Transcript for Episode 1 - Wokeness: the Meaning and Impact of a Controversial Term
The Twisted Logic Podcast • January 31, 2023
This Transcript is Made by Welder
Unless otherwise noted. The opinions and anecdotes presented in this work derive solely from the personal experience or research of the hosts and are neither endorsement nor indictment of anything described herein. Listeners who take action or formulate opinions based on the following content do so at their own peril.
Hello, everyone. Before we dive into today's episode, I wanted to take a quick moment to talk about our new affiliate partner, Death Wish Coffee. If you're like us, you love a good cup of coffee to get you going in the morning. And let me tell you, Death Wish Coffee is not your average Joe. Their coffee is bold, smooth, and full of flavor with an extra kick of caffeine to carry you through the day. And the best part? It's all natural. Death Wish Coffee sources only the highest quality, fair trade and organic arubica and robusta beans to create a stronger, smoother, and more flavorful cup of coffee. And they don't compromise on taste or sustainability, making Death Wish Coffee a better choice for coffee lovers everywhere. So if you're looking for a new, bold and delicious coffee to try, head over to www. Twistedlogicpod. ComDef to order your own bag of death wish coffee. And don't forget, shopping through our link supports the show. It feels more like performing. Yes. No, that's fair. That's absolutely fair. In a way it is, right? We'll get good at kind of like condensing our answer, right. We'll get good at being concise as we get more practice, stuff like that. But I definitely think, yeah, there's a weirdness because we're not used to it. We're used to just kind of randomly chatting on live shows, right? Like, this is a little bit I don't want to say forced force is not the right word, but it's a little bit more performative. Performative. Yeah. No, that's the right word. And it's just because it's the first couple of times.
Hi. This is Sean St. Peter. And this is Josh Ayre. This is the Twisted Logic Podcast, your weekly deep dive into a topic currently twisting the political and cultural zeitgeist. This week we're talking about Wokeness. What is it and is it a good or bad thing? But first, if you're a regular listener of the Twisted Logic podcast or you're a new friend, you're probably wondering what this is. Josh and I think we've come up with a revolutionary new show concept that combines the best of traditional podcasting with the interactivity and engagement of social audio. Each week we'll be diving into a relevant political or cultural issue, providing you with the facts and perspectives you need to understand the topic and join the conversation. Every Monday, you'll hear a podcast just like this, where we will introduce a topic throughout the week. We're going to show up on different social audio platforms every Tuesday at noon Eastern, I'm going to be on the Stereo app. Every Wednesday at 05:00 P.m., we have our clubhouse hangout. Every Thursday, Josh and I will be doing our spotify live show. We're moving the live show from Stereo to Spotify Live, but it's going to be our live show where we talk in depth about this topic and hopefully amongst each other, but with you guys, too. And then Friday, I'll be on the Wisdom app, and then we're going to take all of your comments, combine them together into one release, and that'll be the wrap up show on Saturday. What do you think, josh, what do you think of our new format? Okay, what do I think of our new format? I think it's going to solve a lot of problems. One of the big problems we ran into is that our former platform, Stereo required, kind of called on its audience to go through a bunch of hoops in order to interact with people. So we've had people who wanted to listen but didn't want to jump through those hoops. And it's really addressing that. We're kind of meeting people where they're at, which I think on our show we've tried to meet people where we're at, don't you think? Absolutely. That's kind of one of the keys, is that we've been trying to meet where they're at the whole time. And I agree with you, this is kind of like an opportunity to do that. Everyone's into the topic and listen to us talk about it. Those that want to participate can join us on social audio. They get a chance to participate, and the best of those, they're going to be in the podcast with us. So we're steering the car, but really, you all are the engine pushing us forward. We're really trying to make this into something that people will engage in. Everybody that listens to talk shows always has a desire to actually talk on them. So I think we're really making that easier for people. Absolutely. I mean, there's one thing that's been constant going back plus years that people like to talk about politics and sports, traditionally on the radio, but now we're in the modern age, so we do it in podcasts and social audio. Right. Going back to some of the earliest IMAS and the original Rush Limbaugh show where everyone wants to call in and give their points and I listen to crap all week. I know you listen to a ton of podcasts too, so I think this is going to work really well for