So some gagging is terrible, but gagging Athena wasn’t. — Fire Ologist

Lol, "some gagging" == universities, government agencies including health agencies, the judiciary, the free press and millions of Americans' right to protest.
While "gagging athena" == an anecdote from one guy, from an unknown number of years ago, about something absolutely inconsequential even if not embellished.

Is there any point in this where you are going to pause and wonder if you've got the priorities right?

So are corporate profits and capitalism good to you? Because that’s not woke - that’s exploitation and greed and builds oligarchies and permanent underclasses. — Fire Ologist

I'm responding to your point. You were saying that if diverse workforces were more profitable then the market would ensure that workplaces would indeed be more diverse.
I was illustrating why that doesn't follow -- because human nature and corporate inertia gets in the way. Workplaces are becoming more diverse, but there is still competitive advantage in being more diverse than the average, and it's still taking DEI to make it happen within our lifetimes.

I don’t want to proceed unless you tell me what woke actually is to you - if you don’t think it’s a thing, a force, a set of policies, a philosophic worldview, then we will never build a conversation. — Fire Ologist

Then don't proceed. Because my position is that it's a nebulous scare word for people who don't want to think. I'm not going to do the work for you in turning the concept (as RW media uses it) into something coherent.

It's like you saying you don't want to address whether the emperor has no clothes until I describe in detail the fine silks I think he lacks.

You might not know what you are talking about. Maybe there is no basis to accuse me of exaggerating. Google some more.. There are lots of ways to meet insurance underwriting requirements. There are lots of ways insurers can hike up your premium. There are lots of ways insurers can deny your claims? You really might want to talk to some business owners about what they actually do, what they have to do, what they do that is above and beyond the law and insurance requirements, and why they do it. — Fire Ologist

An impressively evasive response.

Let's get it straight: are you maintaining that it was a requirement of a particular insurer / package that you hire a DEI officer? Or are you withdrawing that claim?

some gagging" == universities, government agencies including health agencies, the judiciary, the free press and millions of Americans' right to protest. — Mijin

No one has been “gagged”. Everyone is free to print whatever news is fit to print. Just because news media and professors are wimps and whiners doesn’t mean there is any actual political crisis going on.

No one has a right to be in the White House press room. Universities don’t have a right to government funding. Federal government agencies are under the control of the executive branch - that’s the system. And the courts are reviewing cases as always - a couple judges broke the law and were arrested. Judges don’t get to be politicians, that’s the point of a separate judiciary.

You are being a baby. Like the news media. And your average college professor.

As soon as Trump is out of office you won’t remember these made-up problems. I should say once the media loses interest in selling their anecdotes about the threats to democracy, you won’t be reminded of what they think is important anymore.

"gagging athena" == an anecdote from one guy — Mijin

I agree - it’s three (not one) small anecdotes from just one little person. But everyone has these anecdotes. Even the woke get screwed by woke sometimes. (See trans versus feminists). I’m trying to get away from talking anecdotes at all. What are woke principles and do they work? Is DEI tailored to only have to do with “hiring from a diverse pool” as you say? Is that the extent of what you think DEI does - diversify hiring?

The point of Athena’s anecdotes isn’t about how it impacted just Athena. She said the shelter preached about hating men. That’s a lot of people impacted by woke ideology. And if you don’t think hating men, particularly white men, is promoted by wokeism, you are aloof. And my point drawn from the Athena anecdote is different as well. My point is that the woke masters of diversity and inclusion are always happy to be prejudiced and sexist against men. My point is the wokeism in practice is contradictory and self defeating - as here, in order to signal one’s virtues of diversity, equity and inclusions, one spouts of how all men must be alike (not diverse), how all men need to be excluded (not from the shelter itself but from respect) - in order to fight inequitable treatment, they treat men inequitably. And they don’t (won’t) see how this will never work and is utter bullshit and only makes them feel like victims. So much harm no one wants to address.

