Wokeism 

Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/04/14/wokeism/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

the terms "woke" and "redpilled" originally had the exact same meaning (being aware of the inconvenient truth about society), but depending on who adopted the terms their meanings changed into mocking insults

Maybe true wokeism is the friends we made along the way.

Conversation has disappeared and now all I see is everyone raging and reacting. I don't think people should be canceled, these incidents should be seen as a teachable moment. We need to sit down with each other and have a conversation and listen to each other.

I can’t believe the English cancelled Joan of Arc by burning her at the stake. That’s one campus debate that went wrong.

Watching this one year later and it's only been getting worse and more confusingly used! I saw a menopause awareness campaign labelled as "woke" the other day!

While I agree with the origin of wokeism relating to the habermasian concept of 'public sphere' but the fact is that wokeism has its limitations. Wokeism as taking place currently, has become a form of performative act, a trend. That's why all these multinationals who don't give a shit about minorities or transgender people, will be so eager to co-opt the rhetoric of pride and diversity. Amazon can play the woke rhetoric of racial diversity, all the while destroying union efforts by its own employees, the most vulnerable of whom are the racial minorities themselves. In short, the problem with wokeism is that its superficial and not honest regarding the problems and its solutions.

“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Any attack on intellectual liberty, and on the concept of objective truth, threatens, in the long run, every department of thought.” -George Orwell

I used to think 'woke' was a state you entered after finishing sleeping for the night. Now I'm just confused...

sometimes i feel like the people who told me i was wrong for doing or saying shitty things helped me to become a better person

I think wokeism has been misinterpreted and turn into a conspiracy theory by the right wing media. They're putting out certain videos and news outlets targetting specific groups and brainwashing the crowd and manipulating with their emotions into thinking that wokeism is a serious problem amongst all others. A clear example of this is the Libs of Tiktok. Everyone is getting blue-pilled thinking that gender inequality is not real, they think what's happening in America and Europe is also happening in the rest of the world, they're so short sighted and live in their little ignorant worlds. They're highlighting wokeism and ignoring other real problems like gun laws etc.

The passage on Goerg Moeller is odd, given that it's preceded by a bit which mostly agrees with his analysis, the bit on political ideas, moral stances, being part of social mechanisms much like those ruing fashion, meaning it's part of a performance. Your analysis and that of Moeller largely overlap in this sense, with the bourdieusian (if that's a word) perspective. Of course you focus on Moeller's claim on civil religion, but this claim he's making is supported by this bourdieusian/sociological analysis of political ideas also being performances, appearances presented to the public sphere. To me it never seemed like Moeller was critizing wokeism by punching down (especially given he makes the same critique about conservatives - in this sense he'd be punching "up" as well, if he was punching at all).

I've been such a huge admirer of your channel ever since you put out your video on Derrida/post structuralism, and (back when I had the funds), supported you on Patreon. This is the first time I've seen you post a video that didn't engage with the arguments being critiqued. I don't know who two out of the three of RU-vidrs being criticized, but I did watch the carefree wandering video and nowhere in this did you engage the main problem with wokeness, as he sees it--it's that it's a language game that anyone can perform. The CIA example was used to point out that this language game is being used to gloss over an institution that has been responsible for untold atrocities that should make any leftist feel compelled to oppose it--but instead, by associating itself with this woman who checks all the right identity boxes, the CIA gets a pass. An example from American politics is when Bernie Sanders was competing with Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and a big part of his platform was to break up the big banks. Hilary critiqued this by saying, "if we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism? Would it end transphobia?" She received huge applause for this, but ultimately, it was used by right wing media outlets to tear her apart, so not only did this empty posturing undermine the true leftist (Bernie) in the short run, but in the long run, it helped undermine her own viability as a candidate as well.

