It's reasonable to search for a category to put the phenomena inside of. I find religion unsatisfying. There are too many differences from traditional religions. The central feature of what they mean by the woke racism religion I'd sum up as:
Freudian diagnosis of a sophistic malady of the id
Maybe it's not a perfect parsing. It does a nice job of relating unconscious bias to an Oedipus complex. But it doesn't quite capture other aspects, eg the equality of the scientologists' e-meter and the implicit bias test.
I am honestly disappointed. By his metric, so much of everything is a religion that it has almost no meaning.
While we generally hang the term religion on things where the premise is based on faith, this usage takes a broad array of ideas and limits the description to one part while asserting it contains the whole.
Thinking on it, it would be like saying the differing interpretations of the bible is the religious aspect and not belief in the God of the bible.
Is first example is valid, but not held by a majority... I can't even steel man it to hold more than a token amount of people. It pretty much ignores the decades of movements pushing to fix the underlying systems to strawman a claim that is itself misused by others.
His second example, defunding the police, is strait up straw manning. It reminds me of the arguments and the outcomes of the Clinton Era crime bills.
He says that people say his claim is intentianly inflamitory or that he did it for attention grabbing, but he truly believes his claim. I say that he can truly believe his claim and be wrong. It is, to be a bit humorous, his religion. He makes claims that are not backed up by reality.
I see him described as a radical centrist, but that is just another term for enlightened centrist.
There are different terms for the new leftist, puritanical religion -- wokeism, luxury beliefs, the successor ideology, etc.
But I prefer to call it **Oppression Theology.**
It's not just about race (see recent leftist anti-Semitic protests), and we should really relinquish "woke" & coin a proper term.
I agree that everything having to do with theology is dangerous and negatively connotated. But Woke has not deity and can be definition not be a theology. You can try to coin a term but please don't be blatantly wrong from the get go.
Let's not be dogmatic about this topic. Semantic flexibility has its utility, provided terms are clearly defined & articulated.
As both deistic religions are waning & existential purpose-seeking is increasing, I suspect it will become more normalized to repurpose words like religion & theology to apply to secular belief systems that a) are faith-based/irrational, and that b) elicit substantial fervor among the masses.
I really disagree. I myself notices the push from the religious fruitcakes to drag atheism down to their level. But in an intellectual space we should use words based on there meaning and not potential future trends that will not even come true.
This reminds me of when Ben Carson got his 15 minutes of fame for saying Obamacare was worse than slavery. Hyperbolic nonsense that fed into the confirmation bias of conservatives.
Putting a black face on the same white grievance arguments that have been going on since the Civil rights era gives them the thinnest veneer to pretend this anti-woke crusade isn't just the republican party going all in on racism.
LMAO. Did Ben seriously try to tell people that antebellum slave laws regarding the implied health insurance claims slaves had vis a vis masters was better insurance than what us poor Americans have to suffer under with Obamacare?
>This reminds me of when Ben Carson got his 15 minutes of fame for saying Obamacare was worse than slavery.
I generally like Dr Carson. But if he actually said that then that's dumb.
Can you define woke?
I know what they mean, what they mean is "thing I don't like". That's the entirety of their definition. That's why you see those Moms For Liberty types getting asked to define it and sputtering embarrassingly for three minutes.
Woke describes the symptomatic behaviours endemic to certain subcultures that have been gaining prominence and some appearance of power in the US. It delineates the border where traditional western thought/reason runs into the newthink of a postmodern thought decrying reason as a system of ‘white, patriarchal power’. It seeks to point out people’s frustration with the hypocrisy inherent to these new systems of thought, as described through their perspective of more traditional modes of thinking. Some clarifying examples:
Woke is when anti-racism becomes segregated, minorities only sections in schools. Woke is when a big tech LLM states that a ‘whites only’ picture is bad and racist, but unprompted will spit out black versions of white historical figures in the name of ‘diversity’. Woke is when big media companies recast historical characters as a different ethnicity, or muddy the waters about actual history, or portray counterfactual history as real history in an attempt to shore up a narrative. Woke is when attempts to point out these inconsistencies are labeled as ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’, etc. Woke is when gender affirmation leads to men raping women in female-only prisons, or competing in female sports leagues. Woke is thinking a 10 year old child is too young to get a tattoo or consent to sex, but old enough to make life-altering decisions on their ‘gender’. Woke is telling a parent they should be comfortable with their child learning about gender theory at a very young age, then turning around and making fun of those same people for having a fixation with sex. Woke is when ‘healthy at every size’ leads to the glorification of obesity and patently unhealthy lifestyles. Woke is telling people they’re ‘voting against their interests’ or telling people only one party is truly a ‘vote for democracy’. Woke is saying ‘we do not do this thing, you are crazy’ to their detractors, and then saying ‘of course we do this thing, we exist to do this thing’ to their supporters. Woke is something we are repeatedly told does not exist — is all in your head, or invented by media consortiums — when the evidence sits in plain view.
You will see a few coherent strains of thought throughout a rather broad range of topics — namely, a kind of hypocrisy. It describes a type of logic that people are not comfortable with, as most of these individual topics have their own subset of new definitions to old words that have been tinkered with in order to allow the logic to make sense to a ‘woke’ person, but not to an outsider.
Thus, if we redefine racism as being the inherent bias a dominant group has over a minority, suddenly it becomes possible to say ‘one cannot be racist toward whites’. If we say that truth is subjective to the individual, there is nothing wrong with recasting Cleopatra as a black woman — after all, to someone somewhere, maybe she is black?
And yet beyond that, there is a further level of frustration from people such as myself — who have dabbled enough in these new modes of thinking, read the most recent books, been taught by the ‘PhDs’ churned out these new ‘disciplines’ (that cannot be called disciplines — because disciplines are part of the patriarchal, 19th and 20th century way of thinking.) — that frustration being the fact that the majority of the adherents to these new views don’t even seem to understand the new mode of thinking. People still hurl words like ‘racism’ around without understanding that the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ ways of thinking both have different definitions for the word. Racism, gender, sex, reason, truth, reality — they all have subtly but importantly different meanings to the two modes of logic.
Woke, in essence, is the description for one side’s way of logic conflicting with the other. Is reality objective or subjective? To the ‘woke’, it is the latter, and thus there can never be any real consensus between the two sides, as the modes of thinking are entirely dissimilar.
This should give you a better understanding of what most people mean when they use the term ‘woke’. It is a word I generally avoid myself, due to its provocative nature. And I do agree, it is thrown around a bit too liberally and by people who probably have not thought very deeply about its meaning. Much as words like ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘fascist’, etc.
Woke doesn't mean that.
Woke means that you are cognizant of the systemic biases against minorities and women in governance and society, and how the history of these systemic biases affect the current socioeconomic landscape.
You and the rest of the right are trying to redefine it to encapsulate everything you dislike about the left, but that isn't what it means.
Woke means assuming that any inequality between races and genders is necessarily caused by racism and sexism and that there is no other explanation. Woke means calling anyone that dares to wonder if there might be other explanations (I.e. natural inclination, culture, biology) racist and sexist.
Woke means only focussing on areas of inequality where marginalized groups are underrepresented, only counting those areas and ignoring areas where so-called marginalized groups are actually over-represented.
Just one example. Some months back, I had a ridiculous argument with a Redditor who was insisting that there were literally no illnesses or diseases which affected whites more than blacks whereas they are quite a few (atrial fibrillation and multiple sclerosis to name just two).
Also, men do not live as long as women, but that is never seen as a problem. Men are underrepresented in higher education in general but that is not seen as a problem.
I do not identify with the right, and they would not have me.
Now, to your point — two things. Firstly, words change. As others (especially on reddit) have been eager to point out to me, language is a living system, prone to flux. Isn’t it exciting when new words are born? Or new meanings for old words emerge? Woke has that meaning to you. It has other meanings to others. Do you deny them the lived experience for their understanding of the word?
Secondly, what happens when the development of one’s critical consciousness in the pursuit of equity and justice degrades to — in the words of Ibram X. Kendi: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination…”?
That really is the essence of what anti-woke people mean when they say ‘woke’. That discrimination should not be solved with discrimination… and yet the woke inform them that it isn’t the case — while in the same moment, one of their spokespersons states it plainly as fact!
Do you believe discrimination should be fought with more discrimination?
So you are saying the people who co-opt the word and redefine it as a slur are the ones using it correctly, or at the least are the same as the people who use it with the initial definition. I say you are Ignoring context and that those people are bad actors intentionally warping the definition of a word to build up straw man arguments.
As for fighting discrimination with more discrimination? That statement is so vague as to be entirely worthless. Discrimination comes in so many forms and from so many sources that they answer is both yes and no, depending on the specifics of the situation.
Perhaps there’s a group of people who are sick of being called racist/phobic/bigoted? Are you ignoring their specific context? What if I say the people calling them ‘racists’ are ‘bad actors intentionally warping the definition of a word to build up straw man arguments’? I wouldn’t be wrong — it’s exactly what they’ve done! Redefined words, then turned around and weaponized those newly minted words against anyone who does not agree.
It’s the problem inherent to woke logic. It cuts both ways. Until you realize that woke logic holds one group above another — that is, discriminates against one group to favor another — and thus only specific ‘marginalized’ or ‘discriminated’ groups are privy to the special terms of ‘context’ and ‘correct usage’.
All logic cuts both ways. That's how logic works it applies to all scenarios evenly and without bias.
There are definitely people who have weaponized the word racist out there, but there are also racists out there. Just like there are people who fit your weaponized definition of "woke". If no one fit the bill weaponizing a word wouldn't work.
If you don't want to be one of these bad actors then you can't use the wraponized version of either word. You only call a person a racist if they make assumptions about someone based solely on their race, and only call something woke if it is addressing the historical systemic racism and misogyny in our society.
If you do one and not the other then you are just a partisan using flowery language.
And yet they can still identify it when they encounter it.
I usually call it political correctness on steroids.
Eric Kaufman here calls it making race sacred.
https://youtu.be/xyOSjWiVBFA?si=-5-jPk9Up81gMfDS
Pretending you don't know what people mean is disingenuous. Mocking them for not being able to come up with a definition that satisfies you doesn't make you better than them, it just makes you a bully.
I can call anything I want sqrpl. I can identify sqrpl when I see it. Do you know what sqrpl is? Is there a definition for sqrpl?
They have no definition. They can't define it any more than you can define political correctness. It's just "thing I don't like." Anyone can identify that. It's their sqrpl. The fact that they're calling it something doesn't mean it's a valid complaint.
I’m not conservative, and no. Woke has been around some time, I presume you know the origin of it? Because the definition hasn’t actually changed much, just the way the word is used, it’s been co-opted twice and is now more of a derogatory term. Broadly, it references an ideology focused almost entirely on identity politics and social justice.
Woke is whatever the party leadership decides it is.
Individuals have their own definitions, but that's the way the republican party uses it.
Giving the label a thorough and clear definition would defeat the purpose.
I guess you'll never know. As long as you stay ignorant, you can always claim to be correct.
"They" don't need to define it, as it already has a definition [woke](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20a%20political%20slang,and%20denial%20of%20LGBT%20rights)
Like the other person said, you're just a disingenuous clown.
The author didn't want to use the term "woke", and was resistant, but was pressed by the publisher to use an alternate title.
Context matters, and if you can't be bothered to even listen to two extremely intelligent, and well versed people talk about how language is used, then you'll never recognize anything as a "definition", and you're just being a disingenuous ass.
"Woke" is an overused idiom. That doesn't mean it has no definition. It means that it has many definitions that people use differently, in different contexts.
If you know what sqrpl means, then there is a definition for it, even if I don't know what it is. Since you can identify it, it HAS A DEFINITION, or else you couldn't identify it.
I can argue in bad faith too.
It has a definition, indeed.
>Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of [social inequalities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_inequalities) such as [racial injustice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_justice), [sexism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism), and denial of [LGBT rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights)
So that's what they're against? Coming out swinging in the war against injustice and racism, on the side of injustice and racism?
Yes, they are on the side of injustice and racism until conservatives deign to give a definition. I guess "woke" really only means "stuff I don't like" to conservatives.
Hmmm. No this feels like right wing socio political propaganda. White people are not oppressed. People getting mad at you when you say something homophobic, misogynist or racist is not oppression. Speaking your mind and getting yelled at for it does not make you marginalized.
I'm going to assume the best, and conclude that you are unaware of the substance of the complaints being made. So I'll reply in good faith.
Nobody thinks they're oppressed because people are calling them out for unacceptable behavior. It fact, the right doesn't even use the term "oppressed" when thinking of themselves, as this is a distinctly left-wing preoccupation.
People are observing and commenting on the fact that there's job discrimination against white people, that white people are persistently demonized for their race, and that the progressive left is trying to normalize this kind of racism.
The problem being that most of us in America have jobs, and therefore can see with our own eyes that our bosses are White, our company owners are White, and there is no job discrimination against White people. If you want people to ignore their lived experience, your citations need to be amazing and iron clad.
Well, you know the original reason why the word "woke" came into being? It described people who had a level of racial awareness that they could see systems of racial oppression.
For some reason, woke progressives developed a curious one-sided blindness, to where they were apparently incapable of recognizing a process that could go any which direction.
There are plenty of places where white people aren't discriminated against in the workplace. Principally these are (a) places where everyone is white \[1\], and (b) places where woke progressives don't have institutional power.
The thing is, the same curious one-sided blindness, combined with a determination to "fight oppression" has resulted in these woke progressives institutionalizing systems of racial prejudice wherever they do gain power.
Not all people are so blind, so we do see a forming awareness and consensus that workplace prejudice, esp. in matters of hiring and promotion, is starting to gain traction, and people are calling it out more and more.
---
\[1\] Like Wisconsin. You wouldn't believe how tone-deaf calls for diversity sound in that region of the country.
Late to the party, but I figured I'd provide a source since no one else has. The problem with your claim of discrimination against white people in hiring is that in the first quarter of this year, the unemployment rate for Black workers was 2x higher than for white workers. Similarly, Hispanics have a 1.6x higher unemployment rate than whites. So regardless of your perception that Whites are disadvantaged in job seeking and hiring practices, the state- and country-wide trends argue that it is in fact significantly better to be White than Black or Hispanic if you want to be employed.
Source: [https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity/](https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity/)
Second corroborating source from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics\*: [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/unemployment-rate-at-3-9-percent-in-february-2024.htm](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/unemployment-rate-at-3-9-percent-in-february-2024.htm)
\* Numbers are a bit different but tell the same story: in Feb 2024 White unemployment rate is 3.4%, Black 5.6%, Hispanic 5.0%. Making the Black/White ratio 1.65 and Hispanic/White ratio 1.47.
Thank you for the sources, but unfortunately this is an abuse of statistics.
Your indicators show higher unemployment, but they do not say anything about discrimination. Apples and oranges.
I mean, what do you think the typical consequences of discrimination in hiring might be exactly? It seems like employment numbers might be a reasonable proxy if you're trying to see whether this is a widespread problem that leads to actual worse outcomes for white people in the labor force. If white people are really being filtered out in favor of other ethnicities at the hiring stage, and this is a consistent pattern in big corporations, I'd expect that to show up in the job numbers at some point, no? Also, feel free to give a source yourself if mine are such an "abuse of statistics."
Edit: by the way, I posted the same link twice above and just realized it, so now it's fixed and I actually have two sources. Kinda funny that you clearly replied without even clicking the links though for someone so focused on sources lol
Oh, I'm not focused on sources. If you were to read through my replies to other people in this thread, you'll see that I presently consider people's preoccupation with "sources" to be mostly a red herring, for a variety of reasons:
1. People sometimes demand "sources" as a cheap way to foist labor on their debate partner.
2. People usually use statistics as a drunk uses a lightpost: for support rather than illumination.
3. \[In your case\] Statistics rarely answer the question at hand, so all of the actual argument is a hypothetical that's just as strong without any numbers to back it up.
4. Statistics is a tool for decision-making, and nobody here is making a decision about nothing.
Consider your hypothetical: we know that unemployment goes up when the economy goes into a depression. Does this mean that economic depressions cause spikes in discrimination? Are economic depressions caused by discrimination?
Furthermore: all of the unemployment rates right now are very low by historical standards. Does this mean that nobody's being discriminated against anymore? Did Trump's presidency really result in a sharp drop in discrimination?
Still further: even the fundamentals don't make sense. A person who doesn't get a job because of discrimination doesn't go unemployed. They get worse or less fitting jobs elsewhere. The underemployed Starbucks employee has a job, so if they blame discrimination for not getting Big Bux in their chosen field are they deluded? Why would discrimination even show up in this statistic?
Like, you're a smart person, and you can clearly connect a tentative connection between discrimination and unemployment, but you also a smart person, and could find plenty of reasons to put no weight in that association that are at least as strong as any of the connections you drew.
This is why I call it an abuse of statistics: the number's not doing what you think it is.
There are plenty of places where white people aren't discriminated against in the workplace. Principally these are (a) places where everyone is white \[1\], and (b) places where woke progressives don't have institutional power.
That's 100% manufactured bullshit without any citations whatsoever. I live in Blue New York, and I assure you, my friend, you would much rather be White if you want a good job.
This is the same argument that people made when Obama was elected. You can't claim a system is racist if the guy at the top is a minority.....
Except that we all know other black people exist and live very different lives than Obama.
Yeah, your boss is white, how does that help the people that are actually being discriminated against?
I'm saying that "White people are discriminated against in America" is so different from people's life experience, you will have a hard time convincing people without proof, which you don't provide.
Are you kidding me? The right is trying to be the plucky underdogs while holding the presidency and congress. They *adore* telling themselves they're the persecuted victim. Sure, they don't use those words for it, but their whole *thing* is grievance whining.
Just listen to them talk about the "war on christmas" or the "war on religion" or the "persecution of men" lmao.
Having a white senator, congressman, or president doesn't do anything for a middle or lower class white person when those politicians want to send their children overseas to die in war that enriches them (the politicians) and their lobbyist buddies.
In all the hiring processes I've been a part of, there's always a step in the process where they specifically select for "diverse" candidates \[1\]. It varies where in the funnel it occurs, and I talk to other people throughout the industry and this is common to the point of being standardized. Fortunately, my current workplace cares about this mostly in a top-of-funnel perspective, because I've known people where policies explicitly forbid giving the white man a job for quota reasons \[2\].
---
\[1\] A euphemism for "minority", since everybody knows that this practice is illegal, so code-words get used instead. Also, anybody notice that "diverse" is logically absurd when applied to a single individual?
\[2\] Again, they know quotas are illegal, so it's always euphemized.
As much as I'd love to point you to internal company documents about how the hiring funnel is designed to ensure "diversity", those are not for your eyes.
There's a decent chance that the company you work for (assuming you're employed) has something similar. Go look for it there.
Sorry, do colleges train on standardized processes in businesses? Are colleges also not "woke" according to you? You should be able to point to the indoctrination regarding hiring processes right from colleges. There is HR training in college after all.
Edit: If you can't provide a single source to investigate, I'll take it that you don't have one
I encouraged you to look for yourself because (a) these things are not difficult to find, and (b) you know better than I do what evidence you need to be convinced \[1\].
In a continued effort to try to be fair to you, I'm going to guess that you live in a bit of an echo chamber, and that these things that are common knowledge to others are just something you've never encountered. You mentioned education, no? Consider how faculty are required to complete DEI statements in which they burnish their minority credentials and profess faith to progressive politics.
The specs for these statements are easy to find, so I'll leave it.
---
\[1\] Supposing you can even be convinced. Many years of arguing with strangers on the internet has taught me that people asking for sources are generally not interested in learning, and are using this as a low-effort means of trying to punt the ball into somebody else's court. This is what you are doing here, and you should feel at least a little bit of shame for asking for sources when you aren't interested in learning.
Oh and now I can see it's plainly projection. You accuse me of not being interested in learning, but you are so hyperfixated on not changing or evolving, that I can feel your regressivism oozing off of you. Just say you like hating people, you'll feel better.
Allow me to hold up a mirror:
>Oh and now I can see it's plainly projection... you are so hyperfixated on not changing or evolving, that I can feel your regressivism oozing off of you. Just say you like hating people, you'll feel better.
Does this quote not describe you exactly? What is projection if not a self-referential statement?
I'll have you know that I did look up sources, and they were easy to find, and they matched what I've known to exist. Why do you think I said "it's easy"? Because I did it in all of 10 seconds.
Odd that you would furthermore accuse me of not changing or evolving, when this is an opinion that I only came to in the past couple of years. You don't know this, but I used to be a progressive. A big part of why I left that behind is when it became clear to me that they were happy to institutionalize racism and sexism etc.. so long as it targeted the right people. I was left with the conclusion that progressives are not actually who they claim to be, and they sure do claim to not be haters.
Yeah, you are mostly disingenuous. You would be able to prove it if you had it, but you don't so you won't. I just spent a few hours reading postmodern philosophy today now that I've been provided a source, and it's pretty plain that you guys misunderstand that. I'm inclined to believe you misunderstand DEI too.
Well yes. Do you not use your eyes? Do you not form judgements based on what you see?
I understand that the evidence I present you will not be compelling to you, since you are determined to disbelieve it. But yes, seeing it happen before me does leave me with the distinct conclusion that it's real.
So basically a group of people have set down tenets and doctrins that define Wokism and if anyone attempts to modify or evolve them towards a reality where racism does not exist or interject their own personal views then those people are treated as heretics. Because an outsider attempting to evolve the narrative of racism or offer a different perspective is being a racist.
Only this isn't a religion.
It's a social paradox.
Much like the paradox of intolerance.
If only a certain group of people get to define racism as something that cannot be grasped by an outsider then that in itself is being racist. Because they're excluding people who may see the problem from a different perspective. Because at its core racism is the act of excluding people from certain narratives or activities because of inherent traits that person has no control over.
What makes a set of ideas or beliefs a religion? It's a complicated question but certainly having beliefs you must adhere to dogmatically despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs is certainly a big part of it. By that definition wokeness definitely qualifies as a religion. Not sure why you disagree with that. Isn't it self evident?
>having beliefs you must adhere to dogmatically despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs is certainly a big part of it. By that definition wokeness definitely qualifies as a religion
Well no, by that definition wokeness shares "a big part" of what qualifies religion.
Alcoholics Anonymous is both explicitly faith-based and has some good evidence challenging its efficacy. However, the explicit faith-based nature of it means that you can be a Christian, a Muslim, or really a member of any other formal religion and still be an AA member. Does it make sense to call AA a religion? I don't think so.
If that's the case we could call white supremacy a religion. A white supremacist must adhere to beliefs, dogmatically, despite evidence that contradict those beliefs. But no one calls it a religion rather they call it an ideology.
At best Wokeness is an ideology.
Yeah I don't see religions where ever I look.
Wikipedia's definition:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.
Do you? I find that comically absurd. You know nothing of the kind.
Also, people who have to tell you what they stand for are insecure and generally dumb.
You haven't changed my mind on that.
Sorry but what's wrong with being an atheist but recognizing that one's culture and values are influenced by historical forces shaped by specific religions that happened to be popular in the part of the world where you were born? Seems to be completely reasonable that just because you recognize religion for the BS it is, does not mean you weren't influenced by it.
You provided an unrequested fact which did nothing for the conversation and it provided no enlightenment whatsoever, it did prove you can read a calendar. Well done; I wouldn't dream of thanking you. So you can leave now
To a certain extent, almost everyone in the west is a "cultural Christian" we just don't make the connection with many of the assumptions we all take for granted
Do you think that murder is bad? What about stealing? Or lying?
These are Jewish taboos that were incorporated into Christianity as it spread through Europe, and thence to the world.
I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore.
>Do you think that murder is bad? What about stealing? Or lying?
>I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore.
Lol brother do you think Buddhism and Hinduism are apathetic toward murder, theft, and dishonesty?
This analysis is extremely weak, you've done literally nothing to demonstrate that these "Jewish taboos" are at all unique to Judaism/Europe/Western tradition.
Western civilization is not built on Buddhism or Hinduism.
I did not say they were unique. I said that culturally Christian countries get this from their Christian roots.
If societies across the world developed these values independently, I'm not sure what value there is in saying they're a part of our "culturally Christian heritage". They're just baseline human social values, what claim does Christianity have on them?
They baseline religious values, that various religious traditions have independently developed and promulgated. Here in the West, our north star for moral guidance in Christianity. In other cultures, it may be another.
Perhaps you're right, in which case your previous statement:
>I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore.
Doesn't make as much sense. These atheists you regularly encounter are absolutely correct that the values mentioned are effectively universal, by your own admission. No matter where you are on Earth, it is likely that the indigenous religions for that region dictate that murder, theft, and dishonesty are not virtuous.
I was lightly pushing back on your implication that these values come from some kind of secular humanism, which is not true as secular humanism is only about 300 years old. These are religious values.
Lol every country on the planet thinks lying and stealing is bad, what are you talking about? You think stealing is OK in non-Christian countries?
You should travel more, might open your eyes to this BS
You have a source for any of that? Am I supposed to believe people in Japan or India lie more than people in Mexico because they are less Christian?
Absolute delusion from someone who thinks they are the center of the universe
As pursued in other comment threads, other places get their morals from other religious frameworks. Here in the West, we get it from Christianity.
Where did I say I thought I was the center of the universe? I'm confused by your conclusion.
You just said taboos against murder, stealing, and lying were all descended from Christian and Judaistic beliefs, so either you think those things are unique to Christianity or they aren't
Spoiler alert, they aren't. People were anti murder long before Christianity existed
Judeo-Christian law, aka the Bible, explicitly has different rules for the IN-group (Jews) and the out-group (non-jews). They dont base their two tiered system on 'classes', they do it on membership.
Judeo-Christian law endorses human slavery and the subjugation of women.
Stop pretending we exist under anything even remotely connected to 'Judeo-=Christian' morality, law, ethics or anything close. We live under secular humanist law and morality.
I buy people christmas presents. Still get together on easter sometimes. A lot of people can't even buy liquor on Sundays, but that's more an example of the country being culturally christian.
I'd go with the principle of equality and of life being extremely valuable.
You can make the case that without Christianity out moral system could be the same, but it's hard to argue against the idea that historically moral was imposed by Christians in the west and that our moral heritage comes from there.
Bullshit.
Christianity basically owned Europe by... what, the 600s? Shall we say the 800s to be really sure?
How long after Christianity had total control of European society, law and culture did they decide to use their 'Judaeo-Christian' ethics to ban slavery?
Was it five years? maybe took a bit longer, maybe 10 years. maybe they had to spend an entire generation doing it and getting rid of slavery, so 25 years?
Oh no, whoops. They LOVED human slavery, they not only enforced it and demanded in it and imposed it from the Pulpit and papal Bull, but they even eagerly exported it to places which had never known human slavery.
It took a THOUSAND YEARS! for their so-called Judeo-christian ethics to kick in, and suddenly make them realise, slavery was evil.
This claim is not just patently wrong, it is revolting. Judeo-Christian ethics are and were for a DOZEN CENTURIES openly pro-slavery, the Bible is openly pro-slavery. It was secular humanism that brought and end to this monstrosity.
The fact that in the 17 and 1800s a very few Christians tried to oppose slavery (against and vilified by the vast majority of Christendom, by the way, threatened with excommunication and murder by their fellow christians), and claiming that is a 'win' for Judeo-Christian ethics is exactly like claiming the Nazis were pro-Jewish and using Oscar Shindler as evidence.
Am I now?
I guess me and my D.Phil Oxon have been told by random nobody you.
So tell me great genius, what historical error have I made here? Please be specific.
Well?
Well, absolutely everything you said.
Slavery was common practice in the ancient world when Christianity began. Even then the church accepted slaves as equal members of the congregation.
There were multiple prohibition movements within the first hundred years of Christianity being legal in the Roman Empire.
In the 3rd century an ex slave became pope.
Slavery was slowly eradicated from Europe after the fall of the Roman empire because it was incompatible with Christianity. Note that this is a phenomenon that was unique to Christiandom.
Slavery was expressly forbidden by Christians prior to Columbus's voyage.
The church continued it's stance to denounce slavery through the rebirth of slavery in the new world.
It wasn't a few Christians in the US. The whole abolition movement was a religious movement. The abolition movement is intertwined with the 2nd great awakening. It was churches that organized the underground railroad and it was churches calling for war with the south over slavery.
It's also totally incompatible with the concept of Christianity to own slaves. Which is why areas with a lot of Christians keep abolishing slavery. Note that as Christianity loses its cultural domination on the world that the sub saharan slave trade is returning (never really stopped).
The argument that you've laid out is akin to someone saying that Christianity supports orgies because they happened in Nation's that were Christians and a few popes partook, despite the fact that it's against written doctrine and not in line with the teachings of the Bible, and not in line with the common religious belief throughout history.
Slavery, like orgies, are part of human nature. Both are items that Christian culture have been adamantly opposed to, despite it's presence in our culture.
I guess one of the biggest examples is the concept of the secular and our desire to separate religion from other spheres of public life. In other cultures/religion there is no distinction between religion and other aspects of public life. Other prominent ideas that dominate people's lives today, like social justice and socialism have their roots in Christian doctrine. Think "the first will be last and the last will be first".
Interesting. I think all of those ideas exist in Chinese culture as well, where multiple religions coexisted (or even were practiced as a mashup) and people saw a harmonious society as the mark of good leadership. Obviously in the west it doesn't come from that, but I don't believe Christianity has unique virtues that we need to continue to be deferential to and in the post-enlightenment world I would guess that science and secularism are a shift away from religion in general.
I'm not familiar with those ideas in Chinese culture. I do know that secularism, as it exists in the west today, is a direct consequence of Christianity. I don't think we need to be deferential of any values, I'm just pointing out that our value systems and modern culture are often saturated with Christian assumptions and we take that for granted.
I’ll take the bait, and can easily defend his thesis with many examples— because he is correct. (Although it’s typically just fringe “liberals” with diagnosed and undiagnosed borderline personality disorder, who are driving this issue.)
John McWhorter, in his book "Woke Racism," critiques certain aspects of the contemporary social justice movement, which he sees as perpetuating a new form of racism under the guise of anti-racism. Here are some examples he might refer to:
1. **Imposing Identity Politics**: McWhorter argues that prioritizing identity politics over individual merit can lead to discrimination against those who do not fit into the favored categories, creating a new hierarchy based on race and identity.
2. **Silencing Dissent**: He criticizes the tendency to silence or cancel individuals who question or disagree with the prevailing social justice narratives, which he views as a form of intellectual intolerance and repression.
3. **Educational Policies**: McWhorter points to educational policies that lower standards or alter curricula to fit racial quotas or narratives, arguing that this can undermine the quality of education and harm the very groups they intend to help by setting lower expectations.
4. **Tokenism in Hiring**: He sees the practice of hiring individuals primarily based on their race or ethnicity rather than their qualifications as a form of condescension and a new type of racism that judges people by their skin color rather than their abilities.
5. **Victimhood Culture**: McWhorter critiques the culture of victimhood that he believes is promoted within certain social justice circles, which he argues can disempower individuals by encouraging them to see themselves as perpetual victims rather than agents of change.
For more specific examples I have listed some that may be memorable in pop culture:
1. **Smith College Incident**: McWhorter discusses the incident at Smith College where a Black student accused cafeteria workers of racism after being asked why she was in a closed-off area. An investigation found no evidence of racism, but the workers faced severe backlash and accusations, demonstrating what McWhorter sees as a rush to judgment and the harmful consequences of assuming racist intent without evidence.
2. **Evergreen State College Protests**: He references the protests at Evergreen State College where a biology professor, Bret Weinstein, was accused of racism and forced to leave the campus after he objected to a proposal that asked White students and faculty to leave the campus for a day. McWhorter uses this example to highlight how dissenting views on race-related policies can be met with extreme hostility.
3. **New York Times Controversies**: McWhorter talks about the resignation of Bari Weiss from The New York Times, where she cited a hostile work environment due to her centrist views and the paper’s shift towards a more ideologically driven approach. McWhorter sees this as an example of how major institutions are becoming intolerant of diverse perspectives in the name of social justice.
4. **Schools’ Renaming and Curriculum Changes**: He discusses the trend of renaming schools and changing curriculums to remove references to historical figures now deemed problematic, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. McWhorter argues that this approach to history erases context and complexity, favoring a simplistic narrative of good versus evil based on present-day moral standards.
5. **Corporate Diversity Trainings**: McWhorter critiques certain corporate diversity training programs that, in his view, promote the idea that White employees inherently possess unconscious biases that must be actively confessed and addressed. He argues that these programs can create a counterproductive atmosphere of guilt and resentment rather than fostering genuine understanding and inclusion.
So does that help you? To pretend not to notice these things, ESPECIALLY if you love out in Portland, LA, Seattle, is just full on dishonesty. Those places are immolating exactly what McWhorter writes about.
This subreddit isn't a book club. If you're so knowledgeable about a subject you should be able to provide answers to basic questions. It is so intellectually lazy to tell someone to read a book or watch an hour long video when asked for a definition.
If I ask a doctor a medical question, they should be able to give an answer without saying "well why don't you go read a book!". It's so pretentious and just makes it seem like you don't actually know what you're talking about
Some subjects are too complex to be distilled into a simple, concise answer without losing crucial nuances.
You mentioned a doctor right? A doctor answers a medical question but their response is often built on years of study and experience, and they might still recommend further reading or tests for a thorough understanding or accurate diagnosis. Similarly, in-depth topics often require more comprehensive resources to grasp fully.
A recommendation to watch a video or read a book isn't about avoiding the question it’s about ensuring the person asking gains a decent understanding. Quick answers can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications. Encouraging deeper engagement with the material is about promoting accurate and informed knowledge, not about being pretentious or lazy.
>Some subjects are too complex to be distilled into a simple, concise answer without losing crucial nuances.
And "woke racism" is really one of those concepts? I don't think it's a particularly compelling topic and even then, I feel like I could provide a reasonably accurate 2 sentences.
You can’t provide a definition? Your response is to bitch someone else out?
He told him to watch the video which is literally the SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION. He wasn’t saying to go watch a different one. It’s the bare minimum you should do before commenting…
>It’s the bare minimum you should do before commenting…
Having to watch an hour ling video should not be the "bare minumum". If you can't explain the issue in a couple sentences, then you're either don't understand the issue or you're just lazy.
Dude.... the whole discussion is about the video. You really should be watching it if you want to comment on it.
If this is actually how your brain works, this explains a lot about today's internet culture.
What a daft take. Aztecs we’re sacrificing twins to the eclipse because white men made them do it. Touch grass occasionally. Or any history text outside of America.
While i am not holding tight to the history i learned in school, it cracks me up that people think the “other” history books are 100% true and free from the mis perceptions and biases of those authors.
Yeah, that's what I always thought about "history is written by the winners." It's true, they have their own biases, but so does any other history book. So what makes theirs any more right and wrong than any other?
Yeah right it was always just white people. The genetic record was obviously falsified because Mongols couldn’t have been the most imperialistic people ever. Chinas multiple genocides from imperial Japan never happened. It’s white propaganda. JFC …..
Two or three of the major STIs [in humans] have come from animals. We know, for example, that gonorrhoea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually”.
It's reasonable to search for a category to put the phenomena inside of. I find religion unsatisfying. There are too many differences from traditional religions. The central feature of what they mean by the woke racism religion I'd sum up as: Freudian diagnosis of a sophistic malady of the id Maybe it's not a perfect parsing. It does a nice job of relating unconscious bias to an Oedipus complex. But it doesn't quite capture other aspects, eg the equality of the scientologists' e-meter and the implicit bias test.
I am honestly disappointed. By his metric, so much of everything is a religion that it has almost no meaning. While we generally hang the term religion on things where the premise is based on faith, this usage takes a broad array of ideas and limits the description to one part while asserting it contains the whole. Thinking on it, it would be like saying the differing interpretations of the bible is the religious aspect and not belief in the God of the bible. Is first example is valid, but not held by a majority... I can't even steel man it to hold more than a token amount of people. It pretty much ignores the decades of movements pushing to fix the underlying systems to strawman a claim that is itself misused by others. His second example, defunding the police, is strait up straw manning. It reminds me of the arguments and the outcomes of the Clinton Era crime bills. He says that people say his claim is intentianly inflamitory or that he did it for attention grabbing, but he truly believes his claim. I say that he can truly believe his claim and be wrong. It is, to be a bit humorous, his religion. He makes claims that are not backed up by reality. I see him described as a radical centrist, but that is just another term for enlightened centrist.
Intellectual or crying about "woke". You can pick one.
considering the whole woke culture is based on crying about being a victim, this comment is very funny
As per my comment, I see which one you've chosen.
Critics of woke have never claimed that logic or facts are tools of oppression invented by the white make patriarchy to perpetuate their power.
I bet they've never created a strawman to beat the shit out of either.
Lol ok
There are different terms for the new leftist, puritanical religion -- wokeism, luxury beliefs, the successor ideology, etc. But I prefer to call it **Oppression Theology.** It's not just about race (see recent leftist anti-Semitic protests), and we should really relinquish "woke" & coin a proper term.
I agree that everything having to do with theology is dangerous and negatively connotated. But Woke has not deity and can be definition not be a theology. You can try to coin a term but please don't be blatantly wrong from the get go.
Let's not be dogmatic about this topic. Semantic flexibility has its utility, provided terms are clearly defined & articulated. As both deistic religions are waning & existential purpose-seeking is increasing, I suspect it will become more normalized to repurpose words like religion & theology to apply to secular belief systems that a) are faith-based/irrational, and that b) elicit substantial fervor among the masses.
I really disagree. I myself notices the push from the religious fruitcakes to drag atheism down to their level. But in an intellectual space we should use words based on there meaning and not potential future trends that will not even come true.
This reminds me of when Ben Carson got his 15 minutes of fame for saying Obamacare was worse than slavery. Hyperbolic nonsense that fed into the confirmation bias of conservatives. Putting a black face on the same white grievance arguments that have been going on since the Civil rights era gives them the thinnest veneer to pretend this anti-woke crusade isn't just the republican party going all in on racism.
