Is Wokeism Civil Religion? | A Debate with Then & Now 

edit: I just reread this and I seem to have a fondness for the word 'largely' today, which, largely, I regret. (especially would like to revoke the use of 'largely' before 'a kind of moral independence' as its more ambiguous than that)

Morals have and always will ironically be more of a hindrence to positive social change than a help. Sure it might feel good to say "I care about the more aspect of politics" but how useful is mere compassion? It is often impotent at best (it can't be said that the vast majority of slave revolts did anything to overthrow the system, only changes in the means of production did that) or an outright obstacle that needs to be overcome ("This idealogy of voluntarism obscures the fundamental destruction of rights. It's not an accident that poverty grows deeper as our charitable responses to it multiply. The growth of kindness and the decline of justice are intimately intertwined."- Janet Poppendieck) In a very daoist way if you're truly motived to change the world for the better (a tendency that is rare & often what looks like it is just a case of prestige chasing) than seeking to directly improve the lives of individual people or groups will often only result in projects that lack staying power. "In doing battle, you achieve victory by irregular means."- Sun Tzu So what's the answer? In the case of achieving the supposed goals of wokism you need a classed-focused state run by the class that isn't self-defeating, ala the working class. Divergence in ethnicity & culture in a large society history shows requires a morally neutral pragmatist state to balance interests without adopting a mission of its own aside from the survival and maintenance of the state itself, something the imperialist white-supremacist states developed by capitalism are the antithesis of (see historical materialism/dialectics). This of course restricts communal projects to the realm of necessary material needs for a community like security and infrastructure. In turn all the side effects of a collapsing society (spectacle, violent tribalism, etcetera) shall wither away. War (classed-based, racial, whatever) won't end when humanity collectively realizes the immortality of it, rather they can only do this once war has become obsolete.

I think it's funny that neither one of these channels are based in the US. lol

@@gh0s1wav the vast majority of Americans have niether the self awareness nor education needed to formulate these arguments so probability dictated that this would be the case

@@HxH2011DRA I feel like your take is over reliant on technology for change. I know you never mention technology but the structures you talk about are basically technologies that we use for human governance. Also the fact that you end your response in "obsolete" hints at the technological reliance. I like the idea "the medium is the message" a lot but I believe that you forget that people use mediums in different ways. Your take reminds me a lot of environmental determinism ie. humans are only shaped by their environment. The main criticism of this approach is that humans continually prove that we can use our environments in different ways and even in a way "overcome" our environment such as to live in places that are completely uninhabitable to humans, such as the living facilities (albeit habitable for only a certain amount of time per year) in Antarctica. I'd like to use the phrase: "If all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail." (If all you have is a certain technology (structure) you will look at the world in a certain way.) I believe what most people think when they hear this phrase is that the person with the hammer will hammer down the nails he sees in the world but a hammer can also pull nails out. You can bend nails into odd shapes. You can even completely flatten a nail if you see fit. So saying that war will only stop when it is "obsolete" misses the point that people can use seemingly peaceful technologies (structures) as instruments of war. Also by proposing that war will become "obsolete" proposes that war serves a singular function but if you think about it even for a second there are multiple functions that war can enable. I believe that it is important to understand how and why technology influences our actions but I believe it's not all powerful. Also when you talk about morality I believe you may miss the point that the goal (at least in the daoist point of view) is not to get rid of morals all together but to realize different people have different morals and to respect these different ways of living. Of course this is complicated when you have a society full of people with drastically different morals who interact with each other. I believe that a sort of group morality is necessary in a highly socialized system (although I would like to be proven wrong on that) but as an individual it may not be the greatest idea to conform to the groups morals, just like how it is not ideal for the group to conform to yours.

Technically he has a freedom to provide his paper to whomever he wants, so he could just as well put it on any sharing site and provide the link.

Absolutely massive point. Without considering the hegemonic influence of capitalism, the rest of the conversation is irrelevant.