The undeniable right-wing fearmongering aside, to pretend that progressive politics have not "jumped the shark" in a lot of ways, is very unwise at this point. No matter its admirable goals, it became in a lot of ways performative, dishonest, and routinely abused for personal and selfish goals. It needs a lot of course correction, and more then a bit of internal criticism, which it does not allow. To be woke in its originality means to "be aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues and to be alert to racial prejudice and discrimination. It has been a critique of society we live in. And was and still is, absolutely needed. But it has morphed into something else, and shows a worrying lack of ability to sometimes look internally and thus both critique and allow critique of itself. Wokeism is this "my way or the highway" attitude and "I know best, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot and a hater". And its supposed to be the people who are ostensibly the smarter, more informed, empathic and attentive side of society.

As someone who lived through the 90's, I can catagorically say, that we are not free er to say what we want, as certain topics and opinions have been made, either tabo, or extremely risky, and in some cases outright criminalized on the basis of someones emotional reaction to what has been said. Gas lighting, faulse equivilencies, morral grand standing, straw manning and accusations of bigotry have taken the place of rational debate. While censorship has risen dramatically. Opposing political opinions no longer get together in a room to discuss the topic to determine who'se right any more, but instead attempted to "win" the arugment. Reguardless of who started this trend, the result is that both sides now errect straw men to stand in for an opposing point of view who see no point in turning up to be insulted, ignored and shouted over. The fact that our platforms have a bigger reach, does not mean we have more or better freedom to speak and be heard. Especially if those platforms direct you into an empty room.

We are all Woke to our own injustices. Being Truely Woke is to be aware of the injustices others suffer.

Thanks for making this. I think something a lot of people miss is that every political group has some unreasonable and dogmatic members. This does not mean that the movement is bad. Twitter just allows you to have direct contact with these people all at once so they seem like an insane mob, and the less hyperbolic voices are lost. Like Marshall McLuhan says "the medium is the message", twitter is the medium and it radically shapes the sort of discourse that can exist on it.

While I broadly agree with your analysis, I would love for you to dig deeper on the concept of "wokeism as religion." Here you posit it as a pejorative charge made by reactionaries to imply dogmatic, insular thinking - and that's true. But if we put those negative perceptions aside, there is something valid to the idea that people in an increasingly atheist society are finding in social justice communities many of the same benefits of religion: e.g. community, shared morality, and even some ritualistic behavior. Acknowledging this does not detract from the necessity or urgency of social justice goals.

Your interpretation of Moeller is far more "bizarre" than anything he said.

I The Americans had a spate of "cancel culture" going in the 1950s. Senator McCarthy s witchhunting against so called communists drove many talented artists from the USA. Charlie Chaplin had to live in Switzerland . The musician Larry Adler and singer Paul Robeson had to go into exile in Britain Many talented performers and directors left for Europe due to the anti communist paranoia. Why isn't John Cleese called a woke for his fundraising for Amnesty International? He probably regrets his 1970s support for human rights.

Some people seem to use 'woke' in what seems like an ironic way to me. As they just call anything that they find personally wrong or unjust 'woke'. Woke often

I've got a few criticisms of Moeller's take on Wokeism, but I agree with other commenters that you've kinda gotten his argument wrong (if I remember correctly, it wasn't just a "religious" thing, but a tribal thing, so in group/out group signalling). That said, I agree that wokeism criticism is just a rebrand of a very old tactic to play the victim card and avoid criticism of bad ideas from (generally) terrible people.

Interpreting Moeller as bizarre by conflating his comparison of wokeism and religion to far right assertions ignores a religious side to things. Even Zizek does this with ideology. It's astonishing how you lump his analysis with the right for that. Sloppiest part. First time I saw no nuance in a pretty important part of one of your videos. And, the case studies are lacking as well.

Regardless of backlash, people losing their jobs for having opinions outside of the twitter minority, is unacceptable.

No one is getting "cancelled" in the Orwellian sense of the term. Pointing out that a work of fiction or cultural practice is rooted in outdated social ideas is not the same thing as getting rid of those things. Regardless of what your definition of racism might be, Disney has NOT memory-holed its "racist" films (except for SONG OF THE SOUTH, and that is still available outside of North America), and it was Dr. Seuss's own publisher rather than a government entity that ceased the dissemination of his "racist" books. Conservatives just don't like it when people "call them out" or mock them, even though they do it all the time themselves. Given the amount of contempt they have for non-conservatives, they shouldn't care about these controversies anyway.

