Woke racism is a systemic problem in America

[Rocinante]

This is something we all knew, and have have been saying for years. Kind of a "well no shit" moment..

But it's interesting to see it written by an Asian woman on Newsweek.

Woke Racism Is a Systemic Problem in America

Rather than bringing equity in education, the woke Left's education policies will perpetuate racial disparities.

www.newsweek.com

America's woke Left lectures the rest of the population almost daily that racism is evil, and that they are the ones fighting it. Yet, their ugly and racist reactions to Senator Tim Scott's (R-SC) speech demonstrate that the woke Left is no different from the very racists they condemn. The woke Left judges people and treats others differently based on the color of their skin, with particular hatred reserved for minorities who don't embrace the woke ideology. The only difference between the skinheads and the woke Left is that the woke Left hides its racism under cover of nice-sounding words such as "fact-finding," "equity," "social justice" and, of course, "anti-racism." The woke Left's racism is not a phenomenon that exists only on social media. It has permeated throughout our society, from the government to health care to large corporations and schools. It is becoming a systemic problem in America. Woke racism has influenced how governments at both the federal and the state/local levels have structured COVID-19 aid programs to Americans. For instance, as soon as Joe Biden became the U.S. president, he announced that his administration would restructure the COVID-related small business loan program by prioritizing businesses owned by minority and female Americans. A month later, Democrats in Congress wrote a special clause in the "American Rescue Plan," a federal COVID-19 relief package, instructing the secretary of agriculture to provide debt relief to farmers based not on concrete needs but on the color of recipients' skin

 

[DarthOne]

This is something we all knew, and have been saying for years. Kind of a "well no shit" moment..

But it's interesting to see it written by an Asian woman on Newsweek.

Woke Racism Is a Systemic Problem in America

Rather than bringing equity in education, the woke Left's education policies will perpetuate racial disparities.

www.newsweek.com

'So, wake up Mr. Freeman. Wake up and...smell the ashes.'

 

[Captain X]

Shame they don't realize that this isn't all there is to it. The regressive left's ideology is based entirely in stereotypes that are used to rank a person's worth, so it's not just that they attack anyone who dares to step outside of those stereotypes, it's that they see Mexicans as servants, worthy only of cleaning up after their betters, black people as being too stupid and poor to do something as simple as getting a state-issued ID, women as being too weak to do anything for themselves, etc. But it is nice to see them get called out like this. Undoubtedly this will be an excuse for more black on asian violence, and this woman will end up being unpersoned for daring to speak out like this, and Newsweek will get threatened as well for publishing it.

 

[Sailor.X]

Wokism is only a problem in Blue States and Blue Cities and that is it. When you look at the country as a whole. it is not even a quarter of the nation.

 

[Spartan303]

A cynical thought of mine is that the Left is only now recognizing and starting to tackle the problem only because they're becoming the targets of it. They unleashed this monster on us and were happy when it was hurting everyone but them. Now that its hurting them too they're trying to put that Genie back in its bottle. But it ain't going to happen.

 

[Cherico]

This is something we all knew, and have have been saying for years. Kind of a "well no shit" moment..

But it's interesting to see it written by an Asian woman on Newsweek.

Woke Racism Is a Systemic Problem in America

Rather than bringing equity in education, the woke Left's education policies will perpetuate racial disparities.

www.newsweek.com

Im actually not suprised its an asian woman, after they go after whites their the next target, then they go after the Latinos enmass. Every ones going to get hit eventally because thats how it works. If your asian and are against social justice congratulations you have pattern reconition skills.

 

[Sol Zagato]

Wokism is only a problem in Blue States and Blue Cities and that is it. When you look at the country as a whole. it is not even a quarter of the nation.

Nope. They've got red-state universities and a surprising number of school systems under their heel. But that doesn't matter. I don't want school systems teaching any kids to be racist. Which is what this nonsense is. They may as well skip the prelude and go straight to de Gobinau.

 

[S'task]

A cynical thought of mine is that the Left is only now recognizing and starting to tackle the problem only because they're becoming the targets of it. They unleashed this monster on us and were happy when it was hurting everyone but them. Now that its hurting them too they're trying to put that Genie back in its bottle. But it ain't going to happen.

Ehh... the issue here is that Wokeness was never going to be a super efficient weapon against the American Right to begin with. It functions as a secular religion in many ways, or, perhaps less controversially, serves as a common moral framework for understanding the world and judging people and society.

The American Right still works under, believes in, and espouses the Judeo-Christian Moral Framework our country was founded under. The American Left rejected that moral framework back in the 1960s, but has been struggling to come up with a replacement ever since. They've gone through a few different permutations in that time, from trying to make Secular Humanism a unifying framework (which doesn't work, since Secular Humanist lacks a strong deontological framework (Libertarianism similarly lacks such a strong framework) as well as a lack of simple strong narrative of "here is the problem, this is the solution".

