Quite a few stories about people being the victims of "woke leftists" places the woke mob in the same category as 1950s McCarthy witch hunters. "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist Party?" no matter what one's reasons were or what circumstances applied.

I've been a small-time victim of a woke-leftist (whom I counted as a good friend). I rejected the necessity of the working class acquiring marxist enlightenment as a necessary prerequisite to solving the environmental crisis of global warming. "If that's the way you think," he said, "I never want to talk to you again!" and he hasn't.

I thought my view was quite reasonable. Considering the extremely meager results we had achieved in 20 years as Marxist missionaries, we had best move on. Try something else. No! No! If you are not with us 100%, then you are against us.

I've been a small-time victim of a woke-leftist (whom I counted as a good friend). I rejected the necessity of the working class acquiring marxist enlightenment as a necessary prerequisite to solving the environmental crisis of global warming. "If that's the way you think," he said, "I never want to talk to you again!" and he hasn't. — BC

That's crazy. Maybe you popped his hope-balloon and he couldn't forgive you?

It was crazy, as in DSM IV diagnosis: lunatic leftism. His behavior is also a testament to the ineffectiveness of long-term psychoanalysis. Perhaps a balloon was punctured -- maybe I was of the the last comrades still standing? A lot of the old guys in the party/movement have died of old age.

So sad. :groan:

maybe I was of the the last comrades still standing? — BC

It just seems like that would be the reason to maintain contact, not sever it.

Sad. Tragic. But "time makes ancient good uncouth" a poet once said. The train of militant leftist working class activism and mass demonstrations seems to have left the station quite some time ago. The departure is lamentable.

However... I'm of an old enough age where dying might happen. There is some comfort in that, oddly enough. When I was much younger, I felt called to act on the many injustices, and that involved a lot of sturm and drang. That's over. An order of concern on dry whole wheat toast, hold the sturm and drang.

It just seems like that would be the reason to maintain contact, not sever it. — frank

It would IF one was not a rigid ideologue. Hey, I've been rigidly ideological at times on different issues, and it is hard to escape the box of one's own construction. I can find endless embarrassment in my past--confusion, rigidity, self-righteousness, etc. etc. etc. There were good things too -- insight, smart moves, deep commitments, loyalty, flexibility, and so on woven in with the crap, as it usually is.

But this incident was mild compared to teachers in colleges who were hounded out of their jobs by a braying mob of Woke lunatics.

Wanna go out for a few beers tonight?

Wanna go out for a few beers tonight? — BC

Sure. I'll be right over. I've decided the world doesn't need to be saved. It's pretty much whatever it's supposed to be.

I love that paradox. It reminds me of the paradox of freedom, which may result in a free person restricting of the freedom of others, in which case, the freedom of restricting the freedom of others must be restricted. It seems that the more freedom is permitted, the more restrictions become necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ha! Yes. Well said. The greater the freedoms for all within a populace, the greater the constraints that all within the populace must live by in order to preserve said freedoms. Irrespective of whether these constraints are intrinsically upheld by individuals or else are extrinsically pushed against what some individuals would otherwise want. Societal rules against murder, for one example, attest to this: one can either not murder any other due to intrinsically maintained motives/intentions or else not murder any other due to the consequences that would likely befall one on account of the society’s either explicitly consecrated Laws (with a capital “L”) or else implicitly maintained laws (written in lowercase). In the absence of these, the first group wouldn’t murder still, but the second group would. And when some start murdering and get away with it, the society’s freedoms are diminished (e.g., can’t walk alone at night quite as freely).

Brings to mind a literally awe-inspiring, chilling, surreal documentary, “The Act of Killing,” wherein, in part, hardcore gangsters in Indonesia label themselves “free men” on account of their freedom to engage in mass murders and maybe worse without compulsion, any constraints, or bad repercussions. (Adding a link to the trailer as a shout out for it, which I think the documentary deserves.)

my point was in line with schopenhauer1, "that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment." So that when voices from the Left claim that all Western civilization is a monolithic structure of oppression, then turn and begin advocating for the "tolerance" of oppressed minority groups (relying on a uniquely Western ethic), they highlight their contradiction.

The voices on the left who are constantly screaming about tolerance do not really care about tolerance. For them, it is an effective a political weapon because it is impossible to pin down due to its paradoxical nature (as you have shown). To win the debate, they will have no trouble calling your tolerance as intolerance, and their intolerance as tolerance, or when it suits them, calling tolerance as tolerance and intolerance as intolerance. — Merkwurdichliebe

I hear you, and I can’t disagree—progressive leaning though I am in some ways (conservative in some others; and independent in yet many more). Still, the way I look at it, there is no forest in which no crooked trees grow. Some forests have more crooked trees than others—but none are perfectly constituted of upright individuals.