I'm autistic, and half of this video was an explanation of why I get in trouble with other progressive people even though we hold the same opinions on the actual issues.

2:00 - Chapter 1 - The awokening 12:00 - Chapter 2 - The broadening of the public sphere 17:25 - Chapter 3 - Moral tastes 21:00 - Chapter 4 - Cancelled

22:35 "unapologetically me, whatever that means" Here is the crux of your problem with Moeller and the problem with you "interpretation" of Moeller's argument - you not only misconstrued his argument, you did it on purpose, since he spent a good portion of the video pointing out the origin of this "unapologetically me" nonsense in a CIA recruitment video. Based on your (deliberate mis)representation it would seem like HE is the originator of that "unapologetically me" nonsense. This is so cringy, man.

Courage is also being able to admit to being wrong, which many of these right-wing think tanks won't do, in spite of how wrong they are.

The one truth of life people need to be woke to. Is that life mostly isn't great, good, or even tolerable. But that we should strive to make contentment as equitable and fair as possible.

Everyone calls EVERYTHING McCarthyism now

woke can mean two things;: 1. "Activists" behind a keyboard who want to virtue signal 2. People who openly disrupt power structures by means of language and action. Words are a big part of power structure, Foucault mentions this.

"Moeller makes many bizarre claims." I'd love to hear you dig into those claims since many of them seem to be incontrovertible. Wokism is certainly not postmodern, in the same sense that Jordan Peterson is talking nonsense when he tries to say Marxism is postmodern.

I think “woke” is just a new word for something old. The young use it because it’s trendy and the old use it because the young use it and so is therefore scary. Tale as old as time.

I appreciate your videos. I am in the middle on my feelings about 'woke' culture.... realizing that often by trying to inspire people to be more awake, and not join the mob, we end up joining a different mob, and in some views, appears like a religion the way people tell others how to feel, or speak. ' We do have more freedom of speech than ever before. But also a faster backlash, often from people who just want to be outraged, and not investigate intentions. Intention is everything

The term “woke” functions as a reactionary term to discredit any critique of the status quo. You’ll never hear it used by someone who doesn’t wield systemic power or isn’t reinforcing the aesthetic of a corporate brand. “Cancel culture” doesn’t exist. If it did, it started centuries ago. The thing called cancel culture now is just what influential people call consequences for their actions in the public sphere. They don’t like being vulnerable to consequences, especially at the hands of “common” people en masse, so they victimize themselves.

I call BS. Censorship is real and a real threat to society.

The word “woke” is just a word that gets used to describe someone whose ideas you don’t like. Like any word designed to be negative, it is also used by people to identify other people whom they believe don’t like them. But, like all of these terms that pop up from time to time, it simply does not exist except in the subjective mind of its user. There is a very good reason such meme words cannot be adequately defined - they are defining something… that isn’t.

I have to agree with many comments here. Your historical and theoretical approach is interesting, but you fail in the case studies. There are plenty examples of normal people losing their platforms and jobs because of their opinions and this is leading to self-censorship. It is actually interesting that from the Unheard video you chose the Mumford and Sons guy but not the other two women, who are just a regular writer and an embroiderer. They both had their employers contacted by Twitter mobs just because they gave an opinion on women's rights. Okay, they might have found different platforms and new ways of working, but other people will think twice before saying their own opinions after seeing that your employer can be contacted and you can be sacked for your own personal opinion on an unrelated matter. And fair enough that's no gulag but losing your job for political opinions in a context in which precarious work is endemic is no joke.

"Woke" is exactly that. I prefer to be awake, in the present.

📌It follows the life cycle of internet buzzwords. It starts from a niche, then when it goes mainstream, inevitably there will be people who don't know the meaning of the buzzword and use it incorrectly, until the buzzwords is used to mean anything you want.

In many ways this is my favorite video of the bunch for all the debate it sparked in the comments section. You should engage the timely and controversial more often.