us. And I want to say, Sean, you did just about all of it. So well done. Congratulations. Thank you for doing that. And I think it's going to be a good fit. I do too. I'm really looking and we hope you guys do too. I think it's something that hopefully, as with the future, like, even more and more, we'll see more and more social audio and more and more interaction and we'll go from there. Exactly. And we're still going to have all our tech space platforms, of course, twitter and Facebook, whatever the kids are using these days. That's right, absolutely. So overall, I think this is going to be a great package. And I hope, as I've always hoped, that everybody wants a piece of my package. That's right. So hopefully this new format is going to lead to a lot of new listeners. And hopefully these new listeners don't really know a ton about us. So I was thinking, why don't we start by kind of know about us and weren't listeners? Say that again. I said it'd be kind of scary if these people who aren't listeners or become new listeners, it would be scary if they already knew a lot about us. I think kind of indicting in a sort of Michael Avenatti kind of way. You never know, our FBI handlers might start listening to this stuff, a shout out to all our FBI handlers. But yeah, I think it may be helpful to give the listeners a little bit of information about ourselves. So I thought that would be another good place for us to start this week. And so, I don't know, do you want to start talking about you or talking about me? Let's start with you. Okay, Sean. Who is Sean St. Peter? Well, most importantly, Sean St. Peter is my attache. It's important to note two new listeners. Sean and I have been friends for over 30 years now, and we've been fighting about politics that whole time. So most of the reason that we do this is to demonstrate to the world that you can fight about politics without killing one another and sometimes without trying to kill one another. And you can be friends with people on the other side of the aisle. Yes, exactly. As long as they're on the other side of the country. Sean is located sean is located in New Jersey, where we both grew up. He is 40 05:00 a.m. I, right? That's correct. He's 45 going on 65. Going on 90 more likely. Right. No shit. Right. But he's available. Ladies, sexy, silky, winty, misguided voice. And by all means, let us know. PostRon spent a great deal of his life in sales. The vast majority of his of his adult life has been spent in sales. We both enjoyed a little bit of education at Rutgers University together for a while, after which Sean went into the industrial sales force. He is a moderate liberal, sometimes more moderate than other times, and we'll cover that all throughout every show. I'll keep the division to a minimum. What else what would you say about yourself, Sean, that I've left out? No. I worked on some political campaigns when I was younger, before I became disillusioned with the whole political election process. When I was younger, I was more conservative, more open minded as I've gotten older. Now, let me ask you, do you think that you were more conservative then because the world was more conservative then? No, because I think that there was a part of me that changed after Bill Clinton was in office. So he came in office in 92, right when I was in high school. And I remember in that election, I was actually a Ross Perot supporter. I've always had kind of like a libertarian bent to me. There's always that, but it's always been a strong I don't call myself a social justice warrior or anything like that, but I'm very pro social justice. Call it there and just I think the concept of the New Democrats that was kind of ushered in under Bill Clinton, I think, appealed to me in ways. So that's kind of where my left kind of came from as I grew up and went to college and got educated and learned the errors of my younger ways. Indeed. When are you going to learn the errors of your older ways? When I'm dead? Probably. Fair enough. So that's me in a nutshell. All right, I guess it's now time for you to be the star. So you're currently finishing up an American Studies advanced career, correct? That's correct. You are trained as and have worked, as I would say currently work as an anthropologist and live in the state that the Internet doesn't believe exists, wyoming. You've had a less than traditional life, I would say. After you left your foray at Rutgers, you went off to culinary school and then other undergraduate work and then graduate work and again worked as a teacher, professor, college professor for a little while and then had a real twist and ended up in Vegas. Worked at the casinos for a little while before becoming a law enforcement officer out there. All true. All. And it's funny, you and I lost touch for a long time, but we got reconnected while you were in Vegas, and it was right back around 2016, right around the time of Trump's election. And you were a Trump supporter, and I was decidedly not. But I just remember us being able to have that conversation at a bar at the Bellagio. That's right. That's right. And as a resident conservative, how do you think you came to that political worldview? Well, you know, I have a propensity for being right.
