It's overbearing, disingenuous, somewhat indicative of sociopathy (the dead eyes, faked emotions, bad acting and overall bad faith display of 'Look at me be feminine!!!!!!!! WAASDIHGS{NVO'. Its preening, over-wrought, transparent and utterly perplexing. — AmadeusD

So you're calling it woke just because of her mannerisms. So again you are just taking the position that woke = someone being trans and not hiding it.
Because if the rant is just about annoying mannerisms, at least half of adverts have someone that needs a slap IMO, I don't see any reason to particularly focus on one transwoman.

Dylan Mulvaney, trans women in bathrooms, the ubiquity of violent threats and entitlement among trans activists. — AmadeusD

You've given no example of anything Dylan Mulvaney has done wrong apart from, apparently, making you uncomfortable.
Trans women in bathrooms is absolutely a non-issue; in my town a lot of the public bathrooms are unisex and it makes no difference to anything. As Alan Cummings put it in your cite (I think): Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?

As for violent threats yeah your list of pinterest t-shirts or whatever totally refutes the data that transpeople are massively more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

I don't watch beer ads. This is not a gotcha. You have overstepped wildly to try to make a point not open to you. — AmadeusD

It's not a gotcha, it's a self-own. If you don't watch beer ads, what point were you even trying to originally make? That trans on TV is fine as long as you don't see it?

unobservant — Fire Ologist

You’ve engaged extensively with this topic, and the influence on your perspective is quite apparent. Take your most recent post, for example, where you wrote, "the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons." This phrasing, which conflates ‘the woke,’ corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis.

Anheuser-Busch is in the business of selling beer to make money, not of teaching ideological lessons—casting its marketing decisions as ideologically motivated is a partisan rhetorical move, not a serious analysis.

Anheuser-Busch is in the business of selling beer to make money, not of teaching ideological lessons—casting its marketing decisions as ideologically motivated is a partisan rhetorical move, not a serious analysis. — praxis

Well I didn’t get it from anywhere - I just watched the ad for the first time this week. I heard about the ad at the time, but had no idea Kid Rock got involved until you said it. I don’t follow the anti-woke gazette.

Do you think the marketing team conversations were really all about sales? Is that your serious analysis? You think the Anheuser Team, or the Bud Light division wasn’t taking an ideological stand? You really think they were only selling beer? Of course they convinced themselves it would make them money and it would be good for the brand - but they were total idiots then. More likely they were blinded by ideological preaching and thought they were preaching to enough choir to feel good all around.

If they were only selling beer, then American Eagle is only selling jeans, so why not just laugh at blond hair and blue eyes selling good “genes”? It’s nothing but a “marketing decision” and not “ideologically motivated” - so who the hell cares if it doesn’t looks woke?

Casting what I’m saying as a “partisan rhetorical move” is a rhetorical move too. Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism.

How could the Bud Light folks possibly think those ads would work? Is that a partisan question?
Maybe they thought they would gain more than they lost??
Why would they think they would lose anyone? Why would they risk losing anyone?

I don’t know for sure (and don’t really care), but I bet most if not all of the marketing team that came up with the add were fired. And not for ideological reasons.

———

This conversation does not have to be so accusatory and antagonistic does it?

Racism is a deeper problem than white America and white Europe admits.
Homosexual people are not properly respected, ostracized from many institutions, mistreated, harmed and killed, just for being homosexual.
Women still need to fight for equal rights in many situations.

I say all of that and I mean all of that because of the vast reaching influence of wokism. And there is more. And the situation is better for most of these victims groups in part because of the woke in the world.

That said, wokeism also stinks badly and harms classss of people, sets equality and respect back, causes people to be racist and prejudiced, promotes false facts and half the story.

There are terrible people who are anti-woke. That doesn’t make wokeism good.

Do you think the marketing team conversations were really all about sales? Is that your serious analysis? You don’t think the Anheuser Team, or the Bud Light division wasn’t taking an ideological stand? You really think they were only selling beer? Of course they convinced themselves it would make them money and it would be good for the brand - but they were total idiots then. More likely they were blinded by ideological preaching and thought they were preaching to enough choir to feel good all around. — Fire Ologist

You said you agreed with AmadeusD’s view that Bud Light’s campaign was "a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage," even though I had pointed out that your stance on this seemed different.

