The America Medical and Psychological Associations are woke

Post Reply New Topic

"Woke" is partly defined as a hyperfocus on group identity. That is what these statements do. They do not mention socioeconomic status or other factors at all.

https://cathy.arcdigital.media/p/defining-wokeness

It's not hyperfocus. Its about adhering to ethical conduct in healthcare. I have worked in hospitals and provision of healthcare services is long known not to be equal (based on SES, race, culture etc) which has immediate impact on people's health and/or quality of life.

Bringing wokeness into discussion of healthcare parity is utterly irrelevant.

I posit you have some advantage on matters of American law over me but leave adult discussion of health and education to those of with university degrees/and or have worked in healthcare.

Tell me you didn't read the link without telling me you didn't read the link...

I already said "wokeness" doesn't apply in healthcare

And? You have no credibility, I mean even beyond normal internet randos, I don't think you even know what woke means (which, if you'd read the link, you might have a better idea of).

at the facade/ excuse my french, only at face-value

they're the source of demonic posturing--
growth, gdp by any means necessairy
where there's little growth lets make the incapacitate productive consumers
by force or by law- by hook or by crook

putting perfectly healthy (-ish) people on lifelong medication
what could go wrong?

jump ten years back, the most abusive/polluters have little chance at those greenwash-goals
but shiver not, the wordfairy is nearby, diversity-diversify when all clumps together
who (excuse) rewards the bigbro's
ah big daddy can do
social engeneering



((did you know, no ofcourse not, the story of bernard kouchner- the so-famous- dr of international docters, who got rather illustrous while med dumping in africa and other strikken regions, check!- "helping" ukraine too
guess one can't turn a blind eye when a moneytap is running somewhere, sorry for the blamefree english wiki page
in septisized fr-short;

Controverses et scandales

4.1 Abaissement de la majorité sexuelle (1977)
4.2 Le rapport sur les activités de Total en Birmanie (2003)
4.3 Chant pour l’intégration avec Muhabbet (2007)
4.4 Le livre de Péan (2009)
4.5 Soutien à Roman Polanski
4.6 Trafic d’organes au Kosovo ( UN Representative in Kosovo, 1999–2001 < organ-trafficking )
(in engl; Later, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Pristina for his services to Kosovo.)

This deserves its own thread but II fear those promoting "wokeness" as a sold concept fail to see the intent behind their opposition to actions they consider woke and the intention of those who promote social activism.

One simple example is comedian Dave Chapelle and author JK Rowling who both strong supporters of BLM (Chapelle is also black and a muslim) and so technically should be woke according to right wingers. But both of them have gotten into massive trouble with the LGBTQI community for making transphobic comments (Chapelle has notoriously declared war on the trans community with his comedy specials). Suddenly the right consider them as flag bearers in the war against wokeness,

This is a bit of a confused sentence, I'll wait for you to clarify.



You still don't seem to grasp what woke means, it certainly doesn't mean "minorities who support BLM", it's a very specific worldview, as laid out in the link.
Chappelle and Rowling are not transphobic, they're just not toeing the woke line and are powerful enough as celebrities to get away with it, despite the best efforts of the woke. Their opinions are completely anodyne and mainstream, it is actually the woke perspective that is radical and held by a tiny minority of very loud people. No one on the right thinks they're in any way right wing, they just appreciate them as liberals who are drawing a line when it comes to the woke insanity. Rowling's "offense" is believing there is a difference between trans woman and biological women (which is scientifically indisputable), and Chappelle's is that he doesn't give trans people special treatment when it comes to making jokes about them, as he does about virtually every other group. What the woke want is essentially thought control, which is totalitarian, to say the least.

No, Rowling's offense is making up reasons to hate trans people that don't fit the data or make logical sense.

Rowling believes that trans women (MtF), or men pretending to be trans women, are going to sexually assault cis women in women's bathrooms and other women-specific spaces, such as women's prisons. Statistically speaking, trans women are at much higher risk of being sexually assaulted, especially when forced into men's spaces, while having rates of committing sexual assault that are on par with cis women. Meanwhile, cis men are unlikely to want to experience daily misgendering and unwanted permanent changes to their body just for the opportunity to rape women in more situations than they already can, and most of those women's spaces already allow men who are working in specific careers - janitors for bathrooms, prison guards in prisons, etc - to enter. If a man is going to enter those spaces to assault women, he'll do so either by getting or faking having a job that means he's allowed there, not by disguising his gender.

Rowling also believes that trans women are dominating women's sports. There's no evidence of this - there are trans women competing professionally against cis women, and none of them have won medals so far. Medically speaking, the advantage cis men have over cis women in some sports (there are also sports that cis women have an advantage in) is because of the impact of testosterone on the ability to build and maintain muscle. The hormone replacement therapy regimen for trans women includes testosterone blockers, which result in them having testosterone levels equivalent to cis women, and this is reflected in changes to their musculature. Meanwhile, forcing trans people to compete according to birth sex means having trans men (FtM) competing against cis women, and trans men's treatment involves taking testosterone. There have been several incidences of trans men winning easily in competitions against cis women, because they have male-typical testosterone levels. So Rowling's approach actually creates the problem it's supposed to solve.

People have pointed these facts out, but Rowling doesn't care about facts. It's about hatred, not logic.

Given that in today's Google age, one can even find a thousand sites "proving" that the earth is flat, it's hardly impressive or significant that someone found a page that defined "woke" however they wanted it defined. In other words, you haven't proved what "woke" means, all you've done is illustrate that Cathy Young (whoever that rando-nobody is) happens to have an opinion similar to yours.

OTOH, here's a simple succinct definition of "woke", from Oxford Languages

woke
/wōk/

adjectiveINFORMAL•US

alert to injustice in society, especially racism.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

In order to avoid the inconvenience of having to be aware of or acknowledge the existence of injustice, it's far easier to pretend it isn't actually unjust, by inventing reasons that justify it. Rather than confront the skeleton in the closet that POC were intentionally held back for decades upon decades, even after they were "freed" and made "equal", it's easier to just pretend that they're just lazy and don't want to try as hard, and downplay the margin to which they were disadvantaged. It absolves you of the responsibility to do the right thing, and give them some of the perks that were denied them previously, that were supposedly for ALL americans.

Just cos you're not the judge that wrongly imprisoned someone doesn't mean you don't have the moral obligation to exonerate and free them as soon as you learn of their innocence. Just cos you're not the manager that underpaid the employees or denied them certain benefits doesn't mean you don't have an obligation as the current manager to give them what they're owed.

When america was prospering and the middle class was built, the same programs that created it were typically unilaterally denied to POC. The generational wealth that was created during and since that time was also thusly denied to the families of the POC who were initially, and continually denied access to these programs.

Not just generational wealth, but generational EDUCATION. People today still seem to believe that POC just "aren't as smart". Well gee. For the first hundred or so years they were in america, we would literally beat them for even attempting to learn, or even appearing to be smart. Even after they were "freed", they still couldn't attend school, and were often beaten or killed if they tried to learn. Even when they were given (separate but "equal") schools, the schools were often burned, and the students were often attacked. Even when they weren't they didn't have the resources of "other" schools. Even when POC were admitted to the same schools as whites, they were attacked, killed for being educated, given fewer resources, etc. And even today, minority heavy schools in minority neighborhoods are often told that their under-performance is why they get their budget cut - but never in history has performance improved with fewer necessary resources - it's always "the kids aren't smart" and never "you aren't giving them the resources to succeed".

We spent 200 years beating them for displaying intelligence and at least 100 years denying them any semblance of education. And then we tell ourselves that they're just "not as smart". FUNNY THAT.

Just cos YOU PERSONALLY didn't do the racism, doesn't mean a lot of people aren't still owed a lot of things, and doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. But its far easier to simply pretend it isn't real.

It makes me laugh when people say, seriously, that "if we stopped bringing race up, people wouldn't be so concerned with it!" - it's like they think people would totally NEVER notice that people have differences if we didn't point them out first - as if the difference in skin color between two people is ONLY visible is someone points it out first. "Hey did you know that Jamal has brown skin, but Steve has pink skin, and Donovan has really dark skin?"

Racists want people to "stop bringing up race" the same way that abusive people want you to "stop bringing up the past". By denying the ability to talk about it, they prevent the ability to point it out or do anything about it.

Being forbidden to mention or bring up race in no way prevents a racist from simply treating other races like sh!t, so long as they don't MENTION race - which most racists won't do anyways, cos then it's obvious they're being racist, and they can't deny it any longer.

