Is wokeness the remedy to fascism?

Yeah, so is education, huh?

 

That doesn't happen.

 

It doesn't, but you were responding to what I had written before, so I presumed it had something to do with what you were responding to.

Liberals by failing to distinguish liberalism from authoritarian anti-free speech cancel culture racially discriminatory "progressives" (who are not progressive, but regressive), enable people like Tucker to paint all liberals that way, and to sell that image to centrists, so that actual liberals are less likely to be understood and heard. By not speaking out more against the (so called) "woke" we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

And no, that doesn't equate to...

On the internet it can be hard to guage tones etc, so I am not sure if you acknowledge the difference between actual liberals and the so-called "woke" who are actually about pushing for more social inequality, usually based on race or gender, etc. That you responded with the misunderstanding that you did made me think maybe you don't.

 

'wokeness' or being 'woke' is language I have never used in my life as a 60 year old white male liberal Democrat. I have not taken the time to actually look at the dictionary definitions, because the term was weaponized and demonized by rightwingers to the point that is utterly useless for any objective purpose, regardless of how it is supposed to be used.

They can keep it because I don't need it to communicate anything.

 

Well said.

 

"Wokeness" is the cloud that hides clarity in awareness of inequality.

 

We can do that best by NOT falling into and pushing the very foundations of what you want people to be aware of and mitigate or remedy.

For example, do it without pushing prejudice, without pushing censorship, and without being authoritarian. When people complain about the "woke" that's what they are often compaining about.

 

I don't know who that might be. As far as I can tell, Tucker (and other wingnuts) made them up.

I mean, there are crazy people all over... but not in any way shape or form a significant group.

Somebody who is "woke" but is pushing for more social inequality most definitely sounds like something Tucker would make up.

You can find a youtube video of anybody doing just about anything. But to believe that those nuts you see on youtube represent ANY type of ideology.... or anything whatsoever, is what Tucker would like people to think. Know this: they don't!

On the other hand, you haven't given any examples. Which is where you should have started making your point. By showing what you are referring to or giving a real-life example. Hopefully not some random video on youtube of one of the anonymous nuts mentioned above.

 

Yeah... and a fly is a four legged animal that gives milk and goes "moo".

You should probably avoid any debate that in any way might involve "clouds".

 

It's as if you were advocating for liberals to become more like right-wingers so we don't get criticized.

Why are you so afraid of being criticized by people who promote racism? I take it as a badge of honor to be criticized by such people. Anybody who Tucker Carlson attacks, pending ulterior data, sounds like somebody who is worth listening to.

You refuse to specify who you are talking about. No quotes. Lacking those leaves the impression (false impression, I'm sure) that you have tasted just a little bit of the Tucker Kool-Aid. I think you can do better than that.

 

Tsk tsk. When insult is your default response then conclusions may be drawn to your detriment.

 

It isn't made up. And it isn't just a bunch of blue haired college kids anymore either.

It is in many corporations and even at the very top of goverments now.

Kamala Harris was picked as VP explicitly because of her gender. Half your populace was excluded from consideration because Biden decided to discriminate explicitly based on gender.

My Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, formed his first cabinet based explicitly on gender and race quotas. He had a bunch of scandals with some of these people not long after, and those who truly did qualify for the positions couldn't know that they truly earned the spot, and we'll never be sure.

I can qualfy for lower entrance requirements at some school admissions boards by simply keeping my sunglasses on (or ticking one box instead of the other), and hiding that I don't just have black skin, but asian eyes. If they see my eyes, suddenly its a lot harder for me to get in.

Are you aware that the same "woke" talking point equating black to poor, using race as proxy for privilege, is used on the far right and is the basis of racial profiling and "driving while black" issues? But Joe Biden said "Poor Kids are just as bright as White Kids".

It is a failure to recognize that individuals are not group averages. And it fosters a culture of learned helplessness. Stamp OUT racial discrimination. Don't create more. And downplay race and show it to be something really stupid to care about. Don't encourage people to make it their core identity.

