I am against what they say. I would call them “social impositions” because they were born of pseudoscience and imposed upon entire peoples. Besides, the pseudo-scientific justifications for applying these labels have long been discredited. — NOS4A2

Social constructs are a good way to think about these issues. Let's first define it:"A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event."

Someone defining himself as "American", meaning being a citizen of the US, or "British", is a clear social construct. We can easily understand that if history wouldn't have gone the way it did, those definitions would be different. And obviously they carry a lot legally in our societies and citizenship and the nation which people belong to means a lot to many. The naively stupid view is that when these are "just" social constructs and "invented", they are either false, irrelevant and don't matter.

Just talking about classes can get some angry as they either understand the term as castes, or then think it's just leftist nonsense. The juxtaposition between "white-collar" and "blue-collar" workers isn't so politically motivated, but basically again it's a social construct.

For me it seems that race relations have become a similar issue to Americans like Hitler and nazism to the Germans. It's obvious that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and lynchings aren't the brightest side of American history. As the old saying goes, if you are losing a debate to a German, you can always go for the "Hitler-card". And if you have a Hitler-card, well, it comes to be so easy. And some do use them..

Obviously, establishing he is racist comes before talking about why he is, right? We're only just getting there. — Baden

The comment I initially responded to was...

He made racist statements. Period. — Baden

Does "period" mean something different where you come from?

The discussion was (at that point) about the effect of 'woke' culture. Pretty much everything said since then has been directed exclusively at avoiding any discussion of even the possibility that it might have negative consequences exacerbating negative responses.

Yes, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.

What? The "period" was in response to frank's claims the statements weren't racist and was limited to that. It had nothing to do with @Tzeentch's tangential comments about woke culture. I wasn't in that conversation, partly because nothing intelligent was being said. It was just "Woke = progressive = bad". So what? Maybe there's something there. But let's have some nuanced analysis.

Yes, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. — RogueAI

Frank can argue any kind of nonsense and then claim that because you come from a different country (or whatever) you are wrong and he is right. It's a tiresome and boring way to avoid rational engagement.

Yes, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. — RogueAI

It doesn't appear racist to me. The responses of right extremists did, though. What in particular seemed racist to you?

The discussion was (at that point) about the effect of 'woke' culture. Pretty much everything said since then has been directed exclusively at avoiding any discussion of even the possibility that it might have negative consequences exacerbating negative responses. — Isaac

I think there are instances of people being unfairly ‘canceled’.

I’m not sure how much wokeness may be too restrictive or if the claims that it’s too restrictive are merely politically motivated.

Those are two aspects that come to mind. Are there others?

My understanding is that the original idea of being "woke" was a reaction to the general historical and cultural ignorance in the U.S. of racial and other minority issues. That's clearly a good thing that right wingers and racists are likely to hate. And on the fringes of wokeness no doubt they have been given ammo for that.

Roald Dahl characters not being allowed to have black cloaks may be an example. But conflating the mad fringes of wokeness with progressives in general as @Tzeentch has tried to do is just the right wing attempting poisoning the well tactics and can be dismissed on that basis. As if you can reduce calls for better healthcare, more equality, social justice etc. to some misguided attitudes by (probably) well-meaning silly people.

But conflating the mad fringes of wokeness with progressives in general as Tzeentch has tried to do... — Baden

Stop replying to me if you're not going to make an effort at understanding my position.

conflating the mad fringes of wokeness with progressives in general as Tzeentch has tried to do is just the right wing attempting poisoning the well tactics — Baden

I can’t help thinking something like this is behind Adams stunt. He fancies himself as a trickster, after all.

I believe I do understand what you're trying to do.

Also, "woke" is not liberal. It's progressive, though I would sooner call it regressive since it has effectively worked to dial back the clock on the role of race in society some 50 years. Alas, "woke" believes the changes they propose would benefit society, thus progressive is the proper term.

'Liberal' is just the label it inherited from the last wave of progressives, which had some right to call themselves liberals. Woke is just wearing it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core. — Tzeentch

There's where with some odd jumps of logic, unsupported assertion, and random colourful rhetoric, you conflate wokeness with progressivism.

Here's the Merriam Webster definition of a progressive:

"one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive

And, no, wokeness has not suddenly morphed this into some mad Orwellian movement. You don't know what a progressive is or, more likely imo, you are attempting poisoning the well, guilt by association etc.



Typical tactics. This is why I said nothing intelligent was being said.

Nowhere did I claim that "woke" is an umbrella term for progressivism.

"Typical tactics", "I understand what you're trying to do", "poisoning the well" - get a grip, mate.