Well. 0

The ultimate liberal aim, which is distopic in it's outcome is to have total state control over the public social affairs, and total private social freedom.

This is precisely what I think is going. Wokeism is fundamentally depoliticizing in the sense that it is not concerned with fundamentally changing oppressive power structures, but rather the changing of power relations within that system.

👍👍👍👍

@@andreioarcea7784 state control of "public social affairs"? Professional football, Disney, Facebook, Twitter, schools, universities, hospitals? "Private social" cocktail parties, sex lives, family life, family reunions, church, amateur sports?

Reddit.

Surprised to see this channel commenting here. Thanks for the cooking guides.

Omg I literally used your satay beef fried rice recipe yesterday!! So cool to see you here

Two of my favorite channels in conversation with each other. Amazing

Chad Cooking Demystified

wild crossover

copyright = owner right

perhaps, but given political submission often was implicitly or explicitly linked to religious submission, the causality would be hard to trace.

True

Completely agree - also really enjoying your contributions sir

@@ordersoahc Thanks Michael - we are all swimming around in a broken public sphere, but the more people swim around responsibly, the better.

@@VladVexler Wokeism is just a made up term, that means nothing. The right wing makes up terms like "Woke", and "Cancel Culture" in order to play the victim.

Wokeism is just a made up term, created by the right wing. You can't debate something that does not exist.

But it was appropriated and heavily comoditized by wokeism (ex: Nike ads), which is the important part; and what actually speaks about wokeism itself.

@@Mkeyvillarreal Yeah because it’s easier for corporations to make meaningless virtue signaling instead of making a meaningful improvement to the world.

@@l4ndst4nder i agree, the important fact for me here is that the woke movement openly embraced this comoditization instead of reacting against it, and became part of it in the process.

@@Mkeyvillarreal That’s more 80% of the DNC and media. The economic left is more skeptical of corporations, and while they believe people are being systematically oppressed, talk is meaningless unless you do something.

@@l4ndst4nder i also agree. But it has to be said that the most powerful voices en current leftist public discourse are (sadly) not those of the economic left; but those of the identitarian left. It hurts class issues because it replaces them with a comoditized version of identity issues.

Yes, getting beyond 'us vs them'

"Accept what you don't like, so you can do what you like better" What do you mean by that? What would that look like irl?

I do enjoy HGM's videos, they are fresh, esp. considering the stale current discourse. I'm also getting his latest book. However to expect he does not give a fuck about political games is naive. His moves are just much more subtle than that the average Western culture warrior would notice. For example you will not hear from him any criticism or even analysis on what is going on in China or the political rulers there, for the obvious reason that he is a professor there and thus can't afford this. Expect in this field bullshit and whataboutism instead, albeit very verbose one.

He has no idea what he is talking about, he sounds like another Jordan Peterson. People kneel during sporting event to show support for racial injustice and people kneel at church... that means people that people kneel during sporting event are religious.....LMAO. This guy has no idea of the historic context, just see's basic similarities, so they must be the same? Just Bizarre

@@bipslone8880 Did you seriously just compare and equate this genuine philosopher with the pseudo-intellectual Peterson? LMAO. Not even close, my friend. Maybe you should actually watch this video above and criticize and argue the actual points that were made in the video rather than the straw man that you made up in your head. 🤣🤣

In other words, he is wrong.

@@MrCmon113 No, that would be an exaggeration.

I like your point of the kneeing emphasizing difference without being sacrilegious. Maybe it is just me, but always considered that in a way the kneeling protest only makes sense IF YOU KNOW THE ETIQUETE for the anthem (standing, hand over chest) and is only offensive and radical if you do. Compared with the black power salute equivalent that most of the world then understood because it was internationally understood as a radical and leftist action (so it was not just a sacrilegious action but one communicating a point in itself), I see that many people outside a US or similar historically republican civil religious context (I would say maybe the only other country who quite understands that sort of etiquete and would find kneeling for the anthem incredibly offensive is maybe France, and even there most athletes listening to the anthem just stand waiting for the anthem, without hand over chest, and sing along with it or don't). I see that people doing the knee protest outside the US are mostly doing it because the US movement is, but it draws no similar sacrilegious reaction from the local audience.