I think the egotistical term of “woke” sort of gives away the underlying psychology of most who make an issue of self-labeling themselves as such. If A’s views pertain to someone who isn’t somnambulistic and B’s opposing views do … then isn’t B necessarily inferior to A in value at any time B disagrees with A? In the same vein, you’ve then also got the “brights” as was launched by Dawkins I think (contra the non-atheistic dim-witted folk – the creation of this dichotomy being a sure way to get your opponents to better understand your own perspectives, not). And, then, you have the self-labeled “Good Old Party” (this contra the Bad/Evil New Party, one would be led to believe. Disappointingly, I’ve so far never heard of anyone complaining about the narcissistic grandiosity required to label one’s political affiliations the GOP). The same bigoted attempts at an Orwellian propaganda thing all around, but in different clothes. That sums up my views in this regard.

Having said all that, I wouldn’t mind living in a more voluntarily tolerant society, myself. It’s the getting there part that’s ... well, difficult. :smile:

Good point. This makes me wonder. If the latter is the actual case, and the former not, how is it that they come to be fearful of being called racist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Because people, institutions and companies want to be respected and respectful.

And because the United States, just like Germany, does have an ugly past with skeletons in the closet. There is no denying of this. We can debate just how racist present day America is, but there is no denying how racist the US was earlier. If for Germans it's their Nazi past, for the US it's the racism of slavery and segregation.



Irrelevant how profitable some CEO has made a company, if there are accusations of racism or him using the n-word, it's very likely that he loses his position. And then there's the ESG score.

In 2018, Laurence D. Fink, the longtime chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, urged corporate leaders to assess the societal impact of their businesses, embrace diversity and consider how climate change could affect long-term growth.

“Companies,” Mr. Fink wrote in his annual letter to chief executives, “must ask themselves: What role do we play in the community? How are we managing our impact on the environment? Are we working to create a diverse work force? Are we adapting to technological change?”

Nearly five years on, those words have put BlackRock on the back foot amid the increasingly acrimonious and politicized debate over investing with environmental, social and governance — or E.S.G. — goals in mind.

Now if the largest mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard make diversity or climate change important, it will be important. And I'm sure that Mr Fink didn't have any dark intentions, some evil conspiracy behind such actions. Just ask yourself: what is wrong in large mutual funds making environmental and social issues important? Isn't that something responsible to do?

Then we have to understand how the business world approaches these issues. If there's somehing like diversity or any new term similar to that, that a responsible corporation should take into account, what do they do? They hire a "diversity director", usually who works in the human resources. Guess who apply for that position?

Of course these people, just as people usually do, do take their jobs seriously. And if the diversity director tells that there few if any (or no) black women holding some level positions, do you think that the corporate execs will brush off it as nonsense. Again, Americans don't like racists. Just like self-censorship is very typical, here self-regulation is the driving force, not that there's some underlying conspiracy that first has filled the academia and now is spreading like a cancer to corporations. The people making the real decisions are not some closet Marxists secretly huge fans of the Frankfurt school.

However, the "woke" leftist views everything that is the case as a structure of oppression that must be obliterated, hence the woke version of progress is not to build and improve, but to tear down and destroy. Theoretically, it is a Leninist tactic ("the worse it is, the better") because it gives them more opportunity to highlight the failures of the oppressive state and push their illiberal agenda. — Merkwurdichliebe

What's bewildering, though, to a non-woke leftie across the Atlantic is...in practical terms, it looks like in the USA that the right-wing Republicans are trying to tear down and destroy. Surely an alliance of Trump and the Republicans in Congress are like old Trotskyists used to be (the bane of my life as a moderate leftie activist), forever disrupting, continually avoidiing commitment, never wanting to pass any motion because they are so busy signalling to the world how right they are?

Are you saying this isn't the case? Where in the USA are these woke lefties tearing down and destroying anything?

Because people, institutions and companies want to be respected and respectful. — ssu

It is prudent for an individual, company, or institution to be respected and respectful. But I wonder, why racism specifically? why is it so uniform amongst them all? Why is there no appeal to honesty or dependabilty, or anti-murder? After all, historically speaking, dishonesty and homicide are very serious issues, as much so as any example of racism. Why are such alternative measures of respectability never boasted about in such a boisterous and uniform manner as racism? What about earthquake safety guidelines, that seems like a worthy cause if one seeks respectability?

They hire a "diversity director", usually who works in the human resources. Guess who apply for that position? — ssu

I don't know, Who?

Again, Americans don't like racists. — ssu

Yes, so why all the arbitrary emphasis on racism all the time everywhere? If Americans don't like racism, why does the message always come across so accusatory? Or is it simply some lame form of commercial pandering, like: "let's tap into that american non-racist sentiment to sell more products"? If so, why all the comparisons of american race relations to Nazism? If not, what is the deal with all the emphasis on American racism?

it looks like in the USA that the right-wing Republicans are trying to tear down and destroy. [...] — mcdoodle

Does the right view all things belonging or adjacent to Western culture as a structure of oppression? Is the right seeking an all encompassing revolution that will obliterate the status quo?

What are the exact structures of civilization that the "right-wing republicans" are trying to tear down and destroy?

forever disrupting, continually avoidiing commitment, never wanting to pass any motion because they are so busy signalling to the world how right they are?

Are you saying this isn't the case? — mcdoodle

Not much of a Trumpster myself. Those are some vague assertions. You'll have to provide specific examples to what you are making reference if I am to answer honestly.

Where in the USA are these woke lefties tearing down and destroying anything? — mcdoodle

Iconoclasm my friend.

The Conflict Over Vandalizing Art as a Way to Protest

A list of the statues across the US toppled, vandalized or officially removed amid protests

Now if the largest mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard make diversity or climate change important, it will be important. — ssu

I don't see why such powerful groups like blackrock or vanguard won't lead the way by dissolving their capitalist enterprise and dispersing their capital amongst oppressed peoples. That would make a greater impact than their false posturing and virtue signalling. After all, groups like BlackRock and Vanguard represent everything that is wrong and oppressive about Western civilization.

It is prudent for an individual, company, or institution to be respected and respectful. But I wonder, why racism specifically? why is it so uniform amongst them all? Why is there no appeal to honesty or dependabilty, or anti-murder? After all, historically speaking, dishonesty and homicide are very serious issues, as much so as any example of racism. — Merkwurdichliebe

If I may:

In a nutshell, there are basically two competing political wants among humans: A) the want for a society that exhibits “liberty (of all), equality (of innate worth), fraternity (or siblinghood, this as some might nowadays call it so as to be inclusive of the weaker sex women kin)” and B) the want for a society that exhibits “subjugation (of everything different from oneself—from infidels to one’s creed (be it theistic or atheistic) to nature at large), supremacy (which necessitates inferiors, sub-humans and all), and despotic governance (such that all else obeys one’s own group’s sum ego unquestioningly, else, often, the singular depot in charge who trumpets his dictums to all, such as by use of twitter)”.

This doesn’t pertain to any one culture, e.g. West vs. East, but is a universal competition of sorts within all populaces at large. Respect, as well as power, can be had via success in either endeavor—though the type of respect and of power will starkly differ: For example, respect for B has a lot to do with fear of, and envy for, the superior’s position (who tends to suffer from Damocles’ Sword syndrome, Stalin as a good enough example of this) whereas respect for A gets to that mushy thing which in English often goes by the term “love”, to include compassion and the like (Gandhi transformed an empire, this even though he’d not stand a change in a boxing match, and most people very much wanted him to live in peace when he started his hunger strike).

To be fair, there are also C) those who don’t give a defecation either way, going with the flow of whatever is so long as they’re sufficiently fed and such. But these utterly neutral humans don’t effect any significant influence upon what type of societal environment they live in.

For all its deficits and hypocrisies—such as those which this thread is about—Western culture as we now have it greatly honors category (A), at least on the surface. What did our oligarch-sustained politicians and oligarch-maintained media state was the reason we must invade Iraq and other parts of the Middle East? Was the justification given to us masses that of “us bringing democracy to unjustly suffering people” or was it that of “us getting our hands on their fuel and mineral resources so as to better politically and economically dominate the world however we please”? It was the former, of course—which is in fully keeping with (A). At our current juncture as a Western culture, the latter mentioned possible justification wouldn’t have worked all that well on the majority of the population.

Racism falls flatly into category (B) and is antithetical to category (A). And because of that, it becomes a telltale sign of a person being antithetical to what the majority generally respects: category (A); this, at least, in our present Western civilization. Dishonesty is something that all people on occasion engage in without exception—so it doesn’t fit anywhere near as nicely into either one category. Plus, deceptions come in a lot of different nuances: there are differences of acceptability between telling white lies so as to comfort another and telling another lies so as to control them to their future detriment while you make a profit. Can’t think of what would constitute acceptable racism, though, this among those in category (A). Whereas anti-murder intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having murdered anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life.

Things can always change, though, this for the better or worse.