Okay. This is the exception that proves the rule. Is that what you're trying to say? No. No. How did I come to that? My my political position has shifted frequent, frequently. No, I will say my political alignment has shifted frequently because, really, my core beliefs upon which my politics are based have remained essentially the same and gotten stronger in that way over the years, but rather, the parties have sort of shifted around it. I was raised Republican, which doesn't count for much, really, because you kind of just following as a kid frequently. Your political positions are either a product of your parents or repudiation, but either way, they're a function of your upbringing, and they're not responding to politics. Usually they're responding to your family structure, structure, that sort of thing. So I was raised Republican. That's not terribly relevant, I don't think. When I came out of the closet around age 20, I think, of course I became a Democrat. Of course it was 1998. It was substantially more repressive than it is now that we didn't really think it was at the time. And in order to, you know, garner any kind of rights or enfranchisement as a gay man, you know, if you wanted to be a part of pursuing that, you had to be the Democrat. So I went in that direction. But really at the time, it was the party of self determination. And that's what that's what appealed to me. Over time, though, over many years, that self determination has really disappeared from the Democratic Party and the hegemony that had run the Republican Party for so long, particularly the religious right. And those forces really started to move away from center stage on the right and give self determination a little bit more of a space to breathe in. So right around the Trump election, the first Trump election, I switched over to Republican again and have been ever since. And it was an excellent decision. Well, absolutely it was. We're going to take a quick break here from some of our sponsors, and when we come back, we're going to get right into this week's discussion. Hi, everyone. Sean here. I wanted to take a moment to introduce you to one of our affiliate partners, Gentlemen's Hardware. They offer a range of stylish and functional products designed for the modern day gent. From handy tools and survival kits to travel accessories and grooming essentials, they have everything you need to elevate your everyday life. And the best part is, by shopping through our exclusive link at www. Twistedlogicpod. Comgentleman, you'll be supporting our show as well. It's a win win situation. Gentlemen's Hardware commitment to quality and design is evident in every product they offer. From the moment you open their packaging, you can tell that a lot of thought and care went into every detail. Whether you're looking for the perfect gift for a friend or just want to treat yourself, Gentlemen's Hardware has you covered. Their products make great additions to your own personal collection, and their packaging is so stylish, you'll be proud to give them as gifts. So if you're ready to up your game and add some style and functionality to your everyday life, be sure to check out Gentlemen's Hardware. And remember, when you shop through our exclusive link at www. Twistedlogicpod. Comgentleman. That's. Www.twistedlogicpod.com. GE N-T-L-E-M-E-N. You'll be supporting our show as well. And we're back. So we're going to get into this week's topic and introduce the concept of wokeness. Josh, why don't you take us through what wokeness is? Well, let's see. Obviously, it's a term that we hear all the time about. People say they're woke or you hear woke capitalism quite a lot, celebrity quite a lot, et cetera. And it depends on whether you're saying it or hearing it. I think that tends to define it. We associate woke with social justice and being aware of the sort of power structures that keep certain groups and people subjugated to others. It engages very strongly with a lot of the I do want to say trendy, political interests, race, national origin, sexuality, gender, et cetera, et cetera. And people use it to signify that they support pro minority positions and related and other leftist positions on the environment and things like that versus opposing that kind of stuff, or promulgating class distinction and things like that. Sure, it's a bastardized term. Absolutely. And frequently. Let's just say it has some roadblocks. Let's say it's not always sincere, but I'll get into that a little bit later, I think. Yeah, no, I agree with you. So wokeness has its history. The dictionary definition would define it something along the lines of a heightenedness awareness and sensitivity to issues of social justice. And yes, it is very much associated with progressive politics and focus on social justice issue. But it does date back to community, and it's a term that comes from African American vernacular English and really didn't become mainstreamed with that progressive politics until around 2014 when the Black Lives Matter organizations started gaining prominence. And after Missouri and the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, kind of really became a topic to jor. Yeah. And again, I think, as you said, it's become bastardized by both sides. It's come into mean different things, what are originally meant. Those on the right use it as a pejorative to mock people. Oh, you're too woke, you're too woke. I'm sorry, did you say on the right or who are right on the right? I said it's the same thing. I don't know that people on the left use it that much. Although I did share with you, meme, I saw the other day on Facebook for someone using it as a positive. But I definitely think that it's become more used, more as a pejorative these days than it is as describing a good thing. I think, again, the left isn't using it as much to describe people on the left. It's really been more used and taken up by those on the left or on the right. Excuse me. I also thought it was funny. So we got the dirt would be fun. We had the definition there. But you also got to go to Urban Dictionary. Nothing's really defined until you've taken it. And I went through Urban Dictionary, and some of these are, I think, worth reading out loud. So this was by Head of Red on June 10, 2018. They defined wokeness as being constantly offended. Their sentence, their use of a sentence. As a result of Amy's Wokeness, nobody wants to be around her anymore. Say to Morgana on May 15, 2009, defined wokeness as self righteousness, masquerading as enlightenment. Self righteous masquerading as an. I love that. That's actually very accurate. So the sentence woke really believe women empower women don't believe women empower. Rapists, skeptical. Sammy, your wokeness is showing. Here's a good one. The zoof wrecked. July 29, 2020. Wokeness is a postmodern version of Being Born Again, where an individual is hyper vigilant of magic transgressions in human dignity because they're painfully unaware of secretly being deeply ashamed of how life is not fucking them hard enough. I like that one particularly because it brings in this element of postmodernism. Yes, dude, your speech about our duty to manifest our intersectional consciousness, to promote equal outcomes with such profound wokeness. And tote is going to burn my bra right now before heading back to the safe space for some gender neutral polyamory. I need a drink.
