yucky article. his points of wokeness are just, silly.
academic language. in an environment wgere a four letter word is being tossed around for everything. theres literally nothing wrong with adopting a more specific term to talk about specific thing 'anti-racism' is simply more specific than civil rights you goof.
criticism of liberal culture war jockeying, this is fine but identifying this as quintessentially 'woke' belies the main issue with tge article
more criticism of liberal praxis, thats fine
"good political action makes people feel better" this is meant condescendingly, as though good political action should not make its constituents & architects happy about it :cat-confused: rings very 'serious politics is austere and serious' which is just (reactionary) aesthetics
Fatalism he argues for incrementalism and pretends 'woke' people have come to universal conclusion of destroying all institutions everywhere but this is somehow no contradiction with 'woke' people being inserious layabouts with no agenda. that 'abolish the police' is a slogan he believes reveals an essential trait, not a considered and litigated political platform with theoretical weight and genuine support
return of the aesthetic superiority of the brainy unemotional Statesman over the simplistic mob. no no see theres much complexity and nuance to be discussed in all situations all times
:eyeroll: 'superiority of the oppressed' wow another extremely fringe belief painted as a fundamental tenet of 'woke'
"Enabling people who aren’t Black or Southern to say “y’all” - this one is unforgivable" im in full agreement on this one :owl-wink:
so the issue is the author has identified a constellation of bad things and good things in the same term in order to lambast it all collectively. the frustration with liberals is palpable and correct, but rather than come at this as upset about liberal appropriation of the language created by radicals he seems to think engaging in any of this is equally reprehensible.
i mean wtf are you on about if you're yelling PICK ONE TERM at -who-? if you identify at all with social justice and progressive or left politics YOU should be choosing
yucky article. his points of wokeness are just, silly.
academic language. in an environment wgere a four letter word is being tossed around for everything. theres literally nothing wrong with adopting a more specific term to talk about specific thing 'anti-racism' is simply more specific than civil rights you goof.
criticism of liberal culture war jockeying, this is fine but identifying this as quintessentially 'woke' belies the main issue with tge article
more criticism of liberal praxis, thats fine
"good political action makes people feel better" this is meant condescendingly, as though good political action should not make its constituents & architects happy about it :cat-confused: rings very 'serious politics is austere and serious' which is just (reactionary) aesthetics
Fatalism he argues for incrementalism and pretends 'woke' people have come to universal conclusion of destroying all institutions everywhere but this is somehow no contradiction with 'woke' people being inserious layabouts with no agenda. that 'abolish the police' is a slogan he believes reveals an essential trait, not a considered and litigated political platform with theoretical weight and genuine support
return of the aesthetic superiority of the brainy unemotional Statesman over the simplistic mob. no no see theres much complexity and nuance to be discussed in all situations all times
:eyeroll: 'superiority of the oppressed' wow another extremely fringe belief painted as a fundamental tenet of 'woke'
"Enabling people who aren’t Black or Southern to say “y’all” - this one is unforgivable" im in full agreement on this one :owl-wink:
so the issue is the author has identified a constellation of bad things and good things in the same term in order to lambast it all collectively. the frustration with liberals is palpable and correct, but rather than come at this as upset about liberal appropriation of the language created by radicals he seems to think engaging in any of this is equally reprehensible.
i mean wtf are you on about if you're yelling PICK ONE TERM at -who-? if you identify at all with social justice and progressive or left politics YOU should be choosing