[naming a DEI officer] was a requirement of a particular insurer — Mijin

I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. We could have done other things but we had to demonstrate commitment to ramming woke bullshit down our employees throats - naming a DEI officer is one way to bolster that picture. Talk to some people who buy employment insurance. Despite what you think, DEI (so wokeism) is a real thing, costing (wasting) real dollars. And despite all of the divisiveness of our society, most people are kind, respectful, courteous, forgiving, team builders - all before their DEI and implicit bias tutorial.

——

If you look in my posts, I’ve said favorable things about woke and DEI. They do exist. I am trying my best to dialogue.

Do you really have no idea what all the fuss is about wokeness? You can’t give one inch to someone who thinks DEI has a dark side to it? You can’t just have a conversation?

I challenge you to spend a day outside your home in public places and not be confronted by the new political correctness. Maybe you don’t notice it because you are so deeply invested. But the American culture has changed significantly in the past 20 years - everyone is walking on eggshells in public. Even stand-up comedians (almost all liberals) complain about how shut down speech is by wokeness. There are millions of anecdotes showing concrete actual issues. We are so past the anecdotal evidence gathering phase that a guy like Trump got elected because he admitted there are issues with DEI.

The left should face this discussion head on to save the good parts of woke - the real enlightenment it seeks to promote. But they don’t seem to self-reflect. At all. They are just still shocked Trump won - how could people possibly elect such a scumbag? No idea.

What is woke? Is it good? Can good policy promote good woke principles?
From what I can tell, woke principles are in need of discussion (like, what does woke mean?). And from what I can tell, the enforcement of woke through DEI has been utterly wasteful if not harmful, with shallow few benefits to show for it. — Fire Ologist

Thank you. The US is really blowing it when it comes to social harmony, and I have the same sense of wrong when it comes to "in your face" sexuality, even when it is heterosexual. How many remember when our sexuality is a private matter? In the movies it was alluded to but not "in your face". Could there be a relationship between this modern "in your face" sexuality and Woke?

The one visible success of DEI initiatives and the entire woke movement—and also the key to its demise—was its ability to disguise general tyranny as enlightened governance. Racism was disguised as anti-racism. Sexism was disguised as anti-sexism. Conformity, discrimination, and exclusion was disguised as diversity, equity, and inclusion. Not only did people engage in such discriminatory practices, they did so believing they were combatting discriminatory practices, and they were in the right to do so.

The entire episode proves to me that anyone can hide tyranny, become tyrannical, and live with tyranny, so long as the stories detailing their efforts sing the opposite tale. The problem is it can only be disguised for so long.

It would be interesting to hear from someone that was full-on woke, but who has repented, to see how he was able to make peace with what he was doing. I imagine the steps involved were like the ones Czeslaw Milosz wrote about in the Captive Mind, where he had to come up with delusions in order to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonance required to live under Stalinism.

No one has been “gagged”. Everyone is free to print whatever news is fit to print. — Fire Ologist

False. What planet have you been living on? These are the most widespread assaults on free speech that the US has ever seen; much worse than McCarthyism.

You are being a baby. Like the news media. And your average college professor. — Fire Ologist

Yes, pointing out the myriad ways that government is deporting, imprisoning and defunding people on the basis of speech is babyish...what we should be getting concerned about is an anecdote one person shared of years ago some women saying mean things about men.

I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. — Fire Ologist

So to try to lay the groundwork for climbing down from your claim you take the unbelievable step of cutting a piece of a sentence to pretend to have misunderstood the question?

This was the whole sentence, including the bit you disingenuously cut:

Let's get it straight: are you maintaining that it was a requirement of a particular insurer / package that you hire a DEI officer? — Mijin

So no, I did not say, that you had said, that it was a legal requirement for insurance. I am exactly responding to the claim that it was necessary for "good" insurance.

So, I'll ask again: are you maintaining that a given insurer, or a particular insurance package, mandated that you hire a DEI officer?

OTOH if your claim is that the insurance was advertized as cheaper if you have a DEI officer, that's worse because that would be public information that we could all google.

Which is it?

