A thought on wokeness, why there's so much backlash and why it's unlikely to survive long-term

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is a sort of "shower thought" that came to me but I pondered it and managed to even link it to hardcore/emo subculture (in a very relevant way! Trust me, I'll explain later.) I basically think I figured out why wokeness is such a tough sell, even to the majority of liberals, why there is thus so much backlash, and why it's probably doomed in the long-term and going to be marginalized in at least the medium-term.

The fundamental basis is that a lot of liberal cause célèbres are easy to get behind because they're very feel good politics and (this is key) require no real sacrifice from someone to support. The best example would be gay marriage pre-Obergefell. Allowing legal same-sex marriages did not impact or harm liberal heterosexual people in any way, so unsurprisingly they rallied around it hugely and it became the big push for so many, because it was a pure unambiguous moral issue to us that couldn't conceivably harm us in any way. Now on a similar note, marijuana legalization has become this even to liberals who have no interest in using it. The only way it could negatively impact such a person is in trivial ways such as not liking the smell or finding stoned people annoying, and even that's not really a big deal because you probably have to deal with such things anyway even with it not legal (guess how often I smell weed in a supposedly illegal area?) Now are there some cases that might require some sacrifice? Perhaps, but that's either ones that a liberal doesn't consider a big deal, or there's some tradeoff that makes it worth it. For example gun registrations and restrictions are only an inconvenience if you own and buy guns, so liberals who don't aren't bothered by them. Vaccine passports? Same thing, not a big deal if you're going to get vaccinated against Covid anyway. Funding public transportation and using it more or walking? Lots of advantages to this, public transit is often easier and less of a hassle than driving and finding a place to park or paying for it, etc. and walking or biking as a way to get around instead of being imprisoned in your vehicle becomes quite enjoyable. Now on the other hand if you ask someone to go car-less entirely, well that's less common because that's a much bigger sacrifice and doesn't have as much of a benefit, hence why a lot of people are willing to do the more minor things above as a means to fight climate change but not get rid of their car. Similarly things like instituting Medicare for all might require higher taxes, but also saves on premiums and co-pays unless you're so rich that you're fine with all that, but then Medicare for all isn't a big inconvenience either in taxes.

Now the problem with a lot of "woke dogma" is it's not like this at all, it requires that you actually make a sacrifice with not much of a tangible benefit in return. For example, take some of the more extreme woke takes on the police. Liberals are horrified by police brutality and are totally fine with efforts to reign in abusive cops and hold them accountable (unlike conservatives), but look at some of the more extreme woke takes. Some activist types advocate that you never call the police and if you're suffering from theft or vandalism just basically take the L because calling the police could result in the death or serious injury to the person who wronged you, which is worse than what they did to you (also in the question of theft also accepting that "they probably need it more than you".) I've even seen some say that in things like auto theft where a police report is needed for an insurance claim to wait a couple hours to give the thieves a head start. Now it goes without saying how many people are willing to actually do this and favor the welfare of people who attack and rob them over their own personal property, hence calls for this sort of thing have largely faded. Also despite being an utterly fringe position with no support in the mainstream police abolition remains this for this reason since a lot of the activists calling for it basically make the naive argument that just using police budget on more social spending will end most crime but also admit that this will make a lot of middle class people maybe less safe but you have to accept and deal with that because you have privilege. And that doesn't go over well.

But look at more mild examples that don't even really involve policy but are more of a lifestyle change. "Examining" "genital preferences" in dating and looking at possibly moving past them? Yeah few people want to do that. Refusing to watch movies and TV shows that have "problematic" material in them? People don't want to do that, which is also why the right-wing equivalent against such "immoral" entertainment over the last few decades were also mostly complete failures and people kept watching such stuff. Avoiding "cultural appropriation" in your behavior and what you consume? Yeah just too much work especially with the extreme standards called on by Twitter types. Trying to view all behavior and examining and changing your own based on the sort of standards DiAngelo and Kendi often call for? Again a lot of work and also not even much payback, it's not like even your non-white friends will give you kudos for that or that most even care. What I've started calling in my head "musical wokeness" and the demand that you expand your tastes and be open to often maligned genres like rap and country? LOL no one's got time for that. Using gender-neutral language and some of the terms labeled "wokisms"? A smaller sacrifice than most things proposed, but since a lot of them just come across as weird and are often rejected by the people they're supposedly made to refer to it becomes a difficult sell. And I know someone's going to note that all of this kind of applies to me which is true...but do you honestly truly believe that the average middle-class Democratic voter disagrees with my attitude toward all this?