Pierre Bourdieu would have said that PC and Wokeism is a distinction practice of the educated middle class.

It's more akin to banishment in the past than being killed

Bombarded by shallow right-wing (mis)appropriation of the term "woke", I have been studying the concept lately, to try and learn what is at the heart, what is animating all the fuss. For the right, "woke" is nothing more than a derogatory container for presenting right wing concepts in a way that ignites anger and prejudice and doesn't lead to anything other than rejection of the opponent. For the left, it is a serious, but ultimately ill-fated pursuit of boiling down complex phenomena that cannot be boiled down. Both right and left are interested in a destination, but in reality there won't be one. It is the wild journey that we will be stuck with. Lots of skirmishes but no ultimate victory for either side. Actual enlightenment will require much more knowledge that is tied to real truths, not just talking points.

I'm a "reactionary" by these terms, but a huge company like Vogue stating things like "we need the end of capitalism" is such a plain contradiction, right just before our eyes

'Woke' is one of the floatingnest signifiers ever.

Not quite sure I totally agree with the punch up not down mantra - people/views whether emanating from 'above' or 'below' you in your perceived hierarchy - if wrong, needs to be called out. I suspect that's an unpopular view lol

I feel you didn't watch Moeller's video fully. He is right in comparing wokeism to religion but he also states many times he isn't against religion. Just that philosophy needs to keep such idealistic extremes in check.

Within sociology, we learned from various data (longevity, health, infant mortality, wealth, education) that there are marginalized demographics. The default in the western world is white Christian. Does it have to stay the default? Can there be other modes of thought? Can we lift up those who are excluded?

You got that wrong, speaking against wokeism IS punching up!

The Excesses of (Purifying) Pathological Righteousness: “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’-this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” Aldous Huxley

I've enjoyed some of your other videos but could kind of tell where this one was going from the thumbnail. It would have been great if you'd featured or referenced the likes of John Mcwhorter, Helen pluckrose, Chloe valdary, coleman hughes, Jonathan haidt, Andrew Doyle or Ayeshat Akanbi, all on the left and all of whom offer much more thoughtful and nuanced takes on the subject than anyone featured here. This might have made for a more balanced and less simplistic summary in framing all criticism of woke/cancel culture as whinging right wing reactionaries (à la Piers Morgan). Douglas Murray's scathing attacks on 'wokeism' are comparable to Hitchen's attacks on organised religion but i got the impression you just cherry picked an unflattering clip from Fox News to discredit him, presumably as he's not on the left and is highly critical of its extremities. He can be a bit jarring at first (especially if you are a commited leftist) but the man can argue a point well and is best consumed in discussion with people like Sam Harris or his recent appearance on Lex Fridman. Putting 'wokeism' in a historical context was interesting and not something I've seen done in as much detail before. However I found the justification of a young musician receiving death threats and abuse to the point where he had to leave his band in order to protect his band mates quite disturbing. The idea that this is just a fair consequence for him saying he liked a book and that it's fine becuase he has money is, well, cancellable 😉

Being woke to social problems is a good thing. Most don't give a shit weather you like that or not. There will always be a derogatory term to describe people who point out these societal issues. PC, tree hugger, or Hippie....it just doesn't matter. There will always a term for anyone advocating for social issues they will be attacked with. Counter Culture is what it is and has always been and will always be, until these social issues are addressed .

I confess, I used to be woke. I was constantly getting triggered. I protested everything that offended me, and demanded it all be cancelled. Finally I grew out of it, and went to preschool.

Although there are a lot of people who cry out about being cancelled whle they basically have nothing to worry about, not everyone who is being cancelled is a hyper-privileged individual. It's a bit of a superficial analysis to ay "crowd is always right, target is always wrong".

I think you largely dropped the ball re: moeller, cosmicskeptic and the citing of the ideology being like religion claim to deflate the notion of "wokeism" as civil religion, however that last guy blabbering about MLK through Joan of arc was facepalm worthy.