Doesn't the fact they are strategically usurping an act of civil religion with a woke substitute precisely demonstrate how wokeism is trying to become the new civil religion itself?

@@AerysBat Wokeism isn't a person. It's useless to try to answer that without more specificity about who "they" are.

I'm about new to this civil religion stuff so I may be mistaken, but aren't nationalism and patriotism also civil religions? The acts of standing up for the national anthems, putting hands over hearts etc does seem to make sense as nationalism is a civil religion. It seems to have slowly taken the place of Christianity in uniting and dividing people slowly throughout modern Western history. It seems to have slowly started replacing Christianity as a civil religion (although they need not always be in contrast and Christianity still serves as one of the major civil religions). Again, I may be speaking crap here cuz I just accidentally stumbled upon here and I'm not well versed in philosophy and stuff.

@@anonymous_4276 you are mostly right but nationalism would be a tad bit to far but a civil religion would basically follow the main tenets of a religion like a leader symbols a book, songs and other literature as well as a unifying belief about ones self and their views on foreigners or people who break these rules a simplified and international version would be the handshake of the pre-covid era when most people would find you weird and dangerous to an extent if you just stared at their open hand and leave them feeling uncomfortable

I see a despising opposition the current status quo, and as you always say, as everything really does, even opposition to the neoliberal capitalist order is commodified and co-opted by the neoliberal capitalist order. It might be too optimistic of me, but I don’t think too many people buy the rebranded cooptation of the opposition, a la woke cia officer ad and the infamous Pepsi protest ad. There is no concrete identification of the causes for the social symptoms wokeism opposes in the broad public sphere, but there is also no bitter passive acceptance of it as “that’s just how the world is” as was common a decade ago. I don’t see it as a good tool for analysis and overcoming of the current situation, but I do see it as a progressive moment in the unfolding of the Geist, with its lacks and faults to be eventually overcome through.

Not very sophisticated but my recurring thought is “means to an end”. I’m glad it’s around as a phenomenon insofar as I feel a tangible and positive impact (alongside its downsides as well). Having grown up insulated, the pervasive mindset of “I don’t see color” had to go because all the data shows we clearly DO as a result of growing up and living in our time and place in the historical chain. The 90s fantasy was a universe removed from this link, freed from historical bullshit thanks to capitalism and it’s “bounty”. Perhaps you’re not seeing as much of what I see, that “wokeism” when used as an insult from the right, means in 2021 “communist/socialist/marxist”. There’s a left leaning, even far left leaning assumption of being “woke” built in now because so many people are expanding their minds on capitalism as it intersects with other social problems. I do hope for a future where our identities can be as free and clear as we choose, where “wokeism” isn’t really necessary, but to get there we still need a lot of people to, well wake up!

I hope Endgame would land us somewhere close to your concept of “genuine pretending” where people are aware of their heritage and place in society and genuinely care about it through ACTION, but also not so consumed in their identity or take it too seriously and start causing problems, nationalism etc etc. idk!!

@@benzur3503 You’re referring to a specific phenomenon, ‘interpassivity’.

@@deadboy276 I’m unfamiliar with the term, to which of the things I’ve described does it apply?