Now because of this you don't really see this sort of thing becoming a common behavior or adhered to outside of the extreme bubbles that have developed where this sort of stuff is common. And as I alluded to earlier I actually have an analogy that I have direct experience with but most people in greater society wouldn't: The hardcore/emo scene of the 90s through about the mid-00s. (Damn this would actually make a great thesis for Sociology or something, maybe I should go back to school!)

More specifically I'm talking about the prevalence of veganism and straight edge in that subculture and scene during that time, we got into a debate on a Facebook group about how Krishnacore tied into that and how it seems bizarre today and to younger kids but that's because Krisha was a religion based around veganism and straight edge principles so it's not surprising it'd appeal to kids into those things, now that veganism and straight edge are much less prominent in the scene it seems pretty strange to modern audiences who weren't around for that time.

Simply put during that time frame veganism and straight edge were big deals in the scene, there were a lot of vegan, straight edge or both bands, etc. And a lot of young kids adopted it too, due to the "bubble effect" and desire to fit in, the same reason why a lot of people also join religions like Mormons that require a fairly strong commitment. There was other high commitment stuff from the scene too, like how much time and money you'd spend going to shows, collecting vinyl, how this could impact your social life and actually make it difficult to fit in in "normie" circles due to being completely unfamiliar with mainstream music (something that I still have issues with today), etc. But that stuff at least had a trade off, it was fun and rewarding, it might take a lot of sacrifice to go to something like Dude Fest especially if you lived even further away from Indiana than I did, but the experience, the energy, dealing with the community and just having an all around amazing time for the weekend made it worth it. Now that's not to say that people didn't get rewards and fulfillment from being vegan or straight edge and that people still don't today, but it's obviously not like that for everyone, and both are pretty big commitments, especially being vegan. For that reason it's not too surprising to see how people fell out of it as they aged, like a poll in such a group showing that a majority of the group are ex-vegan/vegetarians, outnumbering both people who were never vegan or vegetarian (like me FYI) or still are combined. Straight edge was never as ubiquitous, but I bet there's more ex-straight edge people in the scene than there are straight edge people today (take the ironic example of the band Unbroken, whose name supposedly referred to their commitment to straight edge, yet today only one member still is.) Eventually avoiding the appeal of social drinking or taking a THC edible to mellow out beats out the silly in hindsight commitment you made at such a young age and you start doing such things, even if you stay away from hard drug abuse and binge drinking and the like. Similarly remaining vegan for life can be hard, maybe you'll try to limit meat consumption and stick to more "ethical" or "organic" examples but still, not vegan or vegetarian. Countless examples I know of anecdotally. Also commitment to such things falls along the wayside once you deal with adult problems, bills, work, starting and raising families, etc.

And for a notable very recent real life example: Look at the "zero Covid" push that's favored by the woke crowd at least on social media and people like Arthur Chu. The people who still think we should be wearing masks and avoiding public gatherings even if vaccinated. Liberals are fine with vaccine requirements because it's not really a sacrifice, we were going to get the vaccine anyway and having to show proof of that is a miniscule inconvenience. But wearing a mask and avoiding large gatherings? The former is annoying and the latter is for most people a PRETTY BIG sacrifice and that's why even in my uber-liberal city only about 15% of people are wearing masks now and music venues that I go to are packed like sardines inside. There's still a push by Twitter wokescolds to keep masking and avoid such places (although no longer Arthur Chu as he deleted his account about a week ago after a big fit apparently spawned by Elon Musk's purchase), but no one's listening to them even if they were sympathetic a year ago. Because we sacrificed and did the right thing (unlike the anti-vaxxers), so let's just live our lives now, we're not giving up any more. And thus why even Philadelphia repealed its reinstated mask mandate after just four days, even in such a city there wasn't the stomach for it or that sacrifice. For another example in a hyper-liberal city, look at the San Francisco School Board recalls, although that was admittedly a more complex issue with them...Chesa Boudin being recalled might be a more prominent such example because most people there see his policies as inconveniencing them and thus requiring sacrifice.

