Carville was right. Here's why it doesn't matter

[Ex Lurker]

The kind of people who are offended by "wokeness" are by and large lost to the Democratic party anyway. Gun nuts aren't going to give up their guns, climate change denying pickup truck drivers aren't going to abandon them for mass transit. The racist homophobe whose daughter is dating Black guys and whose son comes out as Queer isn't going to suddenly see the errors of his ways. They can't be reasoned with. They have to be defeated and made irrelevant.

And that 50 year old Hispanic guy referenced in another thread who hates the word LatinX is part of the problem too.

The Democratic Party's future is Black, Brown, Urban, LGBTQIA. Stop trying to appease people who don't belong and never will.

[msfiddlestix]

1. It only matters until we have super majority in the Senate, and the House

It does matter now, and until the math changes. That's the point.

[StarfishSaver]

14. That's what we're always told

Shhh, Black and Brown people. We need those white working class voters to win the next election and they don't really like you, so we need you to be quiet and stay out of sight in order not to drive them away... But only until we win then we'll deal with your issues.

Okay... Cool... We won the election. But now we need to build up our numbers and to do that we need those white working-class voters. They still don't like you, so we need you to be very very quiet and stay out of sight in order not to drive them away. Just until the next election. Then you can come back out and we'll deal with your issues

But here's the thing - there's always a next election and always too many people worried about these backward thinking white voters and black and brown voters are always being told just sit tight until we get around the next corner.

I call BS on that. It's long past time we told those white people who have problems with the folks who are becoming a majority of the party and, let's not forget, continually and without complaint and in the face of unbelievable obstacles consistently drag Democrats over finish line while those white voters are whining about how they're not heard.

So, no - that's not the point

[Beastly Boy]

25. We don't need ALL working class white voters.

And I am not buying the proposition that all working class white voters hate you, black and brown people. The fact is, a great deal of credit for winning the 2020 election goes to the white people who don't hate black and brown people. Should we assume that the number of white voters who hate black and brown people, as well as those who don't, is written in stone, and give up on any attempt to change their ratio? What is there for black and brown voters to gain with this strategy?


On the other hand, I would give black and brown voters enough credit to not assume, even for the sake of a flawed argument, that they always vote the way they are told. If black and brown people consistently vote with white Democrats, there must be something that tells them of the alternative being far worse. Can we at least not insult their collective intelligence with suggestions they can't tell where their interests lie?

[StarfishSaver]

26. I didn't say these voters hate Black and Brown voters, so let's smack that strawman down right away

But white working class voters who may be driven away from voting Democratic because "wokeness" offends them don't need to be catered to by the party and Black and Brown voters certain shouldn't be expected to watch what we say and do because those voters might not like it - especially since I never hear anyone giving instructions that those white voters need to modulate their words and actions in order not to offend voters of color.

[caber09]

31. You are fighting a majorly losing battle here...

Just imagine how much what you are saying doesn't resonate in the real world..everything you preach would just result in more republicans getting elected..what state/district are you in I'd love to find out what woke (to your degree of approval) utopian world you live in where Democrats are are only as you and the OP would describe..it's funny the rest of us are saying we are all in this together and you would exclude a large majority of the us from the party

[Beastly Boy]

35. You are avoiding my questions.

But first, let me presume that your post only addresses white working class voters who hate black and brown voters. Otherwise your talk of strawman doesn't make sense. The phrase "We need those white working class voters to win the next election and they don't really like you" doesn't exactly make a distinction between the former and the white working class voters who don't hate black and brown voters. Glad you are making this clear now.

Still, my questions, which make up the essence of my post, remain unaffected by your response and unaddressed.

Should we assume that the number of white voters who hate black and brown people, as well as those who don't, is written in stone, and give up on any attempt to change their ratio? What is there for black and brown voters to gain with this strategy? Given the overwhelming support of black and brown voters of the democratic candidates, can we at least not insult their collective intelligence with suggestions they can't tell where their interests lie?

I am not advocating appeasement. I am asking for your suggestions, other than sitting on one's hands and waiting for black and brown people to become a majority, for how to go about with what you are proposing in practice. So far, the only thing I've heard is stop the appeasement of the white working class voters who hate black and brown voters. Then what? I am curious what comes after this is done.

[StarfishSaver]

37. In my view, the most important thing that people like Carville and other white progressives can do

is talk to those white working class voters and explain to them why they should support true civil rights and social justice efforts (not just the feel good kind that don't take any effort) and help them better understand structural racism. Part of this would be to help these people explain concepts such as "white privilege," institutional racism, anti-racism, and, yes, wokeness - and that these concepts are not an attack or an accusation against white people. They can also work to make them stop seeing civil rights and social justice as a zero sum game in which equality and equity will result in something being taken away from them.

This would be much more helpful and effective than expecting Black and Brown voters to do all of the explaining and then criticizing us because they don't like the way we explain it or expecting us to be quiet until the next election (and then kicking the ball down the road until the next election and then the next one and then the next one) because talking about these things makes white people so uncomfortable that they won't vote for Democrats - while expecting Black and Brown voters to vote Democratic regardless how uncomfortable some white Democrats may make us.

Joe Biden does this very well, but he can't do it alone.

That's my suggestion.

[Beastly Boy]

41. With all due rrespect, the responsibility for explaining "wokefullness" to white working class voter

is still yours.

I posted elsewhere that finding a white Democrat who is fully versed in what "woke" stands for is quite rare. Indeed, you may have insight into whether the understanding of the term is commonplace among black and brown Democratic voters, but that is a different issue.Having people like Carville explain civil rights and social justice issues from the perspective of a black or brown person to a white person not affected by the issues, I wrote, is like someone who just learned a foreign language speaking this language to someone who doesn't know it at all. From the perspective of a black or a brown person, his effort will by definition be inadequate. You may be tired of explaining "it" to white people, but this doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to continue, and do so without alienating or dismissing white working class voters.If you consider yourself a social justice activist, abdicating your civic responsibilities to people like Carville is not an option.

Besides, Carville is not a civil rights activist. He is poorly equipped to address issues of social justice. He is a strategist. And he sees the attitudes of white working class voters towards wokefullness as an obstacle to winning elections. He sees losing these voters as a sure path to Democrats losing elections, which in itself would be the most severe blow to civil rights and social justice you can imagine.We just went through four years of it, and the damage was devastating.

Why won't you help people like Carville achieve their goals? Why outright dismiss reaching out to white working class people who hate you? Not appease them, but reach out to them with a well defined and well understood aim of educating them. There is no white person who can do it better than you. Why abandon taking small steps in favor of taking no steps at all?

[StarfishSaver]

42. No, it's not our responsibility.

But that attitude that it's Black and Brown people's responsibility to convince white people to pay attention to civil rights and social justice and if they don't it's our fault because we didn't say it right while other white people sit back and offer critiques but not a hand is a major part of the problem.

You don't need to be a "civil rights activist" to understand and explain equality and equity to your fellow white people. You just need to be a decent human who is paying attention to what is happening around you. And if you really do think you need to be a civil rights activist to do that, what's wrong with you and some of your fellow white becoming civil rights activists? It's not that hard. And it doesn't take any special training. White people do it all the time.
Talk to white people involved in the struggle. Talk to Black people and listen to what we have to say instead of telling us what you think we're doing wrong or what our obligations to white people are.

Read some books. Or you can start slow by just reading my whole post, which dealt with much more than explaining "wokeness" to white people who feign obtuseness. In fact, that was almost an aside in my comment, which you largely ignored.

Care to respond to the rest of what I wrote?

Talk to those white working class voters and explain to them why they should support true civil rights and social justice efforts (not just the feel good kind that don't take any effort) and help them better understand structural racism. Part of this would be to help these people explain concepts such as "white privilege," institutional racism, anti-racism, and, yes, wokeness - and that these concepts are not an attack or an accusation against white people. They can also work to make them stop seeing civil rights and social justice as a zero sum game in which equality and equity will result in something being taken away from them.

[Beastly Boy]

46. This is where I disagree.

Last edited Fri Apr 30, 2021, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

While I do not expect black and brown people to carry the exclusive burden to educate white voters on issues of civil rights and social justice, and while there are plenty of white civil rights activists out there (Carville, or people like Carville not belonging to their ranks), and while I am as skeptical as you are of black and brown people having resounding success in convincing white people to pay adequate attention to civil rights and social justice, my point, which I consider to have adequately addressed your post in its entirety (and please try to remember that Carville provides significant context to this entire thread), is that people like Carville are a piss poor substitute for black and brown civil rights activists when it comes to communicate these issues from a minority perspective to the Democratic white voters. This has nothing to do with my activism (or lack thereof), or my connections (or lack thereof) to white voters, or my reading habits. And, with all due respect, you DO need to be well versed in WTF you are talking about, and being a black civil rights activist sure goes a long way in conducting effective communications on the matter, assuming the will to engage is there. You can refresh your recollection of my position by going back to my previous post, where the care to respond to what you wrote is evident.

However, if you require further elaboration, here it is:

While I fully expect white civil rights activists to talk to black civil rights activists in order to better understand the issues at hand, their understanding of the issues will by definition be less than complete, simply because they lack the daily experience of dealing with them from the perspective of black and brown people. This is self-evident. You can't expect a scholar of a phenomenon to acquire the same awareness of the phenomenon as the direct participant in the phenomenon. Frankly, while i don't doubt their sincerity, I find white people trying to share their purported expertise of black and brown people's experiences to be inevitably disingenuous, with quite a whiff of hypocrisy to them. In this instance, I see white privilege to be an impediment rather than an asset, even though you appear to not recognize it as such. (Note that, taking your preferences into account, I am putting the aside issue, as you called it, of wokeness, aside (pun intended), even though it has direct relevance when you engage in a critique of Carville and people like him.)

You may have already guessed that I am, while not an activist, a civil rights advocate. While I have read plenty of books on the subject and find your implied assumptions about my reading habits condescending, I am not naturally inclined to any sort of activism. You may be of the same frame of mind, which would explain your apparent favor for complete disengagement from the white Democrats who you classify as being hateful towards black and brown Democrats. But I am speculating here. What is clear is that my preference is to assign the responsibility of engaging with white working class voters to the people who are best equipped to handle it and are most up to the task, while your preference is to shift it to the people who are poorly equipped to handle it and may inadvertently do more harm than good.

While I feel competent enough to address civil rights, social justice, and, to some degree, institutional racism issues, as I do every chance I get, on any suitable occasion, with any receptive audience of any race and political affiliation, I am by no means adequate in intelligently articulating the issues of white privilege, institutional racism and, yes, wokeness. It takes more than mere awareness to claim even the elementary understanding, let alone ability to communicate, these concepts. And genuine understanding only comes with experiencing them. If I were to talk to the white working class people out of my above described ignorance, chances are that I would be sabotaging the efforts of more informed and more passionate people who can more effectively address the same issues to the same people.

If I am this skeptical about white activists communicating with white working class, and if I am this skeptical (see my previous post) about people like Carville to address what he is not equipped to address, imagine my lack of confidence in my own ability to do the same. If you have anything to say which will disabuse me of my insecurities, I am all ears. Otherwise, and notwithstanding any of the above, your presumptions of my competence are badly misplaced, I am afraid.

[Mossfern]

97. Is there a survey somwhere

of white working class Democrats determining that they hate black and brown people? Is this advocacy of a 'my way or the highway' culture within the party? If people leave because they don't agree with "wokeness" policy, what do you gain?

[msfiddlestix]

28. I can't get past the header...

the header says to me, you think we don't really need majorities in the senate or the house to make laws with teeth and move forward all of the things we need to want and need to get accomplished.

I'm kind of getting the feeling that elections don't matter, we don't even need to pass Voting rights bills. hell we don't need GA for that matter, should I go on? I'd go on, but there is obviously no point.

[Mossfern]

95. So, you want to disenfranchise people

because they're white? What makes you so sure that white working class people don't like people of color, and why wouldn't you want them in the party? Would you prefer that they register as Republicans? This makes no sense and there is no purity test to identify as a Democrat.

I just logged in, so the answer to my question may be further down, I apologize if it is.

[StarfishSaver]

96. Not sure how you got from my posts that I want to disenfranchise anyone because they're white

But your assumption is so out in left field, I can't even respond to it.

[pwb]

2. I don't fit your Demands.

I have lived in a Blue state and owned guns my entire life. No one has ever tried to take it away. This post is offensive to many? What good does that do? A good Democrat accepts differences they may not agree with. You want them gone? Come on.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

11. 100 percent agree

Spot on

I will not be covered in some blanket because someone can't accept a truck driving, gun owning, tobacco chewing

DEMOCRAT

[caber09]

3. Wow what a terrible post...

The Democratic Party's future is Black, Brown, Urban, LGBTQIA. Stop trying to appease people who don't belong and never will.

As a white straight male whose entire family the older generation AND the younger generation, along with alot of my white friends who are Democrats are supposed to react how to this post? WE are the future of the Democratic party as well. WE are all in this together, your post is just stupid.

