Very much true. A figure like “The Great Emancipator” Mr. Abe Lincoln transplanted to our time would be more likely to be labeled a flaming bigot and a problematic antique than a voice of progressive democrats.
That said- one thing I hate about “woke” labels is that it is often applied as this all encompassing thing- which is also true with bias against people with conservative views.
JK Rowling caught hate for saying her character was a person of color from many of the same people now supporting her, and many who supported her when she said her character was POC are now hating her for things like her views on trans issues.
It is hard to fathom but people can be more than one thing. Gandhi did a lot of good and fought for rights for Indians- while calling black Africans the equivalente of the N word and not being upset so much at British mistreatment of humans, but upset because Indians were being treated as badly as Africans when in his view they were their betters. Gandhi supported a rigid and arguably elitist traditional caste system- he wasn’t exactly an all around egalitarian hero, but was he a monster? Are those the two options?
So someone can support gun rights and oppose the death penalty while driving a hybrid and wanting to close the US border. Someone can respect every pronoun and support LGBTQ and want guns banned and support BLM and roll coal while opposing social welfare and affirmative action. Politics are a spectrum. Even in the gay community there have been long standing hate and resentment or rejection of Trans for example. In present day we tend to lump “LGBTQ+” together like it’s one cohesive group- in some cases with some people it is. In others it is not. There are trans and gays that don’t think “bisexuality is real.” Bisexuals or gays that think trans are sick or weird. In the fight for rights, many gay communities and advocacy groups distanced themselves and rejected trans because they felt either that they didn’t want to be associated with trans people for the public perceptions- they wouldn’t be taken seriously marching with “cross dressers” or that people would think all gays liked..
“To west women’s clothes” or it played in to perceptions of gays negatively like it was a mental health disease or gays were effeminate or child predators, and they knew that trans people carried perceptual baggage and were less likely to be accepted than gays who could more easily “blend in” and were “like the straights except for the gender of their love..” or some such; or because even many gays had these same perceptions of trans people as the public, that trans were sick or pedophiles or whatever else. In some cases various groups banded together as “outsiders” United in exile from the mainstream and in others- in New York even and other places that tended to be more “friendly” to non cod heterosexuals- even when “gay bars” were basically illegal- trans persons would often find themselves barred or asked to leave because they were undesirable clientele or brought a bad image.
So even amongst groups that many might think would be naturally buddies- no. Bisexuals were left in the cold a long time too. Even in the 1990’d there were fights between Gay advocacy groups and such and Bi. By the 90’s Gays had gained a lot of traction. While not always honored as such- across the country many laws and codifications against gays were lifted or eased. Protections were increasingly put in place and while gays still did (and sadly still do today) face discrimination and legal or social obstacles and violence, the pendulum was in full swing and openly gay persons were being seen more in life and business and media. It wasn’t a utopia- but things that seemed impossible 10 years before were happening in society. Bisexuals struggled for awareness at all let alone recognition. Not just in public and in law, but even among gays.
Many groups and many in the community either felt largely like the public- that such a thing didn’t exist or was some sort of sickness or something- or they felt essentially embarrassed of bi’s. They felt they finally had traction and things were changing and if they started shouted about rights and respect for Bi persons too- they’d loose what little grip they gained in public and political acceptance or power. Many are quite reluctant to add furries and other groups to the “family.”