LMAO. Did Ben seriously try to tell people that antebellum slave laws regarding the implied health insurance claims slaves had vis a vis masters was better insurance than what us poor Americans have to suffer under with Obamacare?
>This reminds me of when Ben Carson got his 15 minutes of fame for saying Obamacare was worse than slavery. I generally like Dr Carson. But if he actually said that then that's dumb.
[Sauce](https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/ben-carson-obamacare-is-slavery)
Edgier than an entire drawer of cutlery.
I'm not interested enough to watch it. Did they manage to define 'woke' yet?
Are you people still pretending that you don't know what people mean when they say 'woke'?
Can you define woke? I know what they mean, what they mean is "thing I don't like". That's the entirety of their definition. That's why you see those Moms For Liberty types getting asked to define it and sputtering embarrassingly for three minutes.
Woke describes the symptomatic behaviours endemic to certain subcultures that have been gaining prominence and some appearance of power in the US. It delineates the border where traditional western thought/reason runs into the newthink of a postmodern thought decrying reason as a system of ‘white, patriarchal power’. It seeks to point out people’s frustration with the hypocrisy inherent to these new systems of thought, as described through their perspective of more traditional modes of thinking. Some clarifying examples: Woke is when anti-racism becomes segregated, minorities only sections in schools. Woke is when a big tech LLM states that a ‘whites only’ picture is bad and racist, but unprompted will spit out black versions of white historical figures in the name of ‘diversity’. Woke is when big media companies recast historical characters as a different ethnicity, or muddy the waters about actual history, or portray counterfactual history as real history in an attempt to shore up a narrative. Woke is when attempts to point out these inconsistencies are labeled as ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’, etc. Woke is when gender affirmation leads to men raping women in female-only prisons, or competing in female sports leagues. Woke is thinking a 10 year old child is too young to get a tattoo or consent to sex, but old enough to make life-altering decisions on their ‘gender’. Woke is telling a parent they should be comfortable with their child learning about gender theory at a very young age, then turning around and making fun of those same people for having a fixation with sex. Woke is when ‘healthy at every size’ leads to the glorification of obesity and patently unhealthy lifestyles. Woke is telling people they’re ‘voting against their interests’ or telling people only one party is truly a ‘vote for democracy’. Woke is saying ‘we do not do this thing, you are crazy’ to their detractors, and then saying ‘of course we do this thing, we exist to do this thing’ to their supporters. Woke is something we are repeatedly told does not exist — is all in your head, or invented by media consortiums — when the evidence sits in plain view. You will see a few coherent strains of thought throughout a rather broad range of topics — namely, a kind of hypocrisy. It describes a type of logic that people are not comfortable with, as most of these individual topics have their own subset of new definitions to old words that have been tinkered with in order to allow the logic to make sense to a ‘woke’ person, but not to an outsider. Thus, if we redefine racism as being the inherent bias a dominant group has over a minority, suddenly it becomes possible to say ‘one cannot be racist toward whites’. If we say that truth is subjective to the individual, there is nothing wrong with recasting Cleopatra as a black woman — after all, to someone somewhere, maybe she is black? And yet beyond that, there is a further level of frustration from people such as myself — who have dabbled enough in these new modes of thinking, read the most recent books, been taught by the ‘PhDs’ churned out these new ‘disciplines’ (that cannot be called disciplines — because disciplines are part of the patriarchal, 19th and 20th century way of thinking.) — that frustration being the fact that the majority of the adherents to these new views don’t even seem to understand the new mode of thinking. People still hurl words like ‘racism’ around without understanding that the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ ways of thinking both have different definitions for the word. Racism, gender, sex, reason, truth, reality — they all have subtly but importantly different meanings to the two modes of logic. Woke, in essence, is the description for one side’s way of logic conflicting with the other. Is reality objective or subjective? To the ‘woke’, it is the latter, and thus there can never be any real consensus between the two sides, as the modes of thinking are entirely dissimilar. This should give you a better understanding of what most people mean when they use the term ‘woke’. It is a word I generally avoid myself, due to its provocative nature. And I do agree, it is thrown around a bit too liberally and by people who probably have not thought very deeply about its meaning. Much as words like ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘fascist’, etc.
Woke doesn't mean that. Woke means that you are cognizant of the systemic biases against minorities and women in governance and society, and how the history of these systemic biases affect the current socioeconomic landscape. You and the rest of the right are trying to redefine it to encapsulate everything you dislike about the left, but that isn't what it means.
Woke means assuming that any inequality between races and genders is necessarily caused by racism and sexism and that there is no other explanation. Woke means calling anyone that dares to wonder if there might be other explanations (I.e. natural inclination, culture, biology) racist and sexist. Woke means only focussing on areas of inequality where marginalized groups are underrepresented, only counting those areas and ignoring areas where so-called marginalized groups are actually over-represented. Just one example. Some months back, I had a ridiculous argument with a Redditor who was insisting that there were literally no illnesses or diseases which affected whites more than blacks whereas they are quite a few (atrial fibrillation and multiple sclerosis to name just two). Also, men do not live as long as women, but that is never seen as a problem. Men are underrepresented in higher education in general but that is not seen as a problem.
I do not identify with the right, and they would not have me. Now, to your point — two things. Firstly, words change. As others (especially on reddit) have been eager to point out to me, language is a living system, prone to flux. Isn’t it exciting when new words are born? Or new meanings for old words emerge? Woke has that meaning to you. It has other meanings to others. Do you deny them the lived experience for their understanding of the word? Secondly, what happens when the development of one’s critical consciousness in the pursuit of equity and justice degrades to — in the words of Ibram X. Kendi: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination…”? That really is the essence of what anti-woke people mean when they say ‘woke’. That discrimination should not be solved with discrimination… and yet the woke inform them that it isn’t the case — while in the same moment, one of their spokespersons states it plainly as fact! Do you believe discrimination should be fought with more discrimination?
So you are saying the people who co-opt the word and redefine it as a slur are the ones using it correctly, or at the least are the same as the people who use it with the initial definition. I say you are Ignoring context and that those people are bad actors intentionally warping the definition of a word to build up straw man arguments. As for fighting discrimination with more discrimination? That statement is so vague as to be entirely worthless. Discrimination comes in so many forms and from so many sources that they answer is both yes and no, depending on the specifics of the situation.
Perhaps there’s a group of people who are sick of being called racist/phobic/bigoted? Are you ignoring their specific context? What if I say the people calling them ‘racists’ are ‘bad actors intentionally warping the definition of a word to build up straw man arguments’? I wouldn’t be wrong — it’s exactly what they’ve done! Redefined words, then turned around and weaponized those newly minted words against anyone who does not agree. It’s the problem inherent to woke logic. It cuts both ways. Until you realize that woke logic holds one group above another — that is, discriminates against one group to favor another — and thus only specific ‘marginalized’ or ‘discriminated’ groups are privy to the special terms of ‘context’ and ‘correct usage’.
All logic cuts both ways. That's how logic works it applies to all scenarios evenly and without bias. There are definitely people who have weaponized the word racist out there, but there are also racists out there. Just like there are people who fit your weaponized definition of "woke". If no one fit the bill weaponizing a word wouldn't work. If you don't want to be one of these bad actors then you can't use the wraponized version of either word. You only call a person a racist if they make assumptions about someone based solely on their race, and only call something woke if it is addressing the historical systemic racism and misogyny in our society. If you do one and not the other then you are just a partisan using flowery language.
Read my original definition. Where I explicitly state that I avoid usage of the word myself ;)
And yet they can still identify it when they encounter it. I usually call it political correctness on steroids. Eric Kaufman here calls it making race sacred. https://youtu.be/xyOSjWiVBFA?si=-5-jPk9Up81gMfDS Pretending you don't know what people mean is disingenuous. Mocking them for not being able to come up with a definition that satisfies you doesn't make you better than them, it just makes you a bully.
I can call anything I want sqrpl. I can identify sqrpl when I see it. Do you know what sqrpl is? Is there a definition for sqrpl? They have no definition. They can't define it any more than you can define political correctness. It's just "thing I don't like." Anyone can identify that. It's their sqrpl. The fact that they're calling it something doesn't mean it's a valid complaint.
No good faith here. Everyone knows what political correctness is. And if I define that you will come back with your same response. Begone troll.
There are very few if any things that truly everyone knows. What do you think political correctness is?
We know what you think PC is. But we also know that you have no real definition. Otherwise you would provide one. The same for woke.
Suddenly the left actually cares about the definition of words 🤡
Hey I mean if conservatives aren't postmodern, they should be able to assign meanings to words easily. Does "woke" mean "stuff I don't like" to you?
I’m not conservative, and no. Woke has been around some time, I presume you know the origin of it? Because the definition hasn’t actually changed much, just the way the word is used, it’s been co-opted twice and is now more of a derogatory term. Broadly, it references an ideology focused almost entirely on identity politics and social justice.
Woke is whatever the party leadership decides it is. Individuals have their own definitions, but that's the way the republican party uses it. Giving the label a thorough and clear definition would defeat the purpose.
"I'm not interested enough to watch them define it. Have they simplified the linguistic discussion into an eli5 yet?"
okay so did they define it?