It really highlights this idea of exactly what postmodernism is doing to the world right now. Within Lopenus, you find that this whole there's a dominating sense of morality, but a paucity of rules by which to I don't want to say to live, but there aren't rules governing the philosophy. There's very little structure to it. Like you say, it's like that new definition of woman. Have you seen this dictionary? I don't know. I believe it's. Webster's but they're now defining woman as a person who identifies as female. Okay. Within which, of course, what is female. And it goes on and on and on, but there's no, you know, in this idea of self identification. There's no real structure like the way society wants us to receive self identification is that if somebody says they are a thing, then they are a thing, or at least treat them like they are a thing. So there are no actual borders beyond what we decide they are in that moment. And that, I think, is one of the issues with Wildness, which we'll get into a little bit later. The problems with it. Yeah. I wanted to let me offer a definition, if you don't mind. Absolutely. Now, this definition comes from a journal called Whiteness and education author Benjamin Boyce, who I don't really know much about at the moment, but I came across this earlier today, and the article really is about something that he's calling chronic wokeness. Okay. But he defines woke as the affect and accompanying behaviors associated with becoming convinced that one has done one's part in making the world a better place. Read that again. The affect and accompanying behaviors associated with becoming convinced that one has done one's part in making the world a better place. Interesting. Yeah, I thought that was a really interesting definition because it's describing a set of behaviors and a sort of social posture that's coming out of this belief in one's intrinsic goodness. And I think that describes wokeness a great deal more than frankly, a great deal more than wokeness wants to be described. Right, right. It's interesting and I think there is some of that and we'll get into that a little bit later, but I do think there is some of that. Here's another one and I thought this was funny because the sentence doesn't match the definition at all. Okay, so woke, this is just for woke, not technically. Woke describes a state of being in which you generally question common paradigm. Sorry. The word denotes that a person has a desire to research his positions on most issues before espousing ideas that are accepted. Intrinsic to the state of being woke is that you fight against systems of indoctrination such as religion, education, system, racism, nutrition, et cetera. The sentence using woke in the sentence I need a girl that is woke so she can help me keep my diet on point. That
weird. Yes, absolutely. It was going so well and then we got to the end and what? Yeah, I know, I just said again, that was that was again. Here we go. Woke. This is from just last May, may 27 by Seal cake umbrella term for individuals who are engrossed by social justice and think of themselves as saviors with a moral high ground but remain willfully ignorant to the irrationality of their complaint of the claims and the problems they create. These individuals give special treatment to certain minorities in hope of ending racism and perpetuate mental illness as the norm. The sentence my son's woke. What's that? Did Dom write that? Yeah, right. My son's woke kindergartner teacher taught him that he's actually a girl because he played with stalls. Go back to the one before though and read the second last sentence. Second lesson intrinsic in the state of being woke is that you fight against systems of indoctrination such as religion, education, system and nutrition. What's that? The one before that. Oh, okay. The word denotes that a person has a desire to research his position on most issues before espousing ideas that are accepted. Bam. Now, do we really think that all these people who would identify as well are researching? No. And of the part, do we really think that their research takes them any further than finding something that tells them they're right? Oh, no, not at all. Here's a good one again, I'm telling these because I think they're funny. This is from
23 and it was done on June 14, 2021. So the old definition awareness of our issues, new definition, fake awareness of issues that don't exist, mainly used politically or a left leaning ideologist with a closed minded character. Yeah. Obviously in all of these we can hear the polarization, we can hear the dichotomy and bitterness and the sense of exclusion that a lot of people feel as a result of this kind of movement. And with that in mind, I think it's important to take note of the terms use as kind of a statement of affiliation. Yes. Because I think that is among its core meanings that you're affiliated with a very specific, somewhat amorphous, but very specific set of beliefs within that. You will get very upset at any transgression of those beliefs or a transgression against those beliefs. All right, I want to read one last one, and then we're going to take another break before we start getting into the good and bad. So here, I just kind of like this one. Math Police, January 26, 2017. And again, I'm looking for humor here, not actual reality. Okay? Getting woke is like being in The Matrix and taking the red pill. You get a sudden understanding of what's really going on and find out you were wrong about so much of what you understood. To be truth, the sentence, I understand the extra burden it puts on you, but I still feel everyone needs to get woke. Oh, God. Do you like how I put it in my California surfer voice, too? Are you doing, thick. It totally made me want to watch the most recent season of Stranger Things. Okay. I've never watched that show. Oh, my God. You have to. 80s kid. You have to. I'm