Anyway, not important of course, just a curiosity.

Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism. — Fire Ologist

I know you've said that before and I've ignored it—your meaning wasn’t clear. You have my attention now if you'd like to explain how I'm failing to reflect on Wokeism. What have I said that shows a lack of reflection?

attempt at identity politics — praxis

That is the preachy part. Maybe they were not preaching in order to help trans people, but they were playing identity politics which, if you think about it, is more like cult religion and good sheep herding.

Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism.
— Fire Ologist

I know you've said that before and I've ignored it. You have my attention now if you'd like to explain how I'm failing to reflect on Wokeism. — praxis

Can’t you tell me some things I’ve said that you might agree with? Show a little wokeism self-reflection. You’ve been engaged here like a third-party judge, not really talking to me, but talking about what I’m saying. But you are not really talking about the content of what I’m saying either, you are just saying things like I “must be influenced by MAGA.”

Tell me what you personally think. Tell me what woke is, what is good about wokeism. Tell me what is bad about MAGA, and how wokeism addresses it.

Is every woke idea good? Give me some bad ones.
Is anything I’ve said that speaks negatively of wokeism true? Say where you might agree.

Do you think wokeism truly promotes equity and inclusion? I think it promotes division better than anything else it does.

I used to think the division between white people and everyone else was the problem. There should be no division among us based on skin/race. But wokeness seems to rely on this division to be fixed and in place, not resolved. Woke teaches me that there is a difference between white people and everyone else, and that all white people must be reeducated about their implicit biases and privileges, and taken down off of their high horses. That white people today still owe for sins of white people in the past. That’s divisive. That’s impractical. And most importantly, I think it is a shallow estimation of whites AND everyone else. And that’s the sin of wokeism today - for the sake of people, they misunderstand people, and harm people. And they won’t suffer fools who disagree.

It deserves critique, or better defense.

Show a little wokeism self-reflection. — Fire Ologist

Now you’re saying that I’m not showing reflection. You’ve been claiming that I haven’t reflected.

But you are not really talking about the content of what I’m saying either, you are just saying things like I “must be influenced by MAGA.” — Fire Ologist

Not true. I quoted you directly and analyzed the substance and phrasing, pointing out how it reflects partisan rhetoric. I’ve reflected partisan rhetoric in this thread as well. I don’t know why it would be difficult for anyone to admit doing this.

Racism is a deeper problem than white America and white Europe admits.
Homosexual people are not properly respected, ostracized from many institutions, mistreated, harmed and killed, just for being homosexual.
Women still need to fight for equal rights in many situations.

I say all of that and I mean all of that because of the vast reaching influence of wokism. — Fire Ologist

Is it really so?

Because I would think many people, also who are politically in the center and on the right, were agreeing with the above far before the term "woke" was used.

I think many on right, starting from libertarians, would agree with those statements. Above all, does saying the above somehow clash with values upheld on the right, starting from things like private ownership or family values? I would say that it's the leftist distorted caricature of the conservative right that portrays the right being against equal rights for women and against homosexuality. Well, when those topics were first discussed in the 19th and 20th Century, naturally there were conservatives at the time who were for sticking to the old ways, but then again, those times the left was truly for disbanding capitalism at every level and striving for socialism and only disagreeing inside of itself on how socialism would be achieved.

Is the left now preaching the leftist mantra of the 19th Century? Nope, not at all. It's main objective would be just to curve the excesses of capitalism at this stage. In the similar fashion the views on the conservative side have changed. Hence it simply is time for us to put these travesties aside and really look what in general the political sides are saying, not to cherry pick the most outrageous comments that one can find and try to represent these as the common goal of that side. Because when we do so, then we fall into the trap of thinking that people are either "woke" or then "MAGA".

not to cherry pick the most outrageous comments that one can find and try to represent these as the common goal of that side. Because … then we fall into the trap of thinking that people are either "woke" or then "MAGA". — ssu

Ok. I agree. Identity politics makes caricatures of everyone. I hate it. Putting people in boxes and groups reduces whole human beings to much smaller creatures than they really are. We use our generalizations “progressive left” or “conservative right” to help us organize our thoughts and what we say, not to organize actual people - we can’t think any individual person actually neatly fits into any of the boxes we construct to make our points.

it's the leftist distorted caricature of the conservative right that portrays the right being against equal rights for women and against homosexuality. — ssu

I would hope so. That is probably true for many on the left, but I think most leftists think implicit biases and unconscious cultural influences lead non-woke people around by the nose, and that underneath it all, non-woke people want to oppress women and are homophobic and don’t see non-whites as equals. I think many woke people talk this way. How else does one think the AE Sweeney ad is anti-woke? You have to read into sub-text beneath the surface and find rottenness underneath. I mean, who cares, in this day and age if a white person or a black person says “I have good genes” - besides the woke? I don’t know whether the left thinks these pictures of the right are distorted caricatures or spot on.

Hence it simply is time for us to put these travesties aside and really look what in general the political sides are saying — ssu

Can you flesh that out a bit? What do you think the sides are generally saying?

How does the right want to end wokism yet still be good people?
How does the left want to impose wokeism yet welcome true diversity and tolerance and inclusion?

The caricatures of left and right make answers to these questions impossible to formulate, so how would you answer them if we put the exaggerated travesties aside?

You’ve been claiming that I haven’t reflected. — praxis

I still don’t know much about what you actually think of wokeism, anti-wokism, or many of the things I’ve said about these.

You need to say what you think woke is, and what is woke and what isn’t woke, say why it is woke, and say whether you agree with it or not. Then do the same thing for anti-woke.

I quoted you directly and analyzed the substance and phrasing, pointing out how it reflects partisan rhetoric. I’ve reflected partisan rhetoric in this thread as well. I don’t know why it would be difficult for anyone to admit doing this. — praxis

Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric says that person isn’t thinking for themselves and just parroting partisan talking points. Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric isn’t analyzing the substance of what the person says.

Here is something I said again that you didn’t respond to directly or thoroughly. It would be greatly appreciated if you would break this down to show what it means to you (show me what you think this says), then analyze it to show where it is wrong, where it is right, how it misses the mar, then state what you think instead of what it says - you aim for and hit the mark.

The woke see that identity politics and victimization of certain classes are everywhere and systemic. And so the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons. To the woke, Wokeness is top of mind and systemically in front of everyone everywhere anyway. (That’s why they so quickly found issues with the AE ad too.) — Fire Ologist

It’s a simple point that I think is true about wokeness, and is at the heart of why the anti-woke dislike wokeness.

My view hasn’t changed, though it might have if you didn’t ignore the following the first time I posted it.

"…the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons." This phrasing, which conflates ‘the woke,’ corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis.

It’s a simple point that I think is true about wokeness, and is at the heart of why the anti-woke dislike wokeness. — Fire Ologist

I agree that anti-woke rhetoric has been very influential.

And again, is the solution here simply that transpeople should not be allowed on TV?
Is any public appearance "woke"?

The whole "Woke" debate is dumb, the majority of people for and against it use it as a vehicle to drive their politics one way or the other. It's like the section in Thus Spoke Zarathustra "Chastity," where Nietzsche details chastity is a virtue for most, but for some it's simply a practice they don't even think about it's just that they're so busy with other things away from sex, a certain innocence in one's own becoming rather than a projection on how one ought to live. In this way, the debate becomes a proxy battlefield of politics, but for those who experience it personally, it's not about ideology, it's a style of becoming...

Transitioning genders for example is a psychical need that manifests similarly to the conception of "Free will" such that it follows an equation roughly similar to "'I am 'free' and 'IT' must obey"... It's a manifestation of the need for control over oneself in a world that very much tells you to deny your instincts through objective morals that attempt to determine for you how one OUGHT to live. This burden of ought attempts to shackle someone to one side of a political stance (Left/Right being a newer manifestation of objective dogmas since the proverbial death of God). Both sides attempt to detail what is good/evil and offer their versions of reward/punishment through acceptance/rejection. It turns life into a courtroom.

And yet those individuals who experience "woke" as a lived personal experience don't give a damn about your Left/Right views on it. For them, it is a style of innocence in becoming that occurs out of a necessity in which there is no guilt, sin, or "wrongness." It is more of a fundamental condition of their existence. It is neither sinful nor virtuous, it's merely a manifestation of becoming. The projection of guilt by both sides (from conservatives: "unnatural," from progressives: "immoral not to affirm") both miss the point: they moralize what is, at root, the individual's personal experience of becoming, innocent, and innocence in their instincts.