If I may: — javra

You always may with me. But be warned, I am an irritating bastard but with good intentions :grin:

To be fair, there are also C) those who don’t give a defecation either way, going with the flow of whatever is so long as they’re sufficiently fed and such. But these utterly neutral humans don’t effect any significant influence upon what type of societal environment they live in. — javra

That describes me, for better or worse.

[Give me a bit to reread your philosophy here. It is interesting]

[Give me a bit to reread your philosophy here. It is interesting] — Merkwurdichliebe

Glad to hear you find interest in it. :up: :wink:

Can’t think of what would constitute acceptable racism, though, this among those in category (A). — javra

What you wrote there is an Op of its own :strong: . So i will break it down as such.

I think harmless joking amongst friends that may play on racial stereotypes, like "white people can't dance" might constitute acceptable racism. It is too absurd not to be funny. The question is: where to draw the line on the comedic front. And then there is the issue of true racists using comedy as a front. It os certainly complicated.

I think harmless joking amongst friends that may play on racial stereotypes, like "white people can't dance" might constitute acceptable racism. It is too absurd not to be funny. The question is: where to draw the line on the comedic front. And then there is the issue of true racists using comedy as a front. It os certainly complicated. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes. True. In not wanting to do another OP meriting thing, if it was, I'll just say that it depends on the intents of the humor (unconscious if not consciously held). You see a Chaplin movie where the Tramp slips and falls then gets up awkwardly: does one then laugh at the stupidity of the other such that one views oneself as superior to such stupidity (here there is category B pleasure in the laughter) or, otherwise, does one laugh with empathy at the character thinking "yea, I've been there and done that too" (exhibiting a category A pleasure in the laughter)?

Same can be generally said about the two different types of laughter at the exact same racial stereotype joke. A black, a white, and a purple walk into a bar ...

But yea, I agree, this can get very complicated indeed.

Racism falls flatly into category (B) — javra

...

Whereas anti-murder intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having murdered anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life. — javra

Murder is really no different than racism as a social concern. "Whereas racist intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having been racist to anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life."

We don't consider everyone a murderer a priori, so whence the idea that people are a priori racist, ipso facto some accidental ancestry? I think someone who envisions murdering her husband every night is as close to being a murderer as a person that tells one poorly crafted racially charged joke with harmless intentions is to being a racist. Where is the outcry against the would be murderer?

If for Germans it's their Nazi past, for the US it's the racism of slavery and segregation. — ssu

Let's not pin that on the US alone. Almost all of Europe was in on it. We just like to wash our hands from it because on paper everybody is now equal.

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. It's just a repeat of everything Huntington got wrong (and thus philosophically boring as well).

"Whereas racist intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. — Merkwurdichliebe

You may have forgotten the "anti-" part, as in "anti-racist"?

In which case, in the world I live in, this is patently false. If absolutely nothing else: Thought I am a white US citizen, I immigrated with my family to the USA on political asylum as a young kid. Not being protestant, not speaking English with a fluent accent, and not looking like a "true American", my family, and me, experienced a good deal of occasional bigotry if not racism all the same ... As just one measly example, my mom was spit upon with a sizable loogie by a troupe of "true Americans" as she got off the bus from work; foreigner-looking and sounding that she was, she obviously wasn't seen fit to dwell among the superior race of true whites. And this was almost a half a century ago, and in relation to white-skinned "inferiors".

But shoot, the example I just gave is trite. All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society.

Is “Western Civilization”, the very foundation self-criticism regarding ideas like universal rights, due process, and Western philosophy itself unfairly and unthinkingly maligned by educators and leftists for some kind of relativism or one-way version of rights? — schopenhauer1

I loosely agree with the take given in op and have had similar thoughts myself.

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. — Benkei

I would say the distasteful hubris is calling Japan / Japanese culture Western. Or (South) Korean. Or any non-Western country that has developed and prospered to be then Western.

At least capitalism and the consumer society aren't limited to Western culture.

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. It's just a repeat of everything Huntington got wrong (and thus philosophically boring as well). — Benkei

Surely this is more Fukuyama inspired End of History stuff. Israel Palestine are still in history. Russia has brought it back in Eastern Europe. The 90s was a facade of exuberance. Fukuyama admitted he was wrong. That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. England’s history and Anglican Church (official religion of government) and roots in medieval early Anglo Saxon and Norman kingdoms that developed its unique culture aren’t obfuscated because it’s a liberal democracy that also has taken on enlightened principles. The Netherlands gets to still have a roughly Dutch culture even though it takes on Enlightened principles. Same with Japan and their culture, same with Israel and theirs.