sorry. I have one more. You'll love this one. The ability of someone to become outraged at imagined enemies and create ways to be the victim even though you're insanely privileged. Created by right wing wounds, insurrectionist, sympathizers, conspiracy folk and their ilk to create a boogeyman sentence. Icky Vicky, the school board lady invented an enemy and wokeness, but all she did was prove she and her minions are bigoted morons. Jesus, God. Yeah, okay. Invented by right wing whatevers. And insurrectionist what? No. Clearly does not know what she's talking about. Again, clearly. That's the beauty and the fun of, in my opinion, of looking at the urban Dictionary definitions, because it's just like some of this stuff is just that shit crazy. It's like Wikipedia without people monitoring it. Right? Yeah. Seriously, even moments research would have dismissed that as an origin. The origin is very simple. Like you said, it comes out of American enclaves and talking about being aware of the relative positions of racism in society. It's very simple in terms of origin. So it certainly was not in any way created by right wing people or anything else. In fact, really what brought it to the floor, of course, was the Black Lives in the matter movement when Stay awoke started popular phrase again. And I think at that point they were pulling it out of Erica body. Maybe very well might have that actually. I didn't see that, but that's very possible. Well, I think what we can really pull out of all these definition together, if we're looking for kind of a sort of unified working definition, sure. All of these offer us variety of snippets of what actually falls under wovenness. I think we can certainly stipulate that an awareness, or at least a claimed awareness of power differential is component of it. I think there is a huge performative component to it as well. A lot of these definitions are noting how people who identify as woke behave in that they're vociferous and they're confrontational and so on and so forth. So there is this performative element as well. There is also this idea and it's unfortunately not practiced, so let me amend it. There is this perception of oneself as having a greater understanding or more expansive information or data on what you're talking about. Whether or not that's true is another matter. But one who identifies as woke would believe themselves to have a greater bollock body of knowledge than you do. Like you as in whoever they're talking to. Right. As in the non woke. Right. Which tells us that there's a pretty strong element of hubris as well. Correct. So in your opinion, is there a difference between wokeness and someone being woke? Is there a difference between person and people? Well, yes, exactly. I think situation has a lot to do with it, certainly. But wokeness as an institution, is there a difference between wokeness or a person who's woke? Is that what you said? Essentially, yeah. I guess what I'm getting at is it possible for wokeness as a concept to be okay, but the people who practice and call themselves woke being a problem? Yes, absolutely. That is a very, very important distinction. Like most philosophies, the people that embrace them tend not to practice them. Right. So this idea of wokeness and defining it benignly as an awareness of power differential and intention and effort to mitigate that differential, defining it benignly in that way, and then seeing how it's actually performed in this sort of confrontational and really deeply uninformed manner describes a very, very clear difference between the two. Wokens as an identity, as an affiliation, as a performance is a far cry from the idea of wokeness even harkening back to its origins 100 years ago of knowing and understanding these systems and finding ways to work against them. Okay, well, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to get into it a little bit on whether we think wokeness is good or wokeness is bad or neither. Or both. Or somewhere in between. Hey, everyone, sean here. I have a great new affiliate partner to share with you all today. I'd like to introduce you to the unemployed philosopher's Guild. They offer a unique collection of gifts, toys, and games that are perfect for the curious and creative minds. From books and puzzles to office decor and toys, the unemployed Philosopher's Guild has something for everyone. And as a bonus, when you shop through my link at www.twistedlogicpod.com guild, you'll not only be supporting the podcast, but you'll also be getting the best deals and discounts on all of their products. One of my personal favorites from the unemployed Philosophers Guild is the Thinkers nice. It's a fun and interactive way to test your. Critical thinking skills. And for all you book lovers out there, I highly recommend checking out the Philosophy for Dummy's book. So whether you're looking for a unique gift for a loved one or just something fun to pass the time, head over to www.twistedlogicpaud.com guild. That's www. Twistedlogicpaud. Comguilp and see what the unemployed Philosopher Guild has to offer. And as always, your support through shopping via our link helps keep Twisted logic going strong. Thank you. And we're back. We're going to start with whether or not wokeness is good and I'm going to take the position that wokeness is good and it is a positive force in the world. Now, speculation and kind of at my last question right before the break, will like to point out that I think that woke us in and of itself. The concept. The idea is a good thing, but people who have gone overboard with it and trying to over the top, using it as a badge of honor, per se, that is a problem that I think is separate from wokeness because I do believe that the issues, social justice issues, are not just individual problems, but are deeply rooted structural assistance of power. And I do support your least favorite word in sectionality.