“I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves. Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which you should be inoculated? Behold, I give you the Trans-Übermensch. They are this lightning. They are this frenzy.”

Ok. I agree. Identity politics makes caricatures of everyone. I hate it. — Fire Ologist

It's not only Identity politics. Political discourse has dramatically changed after people have taken up to use social media. The role of mediators, like newspapers were before aren't there and politicians communicate directly through social media to their followers. This has created a quite toxic environment were people can lash out the way they would never do if publicly they would meet the actual people. Then there's those obnoxious algorithms that simply choose on your behalf just what "news" you get. The most radical views get more traction etc.

I think it was the historian Neil Ferguson who has compared the present change to the invention of the printing machine, which created a huge information revolution ...and also bloody religious wars. Once the monopoly of the Catholic Church was broken and people could read in their own language the Bible, then the role of the priesthood was diminished. At first one might think this was a totally positive change, yet the bloody religious wars fought afterward showed not everything was positive.

And the last issue is American political discourse itself, which promotes and encourages toxicity and lashing out. The two-party system creates an environment where there is no reason to be diplomatic or try to reach out to the other side. In fact, it usually seems that the main argument that both sides give for voting for them is that the other side is so dangerous and will destroy everything good in the Republic. If politicians had to form coalition governments, the discourse wouldn't be so hostile.

I would hope so. That is probably true for many on the left, but I think most leftists think implicit biases and unconscious cultural influences lead non-woke people around by the nose, and that underneath it all, non-woke people want to oppress women and are homophobic and don’t see non-whites as equals. I think many woke people talk this way. — Fire Ologist

I think this more about echo-chambers and people hearing everywhere dog whistles. And it's more that many leftist think that they themselves are attacked by the MAGA crowd.

How else does one think the AE Sweeney ad is anti-woke? — Fire Ologist

But just who is really talking about this commercial? I think the most influential commentator is Donald Trump, who was enthusiastic that Sydney is a Republican. Notice the discourse. Remember the huge discussion about taking the knee with Colin Capernick? It was actually a green beret named Nate Boyer who in my mind smartly advised them to take the knee rather than sit on the bench, which indeed would be quite offensive. Only when Trump got involved on this, then the issue took a life of it's own.

The AE Sweeney ad is 100% Culture War stuff that political parties use to get their supporters interested in politics. The vast majority don't care shit about foreign policy matters or monetary policy decisions, but a thing like talking about some ad, be it Bud Light commercial or a jeans commercial, and the level to comment about them is far lower.

The whole Culture War thing is intended to make us even dumber.

“the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons."
This phrasing, which conflates ‘the woke,’ corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis. — praxis

So you are saying that what I said is not analysis. But you haven’t given me any of your analysis either. You just said I conflated and collapsed some things. And that I wasn’t giving you my independence analysis.
What is conflated exactly? What is better independent analysis?

Trans-Übermensch. — praxis

Gotta take the “uber” out of it - too inequitable. “Trans-uber” isn’t woke.
“Trans-ber-mensch”, is better. Maybe go “she-ber-mensch” for the female/male hybrid version.

is the solution here simply that transpeople should not be allowed on TV? — Mijin

No. Of course not. But there is a time and a place, and a wrong TV spot. The word “inappropriate” serves a valid purpose in life. The bud light marketing team learned that.

One of the most important messages from the anti-woke to the woke is: read the room.

No. Of course not. But there is a time and a place, and a wrong TV spot. The word “inappropriate” serves a valid purpose in life. The bud light marketing team learned that.

One of the most important messages from the anti-woke to the woke is: read the room. — Fire Ologist

But this is not addressing the point I'm making.

The point I am making is: there's a difference between a poorly-judged advert, or picking a bad figurehead or whatever -- brands do that every day -- and "woke".

Several people in this thread are complaining about the wokeness of that advert, yet can give no reason why it is woke other than having a transwoman in it. Which begs the question: can a transperson appear on TV in a way that you wouldn't label as woke? Is it instantly rendered woke simply by you noticing that the person is trans?

