Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Grouch's avatar

To quote Yasha Mounk: When America becomes majority minority, the Democratic Party is much more likely to sound like Andrew Yang than like AOC. (https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1324763545452556290)

Expand full comment
Thom Jane's avatar

70 million Americans voted for Trump. Of that group, "Trump underperformed with white men, but made gains with every other demographic. Some 26 percent of his votes came from nonwhite Americans, the highest percentage for a Republican since 1960*."

To understand the woke movement, expanding somewhat on Kaveh's classification of it as unfalsifiable above, is to understand that it is based on a different epistemology than modern liberalism. Kaveh's article suggests that Democratic leaders take the data provided by this election and use it to develop new hypotheses about how to best attract voters in the future. This is the hypothetico-deductive model upon which modern liberal inquiry is based.

Wokism is fundamentally opposed to this, arguing that reality is unknowable and that any accumulated "knowledge" is just power-knowledge used to perpetuate pre-existing systemic inequalities, thereby making the process described above categorically inadmissible. This is the enfant terrible of critical social theory and postmodernism.

Nikole Hannah-Jones and Charles Blow are in damage-control mode as two founding persons of the woke movement: Any white people who are committed to "doing the work" need to redouble their efforts. Millions of BIPOCs ignoring or rejecting the woke narrative is clearly a sign of the severity of the problem rather than the non-existence of it. Everyone, please, play your part: The financial and psychological stability of these two (as well as the Systemic Discrimination Industrial Complex) depends on it.

*From Matt Taibbi's Substack article, "Which is the Real 'Working Class Party' Now?"

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts