Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have responded individually to specific sentences but in doing it that way you have completely lost the thread of my argument and are not responding to it at all. My point was that in one fundamental respect, you are like conservatives; in another, you are not. If you care to respond to what I was saying, please try again.
|
I responded to that when I noted that my criticisms are not limited to progressives. It only seems like they are limited to progressives because there are progressives here to whom I am responding.
If there were conservatives here arguing conservative points I’d find myself disagreeing with them on a number of issues as well.
Your point is that I am only irritated by one side. That is incorrect. But I find if I register annoyance with the right on this board, the only response I will get is pile-ons agreeing with me. Nothing is duller than an atta boy.
You are generally correct, that like most sane people, I cannot call myself a progressive or conservative. I’m a mix. But I prefer to ignore all such generalizing descriptions. I previously described my politics issue by issue because I believe I am, and a lot of other people are, issue by issue relativists.
ETA: It might be the blunt nature of wokeism that causes me to denigrate it. It demands fealty to a broader but inscrutable ethos. Kind of like, actually exactly like, Trumpism.
A person can like certain of Trump’s policies while having no personal affinity for the man, or for certain other policies of his that one does not like. But to be a true Trumpist, you have to be on board with almost everything for which he stands, and almost all if not all of what he does. Wokeism similarly has purity tests and a demand that its adherents ignore its flaws and avoid criticism of it. Both are broad emotional movements sweeping together numerous positions and policy prescriptions some of which are valid and some of which are batshit crazy.
GGG can argue here that 1619 has flaws but also strengths and starts a worthwhile conversation and offers a history often overlooked. That’s entirely sane. But would a truly woke person invite that criticism? I think they’d bristle at it, try to avoid it. Like Trumpers, they seek to preclude that which pokes a hole in their narrative. It’s a binary thinking that Kendri and Trump have emphasized — you’re either with us or against us. No equivocating.
That’s probably what causes me to recoil at both camps.