And that's why I think wokeness in it most distilled and controversial form as we see it today simply isn't sustainable long-term (with the fact that most "adherents" are pretty young also being a good analogy to the above one.) At the end of the day it's a movement based around asking people to sacrifice, and that's just not going to fly forever.

EDIT: That actually ended up being longer than I expected, but whatever, I think it needed to be said.

[lfromnj]

I read the words, emo in the first sentence and it seems like a long post by BRTD, so I am not sure if this is worth reading.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I read the words, emo in the first sentence and it seems like a long post by BRTD, so I am not sure if this is worth reading.

I actually think you'll like it and agree with it. Totally serious. Also it's not really related to emo much at, more something tangentially related to hardcore.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway the TL;DR is that unlike issues like supporting gay marriage wokeness actually requires personal sacrifice to adhere to similar to veganism and thus will not survive long term.

[ingemann]

I read the words, emo in the first sentence and it seems like a long post by BRTD, so I am not sure if this is worth reading.

It’s worth the read, it’s not revolutionary but I think it’s a good summary of existing socials trends and some very good conclusion of why some of them won’t last and other will.

[ingemann]

Anyway the TL;DR is that unlike issues like supporting gay marriage wokeness actually requires personal sacrifice to adhere to similar to veganism and thus will not survive long term.

I think the sacrifices in being a vegan is decreasing, more and more vegan products are entering the markets and while I’m not fan of the meat replacements, they’re still improving. It’s still a inferior to being vegetarian or flexitarian.

[Person Man]

Anyway the TL;DR is that unlike issues like supporting gay marriage wokeness actually requires personal sacrifice to adhere to similar to veganism and thus will not survive long term.

I mean, there’s sacrifice and then there’s sacrifice. In fact, this is what my department chair was telling me on FB about this stuff back  back in 2018.

[Velasco]

The post is too long, but anyway. I'd say some examples of extreme 'wokeness' cited by BRTD are already very marginal.  I don't know (or haven't noticed) anyone in my 'leftist bubble' (I mean friends and acquaintances who are left-wing) 'woke' enough to refrain him or herself to call the police when thieves beeak into his or her home, or willing to change "genital preferences" (ugh). I know people who is too 'woke', even for a sensitive leftist like me, but generally speaking, there is a limit to things defined by common sense.

On the other hand, I am all for LGTB+ inclussion and all against police brutality. The question is, why should I sacrifice myself in the way described above? Asking me to do such 'sacrifices' because of my beliefs would be as absurd as asking all leftists to live like beggars under a bridge, in the name of a misinterpreted ideological consistency.

Anyway I know people who is willing to make sacrifices like devoting time, energy and even money, in order to help others

[progressive85]

There's a few "woke" things I think are unnecessary or just plain dopey.  Like the pronouns.  I don't think most people need pronouns on their resumes or applications or in their emails.

If someone doesn't feel like a he or she, of course we should try to simply respect whatever name or pronoun they wish - but more importantly, embrace them as a person, and not as a thing.

"Woke" goes overboard, but it's weird - nobody can seem to define what "woke" is.  Is it just another word for that hated curse word "librul"?  idk.  

I'm not "woke" but I'm not a reactionary either.

Also these little issues are really dumb when there are much bigger issues like who's going to bed hungry or who's trying to afford to go back to school.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The post is too long, but anyway. I'd say some examples of extreme 'wokeness' cited by BRTD are already very marginal.  I don't know (or haven't noticed) anyone in my 'leftist bubble' (I mean friends and acquaintances who are left-wing) 'woke' enough to refrain him or herself to call the police when thieves beeak into his her home, or willing to change "genital preferences" (ugh). I know people who is too 'woke', even for a sensitive leftist like me, but generally speaking, there is a limit to things defined by common sense.