We need a sound board so I can push a bell or something, right? And so I definitely think that it's a positive force for change in society. Tell me, what kind of change do you see having the potential coming out of wokenness? Again, if we're being aware, if wokeness at its face and the way I interpret it is that, again, it's a view of the world that there are structural, systemic problems in the United States with regards to things like criminal justice and just kind of like the general understanding that I think there are structural issues that create. So being aware of that is really important. Being aware of these structural issues I think is the only way that we can fix them. So from that perspective, wokeness as a general concept contributes positively to society. It contributes in a way where people are trying to take an active role at making it a better place. So let me see if I can parse this out. So what you're saying is if it functions as kind of an epistemology, as kind of a way of knowing, a way of being aware, then it has the potential to affect change. Is that accurate? Is that what I might absolutely, that's right. If people are practicing the concept of woke, whether they're calling it Wokeiness or something else or whatever, but if they're practicing, if they have a heightened awareness and sensitivity to issues of social justice, then the likelihood and the chance of positive change coming from is greater. Now, there is also potential for negative from these people too, but it's a double edged sword and we'll get into the negative part of it. But I do think that there is a positive there's an opportunity for positive forward progress that comes from the concept of wildness. Why? Well, my personal belief is that there are issues, not your personal belief on why those issues should be addressed. Why do you think that wokeness is a way to do it? What is it about wokeness that suggests that it can precipitate change? If you are aware of it and you take action, then you're going to part of the definition of wokeness is about taking action and recognizing that these issues are not just something to be talked about, but something that needs to be actively fought right. And so that's that action with the wokeness mindset that will precipitate change and being aware of the problems makes it more likely that change is going to happen in and of itself. Wokeness is not going to, on its own, solve anything. And that's why I think, like, being woke is like I have very rarely ever been confused with someone who's woke. It happens from time to time, but it's very rare that I personally amuse with someone as being woke. I don't speak in the terms and the language of wokeness very often, but I do think I also have a heightened awareness and sensitivity to issues of social justice.
For me, the concept behind wokeness, what it's morphed into, is more problematic, but being aware of it and being willing to do something about it is important. Now talk more, if you don't mind, talk more about the differences between you and your awareness of these systems and someone who would be, you know, to build upon what you're saying, who would be identified by others as woke. If you're both aware of these problems and yet you're not woke and someone else who is also aware is woke, what is the difference there? I think that someone who is woke is more likely to be again, they use a specific language, they talk about things in a way that defines people based on their actions. And I don't do that. I'm not going to say someone needs to be. I'm not going to say someone needs to get woke. I'm not going to tell someone to consider their level of Wokeiness or anything like that. I'm not overly concerned with the idea of woke itself, but the underlining principle, the baseline principle that Wolfiness is built upon, I do believe, and so I'm more likely to try to have a conversation with somebody about things, social justice issues that doesn't rely on the ivory towerness of someone who's woke. The feeling better than people who are woke tend to talk down to people they think are not woke. I try not to do that. I try not to take someone's opinion and use it as a judgment against them, whereas woke people do. I try to listen and engage people where they're at as opposed to trying to force them to have the discussion on my terms okay. So we can pull some elements out of that, I think, because what I hear you saying essentially is that there is this awareness. Wilkins has an element of awareness power, and it has an element of acting on that awareness. Right, correct. But now here we're starting to see these other elements, judgment, for instance, sanctimony, and that's what's different. Those things, and I'm assuming there are others, are what's differentiating, say a social justice supporter like yourself from a person who would identify or be identified as well. Is that right? That's correct. I think that's fair. I don't want to close in your mouth, but I remember one of our discussions at one point where you even said to me, you've never sounded more woke before to me in your life. So it's not rare that I sound woke, right? Like in certain circumstances to people that are much further right. Of me, of course I'm going to be considered woke. To people far left of me, I'm considered an evil conservative, so I'm stuck somewhere in this limbo. But I also think, and I guess I don't know if this is more for this segment or when we get into the bad stuff, but I do believe that it's been transformed. The term wokeness has been transformed into a boogeyman. And I think that there is less, it has less of its underlying anymore. So I am also willing to concede that it doesn't mean totally what it used to mean, just like a lot of terms. Right. And so that's why I'm very careful to acknowledge the core concept of and not what it's become. Okay. So it seems to me then that this core concept of wokeness, it's not limited to wokens, right? In what way? I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Being aware of power structures and acting against them isn't limited to wokenness. Right? Correct. That's correct. So the things that define wokeness then, because that's not a defining I'm going to back up for a second. It defines someone as being woke, but you can be those things and not be woke. But those are always going to be the core definition of wokeness.
