The Daily Mail itself outed it's behaviour as click-baiting in 2011, labeling the issue as a myth. — AmadeusD

This doesn't even make sense for the point you're trying to make.
A national newspaper, that almost never corrects any of it's various made up stories, a decade after Winterval, felt it needed to apologize and correct the record. But oh it was just a momentary thing in 1998

FTR the daily mail still pushes stories about how you can't say Christmas any more. I guess it helps pay for the Christmas turkey every year, for the poor billionaire owner of the Mail that doesn't pay UK tax.

Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this? — Tom Storm

In the states it’s been heavily politicized in recent years, and quite successfully.



Three pages back in this thread I asked one of the ‘Awake’ folks if they thought wokeists should ignore the American Eagles jeans ad. Answering the question was apparently a struggle.

It’s just a stupid ad, why not say what you think—that they’re probably capitalizing on culture war hot buttons or whatever.

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore. :lol:

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore. — praxis

What are you talking about - anything that comes out of a rich white man’s mouth is white supremacy. Right?

Like the stupid jeans ad is white supremacy. You can accuse anyone about “white supremacy” all day, about meaningless things, that have nothing to do with supremacy, or white.

A challenge to your use of the term white supremacy os not a threat to your right to say whatever you want.

It’s not that you can’t say white supremacy anymore at all - it’s that, as with so many words, when wokists get a hold of them, they lose their meaning.

There are many important words that have lost their meaning: man, woman, gender, rape, my truth, racism. If a conservative argues for a traditional meaning for these words, they can be fired from their jobs. Such a person is likely hiding racism, misogyny, and a homophobe.

Wokists think that because what they say is being challenged, they are being oppressed. I know you were joking @praxis but there is a huge difference between someone saying “calling the jeans ad white supremacy is just idiotic crap” and someone trying to curtail speech. You can still argue things are examples of white supremacy all you like on TV, in movies, on the news. Here on TPF. If you have a liberal, progressive, woke, anti-traditionalist, anti-capitalist, anti-religion, Winterval friendly message, the sky is the limit.

But when conservative speakers go to a college campus to give a speech - they don’t get debated and argued with. They get shut down, physically threatened and kicked off campus. That’s woke. That’s an example of “you can’t say X”; the reaction to the wokist critique of the ad was more speech, not an ironic cancellation or shutting down.

@Amadeus discussed the woke’s inability/unwillingness to debate a challenge to their reasoning a few pages back.

I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this? — Tom Storm

Yes. It’s the exact same concern, as wokism and political correctness has always been a threat to free speech. And a threat to shut good things down. It’s now the cute catch-phrase “cancel culture” still as alive and well as wokism. Trump is an expression of the anti-woke’s frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. That’s what wokists don’t understand - they are oppressive, not liberating. They are self-contradictory, not a clear new vision. They want to defund the police, and are outraged when the police don’t serve them in time of need. Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson do a good thing, or were they just slave owners and white supremacists? That might not be an acceptable topic for college campus and public debate if there is going to be a strong voice in favor of the good of Washington and Jefferson. Just can’t stand to hear unwoke sounds - like micro aggressions and dog-whistles.

So many new layers of utter bullshit (that could never be challenged) since the 80s.

The cancelling that I am seeing is coming from the MAGA government right now -- federal agencies banned from talking about climate change, educational institutions not allowed to criticize Israel, journalists banned from the white house for being critical of Trump, museums made to remove mentions of slavery, or Trump's impeachment. Lots more if I just google around.

There's nothing remotely comparable on the left.

Since you're so against cancel culture, do you condemn all of this?

The cancelling that I am seeing is coming from the MAGA government right now -- federal agencies banned from talking about climate change, educational institutions not allowed to criticize Israel, journalists banned from the white house for being critical of Trump, museums made to remove mentions of slavery, or Trump's impeachment. Lots more if I just google around.