While I don't disagree with most of the points in this video, I do think that the final argument came off as quite one-sided. I think we as leftists need to acknowledge that the most visible parts of our 'activism' nowadays seem to be those twitter cancellation parties for whoever the villain of the week happens to be. Sure, most of the time the targets of twitter mob justice deserve condemnation on some level, but there are way too many examples of the consequences being disproportional to the transgression, the mob simply can't be controlled when it gets started and it's not a reliable mechanism for changing people's behavior for the better. Right now, in the eyes of many, this is the face of the left and boy let me tell you, this shit does not make our political movement appealing to outsiders. Anyway, here's a video by Sarah Z that expands on my point: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EeCi4CSqtzw.html

I’ve always been better and more evolved than the people around me. I literally “wake up” everyday.

I always love your videos. They are beautifully in-depth and appropriately educational.

I remember when my Dad looked under every bed incase there was a red under there and now we have WOKE.

Cosmicskeptic was debating against cancel culture. I think cancel culture and wokeism are intertwined but different things. Keep up the good work.

For someone that did such a wonderful Foucault video, I'm surprised how much this misses the mark. Seems almost ideologically blind. Particularly on the Moeller critique-- for something that supposedly makes "bizarre" claims, the video does not take the arguments on directly. Again, for such an apt reader of Foucault, ignoring that tactics of speech management throughout history does not mean they function the same (or are the same) is itself "bizarre". Management of "selves" in a corporate internet based culture of recognition is not, and could not be compared responsibly to "Cromwell's commonwealth." My biggest issue is the focus on a few privileged celebrity "cancellations". That's a red herring for the panicked conservative; the real issue of what is being called wokeism has little to do with celebrity cancellation but a setting of norms for EVERYONE'S discourse; one that is censorious and dogmatically aimed at particular political agendas. That being said, there are some great points about the big picture struggle for language and the "like it or not" context of democratic media here.

Rather than be woke than asleep 😅

It's interesting to see the comments about religion, because I've heard many say that if Jesus came today, He'd be rejected for being too woke, and cancelled for how He loved the sinners and outcasts.

This is the ideology that the current idea of 'wokeness' now describes. It has it's roots in Critical Theory and the following: "In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes. "Under “wokeness,” this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, “woke up”) to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This-especially for white people-is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism). Historically, the term “woke” has been used somewhat extensively in slang throughout the twentieth century to refer to a state of awareness of the discrimination, disenfranchisement, and mistreatment of blacks, especially in America, and it is in that sense always had some connection to the critical mode of thought in the New Left. (See also, black liberation, liberation theology, false consciousness, and consciousness raising.) The term is alleged to have gained its first contemporary connotation in 2008 with the Erykah Badu song “Master Teacher,” in which Badu envisions and dreams of a world of racial equality and then advises genuine activism with the admonishment that listeners should “stay woke.” The term developed from there, particularly via black activism on Twitter. The term then gained particular significance and tied itself to the contemporary Social Justice movement in the mid 2010s as it became an activist watchword of the Black Lives Matter movement. There, say following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the phrase “stay woke” took on the very specific meaning of being aware of the reality (according to critical race Theory) of systemic racism in American society that activists blamed for being at the root of the incident. This has, in turn, led to the term being nearly synonymous with having a critical consciousness as provided through critical race Theory, although it has been appropriated through intersectional thought to apply to other issues of identity relevant to postcolonial Theory, queer Theory, feminism, and so on. It has since expanded and memefied further and is now seen from the outside as being wholly synonymous with having been converted to a Social Justice critical consciousness. As such, “wokeness” often refers to both critical Social Justice doctrine and the state of having accepted it. In that “wokeness” has become a term directly associated with the critical consciousness provided by applied postmodern Theories, especially critical race Theory (see also, postmodern, Marxian, Neo-Marxism, Post-Marxism, and Cultural Marxism). As such, it is centrally concerned with being aware of the intersecting systems of racism, sexism, and other forms of alleged societal oppression and analyzing these in terms of privilege. This is most often done, under woke consciousness, by engaging in discourse analysis, especially using close reading, which enables racism (or other systemic bigotries) that are assumed to be present in all situations to then be read into them. This is then treated as proof of the systemic problem that was assumed to exist in the first place (see also, mask). Being “woke” would entail being able to “see” the intersecting web of dominance and oppression that arises from the function of privilege in society and taking up efforts to challenge, disrupt, subvert, deconstruct, or overthrow the existing system in the attempt to bring those unjust intersecting power dynamics to an end (see also, Matrix of Domination). See also - Critical Consciousness, Multiple Consciousness, and Kaleidoscopic Consciousness Related Terms Antiracism; Applied postmodernism; Black liberation; Close reading; Consciousness raising; Critical; Critical Consciousness; Critical race Theory; Critical Theory; Cultural Marxism; Cultural racism; Deconstruction; Discourse; Discourse analysis; Dismantle; Disrupt; Dominance; Equality; False consciousness; Feminism; Gender; Identity; Injustice; Institutional racism; Intersectionality; Justice; Kaleidoscopic consciousness; Liberation theology; Marginalization; Marxian; Mask; Matrix of Domination; Multiple consciousness; Neo-Marxism; New Left; Oppression; Postcolonial Theory; Post-Marxism; Postmodern; Privilege; Problematic; Progressive; Queer Theory; Race; Racism (systemic); Sexism (systemic); Social Justice; Subversion; System, the; Systemic Power; Theory; White My source: New Discourses Encyclopedia of Social Justice "Translations of the Wokish." If we understand this for what it is. 'Woke' is a American version of Mao's Cultural Revolution: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lc0684V2ej8.html