I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. We could have done other things but we had to demonstrate commitment to ramming woke bullshit down our employees throats - naming a DEI officer is one way to bolster that picture. Talk to some people who buy employment insurance. Despite what you think, DEI (so wokeism) is a real thing, costing (wasting) real dollars. And despite all of the divisiveness of our society, most people are kind, respectful, courteous, forgiving, team builders - all before their DEI and implicit bias tutorial. — Fire Ologist

That is outrageous. :rage: That is taking the controlling feature of government too far. I hope that with a return to civics, some of our problems will be corrected.

I am exactly responding to the claim that it was necessary for "good" insurance.

So, I'll ask again: are you maintaining that a given insurer, or a particular insurance package, mandated that you hire a DEI officer? — Mijin

Go read the posts about exactly what I am maintaining.

This is dumb.

Let me give you an analogy of why I can’t easily answer your question with the word “mandated” in it. Your question shows you aren’t seeing what I said. There is a legal requirement in many laws (HIPAA, GLBA, various state laws) that companies train their employees on data security. Training is the mandate. But exactly what the training is supposed say (what the actual content is) and how the company is supposed to document proof of training is not mandated. So companies have to figure out how to comply with these legal requirements. One way is to hire firms to provide and document training in ways the regulators have since accepted. Sooo, is hiring a firm to provide and document training mandated?? No, but aside from your average company becoming an expert in legally compliant training about data privacy to comply with the law, your average company has to hire a firm to do this training. It’s similar with employment law, and DEI. For insurers, companies must promise by contract that they will comply with all laws or their claims may be denied - how do companies show they are compliant with employment law today? One thing they can do is name a DEI officer to be responsible for compliance, to figure out how to train, etc. Looks really good on paper. Saves money on premium. And if there is ever an employment claim, the insurance company has less ammunition to deny paying the claim. There are other nuances and details.

So “mandated” which I didn’t say, has nothing to do with my point about how the real world of insuring a business works and how wokeism impacts it.

I have a feeling you still don’t understand and think you made some sort of point about the anti-woke and boogiemen.

———

Wokeism isn’t anything but a boogieman to help manufacture some sort of fascist takeover by white Christian supremecists, or whatever. Got it.

Enjoy the next three years hating Trump and MAGA as they furiously remake America. Hope we aren’t all in a concentration camp under the police state when they declare Trump emperor by then.

In the meantime, learn nothing about the anti-woke, what actually motivates them, what they actually mean, because you understand everything (including insurance underwriting and claim handling).

The US is really blowing it when it comes to social harmony, and I have the same sense of wrong when it comes to "in your face" sexuality, even when it is heterosexual. How many remember when our sexuality is a private matter? In the movies it was alluded to but not "in your face". Could there be a relationship between this modern "in your face" sexuality and Woke? — Athena

As long as it's "in your face" in the traditional way, there's no relationship. If it's "in your face" in a non-traditional way—like in a man's face—then the woke red flags start to fly.

Just talk around it and talk about the unwoke. — Fire Ologist

Nope. I called those folks anti-woke because they called The Little Mermaid woke. Is that what it is?

Meaning is found in its use. Since we're not talking mathematics, definitions are fraught and have to follow use anyway, be it about equality/exclusion, conspiracy theorists, gay marriage, angry bullying radical lesbians, merit, whatever.

So I had to give examples and some context. And gave an apparently agreeable rule-of-thumb. 3/4 wokeity rating? The linked 2024 article also gives examples and international context; notice how "woke" is used to divide/polarize (e.g. "Kremlin statecraft"). From admittedly unreliable memory, "black lives matter" also got "woke-stamped" by some (coinciding with "statecraft" and perhaps some other moves).

Anyway, "woke" is now used as a pejorative by one side in culture wars, often enough accompanied by an extreme example though implicitly carrying other baggage along. But my understanding/impression could easily be off; either way, personally I'd just as well do without the populist noise and @Athena's bullies (not that any of this is about me, mind you).

Are the Trumpests "anti-woke"? — earlier

definitions are fraught — jorndoe

Perfect starting place for a woke position.

Unless we are defining maga, because they are the definition of jackass bastards. Or white men. Nothing fraught about it. Clear as day what is what and who is who there.