There's nothing remotely comparable on the left.

Since you're so against cancel culture, do you condemn all of this? — Mijin

1. As far as the federal government limiting what the federal agencies do and say - that is called: how it works. That has nothing to do with speech rights in the public sphere. So all of the agencies changing websites and spending money differently and deprioritizing X for sake of Y - go vote according to your own priorities. So nothing systemic to address there. No new fascistic takeover - the EPA, the white house website, NASA, Dept. of Agriculture, always bowed to the whims of the president and Congress and those debates are not "shut-down" - the woke members of Congress are being forced to make a better case.

2. Educational institutions - generally, since the 1960s, a safe-haven for all things revolutionary, and all things anti-tradition. The default in the institution: if it speaks "truth" to "power" let it speak. But they are such bad judges of what is "truth" and who has "power" and who is "victim". These institutions totally botched their students' reactions to the Israeli war. You say college institutions are not allowed to criticize Israel. That's not the message. It's that college institutions are not allowed to endanger their Jewish members. College institutions do not know how to debate without seeking to crush their opponents, and remove them root and stem. The general university consensus was, Israel has no leg to stand on, so there is nothing to debate. Just shout and speak of a new map "from the river to the sea". There is not enough acknowledgment of the responsibility Hamas has for the predicament of the poor Palestinians. There is not enough acknowledgment that Jewish people need protection and support too, as they did on October 7, 2023. So the move against educational institutions is to level the playing field, not put down the supporters of Palestine. It is a move against the tactics that endangered Jewish individuals, (US citizens versus US citizens not being handled well by the institutions). Plus, college professors have no actual guts - speak your mind and defend your arguments. What injustice is being fostered in the US on US campuses because of the federal government? You don't get easy money for stupid crap for the time-being?

3. Journalists, or opinion makers? Newspeople, or propagandists? Journalists have plenty of power and voice - more than enough to sort the issues there. They instead want to cry about "oppression" and loss of "freedom". That's more bullshit. We all know more about what Trump is doing than we ever did about what Biden was doing. Journalists are not being shut-down. If this one journalist gets shut-down, or that one news agency gets kicked out, there are 50 more to take their place. It's more a market reaction to bad journalism than it is government censorship. Again - wokeists, grow some guts. As the video from 1993 showed, Trump could have run on the same anti-woke platform 30 years ago, and he might have won then. Anti-woke cowards have all but lost the debate (that never happened) - Trump led the "no more bullshit" charge - "make your case!" Finally, the woke need the guts to make their case. Being kicked out of the white house press room is not censorship when 50 people remain in the room. If all 50 people become too afraid to challenge the president, that's on them, that's cowardice.

4. Museums - kind of silly. It doesn't erase history to pick and choose what is highlighted in a museum funded by the federal government and what is not. No one is going to forget slavery, and everyone needs to learn just how horrible it really was. But there are presentations that leave you hating America, put on by the federal government, funded by taxes from families whose children died preserving our country. There is a time and a place, and if done with true equity, the mistakes of the past can and should be presented in museums - but the inmates took over the asylum my friend and a correction might take a bit of the favored method of revolution.

There's nothing remotely comparable on the left. — Mijin

There are so many progressive takeovers of cities, towns, counties - they shut down basic land management, and we get monster forrest fires, in the name of protecting the climate. They want to include trans, so they exclude cis-gender. They want to include black women, so they exclude white men. It's been happening with great progressive success for 40 years. To the wokeist, I must be living in a different world. To me, I am trying to see the benefit of woke policy and can't find it.

What is being canceled today is 'cancellation and oppression with no debate' - so you cancel a cancelation and you don't have the same thing at all.

Since you're so against cancel culture, do you condemn all of this? — Mijin

I'm positively sure there are some injustices being committed in individual cases. I would condemn that. I don't condemn these sweeping policies that are more of a course correction away from oppression. But depending on the individual case, and because I know the nature of people, I'm sure there is much to condemn coming from "Maga" (as if a monolith).