I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t be. That’s another argument. What is a fetish? What is an illness? What is an identity? Is it even right that we basically toss any non cos hetero traditional gender normative orientation or identity into an alphabet soup? That’s like to POC topic- empowering or insulting? Genetically, culturally, experience wise.. do these people who are grouped together share anything asides being “not white”? The result there could be argued to still just be a classification of
“White and not white..” which essentially, like our identity alphabet soup, boils down to a label or “normal and not normal.” “Default and other” with there being an argument that the systems and terms and organizations are just that- an extension of a system of “us and them” an implicit statement there is a normal and everything else. Is that the case? I’m not saying it is. I’m saying you’ll find people of all sorts with conflicting views. Much like our bi/trans/gay history up there- the “POC” history shared some elements. At various times and in various movements through the “civil rights era,” various demographics gathered together to fight for equality. Not black rights or Latino rights or Asian rights or etc- but to fight for all rights. These groups often splintered apart. In some cases shrewd opposition targeted certain representatives within a demographic and offered them deals tailored to cater to their demographic above or before the others. In other cases schisms were…
.. internal. What it usually boiled down to though was that a certain group would decide that their individual benefit or individual odds of benefit were higher on their own. Some groups tend to be more accepted even amongst traditional white institutions of racism. Hell. All traditional racism. Many cultures have certain bias against extra racial couples but some types of couples are tolerated more than others in general in a society or a certain generation. Many older Chinese would be more upset a child was with a Japanese person than basically any other race, we know older white generations in general often had the most trouble accepting their child being with a black partner and so forth. So anyway- often times there are these racial biases and people are aware of them, and so throughout the history of civil rights in America many groups and leaders, even prominent ones, have refused to work with or help others fight for the same rights or equality because they felt including those
People would hurt their cause. So it’s a while thing. We label “woke” as though if a person had a progressive or liberal view on some subject they are in support of every progressive or liberal thing. Like someone who supports critical race theory being taught must also support drag queen story hour or someone who opposes one must naturally oppose both- but that is patently ignorant. It only makes sense if we view the entire world as partisan politics or assume that earlier view of “normals vs. Others..” what, asides from facing discrimination or bias- does drag or trans have to do with racism? That’s like assuming that a home who supports France supports China because they are on the same side of the Atlantic.
So I mean- yeah. It can be a case where times and social views change. Sometimes a person changes, or the side they show us. When Kanye West was recoding through the wire, most of America wasn’t going “yup. I’m get white supremacist vibes…” and until he was on tape ranting about Jewish conspiracies Mel Gibson was an American sweetheart and anti semite wasn’t something most would assume about the guy. Wether those people always felt one way and hid it, or they changed views along the way- that can be it too.
But we do also have to remember that sometimes, people feel different ways about different things and for different reasons. Someone might support gay marriage but think gays are all going to hell and are mentally ill. That said- they may support fat marriage because they believe in individual freedom and that regardless of right or wrong or mental health that people should have a choice. We can’t actually tell very much about people just by what they believe- we need to undedtand
WHY they believe it too. What is their motivation? People do and say seemingly shit things with motivations to do good and do things that are seemingly good for shit reasons. You might think a man who sends local minority kids to big universities far away is kind and cares for minorities- but maybe he just wants to have less minorities in his town and sending them away to school gets them out and after graduating they tend not to come back to his small corner of the woods? When he gets upset at publicity you might think he’s modest and doesn’t want credit- but maybe he’s upset because now that people know he thinks it will draw more minorities to the town in hopes of getting a scholarship. That’s hyperbolic but it is to show the point- what we do and why we do it don’t always line up to an observers perceptions.
In the end, asides perhaps some elevated monk, you aren’t likely to meet anyone who deeply and truly is informed and caring and supporting of every possible progressive issue or marginalized group or collective struggle. No one “universally woke.”
Everyone you meet will likely have some view you find problematic, and if you meet someone who has no views you find problematic- that probably means you are someone most or many other people would find problematic. That’s how that works. It’s probably why so many celebrities and public figures especially might be best served to go back to relative superficiality and not making their thoughts and feelings on every topical issue openly known.
This isn’t super hard- conservatives and regressive extremists often claim they are being beaten up in media. Probably dude. Zeitgeist. Having opinions and being progressive is cool. People know if they pick the right cause or the right stand they can get free goodwill, fans, cult status…
So they try to find their audience, the people who can help elevate their careers and wealth and status if they cater to those groups. When they pick the wrong group or they mess up their message it often back fires and it can be difficult to come out of that spin so they might just steer into it. If they are rejected by the group that they were working on, they’ll jump teams and they don’t even have to be particularly sincere or vehement so long as they speak the words the other group wants to hear. Simply walking a line of acceptance by opposing groups of views can be lucrative in keeping patrons in both camps but when someone wants you to make a line where you stand, you can pick a side and
if that fails you can pivot and try to pick up the other guys just by trashing the people they don’t like.
