USA Today published an odd story claiming the majority of Americans have a favorable view of the term “woke.” The editors were kind enough to offer a blanket warning to Republicans that attacking such a favorably viewed term may be a bad idea. However, the problem for USA Today is this poll was conducted online by voluntary participants. The statistical significance of this is akin to posting a question to your buddies on Facebook and inferring the data on the country as a whole.
This is on point for why you should revisit the Scott Adams thing and understand the full context of matter.
Listen to Scott’s interviews with Jesus Hotep or the more recent one with Chris Cuomo.
You were perplexed about why Scott would say something so racially provocative. You were openly troubled given what you knew of him. That feeling SHOULD have guided you to seeking more understanding before speaking on it. Had you done your homework, listened to the full context of the podcast or his subsequent interview with Hotep Jesus instead of relying on media representations and the selective editing of his comments, you would have had been less condemning and seen common ground with one who is perhaps the most influential contributor in the area of personal growth and success.
So, please do your audience the courtesy of revisiting the matter with a clear understanding of what Scott was trying to do and his reframing of the how we should be dealing with racism. I agree with Cuomo, this is exactly the conversation we need to be having. Conservatives and, more importantly, all America can win when we take these steps.
You might not go so far as to agree openly with Scott’s hyperbolic comment nor even call for his un-cancelation. That is okay. It's unnecessary and, more importantly I think misses the point. Not even Scott is sorry his Dilbert strip was canceled. For him, it was worth the price for gaining free speech.
This might also be why you sensed some level of martyrdom in Scott’s actions. You might not be wrong. But that feeling should have also drove you to seeking more understanding before parroting misleading media representations. You have no excuse falling for that propaganda. I don't know why did. I can't read minds. If I were to guess, it was because the narrative painted by the media was a high-ground argument that aligned with your values and enabled you to score points with big media and everyone else who didn't understand the context and the greater issue. But, in doing so, you missed golden opportunity to really make a difference.
Scott’s response to all this wokism stuff is to point out the absurdity of it and teach how backward-looking it is. This is why his Dilbert cartoon has been so popular with professionals over 30 years -- young and old alike. He often uses hyperbole to draw attention to broken things (a technique Trump has also used to great effect). If all you’re focused on is the hyperbole, you’re missing a great big reservoir in persuasion. All the politics aside, this is the mistake many Trump critics make and a main reason for TDS. Adams, like Trump, is drawing your attention with to the issue using hyperbole so we WILL talk about it constructively and start thinking past the sale to forward-looking solutions.
Hyperbole is a tool to help get the process of critical thinking going. It stirs the pot. When one learns to feel the energy hyperbole causes, it moves us to action and releases us to think openly and see the field as it is seen by others as well as a host of other costs and benefits. Critical thinking is a skill. But some people are trapped in a bubble of bias and cognitive dissonance on an issue. Hyperbole can burst the bubble. We all do it trying to make a point. Those still trapped in bias and cognitive dissonance reveal it by attacking the hyperbole or the person who said it, but not the underlying argument itself.
For what it’s worth, Scott admits the reaction was stronger than he anticipated. He did not expect cancellation of his Dilbert strip. Nor is he complaining. He accomplished his objective by drawing attention to how broken things are with regard to how we’re tackling racism in America -- if you will hear the context. Context ALWAYS matters. On these two points, I am certain the two of you would agree.
But we need to stop throwing around the term so indiscriminately to label anything to the left of us. We risk alienating more moderate liberals if we lump everything they support in with the "woke" progressives. Just like many moderate conservative get offended when we are lumped in with the more radical on the right.
Woke is racist. DEI is racist. The source of this neoracism is the education system that is dominated by radical postmodernist feminists, that have injected this critical theory fake scholarship as an ideology into the heads of millions of students that have been hired by government, private industry and non-profits. And those people are in positions now where they are pushing the ideology onto the public.
I do know that much of the corporate layoffs are a woke purge. Frankly the employees infected with the woke mind virus are toxic. They infect the workplace and lower productivity. Elon Musk got the ball rolling on that.
But the problem I see is that rank and file coastal and city liberal progressives have adopted the woke cause because they see it benefiting their politics. They like the power it gives them to character assassinate their political opposition. My approach to this is to label them as racist. John McWhorter has done us a favor here with his book "Woke Racism" thus backing that claim.
I think that is the way we make it go away. The draw is some luxury virtue signaling of advocacy to groups claimed oppressed by racism... but woke is just another attempt to use racism to oppress groups. So a unified labeling of all woke followers as racists will destroy the virtue benefit and should at least cause the liberal progressives to start signaling opposition to woke.
