What the woke Internet demands of us
Consistency, authenticity
As a follow up to the post I called social power, I’ve been thinking about the RULES of the new woke Internet.
I’m using the shorthand Woke Internet without any disparagement.
what the new woke Internet demands is consistency and authenticity.
it can be tempting to adopt woke attitudes as the power flavor of the times. But one cannot do so without being prepared to do so authentically and consistently.
if one is not willing or able to do so authentically and consistently, it’s advisable NOT to do so.
the woke Internet has the power to strip away only what one has gained through trading in its currency.
—
so, for example, if you are content with capitalism, don’t pretend you aren’t. If you are supportive of the more warm and fuzzy telling of American history, don’t pretend you aren’t.
if you truly support what leftists are fighting for—the strengthening of oppressed groups, the lifting of aboriginal indigenous claims on spaces, the inversion in some sense of traditional power dynamics in American society—then by all means, put up the sign in your business and SAY SO.
but if you, like me, are pretty much a content white male capitalist, you must admit to yourself that there is a power dynamic rising in which you don’t get to participate. You have to sit it out. This is new for traditionally powerful classes and races and genders like my own. It would be inauthentic for me to add my pronouns to my profiles because I don’t fundamentally believe misgendering people to be an important enough issue to fight for. I can be supportive of and encouraging of individuals I meet who are not gender normative, but I can’t trade broadly in the currency of transgender rights because I’m not authentically aligned with that as a primary concern in the world. On the other hand I’m comfortable referring to myself as a cisgender heterosexual white guy because I do think that both cisgender and heterosexual are terms that may be useful for others to know about me. The pronouns I prefer are not a thing I care about or believe others must care about for themselves or others. Guess what: that means I don’t get to cash in any on contemporary transgender rights arguments. For those who believe anyone not with them is against them, I will necessarily be cast as against them. But I can sit it out and hold my own perspective, which is that I’m not actually against them, I’m simply holding my own perspective.
so: you sit it out, observe, support the ideas you support and hold your tongue or criticize the ones you disagree with, your choice, and accept that your position is not the most popular or powerful in current times, and then, the woke Internet has no claim on you, because you have not cheated your way to riding its wave.
I wonder if this makes sense to anyone but me?
It makes total sense to me, as I have come to some similar conclusions. The one I find personally relevant is my stance on race, as not socially meaningful, therefore, I don't get to join the race argument, I'm in denial of the very premise.
I think what might be helpful to expound upon is WHY we don't get to participate. Something I am just recently coming to understand. It's not just being outside of the argument (a boundary I would rather not exist with any argument) but it's also just adding to the noise of many self-admitted non-arguments.
I happen to agree with you. Like race, gender is also a "non-argument". So arguing against it gives a credence to it I think it doesn't deserve. Ironically, I am more willing to practice the preaching of "wokeness" than many of its purveyors seem to be.
They claim identity labels are traditionally arbitrary, patriarchal and largely Anglican. This is the strongest and most agreeable part of their argument. So I follow this out logically on a social level. We no longer rank order things like sports, healthcare, education etc. by race and gender; and instead by ability. This includes nontraditional genders and identities as well. We all become "They and Gray".
I think we would indeed see much more crossover than traditionally expected but we would also have to reduce both the "fair" and unfair barriers to entry. I think a classlessness would follow a racelessness....and it is THIS reality that "wokeness" would rather not see come to fruition.
The only reason I would argue, would be to call EVERYONE's bluff. But that's bad poker.