And the last issue is American political discourse itself, which promotes and encourages toxicity and lashing out. The two-party system creates an environment where there is no reason to be diplomatic or try to reach out to the other side. In fact, it usually seems that the main argument that both sides give for voting for them is that the other side is so dangerous and will destroy everything good in the Republic. If politicians had to form coalition governments, the discourse wouldn't be so hostile. — ssu

It’s not the two-party system that promotes toxicity and lashing out, it’s the polarized cultural environment pitting urban against rural. For decades the two parties were quite cordial toward one another and there was much across-the-aisle compromise and consensus. Israel is just as polarized politically as the U.S. and it’s a multiple-party parliamentary system.

Gotta take the “uber” out of it - too inequitable. “Trans-uber” isn’t woke.
“Trans-ber-mensch”, is better. Maybe go “she-ber-mensch” for the female/male hybrid version. — Fire Ologist

I don’t get DifferentiatingEgg‘s woke as lived experience thing, but the culture war is fully last man standing in a puddle of piss. That I get.

It’s not the two-party system that promotes toxicity and lashing out, it’s the polarized cultural environment pitting urban against rural. For decades the two parties were quite cordial toward one another and there was much across-the-aisle compromise and consensus. — Joshs

One may then ask, where did the polarization come from? I think one reason is that people are simply dissatisfied about the political establishment and thus many have eagerly taken on populism. And my argument is that the two political parties aren't doing anything to limit the polarization. On the contrary.

Not all is political, I agree. Universally there is this divide between the urban and the rural, but in the US it's especially nasty. The hostility especially against the poor is very telling, as if it's OK and not bigoted for white people to talk in a derogatory manner especially about poor whites. How hillbillies, crackers or white trash are talked about even publicly is quite astonishing.

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better? — Mijin

That's what we woke loonies call 'rape culture'. Specifically, rape and fear of rape is part of the mechanism of control of female sexuality by the patriarchy. That is the horror of trans - that one might find oneself accidentally raping a man! It's rather like finding a serf in a suit of armour - dangerous, and against the natural order.

Specifically, rape and fear of rape is part of the mechanism of control of female sexuality by the patriarchy. — unenlightened

It's things like this that really make me question what type of mindworm has bored its way into your brains.

Always happy to help.

So why, do you suppose, in America rapists are treated better than trans?

reason why it is woke other than having a transwoman in it — Mijin

You are right - I see your question now, and it’s a valid one. Here is why the ad is about wokeness.

It’s not just an ad. It’s an ad for Bud Light, previously known as a vastly, eminently, dude bro beer. Bud light goes with a beard. Or a cigar. Or NASCAR. Or football.
When bud light drinkers grab a bud light, they don’t want to expand their horizons. Or remember they have a congressman or even a political opinion. They want to close their garage door and change out the master cylinder on their classic car. That’s Bud Light. And everyone knows it. (I shoukd help them write an ad)

But like a fine red wine pairs with some stale chocolate chip cookies, they paired Bud Light with a trans person taking a bath. Hmmmm…are they trying to tell me about something I was missing, here under the hood of my car with my dude bros?? Was I asleep at the wheel for too long and times changed?? Do I need to change with the new times, and step out of my comfort zone here in my garage?? Why is that person in a dress sipping cans of beer at all?? Are they talking to me? What happened? Answer: wokeness strikes again.

So no, trans don’t have to stay off TV, there are fifty other ways to place a trans woman in an ad on TV that wouldn’t spark much of a second glance, but Bud light ain’t one of them. That is why the ad wasn’t just about Bud Light. It was teaching the ignorant what normal bud light drinking can look like. Maybe they are even right, and it’s a good lesson, but it’s a lesson in wokeness and we are not supposed to hate lesson time if the lesson is a woke one.

And the reason this is interesting is not because of advertising or because of the ad - it’s to hopefully show reasons why people are anti-woke. We disagree we need lessons about who is acceptable and who isn’t, and we disagree these lessons are appropriate in any time and place the lesson givers want to give them.

So much bad judgment involved in wokeness and in the name of wokeness.

Drag queen children’s book readings is like that. It’s not a big deal because it happens a lot and it’s a mass problem. It’s a big deal because someone thought it should happen at all, to any kid. How is that ever a thing? There is such a thing as a time and place, and there is such a thing as childhood innocence and matters for adults only. You don’t play at political and social experiments with other people’s children (or hopefully your own either).

but the culture war is fully last man standing in a puddle of piss. That I get. — praxis

I guess I’ll take your word for it. I don’t pay any attention to that bullshit. American culture is freedom, so it’s 1000 different cultures. Wokeism grades them good and bad. I don’t pay attention to that shit until the woke tell me I need to check my privilege and like certain cultures and hate the wrong ones.