There's no awoke. It's simply a different form of being controlled or controlling other people. It's also a money ticket and free power for some people and a way for corporate elites to get everyone moving and doing their bidding.

Brilliant work. The irony is is that in 10 years there’ll be a whole new thing in place for people to moan about.

I'm always baffled that to be a decent human being and treat everyone in an positive manner equally, judging them by their individual character, choices they make in service of themselves and their others, is such a bizarre concept. If someone advocates for love - I respect them, and would willingly share platonic love with them. If someone advocated for death, destruction, the eradication of a person due to a facet of their being (sex, orientation, gender, race, culture, nationality/ethnicity) as many people in history have done so, then I would want nothing to do with them. I would shun them, not respect them. From genocidal maniacs like Hitler, to a low-level killer like Bundy or Dahmer. Why is this core concept so hard to understand? Oh, wait...humans being human. I get it.

Wokeism takes over this central Marxist theme and simply replaces economic status with race, sex, sexual orientation, and the like as the keys to demarcating oppressed and oppressing classes. Where the traditional Marxist focuses on the conflict between capitalists and the proletariat, the wokester speaks instead of “white supremacy” versus people of color, “patriarchy” versus women, “heteronormativity” versus LGBTQ, and so on. But the emphasis on group identity rather than individualism carries over from Marxism and marks a break with liberalism. Furthermore, wokeism’s disdain for norms of rational discourse and inclination to cancel and censor opponents rather than engage their arguments differs from the liberal tradition’s idealization of free debate.

This analyses is good up to a point. As long as it refers to history. The interpretation of the real time current consequences is not really correct . A "get on with it " or "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen " ignores that critics of woke can actually lose their jobs and social footing. That's what makes it so dangerous. However, maybe we are over the worst by now. There is always hope. Thanks for the work that went into this.

I just can't agree that cancel culture invokes courage and more forethought in arguments when arguments on the right are waaaaay more likely to cause one's cancellation vs arguments on the left. If it was an even playing field and the right was also able to cancel spokespeople on the left I would agree. However, this is not the case.