They actually had "safe spaces" telling white people not to go there in some universities. That was rare, but it DID happen, and the incredibly stark irony was lost on so many "woke" folks, because they thought they were doing good. But, of course, it isn't "Anti-racist" to be racist.

In Australia they had a train car for women only, to keep them safe, while elderly and other vulnerable men are were left in danger. Is that still a thing there?

I also live in a city where a few years back they tried to have a CAFE meeting, talking about issues and challenges mostly faced by men in society, such as lack of domestic violence help, unfair family courts, etc, and it was stormed by (well meaning) "woke" activits screaming "Fascits! Racists! Anti-Gay! MRA Go Away!" and they pulled the fire alarm and prevented the meeting from continuing. The MRAs were vilified by the local and international media.

Funny bit about that "protest" was that you then had some of protestors complaining that MRAs are just all misogynists, and don't talk about the very issues they had just stopped the MRAs from talking about. In that meeting there was no misogyny on deck, and plenty of women, mothers, sisters, and other humans who care about abused men.

How many examples do you need?

And if after reading the above you are quick to leap to label me as conservative, racist, white, etc, then you are the problem. Because all of the above isn't liberal, it is illiberal. It is the opposite of liberal. It feeds directly into bigots on the far right who cycle it back around.

Seriously, if you haven't already, watch this video and try to tell me its wrong. "Woke" (in the negative meaning) and Racist actually do agree on almost everything.

 

Wokeness is fascism.

It's just not nationalistic in the traditional sense. It's tribalistic but there characteristics apply.

 

No, I'm arguing for liberals to remain liberals and remain heard, and not be turned into racist authoritarian illiberals. Being liberal means being AGAINST racism, all racism. It means being AGAINST sexism, all sexism. It means being FOR free speech. Not Bush's oppressive "Free speech Zones" or modern day cancelation. It means being AGAINST authoritarian action and tyranny. "Woke", in the negative sense of the word, is anti-liberal.

I'm not afraid of that at all. But if you listen carefuly, Tucker is usually avoiding doing that. He's usually slyly sneaking in his right wing ideas by trying to paint the left as the "woke". He doesn't have any good counters to actual liberal points and he often gets away with not addressing them, because he doesn't have to. He can pretend they don't exist and pretend the "woke" are the liberals, which they are not.

 

". . . . And now? A far more insidious ideology — if it can be called an ideology — is extending a deadening grip not only over the educational system, but over our whole cultural life, and this time especially in the English-speaking world whose attachment to intellectual freedom has proved feeble. We tend to call it ‘wokeness’ or something similar because it is a loose collection of theories and attitudes. Some call it cultural Marxism, but unlike classical Marxism it lacks basic coherence and rigour. This fragility probably explains the reluctance of its partisans to accept debate: better to close it down. It certainly explains the anger they show when they are challenged by reason and evidence. . . .

Woke activists sometimes assert that ‘facing up’ to a past presented as overwhelmingly and permanently shameful and guilt-laden is the way to a better and more ‘inclusive’ future. But the real effect — perhaps the true aim — of their actions is nihilistic destruction. Tendentious and even blatantly false readings of history are creating or aggravating divisions, resentments, and even violence. For that reason, a group of British, Irish, American, Canadian and Australian historians have formed a group called History Reclaimed to employ reason and scholarship against divisive distortions of history. As was once the case with Marxist orthodoxies, I trust that argument and evidence — ‘bourgeois objectivity’ — will in time have an effect. But even if the wokest of the woke close their ears, we are confident that reasonable people will welcome careful and balanced examination of our shared past, especially where it is most contested."
'Wokeness' and the collapse of intellectual freedom in the West
https://www.spectator.co.uk › article › wokeness-and-th...

Aug 28, 2021 — Pioneering research on France in the second world war — ultra taboo — was carried out by North Americans. In those days it was possible to ...

 

Either you believe that a woman is not as qualified as a man to be VP, or your statement is extremely naïve. There are hundreds... maybe thousands of people in this country who are qualified: gays, lesbians, black, white, male, female.... Biden can choose ANY of them. But, here is where the naïve part comes: he chose a woman because there has never been a woman VP. So it's just a marketing strategy. If he picks a white male, it gives the opponent a weapon that you don't need.