So now Mr Racist can treat his black employees worse, and be mean to minorities in general, so long as he doesn't mention race - but now if anyone tries to call him out on it, THEY'RE in the "wrong" for (accurately) mentioning race as a factor.

"Colorblind" or "I don't see color" seems to actually mean "I refuse to see that color could be a factor at play here, and will look for other excuses to blame this on".

Racists also seem to lurk behind the notion that "It can't be racist if it's true!", failing to realize that just cos you believe it and convinced yourself of it doesn't mean it is in fact actually true. People believe incorrect things all the time.

As relates to the actual topic at hand, re: the AMA and "wokeness" -

When the medical field fails to diagnose a minority child with something like autism or dyslexia or w/e simply because the diagnostician genuinely believes that black people just are naturally more stupid, and therefore the learning deficiencies are "normal for a black person", harm is being done.

When a POC is denied the same treatment that others would get, because the book the clinician learned from TOLD them that "POC are more likely to exaggerate their discomfort, but physically feel less pain that others", harm is being done.

By prohibiting the ability to call out race and racism, it completely kneecaps the ability to call out these various flavors of bullsh!t. Sweep it under the rug, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, stop questioning things and don't shine light on it, just pretend it doesn't exist, and keep staying the course, don't rock the boat. It's like "ending homelessness" by forbidding people from calling homeless people "homeless", and implying that they all CHOSE to be on the street.

Racism doesn't happen just cos you mention that someone else is a different color. Racism comes from the assumed characteristics of a race. You're not racist for noticing that Leeroy is black. You're not racist for talking about the fact that Leeroy is black. The instant you start making assumptions ABOUT Leeroy, due to him being black, now you're encroaching or racist territory.

"But CRT assumes all white people are racist!"

Riiiiiight... I'm sure Google can find no shortage of pages who CLAIM that that's the case, but - how was it put earlier, "tell me you didn't read it without telling me you didn't read it" - until I'm shown actual proof of this in the actual things being taught, and not just claims and suppositions about theories of opinions assumed to be real, im going to assume it's just people speaking from ignorance.

Being told that I should believe the words of another, and then being expected to "do my own research" to prove the opinion that you're trying to sell me on, is like asking me to do your homework FOR you - and it's also like demanding that someone help you find your lost cat, but you refuse to tell them what the cat looks like, or to even help them look for it.

If you actually READ some CRT literature, you'd notice that it says culture can have racism embedded into it, and as such, by no intention of the individual, racist beliefs can still be internalized as "truth" among the population. This can exist in any nation or population, and the only reason the american CRT curriculum focuses on america is cos it's being taught in america, so, directly relevant - though other nations are discussed as well.

CRT does not "assume all white people are racist". It DOES make note of all the racist ideas embedded in american society, and points out who they are targeted to. When an all white neighborhood with all white kids goes to an all white school, and the only exposure they have to POC is movies and TV shows and cartoons that portray them a certain way, whether they meant to or not, that's going to become what they believe POC are. After 18+ years of that, any POC they meet that don't fit that profile are going to be seen as exceptions to the rule.

Of course, people who don't like hearing this will shortly shake their heads like an etch-a-sketch and erase it from memory, and go back to squawking the same sound bites over and over again, as though this hasn't already been pointed out a thousand times.

@Dox47

I'm afraid you are falling into a trap that you (and most on the right) have deliberately designed for yourself,

You benefit from making wokenbess into an "imprecise" and (based on your views on Chapelle and Rowling) fluid concept,

I don't claim to be an expert on how the right have (to some extent) successfully weaponised this concept. particularly prior to the 2016 US election. However I apply critical thinking which allows me to see with some reasonable clarity that the concept is utter BS.

Let;s start with principles and frameworks underpinning social activism. Most of these championed by progressives weren't born in the inner city coffee shops by Marxist orientated college students. They have a long productive history of fighting social oppression and are driven by positive and uplifting objectives. Contrast this to the language used by the right to label these movements as woke which (even to the most ignorant) are derisive and negative but constructed by the "new right" in figurative "populist" language led by the likes of Jordan Petersen and other right wing pseudo intellectuals.

Suddenly ugly principles like racism, transphobia, supporting big business polluting the environment etc become positively framed on right wing echo chambers (which you cleanly subscribe to). They have learned to be evasive (I have seen this in action on WP) when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs.

The right has taken covert language (popularised in the 1980s) and taken it to new levels of advanced connotations which act as effective dog whistles to the faithful who have always been there waiting to hear the call. This imprecise and covert outrage has now been weaponised against civil rights movements in a environment where direct attacks are perceived as backward. The constitution is being clutched (your pearl necklace) in a fake outrage over fake loss of personal freedoms,

What's interesting (and here's where the right have made a major victory) is the co-opting of the language used in modern journalism, I have observed since the mid 1990s how journalists have uncritically adopted the right's language giving it currency. What do Republicans actually mean when they criticize "wokeness?" It's unclear because they are evasive about it. Yet journalists repeat their rants without clarification normalising the language of "wokeness".

So the link you provided is an attempt to make what is deliberately imprecise - precise, But as I have explained, the concept is flawed based on suppositions that are agenda driven so it weakens/dilutes the veracity of any arguments that are created based on any loosely stitched together framework being peddled or paraded around as some type of newspeak.

Yes, Orwell already predicted the right's foray into newspeak which is a simply a mirror of the old communist newspeak where 4 legs are good and 2 legs are bad and nobody should say any different.

Just because the right wing mob use groupthink to attack the deserved castigation of some high profile individual who chooses to make inflammatory comments aimed at the weak or vulnerable does not make it unfair cancelling of the person. There is scrutiny of everything people say, the right will eventually have no choice but to move forward kicking and screaming.

The anti-woke movement is a last ditch effort of the right to turn the clock back to a time when they could openly deride their enemies with a language that everyone on their side of the political spectrum know is a call to arms.

Uggh, this guy. Let's see if I can't pull a few bricks out of this wall 'o text, shall we?

You, a true rando nobody, are trying to impeach my source, a well known heterodox feminist and author because you, don't know who she is? You put in the time and effort to compose and type this hot mess, and yet you couldn't be bothered to Google Cathy Young? That's more of a self own than anything, not off to a good start here.



This is called a motte and bailey argument, making sweeping, expansive arguments until called on it, then retreating to a narrow technical definition on defense, it's very common among woke social justice types. I like Cathy Young's piece because it gets into the details of what woke ideology looks like in practice, rather than a dictionary definition that doesn't capture what the thing actually behaves like out in the real world.



This is all a straw man, as no one here is making anything even close to these arguments.

I'm going to snip out a lot of repetitious, irrelevant stuff here, I don't fee the need to respond to arguments I'm not making.



I'm calling this out as another straw man, no one here is advocating anything close to this. Do you just like to hear yourself talk (or whatever the written word equivalent of that expression is)?



That's bad faith, the colorblind ideal is that race and identity should not matter, not denying that it often does at the moment.



You don't need to go woke to fix those issues, traditional MLK style racial equality activism addresses them just fine without the totalitarian aspects of wokeness that so many object to.



Since apparently the multitude of examples on the internet of the CRT or DEI training really does often teach that white people are tainted by racism from the start aren't sufficient to convince you, what do you expect me, a person communicating with you over the internet, to provide you with to change your mind? Not that I'm particularly interested in trying, you seem to have made up your mind, but I'm kinda curious about what you think you're looking for here. Video? I can get that. Internal documents from various schools and corporations? I can get that too. Insane statements from professors teaching these subjects? Oh boy, let me introduce you to my friend Twitter... I'll skip the cheap joke about assumptions here, but I really don't think this is the burn you seem to think it is.



Unfortunately, I have read CRT literature, I understand the concepts just fine, that's why I'm so opposed to things derived from it because I know just how crazy it is, warmed over Marxist class analysis that substitutes identity for class viewed through a postmodern fun-house mirror, and then further twisted by people trying to use it as a rhetorical weapon. Like I said earlier, the technical definition is less useful than you think, as that's not how it's being practiced out in the real world, where people don't need to have ever heard of Derek Bell or Kimberle Crenshaw to use bits and pieces of their creation to virtue signal, grift, or guilt trip people they're arguing with. It's not all garbage, some of their ideas about systemic racism have merit, but the whole thing is so tainted that I feel comfortable denouncing it as a whole.

Ok let's critique this link
https://cathy.arcdigital.media/p/defining-wokeness

The author is the editor of the arcdigital which is a right wing conservative online journal (not surprising - please also refer to my earlier post on how all journalists have co-opted the language of the right which has become normalised but even more so with right wing publications)

The author outlines a lot but doesn't actually start critiquing "wokeism" till the end of her essay. So let's review shall we.