This, and within my family, is the only forum I’ve really talked about wokeness. I am fighting any wars. I’m too much of a live and let live person. This is an attempt at a conversation. If it’s a debate, you need to make some points.

Why don’t you say something positive? Give me a reason for something woke that should convince me to think better of it?

One may then ask, where did the polarization come from? I think one reason is that people are simply dissatisfied about the political establishment and thus many have eagerly taken on populism. And my argument is that the two political parties aren't doing anything to limit the polarization. On the contrary. — ssu

You’ve got it backwards. The polarization wasn't the result of the make-up of the political parties. It was due to the fact that one part of the country, the cities, moved more rapidly into a post ‘60’s economic, social and intellectual way of life than the slower changing rural areas. As a result, people needed to change what the political parties stood for in order to reflect the growing cultural divide. They have now done that. 60 years ago the republican party was socially moderate , fiscally conservative , supportive of the U.S. as the world’s policeman, and over-represented by wealthy, educated voters. It is now the populist party, is dominated by the poor, lesser educated and working class, is isolationist and socially conservative.

Not all is political, I agree. Universally there is this divide between the urban and the rural, but in the US it's especially nasty. The hostility especially against the poor is very telling, as if it's OK and not bigoted for white people to talk in a derogatory manner especially about poor whites. How hillbillies, crackers or white trash are talked about even publicly is quite astonishing. — ssu

The political divide is not a reflection of hostility against the poor. It’s a reflection of the hostility against traditional ways of thinking on the part of the educated urban elite. This urban elite supports progressive liberal economic policies to help the poor , including a higher minimum wage, government subsidized health care ( Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid), support for education. But rural poor whites overwhelmingly reject progressive economics in favor of small government , socially conservative populism. Many wealthy whites also support this right wing populism, because they share with the rural poor a traditionalist worldview. The best indicator of where one stands on the political divide is not wealth, it is population density. The more sparsely populated the region one lives in, the more likely one will be to support traditional political , religious and economic values, and the more likely one will be to vote for the Republican party.

Rapists are thrown in jail, and even an accusation without proof resulting in an acquittal is enough to ruin someone's life.

I suspect you harbor resentment towards the natural structure of society and men/masculinity in general, and that this is just some exercise in projection and the justification of your own prejudices.

it’s the polarized cultural environment — Joshs

Yes. I blame our leaders - in politics, in the media and in schools. And here in our discussions. Our leaders should be showing us how to respect differences and work together. Instead our leaders fan flames and show us how to divide and what to hate.

It’s urban versus rural. Rich versus poor. Religious versus secular. Man versus woman. Straight versus not straight. Black versus white. Conservative versus progressive. Immigrant versus citizen. Soon, young versus old.

Some of these things we pit against each other in fact belong together, and complement each other. But our leaders can’t and don’t want to show that.

in America rapists are treated better than trans — unenlightened

You have a lot of statistical data or anecdotal evidence - or are you just trying to launch a political campaign?

Not all is political, I agree. Universally there is this divide between the urban and the rural, but in the US it's especially nasty. The hostility especially against the poor is very telling, as if it's OK and not bigoted for white people to talk in a derogatory manner especially about poor whites. How hillbillies, crackers or white trash are talked about even publicly is quite astonishing.

It's also shrunken some differences. For instance, I've heard the sentiment expressed, and even seen it in op-eds, where bourgeois Americans (or Europeans) claim they have more in common with and feel closer to (more kinship with) other bourgeois from Dubai to Hong Kong then with their fellow citizens outside their socio-economic context.

Yet why shouldn't this be. One of the great benefits (or deficits) of (neo)liberalism is that it makes "everywhere everywhere else." This helps liberate individuals from custom and culture, and facilitates the free flow of labor, ideas, and capital. But it also means that the biggest differences to cause tensions no longer exist between nations (indeed, national identity is dissolved) but between those areas that have entered this space and everywhere else.

Now, when people actually say this out loud, they will almost always frame it as: "I don't feel kinship with my fellow citizens in the hinterlands," but I think there is also a way in which this applies to those within their own urban contexts who sit outside their socio-class space.

