Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fen Canary

Racism Report

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Badger said:

I'm glad that you acknowledge institutional racism. My recollection was that you not - but perhaps I misremembered.

Given that you constantly attribute things to me that I haven't written, it seems you misremember quite a lot. There is a big difference between saying there are racists within institutions and that institutions are fundamentally racist or "the system is racist" as you put it. There are also very good reasons why ideological groups would want to frame the world in this way and there are many people explaining the workings behind it, a few of which I've shared on different threads. You've ignored all of them. You are not informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well I have sadly come to the conclusion that only the simple use the made-up term 'woke' to label all and everybody that may think things are a tad more complicated and nuanced than a simple knee jerk reaction. But then that was the point of the word wasn't it - to create a tribal label for the unthinking & unquestioning to use as a shorthand for all they disagree with. As Orwell's 1984 was noted earlier I would add that 'Woke' wouldn't be out of place with Newspeak 'Bellyfeel' or 'Duckspeak' for our true believers. 

What I do notice is that it's those largely with grudge or chip on their shoulder that use it yet are completely incapable of a moment of introspection. The trouble is few of us fit neatly into any of these boxes like 'woke' or 'lefty' for the simpletons to label. We are all more complicated than that being 'right' on some issues and 'left' on others.

So why, in your opinion, would a very well respected gay liberal journalist write this? Funnily enough, it's been completely ignored on this thread. It's almost as if people are stuck in their comfortable bubbles and don't want to engage in new information.....https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Afterall, the core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss. And so the point became not simply to interpret the world, but to change it, to coin a phrase, an imperative which explains why some critics call this theory a form of neo-Marxism."

If people cannot see the totalitarian nature of this movement have simply stopped thinking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

You've ignored all of them. You are not informed.

I'm sorry I ignored your links to the Ministry of Truth 🤣 Accepting propaganda, does not make you informed, I'm afraid, now matter how many times you cite it.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Badger said:

I'm sorry I ignored your links to the Ministry of Truth 🤣 Accepting propaganda, does not make you informed, I'm afraid, now matter how many times you cite it.

So do you think Andrew Sullivan is making things up in the article above (you seem to be a bit of an expert on that subject).?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

So do you think Andrew Sullivan is making things up in the article above (you seem to be a bit of an expert on that subject).?

It is an opinion - not particularly well-supported with evidence: interesting but not the Holy Grail I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Badger said:

It is an opinion - not particularly well-supported with evidence: interesting but not the Holy Grail I'm afraid.

So you will be able to provide a step by step analysis of his points then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

"Afterall, the core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss. And so the point became not simply to interpret the world, but to change it, to coin a phrase, an imperative which explains why some critics call this theory a form of neo-Marxism."

If people cannot see the totalitarian nature of this movement have simply stopped thinking. 

Yet another straw-man pile of garbage that no one on here supports. You may be impressed by this verbiage, no-one else on here is. So why not drop spouting this pseudo intellectual trash, which itself constitutes the very thing it claims to reject (it attempts to subsume a diverse range of claims under one overarching totalising theory you like to call "woke leftism"), and simply deal with the specific claims actually being made. Sadly that is just too much for you to handle, so no doubt you will be calling everyone and everything you don't agree with "woke" again and accusing us all of describing your girlfriend as a "vile racist ****". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Yet another straw-man pile of garbage that no one on here supports. You may be impressed by this verbiage, no-one else on here is. So why not drop spouting this pseudo intellectual trash, which itself constitutes the very thing it claims to reject (it attempts to subsume a diverse range of claims under one overarching totalising theory you like to call "woke leftism"), and simply deal with the specific claims actually being made. Sadly that is just too much for you to handle, so no doubt you will be calling everyone and everything you don't agree with "woke" again and accusing us all of describing your girlfriend as a "vile racist ****". 

What do you think Obama and the NYT mean when they use the term "Woke", and what do they mean by it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well I have sadly come to the conclusion that only the simple use the made-up term 'woke' to label all and everybody that may think things are a tad more complicated and nuanced than a simple knee jerk reaction. But then that was the point of the word wasn't it - to create a tribal label for the unthinking & unquestioning to use as a shorthand for all they disagree with. As Orwell's 1984 was noted earlier I would add that 'Woke' wouldn't be out of place with Newspeak 'Bellyfeel' or 'Duckspeak' for our true believers. 

