are there any defendable anti-woke positions?
![[Deleted User]](/uploads/userpics/281/n8T53N6UZ5BS8.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
Specifically I'm interested to hear if there are any Christian anti-woke positions that stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.
The context is this: I recently had an unpleasant interaction with someone who clearly believes that broadly "anti-woke" positions can be reasoned from a white British Christian viewpoint. Please understand that I do not look for arguments with this person, attempt to avoid being in the room with them and only reacted after hearing a stream of various ideas which can be collectively described as complete bullshit. To further note - there were Chinese people in the room and a significant number who were academics from elsewhere in the world. These views were expressed at quite a volume.
These included
* Post-colonial countries now realise they were better off with the British in charge
* Chinese people do not learn to speak English but only read English, because the majority never meet an English speaking person
* The discussion about decolonising the university curriculum is an effort by liberals to destabilise Christianity in the UK
* Islam is a dangerous religion to Europe
There was also some other stuff about diversity and inclusion (bad/unnecessary) and and acknowledgement of a history of eugenics within the subject area, possibly including re-evaluating some of the Old White Eugenicist Men who are frequently mentioned approvingly without a single mention of the research which generated the results (which, to be clear, was terribly racist). And then some other anti-vax anti lockdown gibberish.
The point where I could no longer keep quiet was where this person made a sweeping (and generalised) racist statement about a massive ethnic-religious group and their propensity to be economically ruthless. The person didn't like the retort that Christianity has frequently been associated with ruthless capitalism.
I should also add that this person is an expert in an area unconnected to any of the above (no qualifications in history or even theology, etc) and proudly likes to show people a video of when they were "winning a debate" on GBNews.
Anyway, I suppose my main starting point is that one can split these points into two. First rhetorical points that can't be directly challenged because they're just bollocks. Secondly factually incorrect points that are mixed together in a way that can't really be challenged because there is such a barrage of nonsense that one barely registers the first before hearing the next.
So what I would like to calmly hear is an anti-woke debating point that holds together better than these. Because, frankly, I don't think one exists.
The context is this: I recently had an unpleasant interaction with someone who clearly believes that broadly "anti-woke" positions can be reasoned from a white British Christian viewpoint. Please understand that I do not look for arguments with this person, attempt to avoid being in the room with them and only reacted after hearing a stream of various ideas which can be collectively described as complete bullshit. To further note - there were Chinese people in the room and a significant number who were academics from elsewhere in the world. These views were expressed at quite a volume.
These included
* Post-colonial countries now realise they were better off with the British in charge
* Chinese people do not learn to speak English but only read English, because the majority never meet an English speaking person
* The discussion about decolonising the university curriculum is an effort by liberals to destabilise Christianity in the UK
* Islam is a dangerous religion to Europe
There was also some other stuff about diversity and inclusion (bad/unnecessary) and and acknowledgement of a history of eugenics within the subject area, possibly including re-evaluating some of the Old White Eugenicist Men who are frequently mentioned approvingly without a single mention of the research which generated the results (which, to be clear, was terribly racist). And then some other anti-vax anti lockdown gibberish.
The point where I could no longer keep quiet was where this person made a sweeping (and generalised) racist statement about a massive ethnic-religious group and their propensity to be economically ruthless. The person didn't like the retort that Christianity has frequently been associated with ruthless capitalism.
I should also add that this person is an expert in an area unconnected to any of the above (no qualifications in history or even theology, etc) and proudly likes to show people a video of when they were "winning a debate" on GBNews.
Anyway, I suppose my main starting point is that one can split these points into two. First rhetorical points that can't be directly challenged because they're just bollocks. Secondly factually incorrect points that are mixed together in a way that can't really be challenged because there is such a barrage of nonsense that one barely registers the first before hearing the next.
So what I would like to calmly hear is an anti-woke debating point that holds together better than these. Because, frankly, I don't think one exists.
Comments
Had I been in Kof's situation I think I would have, as calmly as possible, asked how holding these views was possible given 1 Cor 13 and growing in the fruits of the spirit.
NO
I don't generally have theological ideas and biblical quotations at my fingertips and I doubt it would have helped if I had.
Writing it out here and thinking about the loudness of the words and the total lack of appreciation of the audience, I'm wondering if it is a sign of creeping mental illness. I have known this person for 20+ years, I don't recall them being like this when I first knew them.