1. Social Justice is based on "partial truths" (I'm sorry the author lost me immediately here, there is a continual attempt in the attack on social activism (under the guise of wokeism) to dilute social problems like racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry to make them seem not as bad as made out. This narrative has been around since the bad old days.

2. But! they takes such ideas to bizarre extremes increasingly detached from common sense and reality - insert fear into the readers eh

3, White supremacy and misogyny are omnipresent and life must be a constant struggle session to escape their clutches. People on the progressive left subscribe to the evidence based literature that support the existence of white privilege (yes it exists). However the use of "figurative" language such as "omnipresent" and white supremacy making a life a "constant struggle" for minorities is exaggerated license on the part of the author, This is deliberately emotive language designed to ....sorry again...insert fear into the readers

4.It’s one thing to say that we should avoid racial slights; it’s another to demand constant vigilance against inadvertent “microaggressions” (like asking an immigrant, “Where are you from”?) and aggressive scrutiny of language for hidden offenses (like “sell someone down the river,” which originally referred to selling slaves). It’s one thing to acknowledge that Gone with the Wind is a hideously racist book, another to condemn a book because of a character’s racist thoughts. It’s one thing to say that mocking someone’s tweet as “typical white BS” is not as bad as tweeting anti-black invective; it’s another to normalize white-bashing as mere rhetorical attacks on white supremacy.

Is this actual proof or cherry picking?? who in this world scans a room looking for micro-aggressions? asking an immigrant where they are from when they don't volunteer the information is like asking a fat woman if she is pregnant. This isn't rocket science Dox.

5. Its shift of language from race-based disadvantages faced by blacks and other minorities to “white privilege” and “whiteness” is in essence a shift of focus from improving the situation of minorities to stigmatizing whites.

This is a myth, No white person feels stigmatized for being white. The author is projecting her own anxieties.

6. White privilege subverts one of liberalism’s core principles: the existence of fundamental, inalienable human and civil rights.
Wrong! acknowledging the existence of social privilege based on one's race does not subvert this principle when this social privilege actually exists.

7. It also tends to erase bigotry against minority groups that are not readily defined as disadvantaged, such as American Jews and Asian Americans (who are sometimes classed as “white adjacent”).
Again this has been proven to be a myth. Jews are careful to sidestep these debates but Asians of late are angry about bigotry where they have been targeted by disgruntled whites (mostly MAGAs) over COVID and American Universities because white students are in danger of being displaced by Asian students. The east Asians have cleverly co-opted the woke concept by avoiding conflict with white students but have focused on displacing black and hispanic quotas under the pretence of "equality" to increase the chance of their kids getting into an Ivy league.

8.But perhaps the most alarming aspect of Social Justice, as far as its effect on a liberal society, is the extent to which this ideology provides a justification for pervasive, quasi-totalitarian policing of speech, thought, and private behavior.

This has been the most effective argument the right have used to great effect. Lets look at the details

9.The language seems hyperbolic
Sorry, that;s the author's slant. Not intellectually solid to express opinions.

10.Social Justice demands de facto banishment of “wrongthink” from the public square.
Nice figurative language that contains no substance but designed to instill fear

11.The totalitarian tendencies of Social Justice are even more evident in its demands for the submission of everything to ideological diktat, from everyday language to personal life.

Does she even realise that her attempt to subvert emotion of the reader using carefully crafted language is so transparent??

12.The New York Times ran an op-ed suggesting white people should cut off relatives and friends “until they take significant action in supporting black lives.”
Cherry picking the news to find one item in order to attack a newspaper that she considers competititon for readership and an existential threat to her projected views on wokemess. Does she have evidence that anybody actually cutt off their family or friends because of one opinion peice utter garbage

13,A serious attempt to remake society in accordance with Social Justice dogma would require mass coercion on the scale of China’s Cultural Revolution
When all esle fails, compare the moderate left to the CCP. This little trick was already tried my McCarthy when he locked up artists, actors, intellectuals and others (like the communists he hated) in the 1950s for speaking about civil rights by labelling them communmists.

14.What’s more, many if not most “wokists” clearly favor the use of state power to promote their agenda.
I'm afraid the author is showing her colors by labelling social activism as "woketivism" which is designed to invalidate any issue they are advocating. This is a form of cancel culture in itself.