MORE than half the populace was excluded because they aren't qualified. I'm afraid you drank the Tucker Kool-Aid. Biden could pick any of a thousand EQUALLY qualified people.

Why else would you believe that choosing a woman is discriminatory, but choosing a candidate from a battleground state is not?

All your examples are exactly on the same line. If you show that there is any evidence that ANY of them were picked ONLY because of their race or gender, regardless of their qualifications, than show THAT. Because right now you are simply falling into Tucker's twisted "logic" (or lack thereof)

Ok. This one shows that you are not aware of social inequalities. I think that's where you should have started. Being "woke" simply means being aware that our racist history and the way our institutions were build has made ethnic groups that are not white be at a disadvantage as compared to white people.

I think this is where you need to start. I understand this from a right-wing Tucker Carlson fan. But it's the BASIS of being a liberal to understand ethnic differences and how they affect the chances of some people to succeed.

First of all, there is no such thing as "race". Second, the far right will use anything, factual or not. They will make up a Big Lie to deny the results of democratically held elections. Under you logic, we should just let Donald Trump be the President so they don't "criticize" us. For heaven's sake! There is more poverty among black people. The system is built to marginalize people who are not white, but most predomenantly black people. Black people are more likely to be wrongly arrested, wrongly convicted, wrongly executed up to 7 times more than white people. Those are demonstrable FACTS (I have opened multiple threads demonstrating all of this)

As for the rest... I can't debate your personal experiences. I can only debate based on facts. And the FACT is that non-white people, and most especially black people, do not have the advantages that white people have.

CRT suggests that people are not racist. People can be prejudiced, but that's not the same as being racist. There is as much prejudice from some white people against blacks, as there is by some black people against whites. So what people believe about other ethnic groups is irrelevant to the overall social inequality scenario we live in. What IS relevant is systemic racism. And the system is built to punish black people for being black. If they are poor (and poverty rate among black people is significantly higher) to keep them poor. So what needs to be done is to break this circle.

Again: what you need to understand is not only that social injustice and social prejudice EXISTS. But WHAT it is.

BTW, the video you promote tells me you have embraced the FALSE concept of "racism" and "wokeness" that the right has been trying (successfully, it would appear) to shove down your throat. And that's a shame. It's not that both racists and woke people believe those things. Most likely NEITHER of them do. It's just made up nonsense. It's a shame that you drank it whole...

 

Which he redefines in a way that suits his propaganda. And that you accept it above the REAL meaning. That's all Tucker needs: that you accept his fantasy world and abandon reality. You already fell for it.

Tucker does what fascists do: repeat a lie (in this case a false definition) again and again until his listeners end up believing it's reality. A very old nazi trick. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

 

But he explicitly said ahead of time that he was restricting his choice and it must be a woman. That an explicitly sexist statement and choice. He then obviously didn't spend much time searching for a woman who was popular or competent, given her poor showing in the primaries, her nearvous cackle, and her reputation for being abusive towards subordinates. He cluld have picked somebody like Elizabeth Harris. She's female, but she's not a minority I suppose. Well... she did try.

Yes, because one of the required qualifications was not having a penis. You could quite rightly say that for many years women were excluded, and you could even try to claim that recent Republican presidents didn't pick women because they were acting sexist too, but at least they were not explicitly so. Oh wait, Hi Sarah Palin.

Its not hard to see why its discriminatory. Just reverse it. Would it not be disciminatory if he said it has to be a man?

Irrelevant. When women were banned from serving in Parliament the men who got those positions weren't ONLY getting them because they were men. They had plenty of other qualifications. It was still sexist and rightly women were allowed to serve.

Really? My passing for both black and asian, depending on if I have sunglasses on tells you that I am not aware os social inequities? How does that square with your generalization that ethnic minorities that are not white are ad disadvantage? Shouldn't that include me? Twice? Does it include Obama's kids? Doe it include wealthy people from ethnic minority backgrounds who are far more privileged than trailer park white kids? This is the race as proxy garbage I tried to point out to you.