Not from a privileged, helpless, liberal, enlightened position, no.
But the European Parliament passes migration bills thread shows the yawning democratic deficit in the West. In the 'free world' as the Israeli UN spokesman said yesterday, before I muted him.
We are in the heart of the beast, a beast among a global, too small a world, fistful.
Doublethink, Admin
The far-right brain eater is a fairly widely observed condition, but I don't think it's formally pathological in most instances. There was a spate of it after the September 11th attacks, and GFC, Brexit and Covid have triggered further waves.
So, for example, the claim "Islam is a dangerous religion to Europe". It needn't be. Muslims, and Islam, are perfectly capable of existing in a pluralistic, democratic society. Many do.
There is a train of theocratic thought within Islam that is profoundly anti-democratic, and seeks to impose their own interpretation of Sharia everywhere. That kind of thought is dangerous to society. But is it more dangerous than the Christian fundamentalist thought that infests the US right, for example? If you're a trans person in the US, or someone who might want to access reproductive healthcare, then the Christian Right is probably currently more dangerous to you than Islam is. Fundamentalist Muslims would probably be even worse for you, but they don't currently have a reasonable prospect of being in charge of anything, whereas the fundamentalist Christians are driving policy against you.
Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States.
I agree with Alan Cresswell.
The Christian position against religious tolerance, both for non-Christians and wrong-kind-of-Christians, is well attested, both scripturally and historically.
Can we now cross off 'Strawman' from our bingo card of logical fallacies? (We've sort-of had the ad-hominem above) ... I think the issue is accepting a definition of woke. I think the book definition ' is aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues' may not be what many understand the term to mean in common usage.
This is why I haven't been replying to this thread. At least in the US "woke" means very different things, depending on who is using it.
And, honestly, how can one use it for oneself without sounding like a pompous (in my case: white) jerk?
I didn't go around wearing a safety-pin 6ish years ago, either to advertise myself as a "safe person" for lgbtq people to rely on.
To the OP, are we talking about equal protection under the law, dealing with our own prejudices, figuring out how to deal with theology that can be both wonderful and terrible in the same moment (and how to decide where that line is) or what?
Are you looking for equality or equity? I'm sure you've seen the cartoon with the 5 foot fence and people who are 4', 5', and 6' tall trying to see over it. Yes, it's simplistic, but it's also obvious that giving each person a box to stand on is not the optimal solution.
What should your public education system do?
1. Allocate equal funding to the needs of each pupil?
2. Aim to ensure that every pupil reaches "grade level"?
3. Aim to ensure that each pupil is empowered to do the best that they, personally, can?
Or educated, or compassionate, or thoughtful…
In what way is that an "anti-woke" position? Most traditions are neutral with regard to "woke". You could describe the "traditional" position on female priests as anti-woke, I suppose, although I don't think "woke" is a good description of the theology in support of women being priests.
Generally in the U.S. lefties use it as a badge of pride to mean "people the right hates" and the right uses it with words like bullshit appended. "Trans rights are woke bullshit." Generally the right would attach things like pronouns; anti-racism; social responsibility, say to poverty; or support for trans people; and the fact that identity groups exist
In one example I've personally witnessed, the university was making an effort to listen to non-binary students and was thinking about how to make them feel welcomed. Because, ultimately, the students are the customers and as everyone within the university is well aware, they matter more than the staff.
Anyway, in this instance there were academic members of staff ("faculty") who objected to having compulsory awareness training involving listening to non-binary students.
The university wasn't being "woke". Objecting staff could easily have looked the other way, but apparently it is more important to make a massive deal about this one little thing.
And, as I've suggested above, there are even "anti-woke" moves to make derogatory statements about China and Chinese students. Out loud and in public-facing parts of the university by senior academic staff. Which is particularly daft when there are courses which have 40% Chinese students (even a small number with over 80% Chinese students).
Really, even fire safety and safeguarding ?
Well, that depends.
Academic freedom does not include the freedom to sexually harass your students. Compulsory training to tell you what things qualify as sexual harassment, how not to put yourself in a compromising position, and things like that do not infringe on academic freedom in any way.
Some things described as "awareness training" could infringe on academic freedom, if faculty were expected to agree with various propositions about gender, for example.