There is actually too much BS in this article for me to continue. As I said before the right is relying on pseudo-intellectuals who cherry pick examples to support a doctrine which can then tarnish the entire progressive social movement (many of whom don;t even identify as left wing) with the same brush,

You're half right, wokeness is not terribly precise, it's more of a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing, but that's not the doing of anyone on the right, that's come about specifically because the identitarian left has rejected every name for their ideology, and in fact capitalizes on the confusion caused by hijacking existing terms, e.g. calling themselves anti racist when they mean something other than the common definition when they say it.

I'm going to point this out now and refer back to it several times throughout this response, there is absolutely a ton of projection here, you're ascribing things to the right that were actually caused by the left, likely due to your extreme partisan bias (be real, I've never seen you cite a source that wasn't left wing at best), and the fact you don't actually live here where most of this stuff originates and thus are relying on second hand sources with an agenda, where as I've seen a lot of this evolving in person in real time.



L O L



What specific language used by the right? "Woke" itself is derived from old black slang and was used earnestly in the 2010s by practitioners of voguish identity politics, before being used ironically by normies and eventually becoming a relatively normalized term for a particular set of political positions, linguistic tics, (Latinx, birthing person in lieu of mother, etc), and a worldview based on immutable characteristics rather than individual people.

Also, the underlying theories certainly didn't come from any coffee shop salons, they came from humanities departments at liberal arts colleges (or in the case of CRT specifically, a law school) using applied postmodern theory to deconstruct existing power structure and relationships, in this very incestuous cycle of students and professors building off of each others theories, and eventually trying to apply them to the real world. It's not accurate to call most of this Marxist, it's actually post Marxist, it largely came from people who were disillusioned by the failures of classical Marxism and tried to build a new ideology by shoehorning identity into where class had been in old school Marxism, which doesn't exactly work (kinda like Marxism itself).



I'm going to need to see some cites, as previously mentioned you do not have a good track record for honesty or accuracy here, and again, it's ironic to hear you complain about evasiveness when faced with contradiction, as Kraichguaer is your only real rival here when it comes to that (and I absolutely can cite that if you insist). As to me, not that you'd notice, but the vast majority of the citations I use here come from left to center left sources, not only because I actually read them as part of my media hygiene practices to avoid falling into a bubble, but also because I know the audience here would cry foul if I used anything to the right of CBS, despite others here citing laughably biased partisan media. You, for example, to my knowledge exclusively rely on establishment liberal sources, including tabloids, to support your arguments, and only seem to believe information when it comes from sources you agree with ideologically (a weakness your friend Bill shares).



Again, I'm going to need some examples and citations.



Going for the hat trick? You keep making these claims without examples or supporting evidence, and as I mentioned earlier, this feels like a major projection, as it is in fact the left that has managed to warp the language of journalism, from my own area of firearms, injecting loaded terms like "assault weapon" for modern rifle and "gun safety" for gun control, to the woke Latinx, BiPoc, AAPI, birthing person, etc for identity categories, to warping the meanings of words like racism and white supremacy in order to use them in ways that do not fit the standard definitions in any way. This linguistic trickery is in fact a major component of postmodern theory, as they believe that language has the power to change the discourse which in turn changes reality as we perceive it, and considering how much of our reality comes from online sources these days, I'm not even sure they're wrong.



Woke is again, admittedly a kludge, but one that came about from the ironic use of a word the woke themselves originally self applied, and adopted because they refused to give themselves a label on the theory that it's hard to fight what you can't name.



Remind me again, who is it that's saying that 2+2 might equal 5, and if you say otherwise it's because of white supremacy? Orwell was also critiquing Stalinism, which isn't exactly a right wing ideology.



I doubt it, this viewpoint is toxic, and the tide is already starting to turn, as can be seen in the anti-woke articles in major left and center-left papers and magazines I've posted in this and other threads. If anything, I expect the pendulum to swing back hard in the other direction in the near future, and the left will have destroyed their credibility to resist it given their behavior over the last decade or so, it will be left to the heterodox liberals and conservatives who've been consistent in their defense of free speech, expression, and association to resist the inevitable over-correction.



Hardly, the Democrats are losing elections over this, the Right in Europe is stronger than it's been in years, and as soon as corporations start feeling it in their bottom lines, they'll drop wokeness like a hot rock, it might take a few years, but the process is already beginning.