[Merlot]

4. Agreed - we are ALL in this together.

[questionseverything]

8. Plus one

[themaguffin]

86. Agreed, it's ignorant and the OP doesn't get what Carville was saying

[Phoenix61]

5. I agree with the first part.

There are some who will never change. They have their beliefs and are proud of them. We don’t need to waste our time, effort, or energy on them.
I disagree about the future of our party. I think we will be overwhelmingly young. There’s a definite uptick in young adults getting politically active. We have got to do a better job of out reach with them. The Republican Party uses the Young Republicans and they piggyback onto the Greek system. We don’t have a ready built system so we are going to have to work harder. These are also they folks with the energy and schedules that allow them to knock jobs and man phone banks.

[Haggard Celine]

6. You think Joe would be President now and

Congress would be in the hands of the Democrats without white independents and moderates? You need to take remedial math.

[StarfishSaver]

15. They wouldn't be there without black and brown voters either

So why give a higher priority to those white moderates?

[Haggard Celine]

17. Who's giving a higher priority?

I'm just saying that you can't ignore all the white people in a woke minorities only party. A WMO party wouldn't be in power ever, so you could forget all about getting an agenda passed and signed. But if it makes you feel good to exclude the largest segment of the population, I'm not going to stand in your way.

[caber09]

19. +100

These we don't need any white people posts are divisive and stupid...we are all in this together and like had been said the woke minority only party would only help usher in an age of republicanism power that none of us want

[StarfishSaver]

21. When we're told we need to abandon weakness because moderate white voters don't like it

a priority is clearly being set.

Notice he's not saying that the interest of white moderate voters need to be tamped down in order not to offend Black and Brown voters we need to vote Democratic.

[Haggard Celine]

24. "The Democratic Party's future is black, brown, urban, and LGBTQIA."

That's the kind of bullshit that people will see and be turned off by, including plenty of Democratic voters. Nobody says that white people have to embrace wokefulness; it's already implied.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Yes, and?

I say this as a white person, to all the fragile white people on this board, including Carville, shut up, please. You come off as people clutching pearls over your slowly fading relevancy, but more importantly, as condescending white people whitesplaining racism with POC, just stop, dammit.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Can you please say this again, louder?

Some people here really need to hear it - unfortunately, the ones who most need to hear it are also the most likely to clutch their pearls and complain that they're being victimized.

But maybe if enough white people say it, it might get through to some people.

[Haggard Celine]

40. Yes, everybody who sees things differently from you

needs to shut up. We're just being fragile. I hear you loud and clear.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Words are great, but illustrations are even more helpful

Thank you for providing an excellent one.

[Cha]

51. Yeah, what a tactic.. if you can't

debate tell everyone who doesn't agree with them..
to "shut up" and call them names..

Fortunately we don't take orders.. it just pissed me off.

[Haggard Celine]

52. That shit is getting old.

Either agree with everything I say or you're a bad Democrat. Like the Democrats have so much support that we can afford to turn people away who don't toe the line. Unbelievable!

[Cha]

53. Yeah, Divisive as hell. When

President Biden Won on inclusiveness.

and, the Moderates Won us back the Democratic House Victory in 2018 on Health Care,''

We need Everybody on Deck again

Pres Obama says "defund the police is a bad slogan"..' & then there's Rev Al who says Carville has some good points..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

They want to win and so do I.. and we're not alone.

[Humanist_Activist]

91. Is it any more divisive than trying to police how many black people speak about issues? n/t

[Cha]

94. Here's how Sen Warnoch speaks about "Defunding the

police".. He's a Winner who's Against "defunding the police".

Not Divisive..

"These issues are tragic, and our law enforcement officers lay it on the line every day. They have an ally with me. I just think that you can affirm what law enforcement officers do and hold them accountable."

"I do not want to defund the police. And Kelly Loeffler knows it. But she keeps saying this because she wants to distract from her own record."

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2020/12/07/georgia-senate-debate-kelly-loeffler-raphael-warnock-defunding-police-black-lives-matter/3859198001/

[Humanist_Activist]

104. He's a politician, and cops aren't even in the top 20 of the most dangerous jobs in the country...

he has to say that shit, people on the street don't.

[Cha]

114. Yes, Sen Warnach is an Excellent Politician

whom we need More of in the Senate & the House Or We Bloody well won't be able to do anything if we lose the House & Senate.

Or and I take Senator Rev Raphael Warnoch at his words.. he's NOT Slinging Bullshit like the magats.

[Humanist_Activist]

92. When that POV is based on lack of knowledge, and just unjustified grievances, hell yes! n/t

[uponit7771]

56. +1, ... and supporting the "stop using those words" side of bad campaigners

[Dream Girl]

7. I most definitely does matter.

[Silent3]

9. Many of our elections swing on narrow margins...

...so we're fighting for people who are on the edge, not diehard Trumpists, but people blowing in the wind in the middle. The kinds of issues Carville brings up might be (it's hard to know for sure) what ends up mattering.

Many of these people don't have strong views either way on many (or any) issues. Tone and personality and bumper-sticker slogans get all blown out of proportion in swinging their votes.

Yes, our biggest battles are many times over who gets to claim the biggest share of ignorant, out-of-touch idiots.

[StarfishSaver]

16. There's a difference between fighting to get their vote and kicking the base to the curb in order to

[Silent3]

27. Which is why it's always a delicate balancing act

And worse when the circular firing squad starts doing the job of the opposition.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Telling Black and Brown voters to abandon their approach ro appease white voters isn't "balance"

Carville is telling us to subsume our interests in favor of white voters he wants to court.

What is he telling those white voters to give up to compromise with us? Absolutely nothing.

[Silent3]

30. That's how you've obviously decided to interpret his words

You aren't necessarily correct.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. How are they incorrect, he's literally whitesplaining, trying to police what Black people say...

and concepts they raise that need to be brought to light.

Hell, this is especially illuminated recently with not just Republicans but some Democrats denying that the United States is still a very racist country!

[Silent3]

102. Carville's words seem to me more aimed at white people...

...who are competing to win the "woke olympics", and instead of actually making things better, just come off as annoying.

[Humanist_Activist]

103. Define what the "woke olympics" are, can you?

Can you give examples? And I do mean specifically, not any of this vague shit that seems to devolve into "well this just rubs me the wrong way."

[Silent3]

120. Take for example Governor Northam

There were a lot more white people calling on him to resign over the from-the-80s blackface incident than there were black people doing the same. That's white people making a competition out of showing how very concerned they are, even outdoing how much black people were bothered by it. Many black people were, of course, upset, but they seemed to be smarter than white folk about weighing the political costs of losing Northam, rather than engaging in performative wokeness.

[Humanist_Activist]

123. That's virtue signalling, you're mixing up terms here. NT

[Silent3]

124. I'm not mixing up terms, I'm covering the bases of what the term "woke" has come to mean

You can complain all you want about what the "proper" meaning of "woke" is, but what "woke" has come to mean for many people is the obnoxious virtue signalling which has become hopelessly intertwined with what you perhaps might call "genuine wokeness".