The Western part is the exported methods of liberal democracies, technology, and scientific method. Leftists want the historically Western nations to abide by Western ideals but then if cultures clash with notions of rights and liberal democracy to give that a pass because of cultural relativism. Therefore human rights to them matter less than respecting cultures. Yet they support the current idea itself of a self-determining NATION STATE. That idea itself, as outlined in the Atlantic Charter is, guess what? WESTERN. You can’t get out of it. Rather, it’s best to acknowledge the End of History is Western and adopt liberal democracy and rights wholesale.

The End of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book of political philosophy by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama which argues that with the ascendancy of Western liberal democracy—which occurred after the Cold War (1945–1991) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991)—humanity has reached "not just ... the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." — End of History

The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it, reduction of trade restrictions, global co-operation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas, abandonment of the use of force, and disarmament of aggressor nations. The charter's adherents signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942, which was the basis for the modern United Nations. — Atlantic Charter

Isn't it so nice the Western countries allowed their colonies to live within their framework in such a fashion? :lol:. So much confusion around the notion of "self-determination".

As I said hubris. I can't even be bothered to deconstruct all the implicit assumptions. Nation states? A dumb idea. Liberal democracy? Another dumb idea. Your lack of imagination and that of Fukuyama that this is some kind of end point is simply the sad state of political philosopy of the current era. I find Rawls conception of a just society much more compelling and that certainly doesn't result in a "liberal democracy" if fully embraced. And the optimum period of western European countries, which you presumably will claim are "Western" and "civilised" marked them as social democracies, which to a large extent they still are despite the attempts by liberals to dismantle it with deteroriating levels of well-being as a result, levels of exploitation in our supply chains that were unprecedented and the destruction of our environment to boot. And see how hard people in power - mostly as a result of accumulated wealth - struggle against the changes necessary to have a fairer, healthier more beautiful world.

No, let us hope liberal democracy is not and will not be the end of history or we're fucked.

The categorisation of the world in distinct "civilisations" and then also to pretend you can actually speak on behalf of it, is just so utterly devoid of any critical self-reflection that it's meaningless to engage with it.

Nation states? A dumb idea. — Benkei

My point was not whether it was a good idea or not, but it's the reality of the world order post WW2, both for Europe and the former colonies (though being somewhat questioned by Russia at the moment.. pulling Europe back into "history" if you will). Russia represents a sort of "old school" sprawling multi-ethnic empire, run by a core region near Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Arguably the nation-state started with the 100 years war between England and France when the King-dom of Britain really became prominent over the various nobles and lords and their vassal armies. But really got going in the

Peace of Westphalia — Westphalia

in the 1600s, near your region, I believe.

Liberal democracy? Another dumb idea. — Benkei

Oh, now you are denying your own heritage! The Dutch did a lot to contribute to this and enjoy a very libertine society more-or-less (well, at least in Amsterdam). Don't forget, even old New York, used to be New Amsterdam. You can still see remnants of it here:




The Netherlands contributed greatly to the idea of liberal republics. Arguably they were the most tolerant of other religions due to their being dominated by Catholic foreign power under Philip II. Thus, they let in various Jewish groups from Spain and Portugal (hence Spinoza and early Enlightenment free-thinking), and other minorities (the Pilgrims were kicked out of England but taken into Netherlands around 1607-1619. They didn't like the urbanism of Leiden apparently and thus took the trip to Plymouth, Massachusetts to piss off the Natives there with their moralizing and ineptness at living in a harsh cold climate..


I'll respond the rest in a bit..

Maher makes a good point, but he completely overlooks the bible as a source of anything related to western civilizations/ideals. I think of Samuel's speech in book of samuel inveighing against the evils of centralized government. Samuel could easily remind one of a modern libertarian with his anti-monarchist ideas. There is a genuine debate over whether this style of governance ought to be adopted. The idea of a court system is also heavily biblical. In any case, I agree with Maher's point he just leaves out one major source of western civilization.

Same can be generally said about the two different types of laughter at the exact same racial stereotype joke. A black, a white, and a purple walk into a bar ... — javra

BTW, I previously thought this self-evident, but now feel compelled to make the point explicit.

Talking about races, acknowledging their social reality (for they have no biological foundations*), and occasionally finding humor in some racially stereotyped jokes does not somehow make one a racist by default. Racism, in order to so be, is about deeming some races superior and others inferior—which is not necessarily entailed by any of the aforementioned.

* Plenty of online articles on this. Here’s a quote from one of them:

However, purported race differences are entirely man-made, and lack biological, physiological, or genetic underpinnings. — WHAT IS THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RACE - IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHIATRIC GENETICS