On the ither hand, I am all for LGTB+ inclussion and all against police brutality. The question is, why should I sacrifice myself in the way described above? Asking me to do such 'sacrifices' because of my beliefs would be as absurd as asking all leftists to live like beggars under a bridge, in the name of a misinterpreted ideological consistency.

Anyway I know people who is willing to make sacrifices like devoting time, energy and even money, in order to help others

Oh it's definitely a thing. Like there were flyers over my neighborhood promoting it and people screeching about not ever calling police on local social media and we even had a candidate for mayor endorsing that. Or "was" a thing since it kind of disappeared after the election although I'm sure you can find it on Twitter now because you can find any insane stuff there.

Here's another example I didn't mention because it was long enough already: there was a brief push on local social media to boycott any music shows if only white males (or even white cis people per some posts) were playing on the bill. Now it got like maybe eight people total on board and everyone was like "LOL no that's stupid" and thus it died out and went nowhere...but that too is a sacrifice. Refusing to see a band you really like just because they're all white and cis and all the openers are also white and cis just isn't something that people are willing to commit to.

[BlueSwan]

While I will readily agree that having to make a personal sacrifice makes support of a policy dwindle - just think of ACTUAL climate change combating policies - I don't think that is the main problem with extreme wokeness.

The main problem with extreme wokeness is that a lot of it is based on rejecting facts and making absolutely ludicrous proposals/demands.

Reforming police is a good idea. Abolishing police is just clearly a terrible idea.

"Cultural appropriation" is a real phenomenon, but it is not inherently bad, nor should you ever be prevented from enjoying culture that isn't your own. That is just ludicrous.

Structural/institutional racism is a real phenomenon, but the solution is NOT racial segregation/safe spaces or making wild claims about all whites being inherently racists and similar nonsense.

We should be accepting and inclusive of trans-people, but there ARE biological differences between males and females. Pretending otherwise does not make those differences disappear.

Actors by definition pretend to be someone they are not when they are doing their job. Demanding that actors should only portray people in life circumstances similar to their own is beyond ridiculous.

Just use the bathroom of your choice, please.

I could probably go on.

I have to say though, that as much as the extreme woke annoy me, their hearts are in the right place, they are just terribly misguided. And I would OBVIOUSLY rather have even the most hardcore of them in charge than *anyone* from the current iteration of the GQP. Let's make that perfectly clear.

[Velasco]

Oh it's definitely a thing. Like there were flyers over my neighborhood promoting it and people screeching about not ever calling police on local social media and we even had a candidate for mayor endorsing that. Or "was" a thing since it kind of disappeared after the election although I'm sure you can find it on Twitter now because you can find any insane stuff there.

Here's another example I didn't mention because it was long enough already: there was a brief push on local social media to boycott any music shows if only white males (or even white cis people per some posts) were playing on the bill. Now it got like maybe eight people total on board and everyone was like "LOL no that's stupid" and thus it died out and went nowhere...but that too is a sacrifice. Refusing to see a band you really like just because they're all white and cis and all the openers are also white and cis just isn't something that people are willing to commit to.

Oh sure, there's plenty of crazy stuff around there. Is it sratistically relevant, or revealing about major trends within the progressive crowd? I gather from your post it is not

We should be accepting and inclusive of trans-people, but there ARE biological differences between males and females. Pretending otherwise does not make those differences disappear.

I don't think inclusiveness is about denying biological differences between sexes ("male", "female" or "intersex"). It's more about being able to understand the difference between sex (biological) and gender (social, cultural), as well as accepting the existence of people whose gender identity is not coincident with their biological sex. Such people exist since the beginning of time, for whatever reason. Once you accept the FACT of their existence, it's a matter of respect treating them accordingly and not denying their gender identities ("man", "woman" or "nonbinary").