Essentially, if that's what wokeness is, right. Then you could dispense with all those other adjectives, all those other descriptions, like the descriptions of the judgment, the sanctimony, et cetera, et cetera, the confrontational nature. Right. You could dispense with that and someone could still be woke.
Yes. Okay. Theoretically, yes. Then are you woke? No. Why not? Well, I think a couple of reasons. Because I'm not. So, again, remember, I am separating the terms woke and wokeness. So I may be someone who follows the idea of wokeness, but I'm not woke woke. You can't be woke anymore without having all those other things antimonious high and preachy confrontational, divisive. You can't be woke without being all those things. But the idea of wokeness can be separated from the idea of being woke. Okay, so these are two totally different concepts in my mind. Yes. Okay, so which one do you want to talk about? No, I think that's a fine question, but I think my answer to that question is yes, here's the post modernism, because I think it's important. All right. I said this to you the other day in a text and you think it obviated our entire discussion. Yes, and I said it didn't, and I went on to say Why? And you didn't respond, which means I think we're okay. But basically the ultimate problem with Wilkins is it's been given a name. The sentiment behind Wilkness is fine, but the second you put a name on it, you segregating people. You are creating artificial division amongst people, creating its own construct with which divide people, and it instantly disqualifies you from the ideal of wokenness. And it makes the calls for wokeness performative because it's not trying to eliminate division, but just change the dividing line. Right. So being awoke is trying to change the dividing line, but the idea of wokeness and I think it's important to distinguish between two. And that's why I say my answer is yes, because if we distinguish between the two, we then get to call out the correct problems. If the problems aren't with wokeness, but with the way people are being woke, that's a different problem to solve than saying that wokeness is bad. Excellent. Yes, you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. And the reason that frankly, I didn't read your response to comment because I think I felt sleep. Fair enough. And I just brought it up now. I was like, oh, there was something. But no, I think in that you're right. And it's not uncommon in any philosophy. You could as easily say, Lord, save me from your followers. Christianity isn't the problem. Christians are in certain contexts. No, that's right. That's absolutely right. I don't necessarily believe that God exists, but my problem is not with God, it's just the humans that implemented his worship. Yeah, exactly. And in the same way, my problem isn't with wokeness. I think wokeness in and of itself. Again, I do believe it could be a positive force on society. But people being woke tends to when you name things, when you classify things, all you're doing is creating a set of divisions and calling people woke and not woke. You're dividing people on that, and some people are okay with that. Some people want to cut out anyone that doesn't agree, and that's on both sides. But there are woke people who are like, fuck everybody else. Fuck all the right wing people. We can't meet them anywhere. We can't meet them halfway, we can't talk to them on their level. They're just dumb assholes who don't know anything, and we need to defeat them. And that's a problematic. But the idea of being aware of social justice issues, I don't believe that that is problematic. That's fair. You make the delineation, which is important. I think there could be delineation as well between wokeness and the phenomenon of wokeness or the movement of wokeness. Yeah, I think that's fair. And yet the interesting thing, I think is that in general, we don't assign that word woke to people who practice simply that core identity of wokeness knowledge and action. We don't assign that word out in that way, not anymore. But again, who's assigning the word wokeness anymore these days anyway, right? I mean, I think most of the assigning of the term wokeness or woke is probably coming from the opposite side in derision. Right. It's not being used positively most of the time. It's probably more so being used pejoratively. I don't know if I agree. I think in certain segments it is being used positively and being used in I don't want to say its original meaning, but it is being used in a reflexive self identifying way. Sure, okay. No, that's fair. What I find interesting is that essentially it's the equivalent of the way the beatniks use hip. Hip, okay. If you remember that, you hear the phrase hip to the man, you see through the tricks of power, you know what to do. Are you hip? Are you clued in? Are you tuned and turned on and dropped out? Which is more hippy thing? But the two are very complementary, which is not quite temporary line. So ultimately this is not a new concept and this divide, I think, between theory and practice is not a new thing either. It's a new skin. Sure, I think no, that's fair. But I would say that