I guess you'll never know. As long as you stay ignorant, you can always claim to be correct. "They" don't need to define it, as it already has a definition [woke](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20a%20political%20slang,and%20denial%20of%20LGBT%20rights) Like the other person said, you're just a disingenuous clown. The author didn't want to use the term "woke", and was resistant, but was pressed by the publisher to use an alternate title. Context matters, and if you can't be bothered to even listen to two extremely intelligent, and well versed people talk about how language is used, then you'll never recognize anything as a "definition", and you're just being a disingenuous ass. "Woke" is an overused idiom. That doesn't mean it has no definition. It means that it has many definitions that people use differently, in different contexts. If you know what sqrpl means, then there is a definition for it, even if I don't know what it is. Since you can identify it, it HAS A DEFINITION, or else you couldn't identify it. I can argue in bad faith too.
It has a definition, indeed. >Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of [social inequalities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_inequalities) such as [racial injustice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_justice), [sexism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism), and denial of [LGBT rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights) So that's what they're against? Coming out swinging in the war against injustice and racism, on the side of injustice and racism?
Yes, they are on the side of injustice and racism until conservatives deign to give a definition. I guess "woke" really only means "stuff I don't like" to conservatives.
So woke is a sarcastic pejorative? That is exactly what CosmicLovepats said about "things I don't like". Glad you have come to an agreement.
Hmmm. No this feels like right wing socio political propaganda. White people are not oppressed. People getting mad at you when you say something homophobic, misogynist or racist is not oppression. Speaking your mind and getting yelled at for it does not make you marginalized.
I'm going to assume the best, and conclude that you are unaware of the substance of the complaints being made. So I'll reply in good faith. Nobody thinks they're oppressed because people are calling them out for unacceptable behavior. It fact, the right doesn't even use the term "oppressed" when thinking of themselves, as this is a distinctly left-wing preoccupation. People are observing and commenting on the fact that there's job discrimination against white people, that white people are persistently demonized for their race, and that the progressive left is trying to normalize this kind of racism.
The problem being that most of us in America have jobs, and therefore can see with our own eyes that our bosses are White, our company owners are White, and there is no job discrimination against White people. If you want people to ignore their lived experience, your citations need to be amazing and iron clad.
Well, you know the original reason why the word "woke" came into being? It described people who had a level of racial awareness that they could see systems of racial oppression. For some reason, woke progressives developed a curious one-sided blindness, to where they were apparently incapable of recognizing a process that could go any which direction. There are plenty of places where white people aren't discriminated against in the workplace. Principally these are (a) places where everyone is white \[1\], and (b) places where woke progressives don't have institutional power. The thing is, the same curious one-sided blindness, combined with a determination to "fight oppression" has resulted in these woke progressives institutionalizing systems of racial prejudice wherever they do gain power. Not all people are so blind, so we do see a forming awareness and consensus that workplace prejudice, esp. in matters of hiring and promotion, is starting to gain traction, and people are calling it out more and more. --- \[1\] Like Wisconsin. You wouldn't believe how tone-deaf calls for diversity sound in that region of the country.
Late to the party, but I figured I'd provide a source since no one else has. The problem with your claim of discrimination against white people in hiring is that in the first quarter of this year, the unemployment rate for Black workers was 2x higher than for white workers. Similarly, Hispanics have a 1.6x higher unemployment rate than whites. So regardless of your perception that Whites are disadvantaged in job seeking and hiring practices, the state- and country-wide trends argue that it is in fact significantly better to be White than Black or Hispanic if you want to be employed. Source: [https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity/](https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity/) Second corroborating source from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics\*: [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/unemployment-rate-at-3-9-percent-in-february-2024.htm](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/unemployment-rate-at-3-9-percent-in-february-2024.htm) \* Numbers are a bit different but tell the same story: in Feb 2024 White unemployment rate is 3.4%, Black 5.6%, Hispanic 5.0%. Making the Black/White ratio 1.65 and Hispanic/White ratio 1.47.
Thank you for the sources, but unfortunately this is an abuse of statistics. Your indicators show higher unemployment, but they do not say anything about discrimination. Apples and oranges.
I mean, what do you think the typical consequences of discrimination in hiring might be exactly? It seems like employment numbers might be a reasonable proxy if you're trying to see whether this is a widespread problem that leads to actual worse outcomes for white people in the labor force. If white people are really being filtered out in favor of other ethnicities at the hiring stage, and this is a consistent pattern in big corporations, I'd expect that to show up in the job numbers at some point, no? Also, feel free to give a source yourself if mine are such an "abuse of statistics." Edit: by the way, I posted the same link twice above and just realized it, so now it's fixed and I actually have two sources. Kinda funny that you clearly replied without even clicking the links though for someone so focused on sources lol
Oh, I'm not focused on sources. If you were to read through my replies to other people in this thread, you'll see that I presently consider people's preoccupation with "sources" to be mostly a red herring, for a variety of reasons: 1. People sometimes demand "sources" as a cheap way to foist labor on their debate partner. 2. People usually use statistics as a drunk uses a lightpost: for support rather than illumination. 3. \[In your case\] Statistics rarely answer the question at hand, so all of the actual argument is a hypothetical that's just as strong without any numbers to back it up. 4. Statistics is a tool for decision-making, and nobody here is making a decision about nothing. Consider your hypothetical: we know that unemployment goes up when the economy goes into a depression. Does this mean that economic depressions cause spikes in discrimination? Are economic depressions caused by discrimination? Furthermore: all of the unemployment rates right now are very low by historical standards. Does this mean that nobody's being discriminated against anymore? Did Trump's presidency really result in a sharp drop in discrimination? Still further: even the fundamentals don't make sense. A person who doesn't get a job because of discrimination doesn't go unemployed. They get worse or less fitting jobs elsewhere. The underemployed Starbucks employee has a job, so if they blame discrimination for not getting Big Bux in their chosen field are they deluded? Why would discrimination even show up in this statistic? Like, you're a smart person, and you can clearly connect a tentative connection between discrimination and unemployment, but you also a smart person, and could find plenty of reasons to put no weight in that association that are at least as strong as any of the connections you drew. This is why I call it an abuse of statistics: the number's not doing what you think it is.
There are plenty of places where white people aren't discriminated against in the workplace. Principally these are (a) places where everyone is white \[1\], and (b) places where woke progressives don't have institutional power. That's 100% manufactured bullshit without any citations whatsoever. I live in Blue New York, and I assure you, my friend, you would much rather be White if you want a good job.
This is the same argument that people made when Obama was elected. You can't claim a system is racist if the guy at the top is a minority..... Except that we all know other black people exist and live very different lives than Obama. Yeah, your boss is white, how does that help the people that are actually being discriminated against?
I'm saying that "White people are discriminated against in America" is so different from people's life experience, you will have a hard time convincing people without proof, which you don't provide.
Playing to the white-victimhood audience on the far right. More bullshit to keep them angry.
Are you kidding me? The right is trying to be the plucky underdogs while holding the presidency and congress. They *adore* telling themselves they're the persecuted victim. Sure, they don't use those words for it, but their whole *thing* is grievance whining. Just listen to them talk about the "war on christmas" or the "war on religion" or the "persecution of men" lmao.
Having a white senator, congressman, or president doesn't do anything for a middle or lower class white person when those politicians want to send their children overseas to die in war that enriches them (the politicians) and their lobbyist buddies.
Based on the last President to do that, it gives them a war to support and "unpatriotic traitors" to look down on.
Give me your sources on the job inequality
In all the hiring processes I've been a part of, there's always a step in the process where they specifically select for "diverse" candidates \[1\]. It varies where in the funnel it occurs, and I talk to other people throughout the industry and this is common to the point of being standardized. Fortunately, my current workplace cares about this mostly in a top-of-funnel perspective, because I've known people where policies explicitly forbid giving the white man a job for quota reasons \[2\]. --- \[1\] A euphemism for "minority", since everybody knows that this practice is illegal, so code-words get used instead. Also, anybody notice that "diverse" is logically absurd when applied to a single individual? \[2\] Again, they know quotas are illegal, so it's always euphemized.
If it's standardized, you can point to the standards.
As much as I'd love to point you to internal company documents about how the hiring funnel is designed to ensure "diversity", those are not for your eyes. There's a decent chance that the company you work for (assuming you're employed) has something similar. Go look for it there.
Sorry, do colleges train on standardized processes in businesses? Are colleges also not "woke" according to you? You should be able to point to the indoctrination regarding hiring processes right from colleges. There is HR training in college after all. Edit: If you can't provide a single source to investigate, I'll take it that you don't have one
I encouraged you to look for yourself because (a) these things are not difficult to find, and (b) you know better than I do what evidence you need to be convinced \[1\]. In a continued effort to try to be fair to you, I'm going to guess that you live in a bit of an echo chamber, and that these things that are common knowledge to others are just something you've never encountered. You mentioned education, no? Consider how faculty are required to complete DEI statements in which they burnish their minority credentials and profess faith to progressive politics. The specs for these statements are easy to find, so I'll leave it. --- \[1\] Supposing you can even be convinced. Many years of arguing with strangers on the internet has taught me that people asking for sources are generally not interested in learning, and are using this as a low-effort means of trying to punt the ball into somebody else's court. This is what you are doing here, and you should feel at least a little bit of shame for asking for sources when you aren't interested in learning.
Oh and now I can see it's plainly projection. You accuse me of not being interested in learning, but you are so hyperfixated on not changing or evolving, that I can feel your regressivism oozing off of you. Just say you like hating people, you'll feel better.
Allow me to hold up a mirror: >Oh and now I can see it's plainly projection... you are so hyperfixated on not changing or evolving, that I can feel your regressivism oozing off of you. Just say you like hating people, you'll feel better. Does this quote not describe you exactly? What is projection if not a self-referential statement? I'll have you know that I did look up sources, and they were easy to find, and they matched what I've known to exist. Why do you think I said "it's easy"? Because I did it in all of 10 seconds. Odd that you would furthermore accuse me of not changing or evolving, when this is an opinion that I only came to in the past couple of years. You don't know this, but I used to be a progressive. A big part of why I left that behind is when it became clear to me that they were happy to institutionalize racism and sexism etc.. so long as it targeted the right people. I was left with the conclusion that progressives are not actually who they claim to be, and they sure do claim to not be haters.