The dissolution of custom and culture brings with it its own tensions, since there is no longer a "binding together" of ends and identity. To some extent, this is papered over by making pluralism and the destruction of custom its own goal. But this cannot go on forever. Eventually there isn't much left to transgress or destroy except for liberalism and pluralism itself. I think that's pretty much the stage we have gotten to. Once that sort of "call to activism in service to liberalism" is no longer an option (because neoliberalism has won) only the pleasures of epithumia—i.e., sensible pleasures, wealth, and safety—are left to support liberalism. Hence, those seeking thymos (honor, recognition) or any higher logos (as against the emptiness or "decadence" of an epithumia culture) will end up turning against liberalism. I think you can see this in "Woke" and the "Alt-Right."




It's an interesting comparison, since the Nazis also produced a lot of strong pronouncements of relativism and anti-realism paired with prophetic, absolutist rhetoric. I am not sure if this was a particularly common combination in Nazis though, or if these sort of pronouncements just tend to be selected by historians because they are interesting and tend to be made by more intellectual writers (the same could be said of Woke to be fair). I just know I have seen a lot of them. For instance, a sort of amoral "historical Darwinism" was at least common and accepted enough to make it into some official orders of the day I've seen from the Eastern Front. But these orders are also always in apocalyptic, Manichean tones. In fact, "mercy and morality must be left behind" precisely because "the clash of the races is our final struggle" is a common theme.

Some of these things we pit against each other in fact belong together, and complement each other. But our leaders can’t and don’t want to show that — Fire Ologist

Our leaders? You’re telling me the fights over values and ways of life tearing families and neighbors apart is caused by ‘leaders’? The leaders are late to the party. These things start at the grass roots, not from on high. I recently discovered my childhood next door neighbor lives in a different universe from me, even though we were best friends as kids. He wasn't transformed by some leader, he always had those views, but it didn’t emerge until he began to notice how far his thinking was from many of the people around him, including me.

You can’t wish away real, entrenched differences in outlook and ways of life separating one community from another by blaming them on the nefarious influence of some powerful individual. That’s insulting to persons and communities who rely on forging their own value system as a compass for guiding their life and making sense of their world.

The dissolution of custom and culture brings with it its own tensions, since there is no longer a "binding together" of ends and identity. To some extent, this is papered over by making pluralism and the destruction of custom its own goal. But this cannot go on forever. Eventually there isn't much left to transgress or destroy except for liberalism and pluralism itself. I think that's pretty much the stage we have gotten to. Once that sort of "call to activism in service to liberalism" is no longer an option (because neoliberalism has won) only the pleasures of epithumia—i.e., sensible pleasures, wealth, and safety—are left to support liberalism. Hence, those seeking thymos (honor, recognition) or any higher logos (as against the emptiness or "decadence" of an epithumia culture) will end up turning against liberalism. I think you can see this in "Woke" and the "Alt-Right." — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is an interesting observation, but it has two controversial theses. First, that neoliberalism is a completed project with no real internal challengers. Second, that both the ‘Woke’ and the ‘Alt-Right’ are united in their rejection of liberalism, driven by its perceived spiritual or moral emptiness. However, if we accept that neoliberalism has indeed won but continues to evolve and accelerate, then both ‘Woke’ and ‘Alt-Right’ movements can be understood as distinct expressions of contemporary subjectivity. Each, in its own way, seeks to overcome the collapse of older structures of meaning and reflects a search for identity and moral certainty. Yet, as Žižek argues, contemporary identity-based activism poses no real threat to the neoliberal order, which is capable of absorbing even its most vocal critics.

I suspect you harbor resentment towards the natural structure of society and men/masculinity in general, and that this is just some exercise in projection and the justification of your own prejudices. — Tzeentch

I suspect you are the one projecting onto me here. Your go to response to something you disagree with is personal insult. Rather weak.

Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why we are so obsessed with sex? You know food is as important to survival, but we don't seem to worry too much about what everyone else is eating or not eating.

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?
— Mijin — unenlightened

in America rapists are treated better than trans
— unenlightened

You have a lot of statistical data or anecdotal evidence - or are you just trying to launch a political campaign? — Fire Ologist

I was paraphrasing @Mijin

"Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better?"
— Mijin

But here is a gentle introduction to the notion of 'rape culture' in the UK. I only specified the US because it was in the quote I was responding to, but I imagine you can easily find the corresponding statistics for the US if you are interested.