I think the arguments by Nathan and by Eric Kaufmann about the roots of woke are compatible. Both of them argue that the component energizing wokeness is a similar motivational one: 'Christian morality' (Nathan), 'bleeding heart liberalism' (Eric).
In fact, two motivations are involved: the first one can be described as empathy or compassion, as a reaction to blacks' problems and the existing disparities between blacks and other groups in the population.
The second motivation is guilt, underlying which is the idea that whites have caused those problems.
Thus, Nathan and Eric essentially agree in identifying the roots of wokeness. The main difference between Nathan and Eric lies, in my view, in the solutions that they propose.
Nathan focuses on the second motivational component: guilt. He says that if it can be proven for woke people that whites are not responsible for blacks' problems (by showing that those problems have their causes in the genetics of blacks), this will remove the guilt component energizing wokeness which will cause it to disappear.
Eric's solution doesn't seem to deal with the above motivational roots at all: he wants to suppress wokeness at the governmental and legal level, e.g. by regulating universities, distributing funds based on compliance to none-wokeness standards, etc.
Probably both of these solutions should be pursued. However, one should note that, first, none of these two solutions explicitly addresses the problems of the black population. Second, though Nathan addresses the motivational component 'guilt', neither of the authors deals with the other motivational component: empathy/compassion. This motivation, together with the continually existing black problems / disparities will continue to be present and might provide fuel for future woke waves. Will the knowledge that these problems are caused by black genes (Nathan's solution) or the government measures to suppress wokeness (Eric's solution) be able to counteract wokeness' revival? I am not sure.
At bottom diversity itself is the driver of racial strife. There will always be a faction of whites that accept whatever narrative they need to in order to form a 51% coalition with non-whites. It’s the $100 bill on the sidewalk.
Can I suggest you drop the terms "woke" and "wokism"? They're almost universally used as insults, so they're only going to alienate the very people you've argued elsewhere you most need to persuade.
Agree we should be sensitive toward those we want to persuade. But we need a term to identify what we're talking about, everyone knows "woke," and in just a few months a substitute term would itself acquire a negative connotation.
Exactly - everyone knows "woke", and they know it's usually used against them by bigots and racists, so they'll switch off immediately. I don't think an existing term (I suggest "environmentalist" to Spencer below) would get a negative connotation, at least not for a long time.
Can we drop the terms "racist" and "bigot?" They're universally used as insults against people by wokesters, so the accused will switch off immediately. Can we just say "ethnocentrists" or "non-egalitarians?"
Joking aside, as long as you don't hysterically hyperventilate every time you use "woke" or use the word incorrectly, it's a rather appropriate term that is succinct enough for people to follow. Another term that is not an exact synonym, but has plenty of overlap with "woke" is "political correctness" though its use is waning.
No to your first question. I certainly don't equate "racist" or "bigot" with "hereditarian". The former are prejudices based on ignorance, the latter is a considered position informed by science. Someone could be either, or neither, or both. I doubt that any of the idiots rioting in Southport yesterday evening could even spell "hereditarian".
To your second question, maybe it's a matter of definition. Is "ethnocentric" any different from "racist"? I'm not sure it is. As for "non-egalitarian", if it means the belief that not all people groups are equal in every respect, that's self-evidently true, but if it means a belief that some groups should be treated better than others, then for me that's racism.
I take the general point that trigger words can go in both directions, though.
I don't think the people who consider the people who use the term "woke" bigots and racists are convincible. They simply have to be removed from power with whatever means neccessary.
I suppose you could try 'runaway progressivism' but as Nathan said, it won't be long before that term takes on the negative connotations of 'woke', simply because the thing itself is seen as negative. The same thing happened with words related to black and gay people, and also happened when some hip teachers decided to use green ink instead of red ink to correct schoolchildren's homework.
I'd drop the "runaway", but I actually quite like "progressive" or "progressivist". A blind faith in "progress" is responsible for a lot of the mess we've got into.
Not easy. I think "environmentalist" is the most accurate, though you'd have to explain at the start of every article the specific sense in which you mean it.
When will Cofnas grow out his curly hair like Eric Zuckerberg did?
I think the arguments by Nathan and by Eric Kaufmann about the roots of woke are compatible. Both of them argue that the component energizing wokeness is a similar motivational one: 'Christian morality' (Nathan), 'bleeding heart liberalism' (Eric).