Note the qualifier SOME that you had to stick into that. Help the poor, regardless of race. Help those who are victims of racism and police violence, regardless of race. That does'nt mean all people who aren't white, and it doesn't mean no people who are white. This race or ethnic background as proxy thinking is exactly what forms the basis of white supremacist thinking. I hope you can someday see that. Did you watch the video I embedded above?

There you go again being dishonest. Where did I write anything like that? Donald Trump was helped tremendously by the illiberal left feeding into the Truckers of the world, spinning the whole left as that, so more voted for Trump. If you are one of these "woke" people then it is those like you who are responsible for getting Trump into office, not I. Hillary and her "basket of deplorables" plus "I'm with her" instead of "she's with us" marketing was a big factor too.

Which means that simply helping the poor because they are poor, regardless of race, helps more black peole than white people, without being racist about it. DId you ever realize that?

Sure. And did you know that men are more likely to be wrongly arrested, wrongly convicted, wrongly executed for the same crimes as women by a much larger margin than that? Do you care about that one? *crickets*

Yes, there is a sentencing disparity. Yes, there is racism. We've come a long way but we have further to go. But your insistance on race proxy thinking feeds DIRECTLY into the problem, not the solution. Why can't you see that?

How about we clamp down on racism (regardless of what race the victim is), push the message that race is a stupid thing to care about or judge others on, and shouldn't be the core of your identity? We were making progress in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but now the so-called "woke" are trying to regress it, pushing for segregation and pushing for race being of prime importance and everything viewed through a lens of race.

White and Black are not monoliths. And thinking that way is the same paradigm that white supremacists operate from.

You just want me to be racist. I won't do that. I'm liberal. I won't prejudge anyone just because of the colour of their skin.

Do you think my black skin means I'm poor and don't have access to the advantages white trailer park kids have?

How about my asian eyes? Are you next going to tell me I must know Kung Fu an be a bad driver?

PS - It seems that one post after you complained about me not giving any examples of the illiberal left, that maybe I gave too many, as you skipped over a few of them.

 

Here's another good example of the illiberal left gone nuts.

In Ontario we have a law called the "Gender Pay Equity Act". Can you guess what it does?

Does it make sure that people of the same position and qualification and experience and performance are paid as much as each other regardless of their gender? That would be a liberal position, and we should all be able to get behind it. That'd be great. But sadly, no.

It requires "female gendered roles" in a company be paid "at least as much as" "male gendered roles".

So what does that mean? I actually had to do a review of this for the company I worked for a few years ago to make sure it complied.

It means you have to decide which jobs in your company are "male jobs" and which are "female jobs", literally declaring jobs to be men's work or women's work.

You then have to make sure the "female jobs" are not paid less than the "male jobs". It is fine if they are paid way more than the "male jobs". It is explicitly sexist.

 

Yes. He was restricting HIMSELF. Why wouldn't he choose a woman when that would be politically advantageous.

What poor showing? She conceded early, as all of them did, so they could quickly unify behind a candidate who could beat Trump? You can only vote for ONE of them in the Democratic Primary. I was for Major Pete, but I would have had no problem if Kamala or any of the rest had been nominated. In fact, Biden and Bernie where my least favorite of the lot. But I knew even them would be much better than Trump.

You're reading some very weird conspiracy into this. It's just politics. Look... he didn't need to "search" anything. He had already found dozens of women who would be just as qualified for the job as anybody. Why would he have to "search"? Kamala was just as qualified as Ami Klobuchar, or Hillary or Janett Yellin or ... Pete Buttigieg, or Andrew Yang or Bernie.... Why would you think that Kamala was less qualified than any male you can think of? She wasn't more qualified, she wasn't less qualified. She was just one more of probably hundreds... who would have handled the job equally well.

That's your personal preference. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

What you are effectively arguing here is that there are men who could have done the job better. Which is a baseless opinion.

Yes. Because men have had no problem raising to the office of VP above women who are EQUALLY qualified.

You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: Why would you believe that choosing a woman is discriminatory, but choosing a candidate from a battleground state is not?

No!!!! And your contention that appearing to be from another social group would inherently make you aware CONFIRMS that you are not understanding social inequities. I mean, you might know that there ARE, but you definitely are not understanding WHY. And this is crucial to this discussion.