This is a liberal take on woketivism that leaves out the left perspective. I could be wrong but my guess is that Moeller got his Robert Bellah (civil religion) idea from Zamora and Dean. McWhorter makes a similar claim but there too class analysis of woketivism is missing, as it is also missing from Pluckrose and Lindsay, though their idea of applied postmodernism has some merit, which, contra Lindsay, has no bearing on Hegel. My Bourdieusian "welcome to the cultural goodwill revolution" take on this is available in Brave New Avant Garde. Punching up/down is limited as a formalistic and dualist substitute for critical social theory. Liberals and fascists also punch up. See Zizek's essay "Against the Populist Temptation." Zizek's concept of the waning of symbolic efficiency is relevant to woke culture wars. The reference to Shirky is valuable but otherwise incomplete as a question of technological determinism. On that last point, who owns these platforms? Do we not have a plutocracy problem today? Are they powerless against our RU-vid comments? A word to the woke: ICTs reinforce dominant political tendencies.

That guy who compared actual historical assassinations to cancelling was fucking nuts

Pushback is fine, as is dissent, but it would be so much more effective if it came from people who have a clear idea of why they are pushing back.

I still proudly say I’m woke. If more people questioned *both* sides of their governments, hold corrupt authorities accountable, and not fall sheep to a mental mass media culling.

"While their ire is directed at the mob, the crowd, at public opinion, and ordinary people." I don't know if I entirely agree with that. I don't know that I would call a Twitter cancel mob "the public." They are a *segment* of the public, sure, but I wouldn't necessarily say they hold the majority opinion. You yourself show clips in this video where opinion polls are referenced that say the majority are concerned about cancel culture, political correctness, etc.

I always thought woke simply meant being wise to corporate control and/or not trusting the government.

I just watched this just after watching a pretty well thought out dive into what is fascism. Yes, they were very clear on picking the terms, slogans, symbols needed to create a populist statist context. When I hear this and the conclusion that we have progressed into a time of greater free speech, I can guess the narrator has never been to San Francisco. Free? Like a religion? Have you ever been inside a classroom in which the teacher has symbols everywhere and find that the students have all learned to use a new set of pronouns? And, was Twitter truly free? Guess not really. It seems more that the original idea of being "woke" has been co-opted and redefined by a collectivist movement. It doesn't seem that it was distorted by people called the "right", who these days are just the sort of people who might have been called "centrist" in other times. The narrator has probably never been verbally attacked or threatened with violence for misusing terms that never had any alternative life style connotations. How is that free speech? The internet should be about free speech, many points of view. But, it does seem that people have gone to great lengths to make sure that it isn't. Then again, the original idea of the world wide web would be that no monolithic business would dominate it. But, instead monolithic businesses do dominate it. People are pinning their hopes on Web3, the blockchain, etc. That has such a potential for freedom that governments are trying to get rid of it. What if it doesn't allow for people to get canceled when they point out obvious truths about events or obvious flaws in collectivist propaganda? Do we start trying to throw those Web3 innovators in jail? China does. India makes some of that illegal. Spain makes IPFS illegal, and that's just file storage. It has been proposed in the USA.

Wokeism, a term of debate and strife, Stirs conversations in the tapestry of life. Some see its aims as noble and just, While others are skeptical, filled with mistrust. To some, it's a beacon, a call to reform, A push for justice in a world still stormy and warm. A voice for the marginalized, the oppressed, A movement that aims to address. But in the eyes of some, it's gone too far, An overreach, they say, leaving deep scars. They worry of cancel culture's might, And freedom of speech veiled in the night. Is wokeism good or bad, the question persists, A matter of perspective, on which many insist. It's vital to seek understanding and debate, To navigate these waters, it's not too late. In this complex world, where views collide, Let's strive for empathy, and bridges wide. For progress comes from dialogue, it's true, Finding common ground, where we can all renew.

Wokeism is companies trying so hard, it's cringe. When you see a movie with a white father, black mother and the child is asian and gay...it's too much. Some wokeism you see is comedy.

Delusion is a cage and wokism is the padlock.