Nowhere did I claim that "woke" is an umbrella term for progressivism. — Tzeentch

I said you "conflated" the two. Which you did. The type of thing Fox News does daily. Zero analysis, just grievances against wokism clumsily pasted onto progressivism. Won't work on a philosophy forum.

Woke is clearly progressive.

Yes, and oranges are fruit. So, all fruit are orange, right? Wow! You went from saying woke is progressive to condemning progressives in general "these days" as all the bad things you attach to wokism---Orwellian blah de blah. The conflation is blindingly obvious.

What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core. — Tzeentch

So, suddenly, in one generation, progressives turned into their opposites because... (enter bogeyman) wokism! Quick, update the dictionaries!

So, suddenly, in one generation, progressives turned into their opposites because... (enter bogeyman) wokism! — Baden

Not really.

Wokism is just a more racially-oriented, extreme version of the same ideals progressives hold today, and those ideals are a reaction to actual liberalism. To call oneself an anti-liberal however doesn't look very good, so the modern progressives kept the tag "liberal" while pursuing ideals which are profoundly anti-liberal.

Wokism is just a more racially-oriented, extreme version of the same ideals progressives hold today, and those ideals are a reaction to actual liberalism. — Tzeentch

Sort of. Democrats became fairly passive, so it was a call for vigilance.

To call oneself an anti-liberal however doesn't look very good, so the modern progressives kept the tag "liberal" while pursuing ideals which are profoundly anti-liberal. — Tzeentch

What ideals are you talking about?

Wokism is not one thing; it's a spectrum of attitudes, some of which are more justifiable than others. And progressives are not only under no obligation to embrace wokism; they are certainly under no obligation to embrace the extremes of wokism which are the ones focused on by the right and used as a cudgel against them, particularly because progressivism encompasses economic as well as social views.

So, I identify as a progressive. Please tell me what "profoundly anti-liberal" views I necessarily hold. Time to get down to specifics.

What ideals are you talking about? — frank

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative.

Those are two aspects that come to mind. Are there others? — praxis

Those are relevant. There's also the dismissal of the white working class, the demonisation of dissent...

None of this has to be true. The point isn't what's true. It's how it's perceived. People aren't going to change because a load of latte-sipping HR consultants think their grievances are stupid.

Zero analysis, just grievances against wokism clumsily pasted onto progressivism. Won't work on a philosophy forum. — Baden

I'm not seeing any analysis or evidence supporting the movement either. Yours is not the default position. It's not "accept 'woke' politics unless you have a 'nuanced' and solidly evidenced argument to the contrary".

This is a discussion (in the wider community) about the direction our society is headed. If you can flag-waive for one approach with nothing but a few eye-rolls and wry insinuations, then so can others. If you want to discuss how we move forward you need to advocate for your version no less than you ask others to advocate for theirs.

I’ve scrolled through several pages of this horrible thread, and regret it. Figured I’d say so.

That sounds more like Communism. Progressives are represented by the Democrat party in the states. You don't get much more capitalist than that. As for "extreme" equality, what is that?

Progressives are for higher taxes for the rich, government healthcare insurance, abortion rights and minority rights. There's not a lot more in general terms that you can say about them as they're such a diverse group. Unless you can come up with specific policies that can both be said to be generally held by progressives and can be said to be in polar opposition to liberalism, to be Orwellian etc, your argument is exposed for the bunch of empty hand-waving rhetoric it is.

Equality always comes at the expense of liberty, so the pursuit of it is by definition anti-liberal.

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

And that's anti-liberal?

probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

Just saw the edit. Now you're conflating progressivism and Marxism. I'm not going to explain the difference this time.

Equality always comes at the expense of liberty, so the pursuit of it is by definition anti-liberal. — Tzeentch

Liberty requires responsibility and modern liberalism pursues that responsibility.

Those are relevant. There's also the dismissal of the white working class — Isaac

I don’t know what you mean.

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

And that's anti-liberal? — frank

Naturally. Wherever man is free, there exists inequality. The only way to make people more equal is to make them less free. The more equal people are made, the less free they are.

Moreover, the way governments make people equal is through the use of force. The more equal people are to be made, the more far-reaching governmental powers will have to be, and the more extreme their measures.

The question that never seems to be asked is what happens to all that power accumulation at the top.

Liberty requires responsibility and modern liberalism pursues that responsibility. — praxis

As for the first part, maybe so.

However, I don't think pursuing responsibility is what "modern liberalism" does. It simply tries to force people into acting in ways it considers "responsible" - that is not liberal. That is authoritarian.