4 ms·

That all seems like a fair representation of his positions, but I don't agree with your analysis of them. I do agree that individualism is important to liberty

That all seems like a fair representation of his positions, but I don't agree with your analysis of them. I do agree that individualism is important to liberty, but I can't connect your dots. Wokism is collectivism, as you seem to recognize. But how is his message of being anti-woke also collectivism? I don't get that leap.

EthanHeilman 3y ago
An issue here is that wokism is a term used as an insult by the antiwoke but not a term of self-description. So wokism is defined by the people against it and this leads to it being anything conservatives don't like as understood by conservatives. Most of what the anti-woke hate about wokism, is wokisms argument that individuals should be allowed to define their own identity. For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to allow individuals to define their own gender identity. Or consider the case of gay marriage, the argument against it that you can't let individuals decide how to understand their own relationships or else it undermines the collective authority of society over individuals.
- dj_rappist 3y ago
  > For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to allow individuals to define their own gender identity. That some people believe in the concept of 'gender identity' and define it for themselves is not a problem in itself. Essentially, this is covered under freedom of religion, a widely accepted human right. The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. A man who declares himself to have a 'female gender identity' will typically want this declaration to grant him access to female-only spaces. Naturally, this is opposed by anyone who wants women's spaces to remain male-free. As this has such widespread impact and is effectively a top-down reorganization of society that disadvantages women in favor of a subset of men, it's become a hot-button political issue for this reason, particularly amongst feminists.
  - EthanHeilman 3y ago
    > The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. You objection is that that individual is defining how the collective treats the individual. You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective.
    - dj_rappist 3y ago
      > You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective. The collective in this case is women, and the individuals are those men who desire to be women, or call themselves women. These men are attempting, for their own gratification, to undermine the well-established collective rights of women, particularly regarding female-only spaces. So yes, I would much rather these men abide by the rules of the collective, and stop trying to impose themselves on women's spaces, and refrain from forcing everyone to accept their belief that they are women simply because they say they are.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      By definition, identity is something that other people use to refer to you. You can invent all the personal identities you like if you just use them when referring to yourself. The moment what other people do comes into question then it's not about the individual anymore.
      - EthanHeilman 3y ago
        It is about respecting the individuals wishes. Consider a more general case than gender, as the gender debate has been so poisoned by right wing attempts to turn it into a wedge issue it is difficult to discuss without a bigger discussion of sex, gender, society and biology. Let's say someone's legal name is Robert. They deeply dislike the name Robert and prefer to be called Bob. Should they legally be allowed to change their name to Bob? Is the authority of the label Robert on their birth certificate greater than the authority of an individual to name themselves? Taking this out of the realm of law and into the more murky area of social dynamics. Lets say Bob asks people in their workplace to call them Bob, but everyone in their workplace calls Bob, Robert instead. In doing so they are not being respectful of an individual. While all groups are made of individuals, the question here is should the individual be able to determine the name they are called or should a collective group decide it for them? I would take Bob's side and say that his coworkers are being shitty. There are some interesting cases here. Fighter pilots don't get to choose their call signs. Instead they are given by the other pilots and often refers to something they messed up. The authority of the call sign comes from group consensus not individual wishes.

EthanHeilman 3y ago

An issue here is that wokism is a term used as an insult by the antiwoke but not a term of self-description. So wokism is defined by the people against it and this leads to it being anything conservatives don't like as understood by conservatives. Most of what the anti-woke hate about wokism, is wokisms argument that individuals should be allowed to define their own identity. For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to allow individuals to define their own gender identity. Or consider the case of gay marriage, the argument against it that you can't let individuals decide how to understand their own relationships or else it undermines the collective authority of society over individuals.

dj_rappist 3y ago
> For instance pronouns: antiwokism wants to have society at large decide what someone's pronouns are and are upset that people they describe as "woke" want to allow individuals to define their own gender identity. That some people believe in the concept of 'gender identity' and define it for themselves is not a problem in itself. Essentially, this is covered under freedom of religion, a widely accepted human right. The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. A man who declares himself to have a 'female gender identity' will typically want this declaration to grant him access to female-only spaces. Naturally, this is opposed by anyone who wants women's spaces to remain male-free. As this has such widespread impact and is effectively a top-down reorganization of society that disadvantages women in favor of a subset of men, it's become a hot-button political issue for this reason, particularly amongst feminists.
- EthanHeilman 3y ago
  > The problem is that many of those who hold such beliefs want everyone else to use 'gender identity' in lieu of sex, and lobby for law and policy to be changed so this is enforced. You objection is that that individual is defining how the collective treats the individual. You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective.
  - dj_rappist 3y ago
    > You would rather than individual must play by the rules of the collective. The collective in this case is women, and the individuals are those men who desire to be women, or call themselves women. These men are attempting, for their own gratification, to undermine the well-established collective rights of women, particularly regarding female-only spaces. So yes, I would much rather these men abide by the rules of the collective, and stop trying to impose themselves on women's spaces, and refrain from forcing everyone to accept their belief that they are women simply because they say they are.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    By definition, identity is something that other people use to refer to you. You can invent all the personal identities you like if you just use them when referring to yourself. The moment what other people do comes into question then it's not about the individual anymore.
    - EthanHeilman 3y ago
      It is about respecting the individuals wishes. Consider a more general case than gender, as the gender debate has been so poisoned by right wing attempts to turn it into a wedge issue it is difficult to discuss without a bigger discussion of sex, gender, society and biology. Let's say someone's legal name is Robert. They deeply dislike the name Robert and prefer to be called Bob. Should they legally be allowed to change their name to Bob? Is the authority of the label Robert on their birth certificate greater than the authority of an individual to name themselves? Taking this out of the realm of law and into the more murky area of social dynamics. Lets say Bob asks people in their workplace to call them Bob, but everyone in their workplace calls Bob, Robert instead. In doing so they are not being respectful of an individual. While all groups are made of individuals, the question here is should the individual be able to determine the name they are called or should a collective group decide it for them? I would take Bob's side and say that his coworkers are being shitty. There are some interesting cases here. Fighter pilots don't get to choose their call signs. Instead they are given by the other pilots and often refers to something they messed up. The authority of the call sign comes from group consensus not individual wishes.