What I do notice is that it's those largely with grudge or chip on their shoulder that use it yet are completely incapable of a moment of introspection. The trouble is few of us fit neatly into any of these boxes like 'woke' or 'lefty' for the simpletons to label. We are all more complicated than that being 'right' on some issues and 'left' on others.

Well I think that line of thinking could be applied to most terms flung around at political groupings. Not all of Bills 'righties' will fit into a neat box, nor do all 'brexiteers' or 'remoaners.'

The term woke was actually coined by someone on the 'woke' side of the debate- the idea being that staying 'woke' meant being on your toes and looking out for all forms of racial discrimination, a noble thought. However it has definitely mutated over time, although I don't think its unique and I don't think its a term that is hugely hard to understand.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

Well I think that line of thinking could be applied to most terms flung around at political groupings. Not all of Bills 'righties' will fit into a neat box, nor do all 'brexiteers' or 'remoaners.'

The term woke was actually coined by someone on the 'woke' side of the debate- the idea being that staying 'woke' meant being on your toes and looking out for all forms of racial discrimination, a noble thought. However it has definitely mutated over time, although I don't think its unique and I don't think its a term that is hugely hard to understand.

Fair comment - I tend to avoid all these nonsense words and lefty or righty ideological pedantry in particular (although there have been one to two extreme cases on here who seem to of vanished).  I only had the the gist of what it has become to mean and even then I had to look it up. I think there are many 'woke' righties too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

What do you think Obama and the NYT mean when they use the term "Woke", and what do they mean by it?

Perhaps you should try explaining what you mean by "Woke" as you have never done so. I did provide a definition of woke a long time ago which is the non-pejorative dictionary defintion of someone who is aware of social injustice (It's the one the nice psychologist you mention begins his article with). Clearly you do not accept that definition because you constantly use it in a pejorative sense echoing exactly the views of the Daily Mail, Express, and Telegraph. I also pointed out that what you subsume under the totalising phrase "Left wokism" includes a very diverse range of things in a very thinly disguised attempt to lump every possible complaint about social injustice under one global  straw man theory. What Obama says, what the NYT says, what Stephen Fry says, resembles nothing like your account of "left wokism". They possess the subtlety of thought to point out the very obvious fact that it is possible to hold that social injustices exist while at the same time rejecting attempts to restrict freedom of speech (as happens in some cases of no-platforming for example). It really isn't very difficult to get your mind around this possibilty once you attend to the specific cases and arguments and give up on attempting to describe every complaint against social injustice as "woke leftism". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you should try explaining what you mean by "Woke" as you have never done so. I did provide a definition of woke a long time ago which is the non-pejorative dictionary defintion of someone who is aware of social injustice (It's the one the nice psychologist you mention begins his article with). Clearly you do not accept that definition because you constantly use it in a pejorative sense echoing exactly the views of the Daily Mail, Express, and Telegraph. I also pointed out that what you subsume under the totalising phrase "Left wokism" includes a very diverse range of things in a very thinly disguised attempt to lump every possible complaint about social injustice under one global  straw man theory. What Obama says, what the NYT says, what Stephen Fry says, resembles nothing like your account of "left wokism". They possess the subtlety of thought to point out the very obvious fact that it is possible to hold that social injustices exist while at the same time rejecting attempts to restrict freedom of speech (as happens in some cases of no-platforming for example). It really isn't very difficult to get your mind around this possibilty once you attend to the specific cases and arguments and give up on attempting to describe every complaint against social injustice as "woke leftism". 

I think its fair to say different people see it differently and people on the right will claim even basic attempts to address social injustice and racism are people being 'woke' in order to diminish and dismiss concerns.