But woke Asian woman is by definition undefinable. Because of the woke part. And the Asian part. And the woman part. Need more context and usages to figure any of those words out. Especially when talking with someone who isn’t woke - abuse and oppression loom at every turn of phrase.

Czeslaw Milosz wrote about in the Captive Mind, where he had to come up with delusions in order to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonance required to live under Stalinism — NOS4A2

The woke don’t see the dissonance, the incoherence and the contradictions. I’ve pointed a few out to some
folks I assume are sympathetic to woke ideology (they won’t say it or make that clear), and have not once been engaged.

As long as it's "in your face" in the traditional way, there's no relationship. If it's "in your face" in a non-traditional way—like in a man's face—then the woke red flags start to fly. — praxis

:chin: What is the traditional way? I don't think polite society ever engaged in such pushy behavior. We had a system of dueling that enforced good manners. :lol: That may be a little extreme, but I see no good coming out of social breakdown and offensive behaviors. Freeing women to behave like men was not social progress. Empowering women to have a society they want is social progress.

One thing they can do is name a DEI officer to be responsible for compliance, to figure out how to train, etc. Looks really good on paper. Saves money on premium. — Fire Ologist

Brilliant, this is the claim I am asking you to support. Any link to any insurer suggesting that they will reduce their price if you hire a DEI officer? Remember, you're the one ranting about how common and severe "woke" is, so this should be easy to find.

Am I woke or is this a nightmare? :lol:

All this arguing over what the word woke means. When I play Scrabble, we use a Scrabble book that lists all the acceptable words. It is our Bible. :lol: AI can function as the authority we agree to turn to when we disagree on the spelling or meaning of a word. Woke began as an African American word.
"The term "woke" originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used since the early to mid-20th century." The meaning has changed so much it is a meaningless fighting word.

I don't have a cock in that fight, but it is curious why anyone would want to go to a cock fight in the first place. Why are we making an issue of the term "woke"? Discussing the behavior might be more productive? But arguing about the meaning of the word, is like a dog chasing its own tail. It seems obvious the word can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But what is the social value we are talking about?

they will reduce their price if you hire a DEI officer? — Mijin

How about deny a claim if the insured isn’t able to demonstrate compliance with the law?

Ask your broker to get you competing quotes with a DEI officer and without.

Call a couple insurance companies. Or do you only trust AI…

Strong Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs can positively impact a company's insurability and premium costs for Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI). Conversely, reducing DEI efforts may increase risk exposure and potentially lead to higher costs.
Here is a breakdown of the relationship between DEI officers and employment insurance.
Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI)
An EPLI policy protects a company from claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment, and other employment-related misconduct. A dedicated DEI officer can influence EPLI in several ways:
Risk reduction: By developing and implementing robust DEI programs, training, and equitable employment practices, a DEI officer can help mitigate the risks of discrimination and harassment claims. This proactive approach can make a company a more attractive risk to insurers.
Favorable premiums: Insurers often evaluate a company's internal controls and risk management. For companies with strong, well-documented DEI initiatives, underwriters may offer lower EPLI premiums due to the perceived lower risk of litigation.
Underwriting scrutiny: As the legal and social landscape around DEI shifts, insurers are paying closer attention to a company's approach. Underwriters may ask more questions about a company's DEI programs and policies. Having a DEI officer who can clearly articulate and defend these programs can be a significant advantage.

Or - https://www.ijacademy.com/a-case-for-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-your-epli-toolkit#:~:text=Quick%20Overview,$129.00

Wokeness costs. No big deal. Just another drip drop in the ocean of political bullshit. There are lots of stupid costs in life. What point do you think you can win here either way? (Oh that’s right you don’t answer questions.) I think we should move on.

Unless you want to say something more about how DEI leads to a diverse workforce and more profits. Besides just citing someone else’s experience. Do you have any real experience with employment law claims and DEI? Do you know what the claims say and how to defend against them and how to win them?

Why are we making an issue of the term "woke"? Discussing the behavior might be more productive? But arguing about the meaning of the word, is like a dog chasing its own tail. It seems obvious the word can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But what is the social value we are talking about? — Athena

Yep. As I say, in recent days the president has claimed that the reason that the US did not have a victory in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc was because of "woke".
Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of that. Were we trying to teach CRT to the viet cong?