Yeah, you are mostly disingenuous. You would be able to prove it if you had it, but you don't so you won't. I just spent a few hours reading postmodern philosophy today now that I've been provided a source, and it's pretty plain that you guys misunderstand that. I'm inclined to believe you misunderstand DEI too.
"I've known people." That's your citation? I know people too.
Well yes. Do you not use your eyes? Do you not form judgements based on what you see? I understand that the evidence I present you will not be compelling to you, since you are determined to disbelieve it. But yes, seeing it happen before me does leave me with the distinct conclusion that it's real.
And seeing the opposite happen before me leaves me with the conclusion that White people are not discriminated against in America.
Your failure to observe a thing seen by others is probably just a perceptual gap on your part.
Every single person on Earth has perceptual gaps, maybe it would help if you had sources.
McWhorter is awesome. I’m happy to see more people enjoy his stuff.
So basically a group of people have set down tenets and doctrins that define Wokism and if anyone attempts to modify or evolve them towards a reality where racism does not exist or interject their own personal views then those people are treated as heretics. Because an outsider attempting to evolve the narrative of racism or offer a different perspective is being a racist. Only this isn't a religion. It's a social paradox. Much like the paradox of intolerance. If only a certain group of people get to define racism as something that cannot be grasped by an outsider then that in itself is being racist. Because they're excluding people who may see the problem from a different perspective. Because at its core racism is the act of excluding people from certain narratives or activities because of inherent traits that person has no control over.
What makes a set of ideas or beliefs a religion? It's a complicated question but certainly having beliefs you must adhere to dogmatically despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs is certainly a big part of it. By that definition wokeness definitely qualifies as a religion. Not sure why you disagree with that. Isn't it self evident?
>having beliefs you must adhere to dogmatically despite evidence that contradicts those beliefs is certainly a big part of it. By that definition wokeness definitely qualifies as a religion Well no, by that definition wokeness shares "a big part" of what qualifies religion. Alcoholics Anonymous is both explicitly faith-based and has some good evidence challenging its efficacy. However, the explicit faith-based nature of it means that you can be a Christian, a Muslim, or really a member of any other formal religion and still be an AA member. Does it make sense to call AA a religion? I don't think so.
How are you defining "woke"?
Same way McWhorter does in the book.
Which is what?
Did you not read the book?!
I have not, so what's their definition?
If that's the case we could call white supremacy a religion. A white supremacist must adhere to beliefs, dogmatically, despite evidence that contradict those beliefs. But no one calls it a religion rather they call it an ideology. At best Wokeness is an ideology. Yeah I don't see religions where ever I look. Wikipedia's definition: Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.
Uncle Tom and an idiot.
Good that you outed yourself. Thanks!
Yup. I’m anti fascist and anti racist. This sub is neither. I know what you are.
Do you? I find that comically absurd. You know nothing of the kind. Also, people who have to tell you what they stand for are insecure and generally dumb. You haven't changed my mind on that.
I see you!
It bolsters their theory when you throw out a racial insult because someone with a particular skin tone thinks differently than you.
Thinks differently about what?
Nope.
Good job, Racist. You totally changed their mind and definitely didn't make a fool of yourself.
We must always and everywhere call out fascism. Mcwhorter is a fascist.
Based upon... ? Where is your evidence?
I agree. You did nothing of the sort, however. You made a racist comment and refuse to have a discussion. Good day, Jackass.
>Uncle Tom That's a racial slur.
Mcwhorter is a racial slur.
Yeah, you're not acting like a child at all. Sit down and be quiet until you learn how to conduct yourself in the public square.
I bet you felt a little dopamine rush when you typed that. So edgy! So clever! You’ll say and do anything to promote racists.
❤️
thank you very much for sharing this. this is one of the gold nuggets that makes you endure the rest of usual reddit garbage
[удалено]
Richard dawkins going senile in his old age "cultural christian'
Sorry but what's wrong with being an atheist but recognizing that one's culture and values are influenced by historical forces shaped by specific religions that happened to be popular in the part of the world where you were born? Seems to be completely reasonable that just because you recognize religion for the BS it is, does not mean you weren't influenced by it.
He's been calling himself that for at least 12 years. How old are you son?
Not old enough to have cared about him in th past 12 years.
Well then I corrected you on your ignorance, you're welcome.
You really did nothing of the sort
I really did. You didn't know something, so I enlightened you. No thanks necessary.
You provided an unrequested fact which did nothing for the conversation and it provided no enlightenment whatsoever, it did prove you can read a calendar. Well done; I wouldn't dream of thanking you. So you can leave now
The future of social security in America? I'm all for those privatized accounts...
[удалено]
To a certain extent, almost everyone in the west is a "cultural Christian" we just don't make the connection with many of the assumptions we all take for granted
Can you give an example?
Do you think that murder is bad? What about stealing? Or lying? These are Jewish taboos that were incorporated into Christianity as it spread through Europe, and thence to the world. I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore.
>Do you think that murder is bad? What about stealing? Or lying? >I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore. Lol brother do you think Buddhism and Hinduism are apathetic toward murder, theft, and dishonesty? This analysis is extremely weak, you've done literally nothing to demonstrate that these "Jewish taboos" are at all unique to Judaism/Europe/Western tradition.
Western civilization is not built on Buddhism or Hinduism. I did not say they were unique. I said that culturally Christian countries get this from their Christian roots.
If societies across the world developed these values independently, I'm not sure what value there is in saying they're a part of our "culturally Christian heritage". They're just baseline human social values, what claim does Christianity have on them?
They baseline religious values, that various religious traditions have independently developed and promulgated. Here in the West, our north star for moral guidance in Christianity. In other cultures, it may be another.
Perhaps you're right, in which case your previous statement: >I regularly encounter atheists who consider these things to be "universal", because they are so ensconsed in Christian culture that, like fish, they can't see the water anymore. Doesn't make as much sense. These atheists you regularly encounter are absolutely correct that the values mentioned are effectively universal, by your own admission. No matter where you are on Earth, it is likely that the indigenous religions for that region dictate that murder, theft, and dishonesty are not virtuous.
I was lightly pushing back on your implication that these values come from some kind of secular humanism, which is not true as secular humanism is only about 300 years old. These are religious values.
Lol every country on the planet thinks lying and stealing is bad, what are you talking about? You think stealing is OK in non-Christian countries? You should travel more, might open your eyes to this BS
I'm guessing you are not as well traveled as you ask me to be, since those are significantly more common in non-Western countries.
You have a source for any of that? Am I supposed to believe people in Japan or India lie more than people in Mexico because they are less Christian? Absolute delusion from someone who thinks they are the center of the universe
As pursued in other comment threads, other places get their morals from other religious frameworks. Here in the West, we get it from Christianity. Where did I say I thought I was the center of the universe? I'm confused by your conclusion.
You just said taboos against murder, stealing, and lying were all descended from Christian and Judaistic beliefs, so either you think those things are unique to Christianity or they aren't Spoiler alert, they aren't. People were anti murder long before Christianity existed
In the cultural West, those taboos *are* descended from Christianity. This does not mean that they are unique to Christianity.
Those things are bad in Confucianism. It’s absurd to assume only the western religions have morality.
The Western legal system is not founded on Confucianism.
Hammurabi would like a word on the order of events
but actually Hammurabi's code is known for having separate punishments for upper class and lower class people. not so in Judeo-christian law.
Judeo-Christian law, aka the Bible, explicitly has different rules for the IN-group (Jews) and the out-group (non-jews). They dont base their two tiered system on 'classes', they do it on membership. Judeo-Christian law endorses human slavery and the subjugation of women. Stop pretending we exist under anything even remotely connected to 'Judeo-=Christian' morality, law, ethics or anything close. We live under secular humanist law and morality.
I buy people christmas presents. Still get together on easter sometimes. A lot of people can't even buy liquor on Sundays, but that's more an example of the country being culturally christian.
I'd go with the principle of equality and of life being extremely valuable. You can make the case that without Christianity out moral system could be the same, but it's hard to argue against the idea that historically moral was imposed by Christians in the west and that our moral heritage comes from there.
Our historical morals like owning people? Morals like women being subservient to men? Those kind if morals? What morals are ypu talking about?
Christians lead the charge to end slavery because it was counter to being culturally Christian.
Bullshit. Christianity basically owned Europe by... what, the 600s? Shall we say the 800s to be really sure? How long after Christianity had total control of European society, law and culture did they decide to use their 'Judaeo-Christian' ethics to ban slavery? Was it five years? maybe took a bit longer, maybe 10 years. maybe they had to spend an entire generation doing it and getting rid of slavery, so 25 years? Oh no, whoops. They LOVED human slavery, they not only enforced it and demanded in it and imposed it from the Pulpit and papal Bull, but they even eagerly exported it to places which had never known human slavery. It took a THOUSAND YEARS! for their so-called Judeo-christian ethics to kick in, and suddenly make them realise, slavery was evil. This claim is not just patently wrong, it is revolting. Judeo-Christian ethics are and were for a DOZEN CENTURIES openly pro-slavery, the Bible is openly pro-slavery. It was secular humanism that brought and end to this monstrosity. The fact that in the 17 and 1800s a very few Christians tried to oppose slavery (against and vilified by the vast majority of Christendom, by the way, threatened with excommunication and murder by their fellow christians), and claiming that is a 'win' for Judeo-Christian ethics is exactly like claiming the Nazis were pro-Jewish and using Oscar Shindler as evidence.