I know you're not asking me but for me there is no issue with being what I would describe as 'woke' which is awake and aware of social injustice and keen to combat it. But there is no doubt there are some who go well past that and that is where stuff like CRT comes in which I think people have some justifiable concerns about, especially at the more extreme 'Robin D'Angelo' end of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you should try explaining what you mean by "Woke" as you have never done so. I did provide a definition of woke a long time ago which is the non-pejorative dictionary defintion of someone who is aware of social injustice (It's the one the nice psychologist you mention begins his article with). Clearly you do not accept that definition because you constantly use it in a pejorative sense echoing exactly the views of the Daily Mail, Express, and Telegraph. I also pointed out that what you subsume under the totalising phrase "Left wokism" includes a very diverse range of things in a very thinly disguised attempt to lump every possible complaint about social injustice under one global  straw man theory. What Obama says, what the NYT says, what Stephen Fry says, resembles nothing like your account of "left wokism". They possess the subtlety of thought to point out the very obvious fact that it is possible to hold that social injustices exist while at the same time rejecting attempts to restrict freedom of speech (as happens in some cases of no-platforming for example). It really isn't very difficult to get your mind around this possibilty once you attend to the specific cases and arguments and give up on attempting to describe every complaint against social injustice as "woke leftism". 

I have listed the ideas that are covered by the term Woke and repeated it when you accused me of not doing so. I think Sullivan's article above covers it well. I have also accepted that the term is blunt and clumsy but is generally used to avoid having to list the ideas I mention (for convenience).

But I think that there is room for compromise here. I will accept your objections to the term and stop using it, if you accept that terms such as institutionalised racism, systemic racism, white privilege, male privilege, rape culture etc are the same kind of overly simplistic, propagandistic terms largely used to push an ideological agenda.

Edited by Mr.Carrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think its fair to say different people see it differently and people on the right will claim even basic attempts to address social injustice and racism are people being 'woke' in order to diminish and dismiss concerns.

I know you're not asking me but for me there is no issue with being what I would describe as 'woke' which is awake and aware of social injustice and keen to combat it. But there is no doubt there are some who go well past that and that is where stuff like CRT comes in which I think people have some justifiable concerns about, especially at the more extreme 'Robin D'Angelo' end of it.

This I agree with - it seems some on the 'right' run now to call everybody 'woke' however sensible and restrained their comments may be. It's simply become a rallying call for the right to circle the wagons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

You actually think that this link was worth reading? That explains rather a lot. The odd thing in all this is that if the individuals concerned actually detailed the specifics of their complaints rather than just wail generically about "Wokism" they would stand a far greater chance of making worthwhile objections that the rest of us might listen to and understand. The effectiveness of Stephen Fry's objection to Cambridge University's free speech policy was precisely because he aimed it at the specifc issue of free speech, and not some generic "left wokism" (Despite the Expresses crass attempt to headline it as an attack on "wokism"). If you truly wish to defend free speech and object to "no-platforming", the answer isn't to describe it as yet more "left wokism" (which, ironically, is an attempt to "cancel" complaints about social injustice) but to argue the case for why free speech is essential to any culture that believes in the right for all people to be treated as equals. Use of totalising pejorative phrases like "Left wokism", "snowflake" etc, etc add absolutely nothing to the debate and only deflect from a proper discussion of the issues that need addressing. If it's "woke" to be concerned that people of colour receive unequal treatment at the hands of the police, then by all means call me "woke". If it is "non-woke" to object to no-platforming of people like Jenny Murray and Germaine Greer, then by all means call me "non-woke. So it seems I am both "woke" and "non-woke" at one and the same time, which is a pretty good indication of the uselessness of a term like "woke" if we are even remotely interested in discussing the real issues seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think its fair to say different people see it differently and people on the right will claim even basic attempts to address social injustice and racism are people being 'woke' in order to diminish and dismiss concerns.

I know you're not asking me but for me there is no issue with being what I would describe as 'woke' which is awake and aware of social injustice and keen to combat it. But there is no doubt there are some who go well past that and that is where stuff like CRT comes in which I think people have some justifiable concerns about, especially at the more extreme 'Robin D'Angelo' end of it.

Absolutely! which is why use of the term "woke" has now become so contaminated by pejorative uses that it has lost any usefulness it might once have had  in serious debate. Indeed I think this thread proves just how useless it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I have listed the ideas that are covered by the term Woke and repeated it when you accused me of not doing so. I think Sullivan's article above covers it well. I have also accepted that the term is blunt and clumsy but is generally used to avoid having to list the ideas I mention (for convenience).