Wokism, on the other hand, offers that framework. It offers that structure and strong simple narrative. There's a reason it has taken the left by storm and that people have ascribed many religious parallels to it's seizure of the left ("The Great Awokening").

But here's the thing, even though the left might embrace that system, it can't make inroads on the American Right because the American Right doesn't share that base moral framework. This is why they are obsessed with driving it into media and schoolrooms, they know they can't get most current American Right Wingers to accept it, those right wingers already have a strong underlying value system that Wokeness cannot replace. Rather, they seek to indoctrinate the upcoming generations with their new moral and ethical system. They seek cultural genocide against the American Right, though they'd never phrase it exactly that way, but their tactics look very similar to other historical efforts to stamp out disfavored cultures by a hostile one that we see throughout history: prevent the spread of disfavored ideas, indoctrinate the younger generation with the new ways and get them to reject the old, while also putting constant pressure on those who adhere to the old ways to be silent and not pass on their ideas and values to their children.

The thing is, many on the left DON'T hold to this new ideology, and unlike the American Right, they're actually much more vulnerable to it's attacks than the typical right winger is, especially in positions of visible power. Do you think a cancel mob can get the typical American Right wing opinionator cancelled from Fox News? Or convince the National Review to not publish them due to them being insufficiently woke? Do you think that the typical Republican Congressman is in jeopardy of losing their seat due to being primaried by someone from the left of them? That's laughable. The only place the cancel mobs and Wokists can really get to people on the right is in areas where the left already has institutional domination... and the right has been building parallel institutions for DECADES at this point and are only being driven to do so more by Wokism. As more of those come online the power of the Woke mob to hurt people on the right becomes less and less.

Meanwhile the Democrat and Media establishment, which is made up of older, non-woke leftists who don't ascribe to either moral framework, are starting to realize they have a beast on their side that will devour them if they don't get a handle on it. They don't have parralel institutions to retreat to, they don't have the solid moral framework that the typical right winger has, they don't have years of being called "racist" "sexist" "homophobic" on the flimsiest of pretexts to have lessened the impact those labels have against them. They are the low hanging fruit of the Wokist Revolution, and they're suddenly realizing the beast they let loose to destroy Trump... they've lost control of. And without Trump to suck up all the attention, the Wokists are turning to the next nearest targets, which isn't more right wingers, it's the unwoke on their own, supposed, side.

 

[S'task]

Nope. They've got red-state universities and a surprising number of school systems under their heel. But that doesn't matter. I don't want school systems teaching any kids to be racist. Which is what this nonsense is. They may as well skip the prelude and go straight to de Gobinau.

Red States are starting to push back on this, for instance just today: Tennessee Legislature Bans CRT from State Schools.

 

[Sailor.X]

Nope. They've got red-state universities and a surprising number of school systems under their heel. But that doesn't matter. I don't want school systems teaching any kids to be racist. Which is what this nonsense is. They may as well skip the prelude and go straight to de Gobinau.

Still in Blue Areas sport. Like I said Blue States and BLUE CITIES. Some cities are county sized.

 

[Sailor.X]

Still in Blue Areas sport. Like I said Blue States and BLUE CITIES. Some cities are county sized.

I will also add. Wokeness is nothing new. The 1970s was just as woke as today. I should know I was there.

 

[bintananth]

A cynical thought of mine is that the Left is only now recognizing and starting to tackle the problem only because they're becoming the targets of it. They unleashed this monster on us and were happy when it was hurting everyone but them. Now that its hurting them too they're trying to put that Genie back in its bottle. But it ain't going to happen.

Here's a problem I've encountered with "Woke" people: if you aren't the right kind of "Woke" you're considered to be worse than a Nazi.

I am to the left of liberal on most issues but once got verbally torn into when I pointed out that Andrea is actually a boys name.

 

[Abhorsen]

Libertarianism similarly lacks such a strong framework

No, this I disagree with. Libertarianism comes straight out of the NAP framework.

But the rest is completely correct. Look at where Biden made gains over Hillary: College educated whites. That's about it. Everyone 'discriminated' against by Trump, from LGBTs to Asains to Latinos? All shifted toward Trump. So did non-college educated whites. It tells a clear story of who's afraid to be canceled, and who isn't.

 

[Terthna]

No, this I disagree with. Libertarianism comes straight out of the NAP framework.

It comes out of an open source, data-driven platform that merges game technology with the flexibility of a creative coding environment?

https://www.napframework.com/

People really need to stop throwing around acronyms like everyone is supposed to just automatically know what they're talking about; because it's getting to the point where it's become aggravating, in addition to being confusing.