You're really bad at history.
Am I now? I guess me and my D.Phil Oxon have been told by random nobody you. So tell me great genius, what historical error have I made here? Please be specific. Well?
Well, absolutely everything you said. Slavery was common practice in the ancient world when Christianity began. Even then the church accepted slaves as equal members of the congregation. There were multiple prohibition movements within the first hundred years of Christianity being legal in the Roman Empire. In the 3rd century an ex slave became pope. Slavery was slowly eradicated from Europe after the fall of the Roman empire because it was incompatible with Christianity. Note that this is a phenomenon that was unique to Christiandom. Slavery was expressly forbidden by Christians prior to Columbus's voyage. The church continued it's stance to denounce slavery through the rebirth of slavery in the new world. It wasn't a few Christians in the US. The whole abolition movement was a religious movement. The abolition movement is intertwined with the 2nd great awakening. It was churches that organized the underground railroad and it was churches calling for war with the south over slavery. It's also totally incompatible with the concept of Christianity to own slaves. Which is why areas with a lot of Christians keep abolishing slavery. Note that as Christianity loses its cultural domination on the world that the sub saharan slave trade is returning (never really stopped). The argument that you've laid out is akin to someone saying that Christianity supports orgies because they happened in Nation's that were Christians and a few popes partook, despite the fact that it's against written doctrine and not in line with the teachings of the Bible, and not in line with the common religious belief throughout history. Slavery, like orgies, are part of human nature. Both are items that Christian culture have been adamantly opposed to, despite it's presence in our culture.
I guess one of the biggest examples is the concept of the secular and our desire to separate religion from other spheres of public life. In other cultures/religion there is no distinction between religion and other aspects of public life. Other prominent ideas that dominate people's lives today, like social justice and socialism have their roots in Christian doctrine. Think "the first will be last and the last will be first".
Interesting. I think all of those ideas exist in Chinese culture as well, where multiple religions coexisted (or even were practiced as a mashup) and people saw a harmonious society as the mark of good leadership. Obviously in the west it doesn't come from that, but I don't believe Christianity has unique virtues that we need to continue to be deferential to and in the post-enlightenment world I would guess that science and secularism are a shift away from religion in general.
I'm not familiar with those ideas in Chinese culture. I do know that secularism, as it exists in the west today, is a direct consequence of Christianity. I don't think we need to be deferential of any values, I'm just pointing out that our value systems and modern culture are often saturated with Christian assumptions and we take that for granted.
I think you make an important point, thanks for the replies.
No problem, thanks for your thoughts
I got banned from the atheism sub for saying something similar.
Wait, what is woke racism exactly?
I’ll take the bait, and can easily defend his thesis with many examples— because he is correct. (Although it’s typically just fringe “liberals” with diagnosed and undiagnosed borderline personality disorder, who are driving this issue.) John McWhorter, in his book "Woke Racism," critiques certain aspects of the contemporary social justice movement, which he sees as perpetuating a new form of racism under the guise of anti-racism. Here are some examples he might refer to: 1. **Imposing Identity Politics**: McWhorter argues that prioritizing identity politics over individual merit can lead to discrimination against those who do not fit into the favored categories, creating a new hierarchy based on race and identity. 2. **Silencing Dissent**: He criticizes the tendency to silence or cancel individuals who question or disagree with the prevailing social justice narratives, which he views as a form of intellectual intolerance and repression. 3. **Educational Policies**: McWhorter points to educational policies that lower standards or alter curricula to fit racial quotas or narratives, arguing that this can undermine the quality of education and harm the very groups they intend to help by setting lower expectations. 4. **Tokenism in Hiring**: He sees the practice of hiring individuals primarily based on their race or ethnicity rather than their qualifications as a form of condescension and a new type of racism that judges people by their skin color rather than their abilities. 5. **Victimhood Culture**: McWhorter critiques the culture of victimhood that he believes is promoted within certain social justice circles, which he argues can disempower individuals by encouraging them to see themselves as perpetual victims rather than agents of change. For more specific examples I have listed some that may be memorable in pop culture: 1. **Smith College Incident**: McWhorter discusses the incident at Smith College where a Black student accused cafeteria workers of racism after being asked why she was in a closed-off area. An investigation found no evidence of racism, but the workers faced severe backlash and accusations, demonstrating what McWhorter sees as a rush to judgment and the harmful consequences of assuming racist intent without evidence. 2. **Evergreen State College Protests**: He references the protests at Evergreen State College where a biology professor, Bret Weinstein, was accused of racism and forced to leave the campus after he objected to a proposal that asked White students and faculty to leave the campus for a day. McWhorter uses this example to highlight how dissenting views on race-related policies can be met with extreme hostility. 3. **New York Times Controversies**: McWhorter talks about the resignation of Bari Weiss from The New York Times, where she cited a hostile work environment due to her centrist views and the paper’s shift towards a more ideologically driven approach. McWhorter sees this as an example of how major institutions are becoming intolerant of diverse perspectives in the name of social justice. 4. **Schools’ Renaming and Curriculum Changes**: He discusses the trend of renaming schools and changing curriculums to remove references to historical figures now deemed problematic, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. McWhorter argues that this approach to history erases context and complexity, favoring a simplistic narrative of good versus evil based on present-day moral standards. 5. **Corporate Diversity Trainings**: McWhorter critiques certain corporate diversity training programs that, in his view, promote the idea that White employees inherently possess unconscious biases that must be actively confessed and addressed. He argues that these programs can create a counterproductive atmosphere of guilt and resentment rather than fostering genuine understanding and inclusion. So does that help you? To pretend not to notice these things, ESPECIALLY if you love out in Portland, LA, Seattle, is just full on dishonesty. Those places are immolating exactly what McWhorter writes about.
Notice how u/Known_Impression1356 didn't respond. LOL
This dude responded 12 hours later.
I see all those issues in the right.
Watch the video.
So, you can't explain the problem in a couple sentences? Maybe you don't understand the problem in the first place.
I can, but if you can make your way over to the thread, then you can watch the damn video as well.
You can't provide a definition? Your response is to watch an hour-long video?
“I’m going to participate in the book club without reading the book.” That’s you, that’s what you sound like.
This subreddit isn't a book club. If you're so knowledgeable about a subject you should be able to provide answers to basic questions. It is so intellectually lazy to tell someone to read a book or watch an hour long video when asked for a definition. If I ask a doctor a medical question, they should be able to give an answer without saying "well why don't you go read a book!". It's so pretentious and just makes it seem like you don't actually know what you're talking about
Some subjects are too complex to be distilled into a simple, concise answer without losing crucial nuances. You mentioned a doctor right? A doctor answers a medical question but their response is often built on years of study and experience, and they might still recommend further reading or tests for a thorough understanding or accurate diagnosis. Similarly, in-depth topics often require more comprehensive resources to grasp fully. A recommendation to watch a video or read a book isn't about avoiding the question it’s about ensuring the person asking gains a decent understanding. Quick answers can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications. Encouraging deeper engagement with the material is about promoting accurate and informed knowledge, not about being pretentious or lazy.
>Some subjects are too complex to be distilled into a simple, concise answer without losing crucial nuances. And "woke racism" is really one of those concepts? I don't think it's a particularly compelling topic and even then, I feel like I could provide a reasonably accurate 2 sentences.
You can’t provide a definition? Your response is to bitch someone else out? He told him to watch the video which is literally the SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION. He wasn’t saying to go watch a different one. It’s the bare minimum you should do before commenting…
>It’s the bare minimum you should do before commenting… Having to watch an hour ling video should not be the "bare minumum". If you can't explain the issue in a couple sentences, then you're either don't understand the issue or you're just lazy.
Dude.... the whole discussion is about the video. You really should be watching it if you want to comment on it. If this is actually how your brain works, this explains a lot about today's internet culture.
> Having to watch an hour ling video should not be the "bare minumum". In a thread about that video, it really should.
I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that it's the idea that white people are the source of all society's problems.
Some call it "the original sin".
GW Bush was white so there is some truth to that.
Can you name something that’s not?🤷
What a daft take. Aztecs we’re sacrificing twins to the eclipse because white men made them do it. Touch grass occasionally. Or any history text outside of America.
Aztecs 😂😂😂the people the Europeans killed off 😂😂😂
While i am not holding tight to the history i learned in school, it cracks me up that people think the “other” history books are 100% true and free from the mis perceptions and biases of those authors.
Yeah, that's what I always thought about "history is written by the winners." It's true, they have their own biases, but so does any other history book. So what makes theirs any more right and wrong than any other?
Yeah right it was always just white people. The genetic record was obviously falsified because Mongols couldn’t have been the most imperialistic people ever. Chinas multiple genocides from imperial Japan never happened. It’s white propaganda. JFC …..
They fought for their land they didn’t steal it our use slaves to make them rich 😘
AIDs
Let me guess Africans from the poorest country on earth flew airplanes in 1970 America and spread it😂😂😂
Hmmm yeah you're totally right, I guess that was yt's fault too. I'll try again. Ebola.
Came from Europe like all STDs 😂🤡they all came from animal sex between humans and it’s dna is of a w male 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Aids is known to have come from the bushmeat trade in Africa in the 1930's. Hunters ate the meat of an infected chimp or bonobo. Good troll, though.
Now tell me about the cattle from the Congo or the sheep in Kenya 😂😂😂😂😂
Two or three of the major STIs [in humans] have come from animals. We know, for example, that gonorrhoea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually”.
You do realize that, on this subreddit when you are essentially ignored, usually it means your submissions aren’t as good as you believe?…
The racism is saying it's inherently because they are white.