In fact, two motivations are involved: the first one can be described as empathy or compassion, as a reaction to blacks' problems and the existing disparities between blacks and other groups in the population.
The second motivation is guilt, underlying which is the idea that whites have caused those problems.
Thus, Nathan and Eric essentially agree in identifying the roots of wokeness. The main difference between Nathan and Eric lies, in my view, in the solutions that they propose.
Nathan focuses on the second motivational component: guilt. He says that if it can be proven for woke people that whites are not responsible for blacks' problems (by showing that those problems have their causes in the genetics of blacks), this will remove the guilt component energizing wokeness which will cause it to disappear.
Eric's solution doesn't seem to deal with the above motivational roots at all: he wants to suppress wokeness at the governmental and legal level, e.g. by regulating universities, distributing funds based on compliance to none-wokeness standards, etc.
Probably both of these solutions should be pursued. However, one should note that, first, none of these two solutions explicitly addresses the problems of the black population. Second, though Nathan addresses the motivational component 'guilt', neither of the authors deals with the other motivational component: empathy/compassion. This motivation, together with the continually existing black problems / disparities will continue to be present and might provide fuel for future woke waves. Will the knowledge that these problems are caused by black genes (Nathan's solution) or the government measures to suppress wokeness (Eric's solution) be able to counteract wokeness' revival? I am not sure.
https://futuristright.substack.com/p/racism-is-always-rational
At bottom diversity itself is the driver of racial strife. There will always be a faction of whites that accept whatever narrative they need to in order to form a 51% coalition with non-whites. It’s the $100 bill on the sidewalk.
It's not "Christianity" in a general sense that produced wokeism. It's more specifically *liberal* Christianity.
Can I suggest you drop the terms "woke" and "wokism"? They're almost universally used as insults, so they're only going to alienate the very people you've argued elsewhere you most need to persuade.
Agree we should be sensitive toward those we want to persuade. But we need a term to identify what we're talking about, everyone knows "woke," and in just a few months a substitute term would itself acquire a negative connotation.
Exactly - everyone knows "woke", and they know it's usually used against them by bigots and racists, so they'll switch off immediately. I don't think an existing term (I suggest "environmentalist" to Spencer below) would get a negative connotation, at least not for a long time.
Can we drop the terms "racist" and "bigot?" They're universally used as insults against people by wokesters, so the accused will switch off immediately. Can we just say "ethnocentrists" or "non-egalitarians?"
Joking aside, as long as you don't hysterically hyperventilate every time you use "woke" or use the word incorrectly, it's a rather appropriate term that is succinct enough for people to follow. Another term that is not an exact synonym, but has plenty of overlap with "woke" is "political correctness" though its use is waning.
No to your first question. I certainly don't equate "racist" or "bigot" with "hereditarian". The former are prejudices based on ignorance, the latter is a considered position informed by science. Someone could be either, or neither, or both. I doubt that any of the idiots rioting in Southport yesterday evening could even spell "hereditarian".
To your second question, maybe it's a matter of definition. Is "ethnocentric" any different from "racist"? I'm not sure it is. As for "non-egalitarian", if it means the belief that not all people groups are equal in every respect, that's self-evidently true, but if it means a belief that some groups should be treated better than others, then for me that's racism.
I take the general point that trigger words can go in both directions, though.
I don't think the people who consider the people who use the term "woke" bigots and racists are convincible. They simply have to be removed from power with whatever means neccessary.
Really? Including violence?
What do you suggest instead that captures that general outlook?
I suppose you could try 'runaway progressivism' but as Nathan said, it won't be long before that term takes on the negative connotations of 'woke', simply because the thing itself is seen as negative. The same thing happened with words related to black and gay people, and also happened when some hip teachers decided to use green ink instead of red ink to correct schoolchildren's homework.
I'd drop the "runaway", but I actually quite like "progressive" or "progressivist". A blind faith in "progress" is responsible for a lot of the mess we've got into.
Not easy. I think "environmentalist" is the most accurate, though you'd have to explain at the start of every article the specific sense in which you mean it.
Yep, 'environmentalist' isn't at all bad. It exactly sums up their position, isn't negative (yet), and as a bonus, contains the word 'mental'!
I'd always favour being mental over being physical when it comes to resolving disagreements :-)