural racism. Asian immigrants do quickly achieve as much and more than native Germans => more structural racism, I guess.
While that was a long time ago, it by no means it fixed the issues.
Yeah, right in the article it clearly says there's no definition, right in the first sentence you quoted.
Newspeak to the rescue.
I really don't have to understand the core principles of Maoism to be opposed.
I really don't have to understand the core principles of the Khmer Rouge to be opposed.
I really don't have to understand the core principles of Fascism to be opposed.
I really don't have to understand the core principles of Stalinism to be opposed.
What's more, what the core principles are may not be very relevant, because very often the most heinous acts are performed in the service of supposedly very fine "principles". In fact, the more hallowed the principles, the more permission/cover they often give to their followers for the most heinous acts. After all, they are doing this in the name of what is good and righteous.
And of course, this "do you understand X" is typically a deflection, particularly if X does its damn best to obscurantist. And this is often deployed quite tactically.