 

[BlueSwan]

I don't think inclusiveness is about denying biological differences between sexes ("male", "female" or "intersex"). It's more about being able to understand the difference between sex (biological) and gender (social, cultural), as well as accepting the existence of people whose gender identity is not coincident with their biological sex. Such people exist since the beginning of time, for whatever reason. Once you accept the FACT of their existence, it's a matter of respect treating them accordingly and not denying their gender identities ("man", "woman" or "nonbinary").

Well sure. But that is not the position of some of the more extreme people out there.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If one takes the idea that "wokism is a religion" seriously, then I don't think the idea that it makes too many demands on people to survive is viable. How many Christians fast for lent, or even secular Jews and Muslims keep dietary restrictions? To speak abstractly, if people ascribe value to particular behaviours and there is a social structure in place perpetuating it, it seems reasonable to me that said behaviours will continue. I don't think human beings are rational utility maximisers all the time.

[The Dowager Mod]

I'm too woke to be a mod apparently.

[ingemann]

If one takes the idea that "wokism is a religion" seriously, then I don't think the idea that it makes too many demands on people to survive is viable. How many Christians fast for lent, or even secular Jews and Muslims keep dietary restrictions? To speak abstractly, if people ascribe value to particular behaviours and there is a social structure in place perpetuating it, it seems reasonable to me that said behaviours will continue. I don't think human beings are rational utility maximisers all the time.

There will always be some, the question is how big that group will be long term and what rewards they get for their sacrifice. As example I think being vegan is a much more acceptable sacrifice, as most long term vegans learn how to keep their diet healthy and as reward they do get a more healthy lifestyle and a feeling of superiority. BTRD vegan example was short term vegans, who often run into problem because they haven’t learnt to keep their diet balanced or making good vegan food.

As such I think the aspect of wokeness which demand few personal sacrifices or are even beneficial will do better long term. Of course there’s also the Rowling effect, that people embrace woke ideology but tries to keep it consistent and suddenly run into the problem that they either have to radical shift their ideology or falling outside the woke Overton window. In some people this may result in them rethinking everything (while in Rowling case it resulted in her being radicalized on a specific issue), it’s likely why we saw so many old Trotskyist becoming Neo-Conservatives in the 90ties.

[DaleCooper]

I think the real reason why there's such a backlash is because the woke types have taken over big institutions not just in legacy media but also in new media, not to mention all sorts of other professional institutions. It's not just stupid blue checks on Twitter, or their faceless woke followers. There were plenty of embarrassing Mother Earth types back in the day that were hugging trees and screaming and demanding that everybody stop showering to save water, but they never ended up threatening the Democratic House majority. But now the white supremacy and gender talk is everywhere and you (yes you the person reading this) are personally responsible and if you complain about this stupid conversation being forced into irrelevant things, then you just might get fired. If this were just a bunch of stupid college students and the occasional goofy professor, and everybody with a common sense condemned it and made fun of it whenever it got out of hand, then it never would've become such a huge part of this miserable nightmare that we call American politics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If one takes the idea that "wokism is a religion" seriously, then I don't think the idea that it makes too many demands on people to survive is viable. How many Christians fast for lent, or even secular Jews and Muslims keep dietary restrictions? To speak abstractly, if people ascribe value to particular behaviours and there is a social structure in place perpetuating it, it seems reasonable to me that said behaviours will continue. I don't think human beings are rational utility maximisers all the time.

How many Christians fast for Lent? Honestly not a lot in the West, definitely a minority. But despite that I think a key difference is those rules are more laid out and cut and dry, woke "rules" are always debated and often even contradictory depending on who you ask, see how some people insisted "womxn" was a proper more inclusive spelling while others insisted it's nasty and transphobic, the second camp.has basically won out now but there was a couple years of ambiguity on that. Also are interracial relationships woke and inclusive or problematic? Again different answers. So only a certain type of extremely online person can keep track and keep adhering and unsurprisingly these are almost exclusively people below college grad age with way too much time on their hands.

[RINO Tom]

I’ll read this on my plane tomorrow, but Wokeism will fail for two reasons:

1) There’s no ideological or philosophical coherence underpinning it to give it an actual structure … it’s literally mob rule.  An extremist group of people laughably outside the mainstream decide they hate something, protest it, “cancel it” and move on to the next thing because their identity is tied up in this behavior.  There’s no end goal, and they’re actually proud of that.  Literal cultural Marxism.