But I think that there is room for compromise here. I will accept your objections to the term and stop using it, if you accept that terms such as institutionalised racism, systemic racism, white privilege, male privilege, rape culture etc are the same kind of overly simplistic, propagandistic terms largely used to push an ideological agenda.

A very revealing comparison. In the first paragraph you recognise "woke" is being used as a "clumsy" catch all phrase to "avoid having to list ideas". In the second paragraph you list terms that actually are about specific claims. Yet very bizarrely you want to claim that like "woke" a specifc claim such as "male privilege", or "institutionalised racism" are "the same kind of overly simplistic proagandistic terms". Quite clearly they are not. There is a possibility of discussing those specific terms and providing evidence from either side to the specific claims being made. "Wokism" provides no such possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Absolutely! which is why use of the term "woke" has now become so contaminated by pejorative uses that it has lost any usefulness it might once have had  in serious debate. Indeed I think this thread proves just how useless it is.

Most of the links I've provided are by liberals trying to define a part of their own movement that has gone rogue. In order to define something you have to use words. You are then faced with the problem of whether you laboriously list every single nuance of the problem you are trying to highlight every time you refer to it, or whether you come up with a succinct term which broadly covers those ideas. That term unfortunately often becomes a blunt weapon and can be warped and misused for ideological reasons. I accept that this has happened with "Woke" but the truth is had another term been used (critical theory left, say) the same thing would have occurred and you would have been demanding that people don't use it.

What term would you prefer for the part of the Left which is curtailing free speech and no platforming people as you state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

What term would you prefer for the part of the Left which is curtailing free speech and no platforming people as you state?

Why not just say precisely this, and then argue the case against what they are doing. There isn't a necessity to give them any particular label, just point out what is faulty in their arguments. But if you want a label that at least gets close to the specific issue concerned and is the very opposite of a term like "woke", by all means call them "no-platformers". Then, suprise, suprise it becomes possible to have a nuanced and informed debate about whether "no-platforming" is ever justified as a restriction on free speech.

Edited by horsefly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

Why not just say precisely this, and then argue the case against what they are doing. There isn't a necessity to give them any particular label, just point out what is faulty in their arguments. But if you want a label that at least gets close to the specific issue concerned and is the very opposite of a term like "woke", by all means call them "no-platformers". Then, suprise, suprise it becomes possible to have a nuanced and informed debate about whether "no-platforming is ever justified as a restriction on free speech.

The point is that within a few months you would be complaining that the term "no-platformers" had been hijacked and anybody using it must be right wing and demanding it not be used. 

Also, the term Woke as used by liberals to define a rogue part of their own movement is far more specific than a vague term such as "male privilege" which has as much evidence against it as for it as a valid term (men being most of the suicides, homeless, addicted, incarcerated, injury and death at work, educational failures, war deaths, PTSD, drugged as children etc etc). None of the terms I listed have been proven to be accurate enough to be acceptable ways of framing the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Carrow said:

So you will be able to provide a step by step analysis of his points then?

If you think it is a divine revelation that's your business, you can ponder over the meaning of every sentence. To me, it's just an opinion. Sorry

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr.Carrow said:

The point is that within a few months you would be complaining that the term "no-platformers" had been hijacked and anybody using it must be right wing and demanding it not be used. 

Also, the term Woke as used by liberals to define a rogue part of their own movement is far more specific than a vague term such as "male privilege" which has as much evidence against it as for it as a valid term (men being most of the suicides, homeless, addicted, incarcerated, injury and death at work, educational failures, war deaths, PTSD, drugged as children etc etc). None of the terms I listed have been proven to be accurate enough to be acceptable ways of framing the world.

Ok you have it your way. I tried! But you surely can at least make yourself aware of the contradiction in your last sentence. You have banged on and on about "woke leftists" attempting to enforce a "totalising" ideological view of the world, then you complain "None of the terms I have listed have been proven to be accurate enough to be acceptable ways of framing the world". And that's the point you miss so badly,  they are not attempting to "frame the world" ,they are attempting to analyse specific aspects of the world where evidence points to a disparity in treatment. No "world view" is being claimed by phrases like "institutional racism", just an attempt to explain why in various areas of life black people suffer from a disparity in treatment. That requires attention to the evidence not "world framing" theorising

But as I say have it your way, I really can't afford to waste any more time in this fruitless enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...