We know for a fact at this point- sworn statements after statement, recording after recording- most of these “news casters” and talking heads like on Fox News- didn’t believe the crap they were spouting. They did it to get money and recognition because they had a chance with that audience. That’s how it goes. So we can’t even really know what they were sincere about. Which was real and which was said just to get headlines or manage their name a a brand? Or are both real feelings or neither?
It is what it js. People are seldom angels or devils and seldom are they some consistent middle ground. We tend to be angels one minute and devils the next or anywhere between at any time.
Reply
deleted
· 1 year ago
What happened to her was that she thinks she's "important" enough to a) decide what's woke and what not and b) to set the ´volume and time limit of acceptable woke-ism. When she tried to rationalize her personal prejudices, she caught fire, then acted like SHE was the victim and by that all "normal people" were victimized as well and so of course she caught even more heat, and rightly so. If you're a self-centred celebrity who's getting media reach and influence confused with importance, relevance and sovereignty of interpretation, and start lashing out against critics like a whiny Karen, yes, this may happen to you as well. And rightly so.
I cringe to think that thirty years ago, I might've been on her side.
deleted
· 1 year ago
You choose your side based on what you know of a person. That can change a LOT. I used to be a huge fan of Louis CK and Kevin Spacey, at that time I had no idea what trip they'd been on. I mean, I could have seen it coming with Louis CK thru watching his sitcom which anticipated a few of his... traits? I dunno. Sometimes, when something looks edgy, it may be well over the edge. I can revise and change my opinions on things and people based on new information, but sometimes people feel personally attacked if you criticize their idols.
That said- one thing I hate about “woke” labels is that it is often applied as this all encompassing thing- which is also true with bias against people with conservative views.
JK Rowling caught hate for saying her character was a person of color from many of the same people now supporting her, and many who supported her when she said her character was POC are now hating her for things like her views on trans issues.
I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t be. That’s another argument. What is a fetish? What is an illness? What is an identity? Is it even right that we basically toss any non cos hetero traditional gender normative orientation or identity into an alphabet soup? That’s like to POC topic- empowering or insulting? Genetically, culturally, experience wise.. do these people who are grouped together share anything asides being “not white”? The result there could be argued to still just be a classification of
But we do also have to remember that sometimes, people feel different ways about different things and for different reasons. Someone might support gay marriage but think gays are all going to hell and are mentally ill. That said- they may support fat marriage because they believe in individual freedom and that regardless of right or wrong or mental health that people should have a choice. We can’t actually tell very much about people just by what they believe- we need to undedtand
Everyone you meet will likely have some view you find problematic, and if you meet someone who has no views you find problematic- that probably means you are someone most or many other people would find problematic. That’s how that works. It’s probably why so many celebrities and public figures especially might be best served to go back to relative superficiality and not making their thoughts and feelings on every topical issue openly known.
So they try to find their audience, the people who can help elevate their careers and wealth and status if they cater to those groups. When they pick the wrong group or they mess up their message it often back fires and it can be difficult to come out of that spin so they might just steer into it. If they are rejected by the group that they were working on, they’ll jump teams and they don’t even have to be particularly sincere or vehement so long as they speak the words the other group wants to hear. Simply walking a line of acceptance by opposing groups of views can be lucrative in keeping patrons in both camps but when someone wants you to make a line where you stand, you can pick a side and
We know for a fact at this point- sworn statements after statement, recording after recording- most of these “news casters” and talking heads like on Fox News- didn’t believe the crap they were spouting. They did it to get money and recognition because they had a chance with that audience. That’s how it goes. So we can’t even really know what they were sincere about. Which was real and which was said just to get headlines or manage their name a a brand? Or are both real feelings or neither?
It is what it js. People are seldom angels or devils and seldom are they some consistent middle ground. We tend to be angels one minute and devils the next or anywhere between at any time.