I am against political ideology guiding individual actions. Political ideology should guide political debate. When it comes time to act - do what you think is best and be brave about it. If you are challenged, stay brave and defend your reasoning. Don't rely on a party platform to justify who you are and what you do.

So if you bring me individual cases and allow me to gather all of the facts and allow me to push back on presuppositions and "dog-whistles" and "slippery slopes" and "conspiracy" - I'm sure I would end up agreeing on what is clearly injustice and what is not.

Do you condemn me for not offering blanket condemnation for what Trump's federal government has done to websites, the press room, college funding, the climate change debate, and museums? Is all lost for the progressive victims, or can they just restate their case and show what value has been lost because of Mage, and what value needs to be restored in these arenas??

I know you were joking praxis but there is a huge difference between someone saying “calling the jeans ad white supremacy is just idiotic crap” and someone trying to curtail speech. — Fire Ologist

You haven't been clear on what you think about the ad. Do you think American Eagle is innocent and had no idea that their ad would be viewed as it has been?

Do you think American Eagle is innocent and had no idea that their ad would be viewed as it has been? — praxis

I answered clearly. Yes, the woke can ignore the ad.

But this rephrase of the question is a bit more.

Do I think American Eagle is innocent?
- of fostering racial tension?
- of hinting at racial tension to foster conversations with the word “American Eagle” in them?

Do I think they had “no idea” playing a a pun on jeans/genes would be hated with vitriol or make its way to a presidential tweet?

I don’t think Am Eagle is actually white supremist. That’s stupid business if the world found out. So that dog whistle is ridiculous.

Honestly I have no opinion on those other detailed marketing questions. And don’t see this as a matter of guilt or innocence. You just mean intention or not.

They probably got way more than they hoped for out of this. And it probably back-fired on some fronts. But this very conversation is so small potatoes.

There is nothing whatsoever offensive to me with a person of any race saying their genetic coding makes them awesome and they look good in jeans because of it - all to sell jeans. And American Eagle didn’t go that far. You have dig real deep in a pile of horse crap to pull out something offensive there.

Everyone is allowed to be proud of their genes. And say it.

The ad controversy was just…dumb. And it hurt proponents of woke because they have no judgment of what matters and what doesn’t.

in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit. — praxis

Answering the question was apparently a struggle. — praxis

Likely, because non-Woke don't suppose to tell what others should do most of the time. But yeah, it's better for their mental health if they ignore it. That isn't hard at all.

in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit. — praxis

I don't know where you are in the conversation but this isn't where i am. You explicitly stated "Andrew Doyle" in the comment I linked from. Earnest critique is not mockery still stands, and I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the Skit as I linked from your comment about Doyle and mockery.

it needed to apologize and correct the record — Mijin

No, that is not what I said. The paper noted that the "uproar" was a myth. It was. Entirely. I was there. There was never any significant issue around Winterval, unless you were not paying much attention to anything else. It seems the Daily Mail got you with this, and now you're upset over something which didn't actually happen.

But oh it was just a momentary thing in 1998 — Mijin

This is not a good faith exchange, it seems. Moving goalposts wont work too well around here.

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore. — praxis

Who can't? It's all over the fucking place. What are you talking about?

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore.
— praxis

Who can't? It's all over the fucking place. What are you talking about? — AmadeusD

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore.
— praxis

What are you talking about - — Fire Ologist

:lol:

1. As far as the federal government limiting what the federal agencies do and say - that is called: how it works. That has nothing to do with speech rights in the public sphere.
2. [educational institutions] are such bad judges of what is "truth" and who has "power" and who is "victim".
3. Journalists, or opinion makers? Newspeople, or propagandists? — Fire Ologist

You decry cancel culture, but when it's shutting down messages you don't like, you're all for it.
And these rationalizations are, frankly, pathetic.