Excellent observation. Just commenting to convey my thanks to u for expressing this. Coz I have lately been disheartened by exactly what u have just said - bcoz as someone who is from a different academic background (I've studied literature) with an intetest in philosophy & theory, I was trying to get some free short lecture or concept discussion type lessons from youtube channels with much enthusiasm, but everyone just gets into a loop of reaction/response videos eventually - which is great for them as they can have direct discussions, I guess - but for me it seems to boil down slightly different interpretations of phrases and concepts (which is bound to happen in fields of academic studies which have a subjective element) that people get fixated on & keep dissecting, in the videos and the comments section, and the youtube debate becomes bigger than the original purpose of the channels (which I presume was discussion of concepts and theories of philosophers & theorists, and not discussion of other youtuber's interpretation of those concepts). And for people like me trying to benefit from free (sort of) lectures, it feels disheartening, coz u r stuck with the same topic for a string of videos with essentially people with different interpretations/perspectives going on further elaborating and illustrating and clearifying their positions, which u know will never get resolved to one single conclusion that statisfies everyone, coz they have different interpretations in the first place. P.s. I have tried to express myself without using any technical terminology as far as possible, coz I don't want this to start another debate on such debates on youtube. Nonetheless, I know once u put out something on a social forum, u have no control over it & it will take a life of its own.

@@radioactivedetective6876 I’m not trying to be rude or anything but you seem like you have a well rounded mind and an opinionated one. Why don’t you create some videos and share what you believe. See what kind of feedback you would get. I would love to see one.

@@ashtonmilkyway Sorry for the delay... I do not know enough to make videos. I have studied English Literature, and with that one studies a bit of 20th Century "theory" (Fannon, Said, Bhabha, Gramsci, Althuser, the Feminist theorist, Foucault, etc) and gets acquainted with the some concepts of 19th & 20th Century philosophers. Besides, I had history and political science as my minor subjects. Through these subjects I have gathered some surface level understanding of some of the "key" ideas/theories of the big names like Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and the very basic idea of Existentialism. I genuinely hoped to get a better grip on concepts I sort of know. Eventual lesson: youtube isn't the medium for that. Which, to be fair, is sort of the message of the disclaimer of this channel.

I think the unsubtle understanding of the algorithm, which puts this very measured and partial critique of wokeism in the same category as 'JP *DESTROYS* WOKE LIBTARDS', may be for the best; it might be overoptimistic, but there's a chance someone leaning alt-Right may actually listen to it and realise that the 'general peer' of online leftism is not entirely hegemonic and reflexive.

What of religions that lack any sort of divine concept? In my mind, if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it at the very least can create a discussion surrounding how similarly it behaves like a duck. It doesn't stifle conversation in my mind, but it certainly makes some uncomfortable to consider the idea that civil ideologies they adhere too are simply modern replacements for the great faiths.

@@calmexit6483 Believing in something divine or “supernatural” is the defining characteristic of religion, as far as I’m concerned.

What other connotations do you have with kneeling? Religious contexts and proposing to a woman are litterally the only circumstances i associate with this gesture?

The Injustice here is denying racial and cultural differences. Which account for a lot, but not all of course.

@@alexanderleuchte5132 I wasn't really raised traditionally religious. Do you kneel at church or during some other practice?

@@owenspalding2045 Kneeling is commonly done in Christianity and has a long tradition all over Europe in religious rituals - when praying at the alter, when recieving communion, when being Knighted, when being Crowned by the clergy, when prostrating yourself before the victor of battle, when swearing allegiance. I'm actually kind of surprised that kneeling before the flag is considered disrespectful in the US, given that prostrating yourself in front of the flag like that in any other socio-cultural and historical context would usual indicate prostration before the flag, not an objection or rejection.

@@owenspalding2045 You kneel in church and some kneel even when praying in private. Aside from catholicism, muslims for example kneel to pray too and even drive the gesture further by bowing down to symbolize their devotion

Please don't get too enamored by Baudrillard. Most of what he wrote - and by his own volition he was never a political writer - was sheer and utter bullshit. His central thesis concerns the point that by studying things scientifically we always destroy them. A cursory glance into Roy Bhaskar and Critical Realism would set you right here, but generally the idea that there are no facts about physics', for example, other than what is squeezed through the ontological needle is just plain stupid. Time to forget Mr B, I feel