[Silent3]

121. Some commentary by Maya Binyam

If, in 2008, “stay woke” was a phrase that made no sense, today it’s the guiding principle of an increasingly popular game. The Woke Olympics — broadcast live on twitter, promoted by the likes of Woke Clothing — is the multi-round tournament to which these games belong. It’s players, almost all of whom are white, are disciples of the refrain “stay woke,” a reminder to name racism when it appears, or, rather, to name fellow white folk who are lagging behind...

The logic of the game is thus: Hate resides within the subject (Macklemore, Donald Trump, Grandfather), and justice within the copula (he is). To make racism disappear, attribute ignorance to someone else; name him publicly. Now you’re woke. But what masquerades as a feat of anti-racism is really just a poorly devised self-help regime, better designed to confirm the wokeness of its participants than to inspire any awakening. For Woke Olympians, resisting racism is as simple as bearing witness.

https://www.theawl.com/2016/04/watching-the-woke-olympics/

[Humanist_Activist]

122. Uhm, in 2008 "stay woke" had a meaning, to mostly communities...

Of color, but can't take seriously the author of this article when they fail at the most basic of research.

[Cha]

115. Well said.. Mahalo, Silent!

All your post here..

[Blasphemer]

10. I agree that it is not worthwhile to try to appease them...

The only way to do so is to violate fundamental principles. I've even seen posts on DU advocating for taking a different line on immigration to appease these folks. It is not worth it. The place that would get us, and the country to, is scarier to me than the current state of things.

[Celerity]

12. Follow Carville's 'advice' to a 'T' and we run the party right into the ground

He is out of touch and pushes RW talking points which he uses to attack his own (supposed) party with. Chasing the 'Bubba' vote (because of what you have to do to even start to attract a Bubba, a Bubba who likely will not vote for you anyway) is a mug's game and will rip the party apart.

[joetheman]

13. THANK YOU!!

[SilasSouleII]

20. Call me Hispanic, Latino or Mexican American

But don't call me LatinX. Ooo... I hate that term. Hope it never really catches on. I don't get why some people push it on us.

[redqueen]

106. Because it's woke

I hear it all the time on NPR. Makes my teeth itch.

Signed,
Tired Latina who's fed up with wokeness

[cinematicdiversions]

22. So you would exclude suburban Jews, Hispanics, and Asians from the democratic party

Organic farmers and hippies also excluded.

Fisherman, park rangers, environmentalists, Rural teachers, American Indians,

Heck, there are entire states you would kick out. I will let half of New England know they better start voting Republican.

The Democratic Parties future is people who look to help their fellow Americans. Not classists and racists who label and exclude everyone.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

23. I'm going to miss...

... Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Minnesota in the Democratic win column.

[In It to Win It]

32. The Democratic Party's future is Black, Brown, Urban, LGBTQIA... I don't agree with that

We're chasing power to make things better for people. Gaining power requires winning in areas where "wokeness" won't win and winning in areas where the majority doesn't fit into these groups, like Montana and West Virginia where we have two senators that enable our side to wield power. They have to appease people that "don't belong."

[misanthrope]

33. Funny you mention this

"climate change denying pickup truck drivers aren't going to abandon them for mass transit," because thanks to them and most of us in modern civilization, these conversations about political party division will diminish in magnitude over the coming decade. By the 2030s, the growing effects of climate change -- drought, famine, mass population migration, growing discord over resources, stronger and more frequent storms, weather swings, wildfires, pandemic -- will supplant some of our current consternation.

By the 2040s, a lot of today's divisive concerns will seem quaint.

[Beartracks]

34. Gotta point out: diversity still includes whites. n/t

[Nexus2]

39. I am a P.O.C. that dislikes and tries to avoid the term P.O.C. as well as Latinx, etc.

And have rarely if ever heard them used in face to face communication outside televised moments. So I am (and apparently unwelcome in) the Democratic Party now?

[milestogo]

89. I have always wondered why People of Color is less offensive than colored people.

And I also wonder how hispanics and blacks and american indians and asians like being lumped into one "OTHER" group.

[Nexus2]

126. That's the thing. It soumds like there are two groups of humans: White people and -everything- else

Making so called 'white people' (who have internal variance as much as any other group, there is no magical land of Cacasia or Waspastanhn that all white folks come from) are some monolithic special group of unique humans.

[BGBD]

43. climate change denying pickup truck drivers aren't going to abandon them for mass transit.

Is a pretty fucking urban-centric view. It's why democrats have such a hard time in rural areas. Some people blame this on racism but the truth is many democrats simply don't see rural Americans as being worth consideration.

Many parts of this country don't have mass transit options and a pickup truck is a requirement to function there.

[Calista241]

45. Personally, i don't think that's enough for us to win elections in the near term.

People are already less engaged than they were under Trump. Barely over 10m people watched Biden’s State of the Union. That’s 5x less than in 2017. If we continue to have such small engagement, we’re going to get crushed in 2022.

I kind of wish Trump wasn’t banned from social media. He’d be in the news, people would still hate him, and that hate would motivate marginal Dem voters.

[tonedevil]

47. You really brought out...

the sensitive white people with this thread.

[Mossfern]

98. Why is it

that if someone disagrees, they're called "sensitive" in a pejorative way?

[tonedevil]

99. I try to use it..

only when observing white people getting upset at being told they aren't actually the Alpha and Omega of all human existence.

[Mad_Machine76]

48. I generally like Carville

but he shouldn't be feeding into Republican/right-wing propaganda about "wokeness" and "elitism". It's cheap, a waste of time, energy, and it doesn't even mean anything other than that which the Republicans/right-wing doesn't like. To me, rejecting "wokeness" is "respectability politics" at its worst and if we have to choose (hint: we don't) between winning elections and supporting the interests of diversity and minority groups within society, I'm going with interests of diversity and minority groups within society. Years of evidence has also shown that everytime Democrats run away from progressivism and diversity, it doesn't really work or net us any more votes among the white racists that this is supposed to (in theory) appeal to.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. IOW.. abandon the rest of the party?

Not sure % LGBTQIA.

[Hortensis]

81. HISPANICS ARE ABOUT 17%, AND SOMEWHERE AROUND 1/3 to 1/2 ARE WHITE.

The Democratic Party truly represents our highly diverse people. We are all those groups up there, including the many "other" groups. We're all races and we're wonderful.

So why do I bother to mention the blatant discrepancy between the truth and the bogus picture presented?

Well, first because it isn't truth and knowingly misrepresents the racial picture. Reality is, whites are still somewhere over 70%, not somewhere in the 60%s. Pew slips a little caveat in below the graph that Hispanics are actually "of any race," but that doesn't correct what's become a common deceit among statisticians. (Why?)

Second, because this has been feeding enormous anxiety on the right regarding the "fast" shrinking white demographic. Our demographic progression is very real; I found it fascinating when I studied it over 40 years ago in college. But many who are afraid of change and don't handle it well only suddenly became aware in this century.

Mispresenting a much larger and more recent decline than has actually happened of course needlessly inflamed reactions to all the great changes we're living through. It also greatly empowers the pernicious fearmongering of white supremacists and other very bad actors, such as the fascistic RWers using racial divisions to break us.

Third, why. Many Hispanics prefer not to identify by race, a cultural thing. But that doesn't explain the pervasive use of bogus, absolute-sounding figures to count both white and blacks as a result. RW agents have infiltrated all the institutions that have to use and quote data, would they forget to infiltrate the people who produce the data?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

83. Fine points. So you think the people who are trying to pit one

faction of us ( our Democratic Party) against the other are bad actors? Or did I misread?

Something, in my mind, has changed for the bad. Never in my life have I heard a fellow Dem thrash a fellow Dem like this and Carville. Nor be so intolerant of differing points of view. It's very sad to me.

If it is disruptors or trolls we need to figure out how to combat.
.

[Hortensis]

93. Mostly stirring up R-on-L antagonism, right? Because that's where

most people who can be turned against others are. But they're not the only ones, as we are seeing from increasingly extreme posts right here on DU. Experts have been reporting for some while that enemies foreign and domestic are sowing anger and division across society, among every group that can be weaponized.

What our nation needs most right now is for politically engaged people to calm down, even just a bit.

Like you apparently, my impression instead is that we're seeing things increasingly change for the bad as radicalization via social media gains ground.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

118. I think you've got the correct answer!!! And, don't fall for the bait

As I typically do

Imagine for a moment that you were in charge of right-wing strategy to disrupt and inflame. You see the trend. Minorities and POC making up a growing percentage of the Democratic party. You know you have no chance of siphoning this growing percentage off to move to the right. You have a better chance of siphoning off from the non-minority block. So you pit the various Dem factions against each other.

[Hortensis]

119. But fanning resentment and divisions among some opponents is so EASY!

It's deadly serious big business, but trading entertaining anecdotes must provide the bad actors on the front lines endless amusement. And they get paid for it!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

125. Can not think of better words but "get it" and love your post nt

[maxsolomon]

50. Carville wasn't right. He doesn't know what "woke" means.

If he point is "don't use words white people don't understand, it alienates them", then fine. That's a fair point. White people get their feewings hurt really easily.

"Woke" is not "Faculty Lounge" talk. It's Af-Am Vernacular. Hudie Ledbetter used it in a song in 1938.

None of the stuff you mention has anything to do with being "woke". "Woke" means aware, conscious. Aware and conscious of racial injustice.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Thank you

The people here trying to defend Carville's call for Democrats to abandon "wokeness" because it offends some white people, by arguing that "Defund the Police" is a bad slogan, have completely missed the point.

[maxsolomon]

55. I came up with a new slogan: DEFLATE THE POLICE

Is that less threatening than "Defund"? Is it "Faculty Lounge" talk? It's more "Les Schwab Waiting Area" talk to me.

It's derived from a piece by Charles Mudede on The Stranger's blog: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/04/29/57057771/police-reform-in-seattle-will-need-to-add-deflation-to-its-defunding-and-decriminalization-campaigns

[Beastly Boy]

57. Of course Carville doesn't know what "woke" means! That was his entire point.

The only comment Carville made about wokeness was that this narrative is like a foreign language to most voters of all ethnicities and backgrounds. He is not trying to shut anyone up, or tell anyone what to say or not to say. He doesn't make any judgement on whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, liberating or oppressive. It is neither his job nor inclination to make these judgements. As a professional strategist, his only concern is that what voters don't understand, they will not relate to. This is an observable fact, a fact that, in his professional view, creates an impediment to the ability of Democrats to win elections. His only proposal was to find common language that everybody can understand. If woke was commonly understood, I doubt Carville would have any issue with it. How is this not right?

Oh, and if you think "faculty lounge talk" is not a thing, you should see white people acting woke. It's the proverbial "white men can't jump" kind of spectacle. A Larry King rapping with Snoop Dog kind of spectacle.

[maxsolomon]

58. I didn't say that Academic Jargon wasn't a thing.

I have to reign it in all the time at my job, and I don't always succeed.

However, I knew what 'Woke' was the 1st time I heard it though, from the context.

[Beastly Boy]

59. My sympathies for having to deal with academic jargon on a daily basis.

Didn't mean to rub it in. It must be frustrating to regularly hear things you find meaningful being taken out of context. I guess it's easier to see the humor in it when you are sufficiently far removed from it.

[StarfishSaver]

64. I find the "academic jargon" to be a version of "they're so elitist" reverse classicism that

Republicans trade in.

This assumption that uneducated, unsophisticated people can't understand big words or complex concepts or that there is some nobility in "plain speaking" while everyone who speaks in language that reflects education beyond the 10th grade is suspect and can be ignored because they're "talking down to real people" to be pretty condescending and annoying.

And, in my experience, that's often an excuse for some people to continue to ignore the issues of civil rights and social justice. Whenever those subjects come up and people try to talk about them with any depth and insight, regardless how simple and straightforward the language, they are accused of "elitism," "talking down to real Americans." And then the people doing the accusing shut down the discussion because they claim to be insulted and offended and insist they won't engage unless and until they're talked to differently. And they are expected to make no effort to listen or understand or reach out - and if they do or say anything that we find offensive, God forbid we say so because, you know, that's also talking down to them or accusing of being racist.

This assumption that uneducated people can't understand "jargon" - or even that the only way they can possibly be exposed to the need for equality and equity is if Black and Brown people and our allies explain it to them and if we don't explain it just right, they can't be expected to understand it, much less be willing to do anything about it - is bull. These issues are in people's faces every day and every way. If they still can't see it and still can't understand it, it's because they don't want to. And blaming the messenger for their own blindness and using the "I don't like how you phrased it so I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say or care about the issue you're talking about" is really getting old.

[Beastly Boy]

65. This is an interesting angle.

The poster I responded to, who appears to be well versed in academic jargon, had expressed, as I understand it, his frustration with it being used to cover up certain people's ignorance of issues with a needlessly complicated vocabulary. The poster, as an example, concisely articulated the concept of woke in a very simple and accessible language, and, on top of it, added a helpful historical reference.

His example, of course, doesn't make all academic jargon "verboten". In and of itself, academic jargon is agnostic. Any intellectual pursuit sometimes requires the use of academic jargon to elucidate an issue (pardon the academic jargon). The question is, what is the purpose for it? Is it to make things clearer, or cover up one's ignorance and obfuscate? I welcome the former, but the latter rubs me the wrong way.

[StarfishSaver]

66. What's academic about "woke"?

That one word breaks the entire concept down to its very essence in the simplest possible terms that everyone can understand.

But when we say woke, we're lectured that it's too difficult to understand and we SHOULD be explaining it in much more complicated terms and longer sentences that are considerably more academic and jargony than the simple term "woke."

The problem, as I see it, is that people don't want to deal with the issue itself, so they make excuses about why they're not listening to it. One of those excuses is "you're talking down to me with academic jargon." If they were REALLY interested and thought someone was saying something they didn't fully understand, they'd just say, "I don't think I understand. Could you break that down for me?" Instead, they walk away and claim that they're being ignored or condescended to, so they're not going to listen at all. That's an excuse and a copout. But, unfortunately, plenty of people, like Carville, cosign that for them.

In the meantime, they seem to have no trouble understanding "Make America Great Again" and "cancel culture" and "law and order" which are as jargony as you can get and don't say jacksquat.

The language isn't the problem. It's what the language conveys. They know what it means. They just aren't open to it. That's why I think we should stop busting our butts trying to explain it because no matter how well or simply or respectfully we do, some of these people will never respond.

[Beastly Boy]

69. Absolutely nothing, and I appreciate the question.

Let me suggest that you are being lectured on the difficulty of understanding the concept is due, at least in part, to the academics who make it needlessly complicated to obscure their own incompete understanding of this essentially simple term.

Another reason for it is the sentiment you often expressed, to delegate the explaining of "woke" to the white people who don't quite get the meaning of it either. When you have an incompete understanding of something, the temptation to ascribe your lack of understanding to the complexity of an issue is greater than to accept the simplicity of it.

[StarfishSaver]

71. There are PLENTY of white people who DO understand it. They should explain it to other white people

I just don't get the idea that Black and Brown people are supposed to do all of this explaining to people who aren't interested and aren't open to our issues and concerns, but white people have no responsibility for doing this.

If Carville and his ilk think they can't communicate effectively with their fellow white people - whom they claim to understand well enough to be able to lecture Black and Brown people how we should and shouldn't be communicating with them - enough for them to get the point, why do they think they're going to listen to US?

All of the responsibility can't be on us. We have enough on our plates just trying to survive. And we are constantly trying to explain - that's one of the reasons I'm on DU and I expend an amazing amount of effort doing it only to be attacked and lectured to by many of the people who insist that it's my responsibility to do all of the explaining. But it can't be only our responsibility. "Woke" white people also need to pick up the baton and do some of the work. Being an ally is more than saying, "I believe in civil rights and I support you." It often means having difficult conversation with people in your own circles and running the risk that you'll make those people uncomfortable.

And if they don't understand it themselves, they should educate themselves. It's not that hard. Look around. Have some conversations with Black people that go beyond telling us how THEY feel about it and how they're not being understood or appreciated.

But claiming that these people just don't understand and Black and Brown people must explain it better while white people just sit back and score us on our form is a nonstarter.

P.S. I also don't see the value or point in Black and Brown people being lectured to because some academics said something somewhere. I don't think Carville would take too kindly to those white working class voters he's so interested in being lectured to about racism because of things that Republicans in some conservative think tanks say.

[Beastly Boy]

73. I am skeptical about how "plenty" translates into numeric terms.

I suspect it is a pretty finite number, and their ranks can be defined in more precise terms that "white people". And even they, if you recall my previous posts, cannot be expected to be as versed in all things woke as black people, who live it on a daily basis. I am repeating myself, but my concern is with the people who have cursory awareness of woke explaining the term to people who have no awareness of it. The consequences are likely to be less desirable than you are expecting.This is my problem with white people, even those who understand the concept, being ambassadors of woke to other white (or Latino, or yellow) people.

One request: please stop confusing expressions of opinion to being lectured, at least in my case. I have neither the standing nor the desire to tell you what to do or say. The decision to disengage from contact with other people based on whatever criteria you find suitable is entirely up to you. But as far as I am concerned, it would be a disservice, in more ways than one, to the people you clearly want to be educated.

P.S. I am not quite sure of the purpose of your PS. On the face of it, it appears self-evident, but maybe I am missing something.

[StarfishSaver]

75. You or I speaking our minds and sharing views on DU is expressing an opinion

James Carville, a prominent Democratic activist, doing interviews in national outlets telling other Democrats to "abandon wokeness" is lecturing.

[Beastly Boy]

77. I just went through the trouble of re-reading the Carville inteerview.

https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

Nowhere does he suggest to "abandon wokeness".

If he were to actually advocate to "abandon wokeness" to any number of wokeness practitioners (pardon the awkward phrase), I would have agreed with you, that would be lecturing. In your example, neither the content nor the venue live up to standards of a lecture.

[StarfishSaver]

78. We're obviously not going to have a meeting of the minds on this

I'm not willing to give Carville a greater benefit of the doubt than he's willing to give the people he's castigating - especially since I think he is clear as day. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Beastly Boy]

80. Terrific. In this case, Carville gets the entirety of your benefit of doubt.

The only people he is castigating are the people in the messaging apparatus of the Democratic party. I am pretty sure you are not one of them.

But hey, I am all for agreeing to disagree. Good chatting with you.

[redqueen]

108. A lot of black and brown people don't want to be 'educated' by white saviors.

A lot of people here seem to think that only white people are not amenable to wokeness.

A lot of black, and brown, and yellow people are not amenable to wokeness. It's irritating on a very fundamental level to many people. It's not going to help thinks to have white faculty lounge types trying to' educate' them (that just, I hope you realize how off-putting that is).

[StarfishSaver]

110. What? Who said anything about Black and Brown people being educated by white people?

Read my post again. My point is very plain.

I'm clearly talking about white people talking to each other instead of expecting Black and Brown people being expected to bear the responsibility of educating white people while white people who claim to understand all of this sit back and critique our language and form but don't bother to even try to educate their fellow white people.

[redqueen]

111. And the black and brown and yellow people who don't like wokeness?

I'm not as concerned about the white people who don't like it. I don't live around them. I live in a slum, all my neighbors are black and brown. I also have Asian friends who are also anti-woke. It's based on republican bullshit but it's *effective* republican bullshit. The answer isn't abandoning principles and policies labeled 'woke' it's just using better messaging about them, which is what I heard Carville saying

[StarfishSaver]

112. That's not what Carville said. He said "Wokeness is the problem and everyone knows it"

But even if his only problem with wokeness is messaging and he thinks the messaging should be better, if he is so sure of what then messaging should be, why isn't HE communicating the message to white people instead of complaining about how we're doing it.