How about deny a claim if the insured isn’t able to demonstrate compliance with the law? — Fire Ologist

Sure -- which is very different to your original claim. The law doesn't say to get a DEI officer, only (in some jurisdictions) that you submit a summary of diversity policy; something which would normally be well within scope of an organization's legal and HR team.

Look, I think it's great that you hired a DEI officer, but do not claim that an insurer made you do that (or offered you cheaper insurance if you would), because that would go out of scope of what insurers can ask for, and would be open to litigation.

Unless you want to say something more about how DEI leads to a diverse workforce and more profits. — Fire Ologist

Sure, here's a detailed analysis by McKinsey.

, hmm...? You could have tried.

Anyway, in offices and companies, demanding an even distribution across whatever, say skin color or gender, is overreach (if done with legislation). Conversely, a marked disproportionate representation of whatever can be remedied by stimulating merit (contra discrimination or social imposition), maybe all the way back to elementary school.

So, the examples, ?

Yep. As I say, in recent days the president has claimed that the reason that the US did not have a victory in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc was because of "woke".
Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of that. Were we trying to teach CRT to the viet cong? — Mijin

I sure wish his followers understood how he is using them and taking advantage of them by saying anything he thinks they want to hear.

Those wars you mentioned were poorly chosen wars the US engaged in to secure control of Middle East oil and shipping lines. It began with Reagan and was carried on by Bush and Cheney, who were very proud of the neocon effort to control oil, and they bragged about it.

That is a subject for another thread, but I am sickened by how easily US citizens can be gaslighted. The New Century American Project has the world on the brink of a third world war as China and Russia have been motivated to increase their regional power.

Athena's bullies (not that any of this is about me, mind you). — jorndoe

Did I offend you? I am sorry if I did.

, oh no, not at all; apologies if I came through that way.
My point was just that gangsta' sistas' and bullies might be associated with "woke", whether accurate or not; such people have been around forever anyway.

, , regarding Korea at least, there's a stark contrast between North and South Korea. Can't some of that be attributed to yester-century's darker history...?

I am glad I didn't offend you. I am not always the person I want to be. Some days I read everything wrong because I woke feeling down, and it is so embarrassing to read things the next day and realize the bad guy was me.

Korea was divided as the spoils of WWII. Japan lost it, the USSR got the North, and the US got the South. It was a problematic political decision, made worse by the Cold War. Perhaps this could fit the subject of this thread if we considered the struggles of people who live under rulers without political power. Both in the North and the South of Korea, the people were the subjects of rulers who were not part of their cultures, and that was true of the origin of "woke". People of color remained powerless subjects of the Whites who ruled over them. Woke was about being aware of racial, political, and economic injustice.

Democracy is about shared political power, allowing for the peaceful resolution of differences and the protection of everyone's rights. Mother Jones, of the coal miners' struggle for better wages and working conditions, woke the miners up and urged them to fight for their rights and stop being passive about their terrible poverty and lack of economic justice.

Philosophically, Socrates said, sooner or later, those who are exploited will become a problem to those who exploit them. But most of America is ruled by autocratic Industry, and people have no idea there is a democratic model for Industry that would make our lives better. We are not woke to our reality. We are not as politically and economically aware as we should be.

You could have tried. — jorndoe

Tried what?

Are the Trumpests "anti-woke"? — earlier

Do you mean, are people who voted for Trump against woke ideology (generally speaking of course)?

Or is this still the question:

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/snobbery/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative? — jorndoe

No, it’s not anti-conservative. Selecting by merit isn’t progressive or conservative or liberal or maga. Woke didn’t invent diverse pools to select from, or the criteria for selection that values “merit”.

The question is, what do you assign merit to, when making your selection? How important is it that we find a black woman, or Hispanic person, and look past the white men in the pool? Choosing the person with the most qualifications may mean choosing a white man. If being consistent with “merit” as the highest value. How does that fit in a wokety scale?

——

It is precisely because we are not equal that we are diverse. So woke policy has to be at odds with its ideological values. Woke policy has to pick a woke value and then pit it against another woke value.