But being asked to have care for the needs of your non-binary students isn't the same as being expected to agree that non-binary gender exists. You can ask someone to use gender-neutral expressions rather than "ladies and gentlemen" when addressing their students without requiring them to take any line at all on gender - they just have to understand that some of their students don't want to be addressed as "ladies and gentlemen". It doesn't matter whether they're "right" or not.
And it should rather go without saying that it shouldn't matter to you what genitals your students have. Nothing that a professor does with a student should involve their genitals in any way.
I don't believe academic freedom has any bearing on whether an academic can or should be disciplined for loudly and offensively deriding a minority group in the common room. Particularly when that has absolutely nothing to do with the academic's actual research area.
A PhD does not automatically bring with it the ability to drive a forklift.
I also teach at a university. My opinions on the matter is irrelevant. Many academics, and most faculty unions, will resist compulsory training.
https://www.ucu.org.uk/academicfreedom
But here in the UK, the labour/trade union of academics is the UCU. That's it.
Training in Sexual Harassment (ie. how to not do it) is a very common mandated training in workplaces. It may, perhaps, be the most common mandated training if you sum across all workspaces. So it was my go-to example for a mandatory training class.
How to interact with students who may be trans, or non-binary, or from some other culture and come with different assumptions, seems to me to be closely related to how not to sexually harass people: it's all part and parcel of a more general "treating people respectfully and decently" class.
There was a Vietnamese student that made the headlines a few years ago, because one of her professors had told her that her name was offensive, and that she should Anglicize it. The student's name was Phuc Bui, and the professor thought it was offensive, and asked her to change it in a rather offensive manner. The professor was placed on leave as a result.
It's clear that he, and people like him, would have benefited from some training courses.
For example this one (not my institution but mine does something similar): mandatory for every employee with mandatory 2 year refreshers
https://www.bradford.ac.uk/about/equality/centre-for-inclusion-diversity/edi-training/
I'm familiar with the fence image. It has nothing to do with the questions I was asking. You seem fixated on the word "equal" and have missed the point of my post.
My reference to Equal Protection Under the Law relates to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the U.S. this is a well-known concept, and ought to be rock bottom in jurisprudence. But it is not (see, for example, laws relating to adult qualifications to marry and receive the related legal benefits of marriage in the U.S.) This doesn't even begin to address protected classes, hate speech and hate crimes.
Nor does it begin to address the way we as societies talk about attitudes and resulting behaviors toward people who differ from cultural, social, mythical or social "norms." "Woke" and "safe" are not terms I can apply to myself because of the subjectivity of their meanings, and the hubris it would take to do so, taking them in their best light. I may aspire to be "woke" as I understand it, or "safe" but I have a good long record of failure and honest friends who have made it clear as well as forgiven me.
I have been one of those "smiling faces" the Staples Singers mention.
I was looking for clarification on the OP. While I think @KoF is trying to have an important conversation, the terms are too loaded and loose.
Well, in the case of the basic diversity training that I do every year, there's a lot to do with the legal requirements not to discriminate against members of protected classes, and examples of the sort of thing that counts as "discrimination" or "not making a reasonable accommodation". And then there's a bit about things that probably aren't going to land your employer in legal trouble, but may be uncomfortable for people who don't share your cultural background and assumptions, and are best avoided. And there's a certain amount of overlap with the sexual harassment training I mentioned earlier, because the themes are similar.
Like @Heavenlyannie, I also periodically get "unconscious bias" training, which is aimed at people who interview potential new hires.
And then there's a few things that come up from time to time, that are encouraged-but-not-compulsory, and could broadly be described as increasing cultural competence through an exposure to examples of issues affecting various minority groups.
I don't think I missed your point. There can be and have been all sorts of arguments about what "equal protection" means, including, to follow your example, whether allowing all adult men the right to marry the consenting unmarried woman of their choice, and vice versa, is equal protection. Yes, the supreme court held that it wasn't, but for a long time, "you can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is free to marry" looked like it might be equal. Of course, the right to marry a woman isn't very useful to a gay man, which brings us back to equality vs egality. What the gay man actually needs is the right to marry a man.
The game in "equal protection" is deciding which groups of people are in similar positions and which rights are "equal".