Once upon a time (not so long ago), to be “woke” was a compliment recognizing an awareness of and respect for differences between black and white cultures. Words used to mean things; now words are weaponized to mean whatever group speaking wants them to mean.
This is on point for why you should revisit the Scott Adams thing and understand the full context of matter.
Listen to Scott’s interviews with Jesus Hotep or the more recent one with Chris Cuomo.
You were perplexed about why Scott would say something so racially provocative. You were openly troubled given what you knew of him. That feeling SHOULD have guided you to seeking more understanding before speaking on it. Had you done your homework, listened to the full context of the podcast or his subsequent interview with Hotep Jesus instead of relying on media representations and the selective editing of his comments, you would have had been less condemning and seen common ground with one who is perhaps the most influential contributor in the area of personal growth and success.
So, please do your audience the courtesy of revisiting the matter with a clear understanding of what Scott was trying to do and his reframing of the how we should be dealing with racism. I agree with Cuomo, this is exactly the conversation we need to be having. Conservatives and, more importantly, all America can win when we take these steps.
You might not go so far as to agree openly with Scott’s hyperbolic comment nor even call for his un-cancelation. That is okay. It's unnecessary and, more importantly I think misses the point. Not even Scott is sorry his Dilbert strip was canceled. For him, it was worth the price for gaining free speech.
This might also be why you sensed some level of martyrdom in Scott’s actions. You might not be wrong. But that feeling should have also drove you to seeking more understanding before parroting misleading media representations. You have no excuse falling for that propaganda. I don't know why did. I can't read minds. If I were to guess, it was because the narrative painted by the media was a high-ground argument that aligned with your values and enabled you to score points with big media and everyone else who didn't understand the context and the greater issue. But, in doing so, you missed golden opportunity to really make a difference.
Scott’s response to all this wokism stuff is to point out the absurdity of it and teach how backward-looking it is. This is why his Dilbert cartoon has been so popular with professionals over 30 years -- young and old alike. He often uses hyperbole to draw attention to broken things (a technique Trump has also used to great effect). If all you’re focused on is the hyperbole, you’re missing a great big reservoir in persuasion. All the politics aside, this is the mistake many Trump critics make and a main reason for TDS. Adams, like Trump, is drawing your attention with to the issue using hyperbole so we WILL talk about it constructively and start thinking past the sale to forward-looking solutions.
Hyperbole is a tool to help get the process of critical thinking going. It stirs the pot. When one learns to feel the energy hyperbole causes, it moves us to action and releases us to think openly and see the field as it is seen by others as well as a host of other costs and benefits. Critical thinking is a skill. But some people are trapped in a bubble of bias and cognitive dissonance on an issue. Hyperbole can burst the bubble. We all do it trying to make a point. Those still trapped in bias and cognitive dissonance reveal it by attacking the hyperbole or the person who said it, but not the underlying argument itself.
For what it’s worth, Scott admits the reaction was stronger than he anticipated. He did not expect cancellation of his Dilbert strip. Nor is he complaining. He accomplished his objective by drawing attention to how broken things are with regard to how we’re tackling racism in America -- if you will hear the context. Context ALWAYS matters. On these two points, I am certain the two of you would agree.
But we need to stop throwing around the term so indiscriminately to label anything to the left of us. We risk alienating more moderate liberals if we lump everything they support in with the "woke" progressives. Just like many moderate conservative get offended when we are lumped in with the more radical on the right.
My kids call them “Wokies”.
Yes, spot on. Republicans need to focus on this instead of the insane, radical, anti-American candidates the GOP keeps putting into elections!
Woke is racist. DEI is racist. The source of this neoracism is the education system that is dominated by radical postmodernist feminists, that have injected this critical theory fake scholarship as an ideology into the heads of millions of students that have been hired by government, private industry and non-profits. And those people are in positions now where they are pushing the ideology onto the public.
I do know that much of the corporate layoffs are a woke purge. Frankly the employees infected with the woke mind virus are toxic. They infect the workplace and lower productivity. Elon Musk got the ball rolling on that.
But the problem I see is that rank and file coastal and city liberal progressives have adopted the woke cause because they see it benefiting their politics. They like the power it gives them to character assassinate their political opposition. My approach to this is to label them as racist. John McWhorter has done us a favor here with his book "Woke Racism" thus backing that claim.
I think that is the way we make it go away. The draw is some luxury virtue signaling of advocacy to groups claimed oppressed by racism... but woke is just another attempt to use racism to oppress groups. So a unified labeling of all woke followers as racists will destroy the virtue benefit and should at least cause the liberal progressives to start signaling opposition to woke.
Once upon a time (not so long ago), to be “woke” was a compliment recognizing an awareness of and respect for differences between black and white cultures. Words used to mean things; now words are weaponized to mean whatever group speaking wants them to mean.