Do you understand the meaning of the idiom "under you logic"? It means PRECISELY that you didn't say it. But that it would be implied if we were to follow your logic in similar scenarios.

Proportionally... Did you have a point? Are you against that too?

I have no idea. Do you have a reference? In any case, it would make sense. Because they would go for the black dude! That is an indicator of institutional racism against black people. Mysogyny has different indicators that are much clearer than that.

I know you understand that. What you fail to understand is the cause. Or how people who understand the problem try to mitigate the effects.

Racism only exists against minorities. Not against white people. Yet another redefinition of terms that Tucker has hammered into the minds of his audience. Racism is ALWAYS the oppression of minorities by the dominant ethnic group. A black person can be prejudiced against white people. But racism is more profound than prejudice. It involves social institutions that are designed for inequality. And, in general, they weren't designed with a nefarious intent. They are simply the result of our history. THAT is what you fail to understand.

Only Tucker Carlson would believe that they are.

Exactly!

Not sure what your intention is in trying to make this debate about you. It's not!

They were repetitive, and illustrated exactly what I feared: first, that you have accepted the Tucker Carlson arbitrary definition of "racism" (which is contrary to ALL academic and scientific perspectives). And two, that you fail to understand concept of racism. You believe that "awareness" means knowing that racism exists. It's not! It means understanding its origins, what the consequences are in today's daily life, and what is being done to mitigate those consequences and why. Until you understand this, you will be trapped in Tucker Carlson's grip.

 

Because sexist remarks ain't cool? Many sexist actions are people restricting themselves and excluding some from any consideration based on gender.

They are both discriminatory. They are both pandering. They are both politics. One is regionalist. The other is sexism. Yes, I can see you are ok with sexism and your party embracing it explicitly. That's sad because the liberal left opposes it. You seem to be in the far right. Your whole country is really...

I do know why. It's because of people putting importance on race and ethnicity, and gender as a qualification. If you support such discrimination then it is also because of you.

Except that it wouldn't. Not in the slightest. And if you were honest and stopped trying to flog straw men you would see that.

Am I against what? I am for helping who needs help, regardless of race. I am opposed to using race as a proxy for needing help. Aren't you? Help those who need it and there is no need to help anyone based on race. They get helped because they need help, full stop.

Oh dear. I didn't know you were that racist.

At least you recognize you think like a white supremacist. That much self awareness is rare in the racist illiberal left.

I guess we can leave it there. You are too far gone.

 

Wokeness isn't education it's indoctrination.

 

Wokeness isn't the antidote to fascism it is fascism.

 

Amen and Amen. It cannot be said often enough the only real way to end racism is to quit acting like it means something. What makes you who you are is not the color of your skin or the shape of your eyes it is your heart and mind.

You sir sound like the sort of person I could trust to guard my six in a combat situation. I wouldn't trust the average progressive, politician or otherwise, to hand me my water bottle at the mid point of a 5k run. I solute you sir. You have the gift of making sense and in today's politics that is an all too rare commodity.

 

Ok. So you ran out of arguments, and now you wander into the realm of insults.

You just need to understand that you are NOT going to learn anything about reality by listening to Tucker Carlson. Use the time to STUDY. Learn what racism is from people who are experts on the matter: sociologists, anthropologists, historians... You instead believe... Tucker. What a waste! But it's obvious that for too long you have been drinking the kool-aid instead of reading what real experts say. You will find NONE that share your view (or Tucker's, which is now the same) of what "racism" or "wokeness" or... any of the terminology we have discussed, mean. So you have more to un-learn than you have to learn. And I'm not sure if you may be too far gone deep into right-wing-land to ever come out easily.

Below I have provided several links that might help in your recovery. Skip watching Tucker for a couple of days, and read those.

Good luck!

https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reve...UFrZ6R0CbUfrPFrL-vnyLjtEmx9HxDTY73nZY0KMCNTKn
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

... and I have tons more. Read them!

PS. You will notice how right-wingers will be thrilled with your post. They got you exactly where they wanted you....