Political correctness can be very racist if foreign language being censored just because it is sounds like something inapropriate word in american english. For example. There is words in Indonesian (my nationality) that is used to be forbidden in US because of political correctness due to it sounds like inapropriate word in american english Example 1. "ngga" this is shorter version of slang word enggak. Formal word for enggak is Tidak. In english, ngga means "NO" 2. "Adik" this is become forbidden because the way it spoke, sounds like "a dick". While in english, adik means younger sibling 3. "Nasi" you might know why it is forbidden. Because it's sounds like nazi. no, it means Rice (cooked)

For a long time I have been disturbed by the derogatory comments about “political correctness” when it’s simply a mode of inclusion and an attitude of respect. Why would a person deliberately try to offend others? Political correctness is simply good manners and politeness.

never read a comment section where people missed the point of the video this much. the video is clearly a critique the use of "wokeism" as a term in conservative spaces, not a critique of whatever these people think wokeism is in the comments like let's be serious

Many regular people were canceled before it got to the powerful. They got canceled by people who were more powerful. They have gotten very bold.

Good video. I have this rule of thumb which has been working out for me: it consists of disregarding any arguments from anyone who uses "woke" or " _the_ woke" or "wokeism" in a non ironic fashion. It might leave out some nuance, but I think everyone needs some sort of filter in an age where we're bombarded with arguments 24/7.

Thank you so much for your simply beautiful work!

Like Carlin said, It is called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

The unexamined life is not worth living. But I am so confused by labels today that I find myself striving for simplicity of life over anything else.

People who have been "cancelled" are like children throwing tantrums. It's our choice whether we enable them or ignore them.

I think it's fair to compare the idea of woke-ism with religion at least in terms of the moral paradigm, it's comparable to one of Nietzsche's critique of Christianity, the idea of slave morality in which the weak are virtuous by their very nature. I think we've forgotten the power of this morality and the fact that it's woven into the fabric of our culture in a deep meaningful way, its drives are not going to dissipate over a few generations. Thus the drive is displaced and manifests in in this form. I am not making a value judgements on wokeism or saying explicitly that it has a religious origin, I'm just saying that it is fair to compare the moral paradigm of wokeism with the moral paradigm of religion. After-all we must follow some form of moral paradigm and it's no secret that a religious attitude is waning nowadays.

I just struggled to do an essay on Habermas’ Public sphere so can I just say I appreciate the breakdown

Calling someone woke is often used to avoid having a discussion and just dismissing a point of view without having to engage in conversation. You’re woke so all your points can be ignored. It’s used in a similar way to calling someone racist or a transphobe when trying to avoid talking things through without critical thought.

Woke:Alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination.What is so hard about that way of thinking? It’s not about talking about doing good ,you have to be SEEN doing good .

Also was so happy to hear Leadbelly. One of my favorite musicians. Love the library of Congress albums

Well, you know that the inquisition wasn't always just getting burnt at the stake. Often it was just social and financial cancellation. So it's actually very analogous.

I like to think of "cancel culture" as the cleansing fire that burns away the underbrush and dead trees that increased social media access has introduced. So many people think they are entitled to share terrible thoughts and opinions without consequence and what we are seeing now is reality correcting for limitless unfiltered dialog. It's not a right vs left problem, it's a problem with the over-saturation of voices in the public square. Historically, it took massive amounts of work and dedication get yourself platformed and it would ultimately take almost the same amount work for people to respond or de-platform you. All of those limitations are now gone. Now, people are holding others to account and that's somehow frightening? Nah, I'm calling that BS out. If you going to post anything to the internet (or say something on TV or in print) you need to actual put some thought into it. If you don't, then the response to you is yours alone and you need to own it (and maybe learn?) instead of crying about "woke-ism" or "cancel culture".

There are a number of aspects to Wokism but one is suppression of free speech in the form censorship and silencing debate. This can be easily evidenced by the behaviour of the Guardian online newspaper over the past 13 years or more. Up until Brexit there was a period when the mainstream media was becoming more democratised due to the internet. Most articles, including the Guardian, were open to BTL commenting and one would read wide a variety of opinion there. Look at it now, few articles are open to comment, the articles are heavily moderated. As a consequence, nearly all comments you read BTL agree with the article writers. This is the way the media behaves within an authoritarian regime. It is disturbing and foreboding

When the Buddha was asked how he manifested enlightenment, he replied- I am awake.