@@Ba-pb8ul nah, he still has some important insights regarding postmodern culture, should one be a 100% Baudrillardian? No. Should we pick from him useful tools to understand our condition? Yes

​@@Ba-pb8ul Bit of a misreading of his philosophy. He never said that there is no physical reality, or no facts about physics, but that we have abolished the metaphysical principle of reality. It would be a more correct portrayal of his idea to say that our reality IS physics and nothing but. Where in past times things tended to aim beyond themselves, today they only aim to be themselves, and that's what physics is to metaphysics. Although he does talk about the irony of scientific inquiry and its unfortunate characteristic to destroy what it studies, that's a minor tip of an otherwise gigantic ice berg. As before, it is about the creation of a simulation in which scientific facts about the world REPLACE the world to the point where you can no longer tell one from the other. But for him, there is no world to begin with. He is a Nietzschean in that sense ``En bas avec tout les hypothèses qui font croire en un monde réell.`` What does he mean then, when he says that metaphysical reality has disappeared, if he doesn't even believe in it to begin with? That's where the roller-coaster ride that is his thought begins. Hot seduction, cold seduction, eternal return, reversibility, all of them attempts at answers to a problematic that very few people have even begun to comprehend. He was right when he said that he is a metaphysician and not a sociologist, and to suggest one forget about him would mean to forget one of the most relevant thinkers for today. Even though he exaggerated a lot, he did so for good reason, all self-aware in the attempt to preempt reality before it manifests. For instance, in ``The Transparency of Evil`` from 1990, he writes about viruses, and the fact that they will one day determine our lives because the once distant domains of life have come so close to each other that immunity is practically nonexistent. One domain infects the other through sheer contiguity. I would think the relevance of that is obvious.

and since RU-vid is an American corporation, if it chooses to censor such critic, it will ironically prove that wokeism has American religious if not dogmatic element.

More like Wokeism was created to counter act Occupy Wall Street.

I would for example also say - so do many scholars - that Nationalsozialismus had a strong "religious" core, would you disagree with that too?

​@@alexanderleuchte5132 Movements should be based on their own merit of their empirical and moral realities. The nazi party had some religous-esque rituals yes. This alone doesn't make them morally abhorrent though. Their beliefs and actions - which again - you can interrogate and evaluate are obviously morally abhorrent. But it's also worth noting the nazi party had beliefs that were specious and absurd, like religion (a much harder claim to make for wokeism), like World Ice Theory or their race theory.

@@xazax2641 It's not just the obvious "religous-esque rituals", the whole believe system is more religious than political. It's a transcendentally rootet salvation story of the chosen people under the lead of the messiah fighting and winning the eternal war against evil to fullfil the plan of destiny and to bring paradise on earth.

"Movements should be evaluated on their own moral merit". This sentence implies there is an objective measurement of morality, which the professor has rebuked in other videos. There is no moral truth, no absolute right or wrong in a cosmic way.

he did, look a couple of videos back.

The point is that this isn't just an instance of 'wokism' but rather 'wokism' at interplay with reactionaries, which is very much NOT the same thing.

@nigel_bd got you. Nova Scotia, zeroing down ..

@nigel_bd you can't do anything to influence archive Google, nige

@nigel_bd as you often say, "stupid algorithms"...

@nigel_bd enjoy your week

@nigel_bd hi chap. We are due to meet soon. Perhaps there's a coffee house to sit and talk a while? Let me know.

I can’t watch that guy he needs to do something about his Nasal problems.

I don't think the intent matters

@@caspar_gomez My point is that he doesn't intend and doesn't actually produce a pro capitalist message..

There are no good things in woke ideology that aren't way better represented by other more moderate ideologies.

@@solonyetski Well, I agree with that. I guess it's the sort of cultish enforcement, adversity to debate, and intolerance to disagreement that ruins it. It's more about appearing woke than being woke. I hate the repetition of mantras. I hate the notion that shouting about injustice on Twitter is the same as doing something about it.

@@MandyJane123700 it do be like that