This can't all be in us. White people need to do a better job talking and explaining to each other and stop demanding that WE do all the explaining. Because one of the main reasons the message isn't getting to the white people Carville is so enamoured of has little to do with the message itself and much to do with the messenger. These people are much more likely to hear and appreciate the message coming from their fellow white people that anything that we're saying - as proven by the fact that they NEVER seem to hear what we're saying and that started long before anyone ever said the words "Defund the Police "

White people need to stop lecturing people of color about how we need to do a better job communicating with white people and start trying harder to convince their own people to pay attention to civil rights a d social justice.

[redqueen]

113. You keep talking about white people like they're the only ones

who are anti woke. I don't know why you think that but it's a mistake. Trump got more votes from Black americans in 2020 than he did in 2016. My Black neighbors supported Trump. Again, I live in a slum. Literally. None of my neighbors, Black or Latino, are supportive of anything with a whiff of wokeness.

Carville may very well have reached out to campaigns to influence messaging, I don't know. But it isn't his job. As voters and people who support dem candidates, imo it's our job to reach out to them to talk some sense into them before we end up losing congress.

[StarfishSaver]

116. You really need to pay attention to the topic of conversation if you're going to join in

But think whatever you like.

I'm not going to waste my time playing whack-a-mole with someone pretending that Carville's comments had anything to do with any interest in reaching out to Black and Brown voters or that he's the least bit worried that those voters might not vote for Democratic because some Democrats are too woke.

[redqueen]

117. Trump got more votes from both Black and Latino voters

and imo it's due to backlash to 'wokeness'.

[StarfishSaver]

60. "Wokeness is a problem and we all know it."

"It’s hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn’t say this. But they don’t want to say it out loud. Because they’ll get clobbered or canceled. And look, part of the problem is that lots of Democrats will say that we have to listen to everybody and we have to include every perspective, or that we don’t have to run a ruthless messaging campaign. Well, you kinda do. It really matters."
---James Carville, April 2021


He said a lot more about "wokeness" than that "the narrative is like a foreign language." And he certainly did make a judgment about it and pronounced it bad.

[Beastly Boy]

61. Paying attention to context is important.

"Wokeness is a problemt" in the context which Carville defined immediately prior to saying it: communicating with the voters the majority of whom don't get it. it wasn't a general comment on wokeness. And we all know it. And, as clearly demonstrated in this thread, Carville got clobbered for saying it. You wouldn't dispute that, would you? I am not bringing this up because I feel Carville needs me to protect his fragile feelings, but purely as a response to your post.

Yes, he said a lot more than I credited him with in my post, but it was all in the context of the narrative being like a foreign language to most voters. He specifically mentioned the bastardization of the essentially populist notion of wokeness by the academic elites.

But thank you for bringing the meaning of what Carville said into focus, and I am looking forward to you disputing Carville's statement in context. For instance, you may disagree that most voters don't get the concept of woke. Or you may disagree that this does matter when running a necessarily ruthless campaign. Or you may disagree that this negatively affects Democrats' chances of winning elections. That's perfectly fine, I am not in a complete agreement with Carville myself.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Context is important. That's why I quoted the whole quote that you left out

And he was not talking about language. He was talking about the mindset of "wokeness." If he has a problem with language or lingo, he should have just said that. Instead, he said the slogan is problematic because of the concept behind it.

The fact that some people may have bastardized words that describe an mindset does not make the mindset a problem. It makes the people mischaracterizing it and those who pretend not to understand what it means and use that as an excuse to ignore it the problem. But instead, he attacked the concept itself in his criticism.

If Carville intended his comments only to address language and not publicly declare there's something wrong with being "woke" (which is exactly what saying "wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it but is afraid to say it" conveys), he should have talked about language and left his two cents about wokeness out of it altogether, because one really doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Context IS important, but words are important, too, especially for a public person like Carville whose only stock in trade is trying to influence public opinion through his words. If he doesn't want to get "clobbered" for saying words that are this done-deaf and offensive, he should not say words that are this tone-deaf and offensive. He can't say things in plain English and then expect to get a pass because everyone is supposed to know that he meant something altogether different than the words that came out of his mouth.

Perhaps, instead of "clobbering" people for not explaining the concept of wokeness in language he finds acceptable, he could use his platform and considerable eloquence to explain it to the white people he's so worried about reaching - and also expect that they, too, have some responsibility to listen and understand instead of putting all of the burden on Black and Brown people and our allies to be the only people expected to communicate and then blame us if we don't communicate as perfectly as he demands.

I see Carville and people like him spending a lot of time and energy "speaking hard truths" to the victims of racism and our allies but I can't remember him ever giving lectures to the white people whom he believes are so important to the party but still can't seem to manage - after decades of being reached out to, explained to, having the obvious problems in their faces every day - to see, much less understand the problem. It would be helpful if he used some of that energy he spends lecturing us about how we're doing it wrong and how we need to do it differently on "translating"to the people he claims to be so in tune with and whose language he claims to understand so well. This should not always be the one-way street Carville and some other folk seem to think it is.

[Celerity]

63. superb rebuttal, and I agree, he is not just whingeing on about the word 'woke' he has

a lot of problems with the entire ecosphere of pushing for meaningful racial justice and not just taking scraps off the table every 4 years. We are fucking dying and getting fucked up at a multiplicity of levels out there, not just from the white power-spawned US copper construct, but also in real socio-economic ways as well. Carville just wants people to STFU about it and let him and his ilk chase that forever-gone Bubba vote by going as rightward as possible on multiple issues, without have too much haemorrhaging of PoC (mainly the black vote in this case, as Carville loves him some socially/fiscally conservative Latino/Latina voters as long as they always pull the D lever) and progs.

[Beastly Boy]

67. I am afraid you are giving Carville too much credit and reading too deeply into his mind.

Hint: "he should have just said that". Well, he didn't say it, so your sentiment is pure projection. It takes quite a leap to ascribe his comments to his mindset, even though there is clear evidence that he wasn't articulating his mindset when he called wokeness a problem. You have to completely disregard the first part of the interview to make this stretch. It is just as clear that he was not speaking to the victims of racism. He wasn't speaking to anyone in particular, black or white or yellow. He was speaking ABOUT a problem of communicating with voters. It is absolutely clear that his mention of wokeness being a problem belongs entirely in this context, and no other. It is unfortunate that the simplest and the most obvious interpretation of the interview doesn't quite fit your narrative, but it is what it is.

To be clear, this is not a rejection of your arguments in principle, it is a rejection of your arguments in the context of Carville's interview.

[StarfishSaver]

68. Carville's not stupid and he's not naive

He knew just what he was saying and, in fact, he double down on it. And it's not the first time he's revealed that mindset in which he views civil rights and social justice as nice-to-dos as long as they don't get in the way of his quest to get bring more white working class voters into the fold. And if they do get in the way, the solution is not for him to help find ways for those white people to actually listen to and care about any needs, concerns or interests beyond their own, but to lecture other people on how not to offend these fragile and fickle voters who, after decades of effort, still aren't sold on voting for Democrats.