What I should have done is give examples of right-wing speech being shut down, wait for the outrage and then say, no, it was actually a left wing opinion. Because there's absolutely no principle here.

The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness.

It’s the physical changes to culture - men competing in women’s sports; men who choose to be called ‘women’ with outrage when not obeyed (as if ‘man’ never meant something simple); the destruction of language itself; the lack of simple protections of children; drastic child trans therapies in the name of ridiculous psychology and physiology (a grand experiment that one is a deplorable “MAGA” man if one challenges its safety or value, or even functionality towards its own ends); etc.

You decry cancel culture, but when it's shutting down messages you don't like, you're all for it.
And these rationalizations are, frankly, pathetic.

What I should have done is give examples of right-wing speech being shut down, wait for the outrage — Mijin

You won’t get any outrage. Not a bit. That’s a done deal. The progressives rule the media, the news, and education. With an iron fist. Right wing speech was shut down long, long ago. That’s just a tiny part of it.

They weren’t rationalizations. They were rational though.

A positive defense of the value of woke cancellations would do better then to try to see if you could catch me in an unprincipled contradiction.

Honestly I have no opinion on those other detailed marketing questions. — Fire Ologist

You say yourself that this is no big deal so why not say what you think? Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?

The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness. — Fire Ologist

Firstly, what?
"Cancel culture" has been a top headline on the right for years. Trump's talked about it, Ron De Santis, FOX news, the daily wire, Candace owens etc etc. I don't know what it would take to make your top 10 list, and I don't care; it objectively is a common talking point on the political right. Indeed "woke" started out as often "woke cancel culture".

Secondly, yeah, they aren't concerned about cancel culture now, because they are the ones doing it. And they are apparently as unprincipled as you are being

It’s the physical changes to culture - men competing in women’s sports; men who choose to be called ‘women’ with outrage when not obeyed — Fire Ologist

Just ranting about issues you disagree with. What's this even got to do with the thread topic? Unless you're complaining that you can't cancel such opinions?

Trump is an expression of the anti-woke’s frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. — Fire Ologist

So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world ‘taken over’ by Leftist fanatics?

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. — Fire Ologist

To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.

Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences.

I said twice already. The woke should ignore it. There was nothing of import for society to respond to. It’s a stupid ad.

Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part? — praxis

I answered that too.

They probably got way more than they hoped for out of this. And it probably back-fired on some fronts. But this very conversation is so small potatoes — Fire Ologist

I don’t think this controversy could have been predicted. Wokeism is not coherent enough to allow one to predict weeks long political discussions based on an ad.

BTW, you really rarely give your own opinions. Despite calling for them from others. Closest thing was how you feel you can’t say “white supremacy” anymore.

The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness.
— Fire Ologist

Firstly, what?
"Cancel culture" has been a top headline — Mijin

It’s not about free speech. It’s about the cancellation. The physical shutting down. No one on the right is telling the left to stop arguing and debating and talking. The feds just aren’t paying for a one-sided opinion as much anymore.

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. That’s what wokists don’t understand - they are oppressive, not liberating. They are self-contradictory, not a clear new vision. They want to defund the police, and are outraged when the police don’t serve them in time of need — Fire Ologist

Kind of hard to decide whether there’s a clear new vision floating around in the background when you haven’t said a word about underlying philosophical visions, just the stunts some activists who have gotten the attention of the media have pulled.

So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world taken over by Leftist fanatics? — Tom Storm

Would you consider someone who did think so would be welcome to discuss such opinions in the back offices and around the water coolers of 98% of the news media and educational institutions? Honestly, is expressing a positive opinion of one thing Trump did a good career boost over lunch with colleagues in those extremely powerful and influential institutions?

Trump is doing some good. Force for good? Remains to be seen. But I will evaluate for myself, not from any ideological standpoint.