 

[Captain X]

Non-Aggression Principle

 

[bintananth]

No, this I disagree with. Libertarianism comes straight out of the NAP framework.

But the rest is completely correct. Look at where Biden made gains over Hillary: College educated whites. That's about it. Everyone 'discriminated' against by Trump, from LGBTs to Asains to Latinos? All shifted toward Trump. So did non-college educated whites. It tells a clear story of who's afraid to be canceled, and who isn't.

College educated whites, in my experience, generally do not respect or trust either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

When those two were running for President I voted for a minor party candidate because I didn't want to see either of them in the White House. One of my neighbours said she voted for Trump just to make Mike Pence somebody else's problem.

 

[S'task]

No, this I disagree with. Libertarianism comes straight out of the NAP framework.

The Non-Aggression Principle is a weak moral framework compared to the Judeo-Christian framework. Mainly because all it is is a stripped-down form of other moral framework, as, after all, it is just a slight rephrasing of second greatest commandment in the Judeo-Christian framework: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or the Confucian statement of "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." Or the Buddhist: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Or the Hindu "If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others." I can go on. The Non-Aggression Principle, to be frank, is such a ubiquitous moral statement that to pretend it gives Libertarianism depth is just silly, it is a fundamental moral statement of every major religion in the world.

As such, while you can then derive further moral framework from that, it does not have the same level of already created, thought out, and ordered deontological framework that the Judeo-Christian (or any of the other historical religious) framework has. The NAP does not provide a strong framework to discuss how to order society around, as it basically says "everyone should do as they will, so long as they do not harm others". For some, that is very appealing, but there are many in society that that level of freedom is not helpful, and can even be harmful. There is a reason historical moral frameworks often had significant focus on the proper ordering of society and people's roles within it, teaching, for instance, how husbands and wives interact, how children should relate to parents and parents to children, etc. When you compare the Libertarian Moral framework built around the NAP and compare it to classical moral frameworks from the western Judeo-Christian, to the Middle Eastern Islamic, to the eastern Confucian framework it comes up as much thinner and less robust, if gives limited guidance on living one's life, and does not help set people within history, society, and culture.

And that is, in the end, why it is weak compared to the others, and also why Wokeness is rapidly pushing it aside within the Left Libertarian moral framework. Wokeness, like the earlier religious moral frameworks, helps settle people within history, society, and culture. It provides answers to the "why" questions that the old Liberal Humanism and NAP based Libertarianism doesn't. It gives people who do not want to have to think through everything quick and simple answers to fall back on. And again, that's a major danger. The older religion-based moralities while they also provide this, also have hundreds, if not thousands of years of looking at and studying the human condition to tweak their rules and provide answers (and this is ignoring their own claims of Divine Inspiration). There's a reason the Proverbs have withstood the test of time, when you read them now, they are as applicable as when they written, because they contain timeless wisdom and speak to much of the human condition. Wokeness? Wokeness speaks only to the here and now and seeks to reinterpret all in the context of the here and now, and reorder things based only on the here and now.

 

[Terthna]

The Non-Aggression Principle is a weak moral framework compared to the Judeo-Christian framework. Mainly because all it is is a stripped-down form of other moral framework, as, after all, it is just a slight rephrasing of second greatest commandment in the Judeo-Christian framework: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or the Confucian statement of "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." Or the Buddhist: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Or the Hindu "If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others." I can go on. The Non-Aggression Principle, to be frank, is such a ubiquitous moral statement that to pretend it gives Libertarianism depth is just silly, it is a fundamental moral statement of every major religion in the world.

As such, while you can then derive further moral framework from that, it does not have the same level of already created, thought out, and ordered deontological framework that the Judeo-Christian (or any of the other historical religious) framework has. The NAP does not provide a strong framework to discuss how to order society around, as it basically says "everyone should do as they will, so long as they do not harm others". For some, that is very appealing, but there are many in society that that level of freedom is not helpful, and can even be harmful. There is a reason historical moral frameworks often had significant focus on the proper ordering of society and people's roles within it, teaching, for instance, how husbands and wives interact, how children should relate to parents and parents to children, etc. When you compare the Libertarian Moral framework built around the NAP and compare it to classical moral frameworks from the western Judeo-Christian, to the Middle Eastern Islamic, to the eastern Confucian framework it comes up as much thinner and less robust, if gives limited guidance on living one's life, and does not help set people within history, society, and culture.