2) They continue to make more and more enemies, because fewer and fewer people are “good enough” by the ever-changing standards.  We are within a decade or two of mainstream Democrats no longer being so afraid of these freaks’ influence that they have to keep up this pandering bullshlt.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I’ll read this on my plane tomorrow, but Wokeism will fail for two reasons:

1) There’s no ideological or philosophical coherence underpinning it to give it an actual structure … it’s literally mob rule.  An extremist group of people laughably outside the mainstream decide they hate something, protest it, “cancel it” and move on to the next thing because their identity is tied up in this behavior.  There’s no end goal, and they’re actually proud of that.  Literal cultural Marxism.

2) They continue to make more and more enemies, because fewer and fewer people are “good enough” by the ever-changing standards.  We are within a decade or two of mainstream Democrats no longer being so afraid of these freaks’ influence that they have to keep up this pandering bullshlt.

A lot more recent than a decade or two.

[America Needs R'hllor]

"Wokeness" or "wokeism" isn't a coherent thing anymore. It's a label conservatives plaster on things, very successfully I might add, to justify their fight to preserve oppressive social hierarchies or drag society back to old hierarchies weakened by progressive movements.

Sure, what you, BRTD, a liberal and decent person, view as "wokeness", this buzzword or that, might not survive long-term. But nobody serious cares about whether you say "latinx" or "pregnant bodies" or whatever. The bulk of what conservatives call "woke" is just respect for other humans. They use all the extremist ridiculous buzzwords as a cudgel for their real goals that we can watch them achieving right now, whether by criminalizing trans people and those that aid them, or attempting to prevent the next generation from accepting gay people, or taking women's rights back.

Whether it's fighting sexual assault or respecting LGBTQ individuals and their identities, these are the real things that are here to stay and definitely don't demand anyone to make any real sacrifice (and those that claim it is are just not decent human beings).

[America Needs R'hllor]

I’ll read this on my plane tomorrow, but Wokeism will fail for two reasons:

1) There’s no ideological or philosophical coherence underpinning it to give it an actual structure … it’s literally mob rule.  An extremist group of people laughably outside the mainstream decide they hate something, protest it, “cancel it” and move on to the next thing because their identity is tied up in this behavior.  There’s no end goal, and they’re actually proud of that.  Literal cultural Marxism.

2) They continue to make more and more enemies, because fewer and fewer people are “good enough” by the ever-changing standards.  We are within a decade or two of mainstream Democrats no longer being so afraid of these freaks’ influence that they have to keep up this pandering bullshlt.

By the way, since you have a reputation for being socially moderate, I'm curious what you'll answer to this simple binary question:
Who is worse on social issues, the "woke mob", "Wokeism", "cultural marxists" etc, or the mainstream of your party? 99% of your party currntly working to ban abortions? Members of your party trying to delegitimize homosexuality by adding a special warning to TV content with gay people, including Senators I'm sure you supported such as Mike Lee, Mike Braun and Steve Daines? State parties trying to criminalize trans people and anyone who helps them, such as Texas' GOP legislature and Governor that I'm pretty certain you support and caused this? Who's doing more damage to people according to your principles, "Wokeism" or these people?

[Red Velvet]

One of the problem of the woke is acting like minorities should want to behave like their oppressors. For a movement that rhetorically pretends to be so in defense of minorities, the way they portray those groups according to their limited definitions and childish notions of “saviors” is by itself something that appeals more to the oppressors who feel guilt instead of being a grassroots movement driven by actual minorities.

So much to the point we always see these white anglo christian wokesters lecturing actual minorities for being “too radical, savage and dirty” when they actually push for meaningful change or when they refuse to behave according to their imperialistic views disguised as “welcoming behavior that embraces everyone”.