Do I think the “world” has been taken over by leftist fanatics? No. Just the media and our educational institutions. The political takeover is an ongoing battle. The focus on the media and education didn’t work, at least not yet.

Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences. — Tom Storm

My cousin was fired from his job because of some stupid DEI bullshit. He’s a great guy. Period. To everyone he meets. Some petty asshole misunderstood something, and HR has no idea how to handle people anymore thanks to DEI initiatives. Nothing could be sorted out before a message had to be sent that had nothing to do with my cousin. Utterly destructive, for sake of promoting confusion and no justice. Nothing was clear except the coworker was in a “protected class” and my cousin wasn’t. (Although we are of Italian descent, which I like to think is in a class of its own, sort of like white black guys, best of all possible worlds with great cuisine, but that’s probably evil of me to say…). My cousin has plenty of support because, he’s a great guy.

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree.
— Fire Ologist

To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too. — Tom Storm

I agree with that. Don’t particularly like hearing “MAGA” lovers speak. Unless they are speaking with the other side in a debate, as here in TPF.

Honestly, all of politics and government is discussion of lesser or necessary evils. All strong opinions requiring political and governmental action are fraught with peril.

My interest in woke/anti-woke is cultural. Wokeism makes everything political - it’s one of the things I disagree with about it.

I wonder if at this point in their presidencies what the count of positive news stories and negative news stories was from Biden and for Trump (second term). I am fairly confident that regardless of what either of them actually did or are doing, and regardless of how powerful either of them seemed, there are more stories about how Trump is bad in the legacy and leading media than there were Biden is bad stories, and less Trump is good than Biden is good stories. So even with the his evil Trumpiness on the throne, not much debate and challenge is actually being shut down. Wokeism remains the king of systemic cancellation - precisely because they have the media.

a word about underlying philosophical visions — Joshs

Yes, please. Don’t make me show the gains and benefits and progresses of wokeism. That side of the discussion is sorely missing on this thread.

Questions about the underlying vision of wokeism:

1. Is everything about politics? Or economics? Or race? Is anything in the public sphere simply not about these things, and if so, are those things good or bad for the community? Or should we focus on power structures?

2. Is there anything good we should preserve from white, patriarchal, historical Europe? Sub-question: who are genetically the victims in the world, and who are genetically the privileged oppressors, if any one. (“If any one” is a clue to my own answer.)

3. Will there ever be a dictionary that solidly supports a “correct” use of the word “he”?

4. When one is offended by another person, whose fault is that feeling of offense? The hurling of insults is certainly the fault of the one hurling insults, but the feeling of offense, who is responsible for that?

5. Diversity requires differences. Equity requires no differences. So which is it? Because if we are all equal, then a board of all white men is equal to a board of any races, genders. But if a board of all white men is just aesthetically repugnant, how can woke create better looking boards, and be equitable, without dividing everyone up and excluding certain groups? Seems like impossible criteria to make truly coherent, and truly just, while being truly good for the company/entity the board is supposed to run. Seems utterly pie in the sky, with no sense of flavor, just that vanilla is gross.

Help me, help you.

Thank you for your nuanced response. I tend to hold what some might describe as progressive views on many issues but recognize that there can be extreme positions on all sides. I have a little contact with universities and politics (I sometimes advise political parties) and don't generally see much in the way of 'woke' activities around me. I am generally pro trans rights and feel this can be explored without rancour in person directly with people, but rarely on line. I'm not a theorist, nor do I mine the internet for egregious examples of zealots at work (and I am not saying you do this). I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda.

It’s not about free speech. It’s about the cancellation. The physical shutting down. No one on the right is telling the left to stop arguing and debating and talking — Fire Ologist

I just listed four different ways that speech is being shut down off the top of my head

Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?
— praxis

I answered that too. — Fire Ologist

You haven’t actually and I don’t understand the problem with answering whether or not you think it was intentional.