And that is, in the end, why it is weak compared to the others, and also why Wokeness is rapidly pushing it aside within the Left Libertarian moral framework. Wokeness, like the earlier religious moral frameworks, helps settle people within history, society, and culture. It provides answers to the "why" questions that the old Liberal Humanism and NAP based Libertarianism doesn't. It gives people who do not want to have to think through everything quick and simple answers to fall back on. And again, that's a major danger. The older religion-based moralities while they also provide this, also have hundreds, if not thousands of years of looking at and studying the human condition to tweak their rules and provide answers (and this is ignoring their own claims of Divine Inspiration). There's a reason the Proverbs have withstood the test of time, when you read them now, they are as applicable as when they written, because they contain timeless wisdom and speak to much of the human condition. Wokeness? Wokeness speaks only to the here and now and seeks to reinterpret all in the context of the here and now, and reorder things based only on the here and now.

I think people make the mistake of assuming that Christianity owns exclusive rights to certain ideas; they don't, and neither does any other religion or philosophy. Take the Golden Rule for example; it's just common sense to assume that if you treat other people like crap, that they're going to treat you like crap when they have the opportunity; conversely, it also makes sense that if you threat them decently, that more often than not they'll do the same for you. Nothing about that requires that you accept the Bible as the word of god; just a basic understanding of human nature. Heck; it's an idea that can be traced all the way back to Confucianism, well before the birth of Christ, and has existed in some form in almost every culture.

In short, if it's a good idea; file off the serial numbers, and steal it. There's no shame in being unoriginal, and just going with what works.

 

[Abhorsen]

It comes out of an open source, data-driven platform that merges game technology with the flexibility of a creative coding environment?

https://www.napframework.com/

People really need to stop throwing around acronyms like everyone is supposed to just automatically know what they're talking about; because it's getting to the point where it's become aggravating, in addition to being confusing.

Sorry, The non-aggression principle, or NAP. It's a very common acronym.

The Non-Aggression Principle is a weak moral framework compared to the Judeo-Christian framework. Mainly because all it is is a stripped-down form of other moral framework, as, after all, it is just a slight rephrasing of second greatest commandment in the Judeo-Christian framework: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or the Confucian statement of "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." Or the Buddhist: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Or the Hindu "If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others." I can go on. The Non-Aggression Principle, to be frank, is such a ubiquitous moral statement that to pretend it gives Libertarianism depth is just silly, it is a fundamental moral statement of every major religion in the world.

So first, the Christian version isn't equivalent to the others. It implies positive rights that the others, including libertarianism, don't have.

Second, following this one principle to its extent is what libertarians do that others don't seem to do. For example, Confucism states it, but adds that one also has a number of duties as well, including to the state, that one never agreed with.

Third, the NAP is fundamentally different than the negative rights variations as well. The NAP doesn't say "Don't do to others as you would have them not do to you", it says "Don't do to others if they don't want you to". It's important to note who holds the power to say yes or no. In the golden rule formulation, the one who is doing the action gets to decide for the other person if the actor's behavior towards them is okay. In the NAP, it's only the receiver of the action who gets to determine if it's okay.

This is a vital distinction. Take the draft. A person A comes to take person B away to war, without asking person B's consent. If person A thinks that war is good for people, as it makes one a man and builds character, the golden rule has no problem taking B away to war. But by the NAP, this is clearly wrong.

This is fundamentally where the nanny state comes from.

And that is, in the end, why it is weak compared to the others, and also why Wokeness is rapidly pushing it aside within the Left Libertarian moral framework.

As for this, most 'Left Libertarians' were never really libertarians. Other than the huge gaping hole that is markets that they don't believe in, many on the left believed in freedom of speech just because it was convenient to themselves. Few actually followed the NAP. So while they might have espoused support for some of the same rights that Libertarians believe in, this was only because they thought this right would benefit them.

They never had a moral basis in libertarianism if they didn't understand the NAP, anymore than a Christian who never reads the bible and only goes to church on Christmas and Easter does. And that same critique you made applies to religion as well, as wokeness is definitely pushing it's way into churches.

 

[Zachowon]

Nope. They've got red-state universities and a surprising number of school systems under their heel. But that doesn't matter. I don't want school systems teaching any kids to be racist. Which is what this nonsense is. They may as well skip the prelude and go straight to de Gobinau.

As Sailor X said.
Red states are pushing back in various ways.
Especially those that know it is the only way they will stay red, and the Republicans leading them know it is the only way they stay in power.
For instance, look at GA. The Govenor fucked up during the election and knew he was probably in a lot of trouble come next election, so he made a fix thanks to the state.
Look at texas, Florida. Tenneesee and West Virginia. They are slowly growing redder and redder, and are already RED!
Hell, Ohio has a RINO as Governor but the state is still oddly red even with a large majority of its cities being blue, if not all of them.

This tells you that the Rpublicans are strong and growing stronger. As long as we elect those that have our interests and not the GOP/RINO ones. We will not let the woke win.