When we value both equity and diversity together we have to exclude individuals from the narrow groups people can be divided into, all in order to re-include groups (no longer focused on individuals) in one wider, diverse group. Right? You have to put all of the blacks together, all of the whites separated out, then sub groups of women separated, from men, then now the trans folks - all excluded from each others’ groups. Then you can judge the super group that re-includes them all and judge whether it is equitably diversified, again, no longer concerned with this particular individual or that one, but merely concerned with the group they have been placed in and the ratio of numbers of members of sub-groups….

So which is the priority? Putting people in their diverse exclusive groups to give them recognition for their diversity, or overlooking the shallow, ignorant differences to see how all people qua people are valuable, have unique merit and deserve equal protection under one law? In which case we cannot evaluate specific situations based on generalizations and identity politics and groups - but need to look at each individual uniquely. And look at each Board of Directors uniquely. Etc…

Activist control mechanism. I can picture the herding that often accompanies the woke - the control mechanics of it (and I’m interested in further thoughts about how a shepherd can use wokeness to control the activist); — Fire Ologist

Hi Fire,

I just re-read "Animal Farm". I'd forgotten about the shout-them-all-down sheep.

There is a philosophy in there. It’s basically post-modernist mental acrobatics applied to hurting those in power (really, white men) (with no concern for who is thereby helped, and no concern for why someone might have this power) — Fire Ologist

Sure. I mean, Christopher Rufo traces it from Marcusse through Angela Davis, Paulo Friere and Derrick Bell.

You think the average wokist can trace that history? Or articulate what it means? I quoted Friere throughout my masters research paper, at OISE, aka woke ground zero (Canada). Loads of instructors (I won't call them professors) cited Friere. Not one of them acknowledged, you know, the totalitarian failed states and such.

I had no idea, during my second degree at Canada's most prestigious education faculty, that there was anything negative about the man at all - it was simply not discussed. Ever.

That's woke. A creeping mediocrity, it freezes and blinds and swallows. It does not advance, it simply envelopes.

It’s unwoke to define something clearly - definition itself is an oppression. A well articulated principle is like authoritarian law, and tyranny. — Fire Ologist

It is anti-objectivity, deconstructionist. I just read Camille Paglia's "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders", a scathing takedown of Foucault. I caught flack for calling woke 'predictable' in my previous comment, and yet it is wildly predictable for something that fancies itself so radical.

Paglia predicted much of woke 34 years ago in "Junk Bonds" (woke BS) issued by "Corporate Raiders" (the woke-industrial complex).

I mean, the reason I haven't been more active in this thread is straight-up despair. I lost the will to live, faith in humanity, any remaining sense of self when I was cancelled. (again, ironically, for playing the first hiphop artists to win the Pulitzer, in a high school English class). I am barely returning to life, 3+ years later.

I alluded to this in my previous post. I 'predicted' shitty takes might ensue. a 'delete' message'. Insulting, false binaries posited as engagement. A snide correction to my spelling. No reference to lives destroyed. If woke is supposedly empathetic, why are woke practitioners so wildly lacking in empathy? Did you not predict the comments that would follow the murder of Kirk?

Why can't wokists condemn murder? Because they are relativists. Because woke is activism, not philosophy.

Weirdly, given that they most closely resemble deontologists. Woke, a secular religion? A cult conspiracy theory? How can relativists be deontological?

Woke is three groups. John McWhorter's 'the elect' - Justin Trudeau here in Canada. Self-appointed elites, who can scold the rest of us, but are more political leader than moral force. The second are the 'true-believers'. My non-binary colleagues running well-intentioned nothings, sucking up all the air time, convincing the acolytes, the relativistic laypeople who are happy to outsource moral thought to technocratic experts.

All three groups required? What do you think of my model?

This thread started with reference to Andrew Doyle - I read "The New Puritans" before returning to TPF. He talked about not knowing if the wokist he was seeing online was a 12 year old or a sociology prof. Seems accurate.

among the least critical thinkers I’ve met. — Fire Ologist

Yup. Banal radicals. Doctrinaire critical thinkers. Cruel empaths.