I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda. — Tom Storm

I don’t watch Fox News. Mostly vacuous cheerleading. CNN is smoke and mirrors. But if something big happens, I flip between them for the live stuff.

I have to piece together facts from all over the place, left and right.

I’m not a big fan of conspiracy and hidden governmental agenda analysis from here on the outside. My main issue is incompetence, not bad intent. We don’t need inside information to see which politicians simply stink at getting anything done, and yet we reflect them anyway.

Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?
— praxis — Fire Ologist

I don’t think this controversy could have been predicted. — Fire Ologist

Three times now.

What do you think about the intentions of some people you don’t know?

What do you think about the intentions of some people you don’t know? — Fire Ologist

I can make a judgment based on their actions, and so can you. Why don’t you in this case?

:lol:

Questions about the underlying vision of wokeism:

1. Is everything about politics? Or economics? Or race? Is anything in the public sphere simply not about these things, and if so, are those things good or bad for the community? Or should we focus on power structures? — Fire Ologist

Your critique of “wokeism” focuses on certain highly visible activist actions and social media flashpoints, whereas I’m more interested in the underlying intellectual currents that can, at least in principle, inform fairer treatment of others, without inevitably leading to the authoritarian excesses you’re concerned about.

If we zoom out from the noise, there are some core philosophical frameworks that have shaped what people call “woke” thinking, such as Implicit bias, the idea that people’s perceptions and decisions can be unconsciously shaped by stereotypes, even when they consciously reject prejudice. The value here isn’t in “shutting people down” but in cultivating awareness so we can interact more fairly.

Intersectionality is another woke concept. It is a way of understanding that people’s experiences aren’t shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones. It’s not a mandate to divide everyone into rigid groups, but a reminder that context matters in how people experience opportunities or barriers.

Then there’s critical race theory, which at its most basic is a scholarly framework for looking at how laws and institutions have embedded racial disparities over time, not as an accusation against individuals, but as a way to ask, “If these patterns exist, what’s sustaining them?” Discussed philosophically, these aren’t inherently about censorship, purity tests, or stripping away free speech. They’re tools for noticing complexity in human relations, and in that sense, they could enrich the very kind of civil discourse you value, if applied with humility rather than dogma.

So, I’d argue it’s possible to explore these ideas, even agree with parts of them, without signing on to every activist tactic or extreme proposal you’ve seen in the headlines. We can be critical of bad implementations without dismissing the frameworks entirely, and in doing so, maybe get closer to that “clear vision” you’re asking about.

If we assume American Eagle intentionally provoked controversy with the “Good Genes” Sidney Sweeney campaign, the financial logic is clear: spend heavily once, then let public debate multiply the reach.

A high single-digit million budget (likely around $7M) covered Sweeney’s endorsement fee, premium placements like the Las Vegas Sphere and Times Square 3D billboard, plus national TV and social buys. Under a normal, “safe” ad strategy, this might yield $14M in total media value when factoring in some organic buzz.

But controversy acts as a force multiplier. Criticism over pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed celebrity spurred news coverage, reaction videos, and social media debate, generating an estimated 3× more earned media than a safe campaign — roughly $21M in extra exposure, for a total media value near $28M. Even a small conversion rate (0.1% of 500M impressions) could drive $30M in denim sales, delivering around a 4× ROI and cementing AE’s cultural relevance for months.

Joshs,

Great post. Something positive and thoughtful.

Implicit bias, the idea that people’s perceptions and decisions can be unconsciously shaped by stereotypes, even when they consciously reject prejudice. The value here isn’t in “shutting people down” but in cultivating awareness so we can interact more fairly. — Joshs

Implicit bias, is real, and important for people to understand about themselves. So if wokeness can take credit for that, then that is a positive contribution.

I see “bias” as the “implicit”. It’s the prior lens through which we view. People have the ability to self-reflect and must recognize how their own upbringing will shape what the see now and tomorrow. But people have the ability to see this bias, in themselves, and honestly confront it.

