A Suggestion for a new label for the Dogma which Refuses to be Named.
Since we object to the Pseudo-woke activists’ redefinition of “woman”, “violence”, “aggression”, and “phobia”, so should we object to and refuse to go along with their redefinition of “woke” to mean 100% agreement with the absurd dogma which (among other absurdities) deems Islam to be a progressive, pro-social-justice religion, demands that we accept men who declare it but make no other changes to their behaviour or appearance to be women, asserts that there has been no progress in race relations in the West since 1865, and demands that any child at any age who displays any sex-stereotypical behavior or proclivity non-conformity be immediately and without question fast-tracked to life damaging “treatment” for their gender dysphoria. Let’s call a spade a spade (I know, the pseudo woke would jump on that time worn phrase as racist 🙂 ) and refer to them as Pseudo-Woke.
1 reply on “A Suggestion for a new label for the Dogma which Refuses to be Named.”
I am attracted to your phrase “Pseudo-Woke” but we have to consider what is “real woke.” A news headline this morning announced that two lotto ticket holders “woke up to being millionaires.” If the headline is accurate, then these are “real woke,” it really happened.
Robin DiAngelo, woke up to the notion that she was a racist after she found herself feeling uncomfortable in the company of blacks. While this might be true, her projection that all whites share the same views is a psychological defense mechanism. If DiAngelo is racist by virtue of being white then she cannot be personally held accountable. I think this belief that denigrates some people because of their race would be pseudo-wokism.
Edan Tasca and I wrote an article showing how 21st century wokism or “Woke Identitarians” often leads to the opposite of its stated goals by increasing racism, intergroup hatred, suffering and inter-group hatred:
https://www.humanisticallyspeaking.org/post/woke-ironies-achieving-the-opposite-of-its-stated-goals
I suppose there could be a humanist who recognizes the harm Woke Identiarianism does but claims to be “woke” because he or she is aware of racism. I would think that humanists should be aware of our history of combatting racism and slavery spanning many centuries. For us, there can be no sudden “awokening” because we have been part of the struggle to combat racism all along and we find the self-serving rationalizations of people like DiAngelo offensive. Someone could have a personal awakening, for sure, but such an awakening should come with an understanding of our history or it is not a true awakening at all.
A concern I have with humanists who claim to be Woke is that they are helping to promote a false reality that denies the rational abilities of the individual and the progress of the Enlightenment. While they may say they disagree with the mass mobbings that have led to death, they excuse the movement that gives rise to those mobbings because it seeks to end racism.
But as we saw from DiAngelo, the definition of racism has been changed. Change the new definition of racism for the word “sin” and you will see that the Great Awokening of the 21st Century is not too different from the “Great Awakenings” of the 18th and 19th. In both cases, the “true believers” seek absolute submission to a religion or ideological belief system. The term “pseudo-woke” certainly captures part of that but I am not sure if it does so adequately.