I still care and respect for some woke people. I doubt they feel the same in reverse. I hold out hope that they can be de-radicalized.

But it still makes me sick, physically ill, psychological despairing, to consider how we are teaching this theory as truth to children.

To try to end on a less bleak note,

This is a great read by one of the few active Canadian philosophers I can speak positively about (due to both my ignorance and their own scarcity).

https://josephheath.substack.com/p/why-philosophers-hate-that-equity

At the end of his essay, Heath notes:

"One of the most striking features of the DEI-mania that swept through North American universities in the past decade – and that appears to be continuing unabated in Canada – has been the resounding silence of philosophers on these questions".

Yeah. That about says it.

I've only read anti-woke books like Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Material Girls by Kathleen Stock, and really awful ones like Woke, Inc. (on a par with DiAngelo awfulness I imagine). Though I've read some woke-adjacent books like The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. — praxis

Hey man, sorry for not replying to you sooner. This topic gets me depressed.

How is "Cynical Theories"? That's been on my list for a while. Stock I know from Spiked and other Brit heterodox cites, is she worth reading in depth?

I assume Vivek is not serious. "The New Jim Crow" is woke-adjacent, not woke?

I realized that after my last thundery post about reading stuff that I hadn't read much DiAngelo, so I read this:

"Beyond the face of race: emo-cognitive explorations of white neurosis and racial cray-cray".

It might be the worst thing I've ever read. I mean, I kid, but, honestly? It might be.

Andrea Long Chu — AmadeusD

Well, at least Long Chu is NOT predictable. Repulsive. But not predictable. (repulsive with all the self-infantilizing sex doll stuff. not the 'who cares you are trans' thing)

"Left is Not Woke" is good. My local NDP candidate, canvasing door-to-door, told me to read it when I told him of my disillusionment from leftism. I've renounced voting, ideology, tribalism, but I'll still vote for an old guy who knocks at my door and recommends good books.

Not as predictable as you describe — AmadeusD

I've been predicting woke, accurately, since the first time I saw it show up in my undergrad cross-cultural psych course 30 years ago, and 20 years ago when it first tainted PDs at the first high school I got to teach at long-term. I predicted the comments that would follow Kirk's assassination, as well as the lack of comments. Didn't you?

In general, I speak. Not this thread, specifically. But woke, in general? Woke has NEVER surprised me. It consistently makes me sad. But it never surprises.

Perfect starting place for a woke position. — Fire Ologist

Nope, it's more or less Wittgensteinian. And an ever-moving target, mostly used by conservatives as a swear word. (Does that work as a definition?) Besides ...

(not that any of this is about me, mind you) — jorndoe

Tried what? — Fire Ologist

Made an effort. Say, addressed the particulars brought up.

So, the examples, ↪Fire Ologist? — (earlier)

@Jeremy Murray, have you found "woke" to be a postmodernist thing?

Joke making the rounds in the wild some 8-10 years ago:

How is "Cynical Theories"? That's been on my list for a while. Stock I know from Spiked and other Brit heterodox cites, is she worth reading in depth? — Jeremy Murray

It’s been some years but I would say good and worthwhile. Though it was not the intention of either book, I developed somewhat of an appreciation for the more philosophical aspects of wokeness. For instance, the question of why shouldn’t a society bend to the weak? Efficiency, predictability, and hoarding wealth & power are also forms of weakness.

I assume Vivek is not serious. — Jeremy Murray

Political garbage. It can be interesting to dig through the trash on occasion.

"The New Jim Crow" is woke-adjacent, not woke? — Jeremy Murray

Contrary to Fire’s rewriting of history, wokeness doesn’t go back to Karl Marx. It is also rather narrow in focus compared to full-bodied wokeness.

I realized that after my last thundery post about reading stuff that I hadn't read much DiAngelo, so I read this:

"Beyond the face of race: emo-cognitive explorations of white neurosis and racial cray-cray".

It might be the worst thing I've ever read. I mean, I kid, but, honestly? It might be. — Jeremy Murray

Like the Kirk shooting video, I wish I could unsee that.