People are different and that’s okay. I see some Afro-Brazilians intelectuals bring up how mislead it is to believe it’s “empowering” for media to represent black people with the same coding that is historically given to white people. She said it’s something that stimulates putting white standards and parameters as the goal to be reached for a perceived fake sense of “equality”, which why people would even WANT to reach or follow that, when the white standard isn’t even desirable, or at least it shouldn’t be.

I was thinking about that argument and it’s something that I feel like every minority group can relate in some way. Which no wonder the most radical wokesters are actually the oppressor trying to “use” minority fights in order to maintain their perceived sense of moral superiority that is inherently anti-revolutionary and repressive to minorities.

For example, why do gays want to marry in church when that is an institution that historically oppresses them? Why is it important to belong in an institution that looks down on them when you can create your own rituals where you are welcomed instead of emulating heterosexual-normalized behavior?

If I get married one day as the gay man I am, I don’t want to get married in church at all because those rituals codings are inherently against what I want to celebrate. It’s like, as if I was trying to affirm my existence through the approval of people I shouldn’t care about and that I really don’t.

A real fight I could get behind is unstimulating the spread of religion, Christianity all together because it’s something inherently oppressive to me. Wokesters instead will celebrate gays behaving like heterosexuals though, because they already have it in their mind that gays should even WANT to be like that. While people should have the right to be whatever the want, I think it’s a dangerous message to suggest that it’s more desirable or more moral to behave in a certain way.

There’s a reason why these wokesters are compared to the religious bigots in the sense they try to force a moral authority that doesn’t exist. They’re like the hard religious conservatives kidnapping a cause to convince others they’re a superior entity because of it.

[Red Velvet]

Basically, the message behind the “woke” is always “Let’s bring these people to the same standard that everyone is in”, assuming that this standard is even desirable or superior in any way.

It isn’t and actually creates more damage to actual movements driven by minorities. I don’t want to be a gay behaving through an heterosexual mold in order to be accepted lmao.

Problem is when these people manage to fool others with their rhetoric, because they manage to convince them that they should behave in a certain way, reinforcing the idea of existing a correct standard to be followed.

[RINO Tom]

I’ll read this on my plane tomorrow, but Wokeism will fail for two reasons:

1) There’s no ideological or philosophical coherence underpinning it to give it an actual structure … it’s literally mob rule.  An extremist group of people laughably outside the mainstream decide they hate something, protest it, “cancel it” and move on to the next thing because their identity is tied up in this behavior.  There’s no end goal, and they’re actually proud of that.  Literal cultural Marxism.

2) They continue to make more and more enemies, because fewer and fewer people are “good enough” by the ever-changing standards.  We are within a decade or two of mainstream Democrats no longer being so afraid of these freaks’ influence that they have to keep up this pandering bullshlt.

By the way, since you have a reputation for being socially moderate, I'm curious what you'll answer to this simple binary question:
Who is worse on social issues, the "woke mob", "Wokeism", "cultural marxists" etc, or the mainstream of your party? 99% of your party currntly working to ban abortions? Members of your party trying to delegitimize homosexuality by adding a special warning to TV content with gay people, including Senators I'm sure you supported such as Mike Lee, Mike Braun and Steve Daines? State parties trying to criminalize trans people and anyone who helps them, such as Texas' GOP legislature and Governor that I'm pretty certain you support and caused this? Who's doing more damage to people according to your principles, "Wokeism" or these people?

I don’t think this is actually apples to oranges.  The only reason these woke extremists have a shred of capability is because of how militant the GOP base has become, and they become more militant with each crazier cultural idea completely ignorant of history, culture or tradition that the far left comes up with.  Long term?  Honestly, I probably find the far left more dangerous, as (like I said) I really do not believe they have any interest in ever resting easy … an achieved goal is nearly immediately replaced with a new, more extreme one.  I think the current GOP is a more tumultuous and disturbing force right now simply due to its bigger numbers/wider appeal and better cohesion, but I also think that is because the “mainstream Democrats” have been given a brief credibility as the “sane alternative” - a situation they have completely misinterpreted as social Wokeism being even remotely appeal to practically anyone, and I suspect the inmates will be running the asylum in a decade or two before it all crashes down.