So bias is an important discussion for people to come to be able to respect each other despite biases. Since we all have biases, AND since we can all see around them if we self-reflect and try to look at things differently, we should respect each others differences and forgive their struggles with their biases as we need to be forgiven for our own.

But honestly, what I see the woke doing with the notion of bias, is using it to control people. Woke says people are doomed and chained to their biases, and have to be told by the enlightened what their real motivations are. One day people might see their own biases, and maybe even overcome them, but I don’t see woke people treating biased people as whole human being who are more than their biases. The woke just tell you want new biases to make so you can be biased right, not free from all bias. I see the woke showing how the biases of white people create an exclusive privilege for white people, fostering more bias in white people, and whether they know it, or worse intentionally, oppressing non-white people. I see the woke manipulating from on high an otherwise bleak world to control with bias.

Individuals are not just the sum total of all of their biases. And to the extent they are, no one is better than anyone else. That is both the starting point and the goal when it comes to bias.

Intersectionality is another woke concept. It is a way of understanding that people’s experiences aren’t shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones. It’s not a mandate to divide everyone into rigid groups, but a reminder that context matters in how people experience opportunities or barriers. — Joshs

Yes. People’s experiences are each unique to them and only each one. As you say “people’s experiences aren’t shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones.” I take this to simply mean, we are each unique.

You say that woke is saying we are unique blends of many “overlapping categories”. I think this has it backwards. The categories come second, not first. Each unique individual can be lumped into different categories we learn about after meeting many unique individuals. We aren’t merely categorizable. We aren’t even merely unique overlapping categorizable things. Some parts of each of us defy categorization, at least not so easily and not politically useful. There are crazy combinations that make up some individuals.

Turning individuality into intersectionality is just a new way of saying individuality, but one that, to me, downplays the individual.

And again, if wokeism means respect for each one as a unique combination of whatever combines to make a person, then great. I think intersectionality is a smaller part of what makes people great. Mostly because we have too few categories. Race, gender, class, education, ethnicity, region, urban, rural, progressive, conservative, etc - way too small to define a person. We should add inquisitive, smiles a lot, anxious, energetic, methodical, whimsical, and so many more. Then we might be able to make boxes people could fit in.

how laws and institutions have embedded racial disparities over time, not as an accusation against individuals, but as a way to ask, “If these patterns exist, what’s sustaining them?” — Joshs

This is another reference to the implicit. The systemic. The predisposition of our economic and legal system and institutions.

This is a very practical topic. You said “these patterns”. We need specifics to know where to look to ask “what is sustaining them.”

I would start that due process under a constitution legislated and enforced by elected and later ousted representatives isn’t embedded with any disparities at the outset. And our economics - capitalism - doesn’t seem essential to any particular race. We can theoretically all agree regardless of race, to build a capitalistic world.

There is much to debate, but it requires significant specifics and lists of fact gathering to really play out. It requires something equivalent to the constitutional congress that started before 1776 and culminated in a solid constitution by 1787.

I think we can work more to reform what we have then we need a new system.

But I am open to learning about what is bad about the current system and what could be better about a new one.

So many new woke institutions seem divisive and unsustainable to me, but I’m sure there are more positive things about wokeness.

I do believe that the heart of many woke people is with true victims of injustice. But I believe the heart of many conservative people is with true victims of injustice. So that’s a wash - good intentions pave the road to ruin - and none of that saves either side.

But controversy acts as a force multiplier. Criticism over pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed celebrity spurred news coverage, reaction videos, and social media debate, generating an estimated 3× more earned media than a safe campaign — roughly $21M in extra exposure, for a total media value near $28M. Even a small conversion rate (0.1% of 500M impressions) could drive $30M in denim sales, delivering around a 4× ROI and cementing AE’s cultural relevance for months. — praxis

Good lord - that sounds so sleazy.