I'm not giving him too much credit. And I'm not giving him a pass, either.

Just like he seems to think we are supposed to be very "careful" with our words, he needs to be careful with his.

[Beastly Boy]

70. I will give you this.

And I will give you that he knew what he was saying. So please, don't give into the impulse of ascribing to him what he did not say.

On edit: I am not giving Carville a pass either. There are things he did say in that interview that rub me the wrong way, but his "wokeness" comment is not one of them.

[StarfishSaver]

72. He said in plain English "Wokeness is the problem"

I have a problem with that - and that's not ascribing to him something he didn't say. it's holding him accountable for the words that came straight out of his mouth.

I don't see how you're ok with him saying that if you think he doesn't really believe it.

[Beastly Boy]

74. We are running in circles here.

Let me give you an analogy, perhaps it will help. If I say red lights are a pronlem as I point to pedestrian traffic, does it mean I have a problem with the light being red? I don't think I need to insult your intelligence with an answer to that question.

And I am absolutely OK with my comment, because I can safely assume that a reasonable person will take it in context.

[StarfishSaver]

76. Not a good analogy. Red lights are a thing not an approach or a principle

If you said, "Paying attention to traffic signals is the problem," that would be a problem."

Another example: "Feminism is the problem and everyone knows it because some people carried stupid signs at the Women's March and that pissed men off. Women need to do a better job of figuring out how to talk to men to get them to support their cause because the language of feminism is just driving them away."

[krawhitham]

79. Most (80% or so) DEMS I know in the real world, not online social media warriors HATE "wokeness"

[StarfishSaver]

82. Is this a racially diverse group?

[Celerity]

87. Also, do they mean they hate the word/label or the concept?

Big difference.

[StarfishSaver]

88. Good question

Because the people I interact with really don't think about it all that much. But when we do, we never use "woke" to describe ourselves. It's something we just are and we don't talk about it. Kind of like astronauts who had "the Right Stuff" never talked about it. It just is what it is.

And when we do talk about it, we use the term "woke" to describe other people and it's used as a term of respect or validation. As in "So and so is a good friend of mine. You'll like her. She's good people. She's woke."

For many people of color, knowing that a white person we encounter is "woke" is a signal, a relief. It means there's one less thing we have to worry about when in their company. We know when we're around a truly woke white person, we can be honest and remain safe. We don't have to watch everything we say and do. We can take a break from the hyper-vigilance we must employ in order to survive. We can take off that heavy coat we are burdened with night and day, summer, winter, fall and spring. We can relax. Because we know they get it and, even if they don't fully understand what we're going through, they understand that we're dealing with things that weigh us down and when we express ourselves honestly, we don't have to put up with "Oh, God - not THIS shit again! Why do you always make everything about race? Can't you just give it a rest?"

And most of the people I know with whom I've discussed this weird brouhaha think it's a ridiculous but potentially dangerous controversy stirred up by two types of people: 1) those who feel the need to center every aspect of the racial justice cause on themselves and seem to feel the need to find some reason for them to play victim - those people ain't woke. You know ... wypipo; and 2) the purveyors of racism and systemic discrimination who have always tried to shut up people of color and shame and demean our allies into shutting up, too.

So when people claim that "people are tired of wokeness" or "wokeness is a problem" I always wonder what "people" are they talking about. Because the people I know aren't tired of wokeness at all and they definitely don't see it as a problem. It's a beautiful thing. Which is probably the main reason so many unwoke people want to shut it down.

[Celerity]

100. +1000000

And most of the people I know with whom I've discussed this weird brouhaha think it's a ridiculous but potentially dangerous controversy stirred up by two types of people: 1) those who feel the need to center every aspect of the racial justice cause on themselves and seem to feel the need to find some reason for them to play victim - those people ain't woke. You know ... wypipo; and 2) the purveyors of racism and systemic discrimination who have always tried to shut up people of color and shame and demean our allies into shutting up, too.

[Bettie]

107. I know people who hate the term "Woke" or "Wokeness"

because it has been weaponized by the right and is used as derision for basic principles like fighting against injustice and gaining understanding of those who aren't exactly like us.

So, the Dems in your life hate these basic principles?

Or do they dislike the terminology?

[redqueen]

109. Same. And yes they're racially diverse. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

84. As it always is, a term has been corrupted by the extremes.

Just like political correctness.

There's nothing wrong with being politically correct. It shames people who use racist language to refer to someone - or attacks a person of faith or specific cultural background. You go ask most Americans I'd be willing to bet they actually agree with that.

But the right has coopted the term and changed it to mean any criticism. If PC culture existed in the 1970s, All in the Family would have been banned!

George Carlin couldn't be a comedian in today's PC culture!

Bullshit. No one is policing that shit. There are plenty of shows today that are way more edgier than All in the Family ever was.

But it's a way to get people to be concerned over creating an inclusive society where you can't walk down the street and call an Asian person a ch*nk or a black person the n-word - at least, not without being shamed for it.

Wokeness is no different. Being woke just means you're aware of racism and overall inequality.

But again, the right has coopted the term to mean the extremes that are not there.

The shitty part is that we constantly allow for the right to do this. We let them define things that are typically good and turn them into a bad thing.

Wokeness is only a problem because we let the right define what it means to be woke. Exactly like with PC culture. PC culture meant maybe it was irresponsible to run a TV show that showed slaves enjoying being slaves. Now, the right has twisted it to mean the left is going to cancel you if you accidentally call someone by the wrong pronoun.

Don't get me started on 'Cancel Culture', which, again is not a thing.

Accountability Culture is - but even then, most anyone who has ever been the target of such thing likely has overcome the push to be canceled.

In 1987, Al Campanis, the GM for the Dodgers, was asked on Nightline by Ted Koppel why there wasn't many Black managers in the sport. Campanis basically said Blacks were too stupid to handle the job. He also said Blacks couldn't swim because they lacked buoyancy.

He was fired by the Dodgers the next day.

Was that cancel culture?

No. It was Accountability Culture.

The irony is that this happened in 1987! I actually think had it happened in 2021, Campanis would have been given his own show on FOX News and thousands of people saying he said nothing wrong - while starting a GoFundMe account for his troubles. That's the irony.

[StarfishSaver]

85. Thank you so much for this post

You laid it out perfectly.

It should be an OP

[Celerity]

101. +10000000000000000

[Laura PourMeADrink]

105. What? You are saying it's the right wing that is starting this?

Turn against people who have been there all along fighting for injustice? Turning those who have been oppressed against those who always knew and always felt it???

Yikes, if that is true then JHC don't believe anyone who claims they are a Dem who tries to sow division. I have fallen in that trap many times!!!