because of today's media landscape, I don't know if that's the right word, but social media and even traditional media, the differentiation has become exasperated and people are looking at that difference and seeing it as a difference without distinction. Whereas I think it's really worth distinguishing. I think the concept of woke, again, more pejoratively has been beyond the hip to the man, the beatnik community and then the hip and all their little terms, they were much more closed, they were much more insular, I think is probably the word I'm looking for within their own communities. Whereas in the modern time, those ideas are much more
and they become much more mean. And as people are always lashing on to what the latest social influencer is doing things like wokeness can become very performative and become bigger than they really were meant to because people are looking for something to latch on, to get that badge of honor. Do you think then the difference between the beatniks and the wokesters, so to speak, and I would guess you agree that you could probably lay that at the feet of the internet, at masscom and such. Yeah, absolutely. It's what I said, like the idea of social media and the current mass media that we have, I think it exasperates everything like that and so it's much more I like that concept of escaping that you said it escapes the enclave, so to speak, in that it's problematic. That escaping is problematic if your house is on fire, right? Do you move all your belongings out of it as you flee, or do you grab a few things that you can carry and that you don't want to lose and flee? Escape fire, right? You grab a few things and you run out. So this concept of wolfiness escaping from its inner circle, in a sense, suggests that as it got out into the larger world, it would necessarily have lost a lot of its needs. It didn't bring all its pieces with it as it was dispersed out through the masses. Yes, I absolutely understand what you're saying. Yes, I would agree that there is definitely some of that happening, right? There is definitely some of that being a part of what's going on. So anytime you name something, right, anytime you give something a name, you're automatically calling attention to it and saying, look at me, look at me, or look at that person, look at that, and it becomes less about what it means and more about the person that you're applying the label to. So yes, and that's why I distinguish between the two, because woke, being woke has lost a lot of what that original is, and it has become performative. It has become, again, wokeness itself. I think the core backing concept, but is fine, but the idea of being woke has definitely morphed into something beyond its original meaning. Lost a lot of its original. What would you say was lost, do you think? The idea of being woke, the idea of caring for your community and caring for the future of your community and worrying about things like criminal justice reform, that certain people in certain communities are treated, and those things are very positive. And when it's just about that with no name, when it's just about doing the right thing, who cares if I'm called wokeness or not? That pureness is always going to be a good the second you put that name and you start to say, I did all these things, that makes me woke, you've immediately cut out one of the core principles of wokenness. The idea behind wokeness is that it's being a positive force for social change, so that we can eliminate division, we can eliminate issues that come from division, from people, from the power dynamics, right? The second you start using as a term to describe yourself, you're no longer doing that. You're no longer trying to fix those. You may partially be trying to do that. I don't want to take it totally away, but it's performative. And at the end of the day, you want people to recognize you of your wokeness, of being woke, right? You want people to say, yeah, that person's cool. They're woke like they know what's going on. If you are calling yourself woke or describing someone else in a positive light as woke. You want to point out that you or that other person are good and you want to use it as shorthand. It becomes a shortcut. Right. The word woke, once you name it, it becomes a shortcut. You just can say I keep saying heightened awareness and sensitivity to issues of social justice because that's what it is. We can call it wokenness. That's what wokeness refers to. Right, but that's what it is. We've given that a name to shorten it, but it's heightened awareness and sensitivity of social issues, which is a good thing. It's always been a good things and it'll always be a good calling yourself woke is no longer having that. It's about promoting yourself and it's no longer worried. You're no longer worried about you're not doing it as a way to have a heightened awareness or issues. You're doing it as a way to promote yourself. So using that name, it becomes a shorthand. You don't have to have the original meeting anymore. You just have this new word wokeness. And then you use it. And then it gets used to either build people up or tear people down. Why don't we take a quick break here and then we'll get back and why don't we get into a little bit more into where some of the bad stuff because we're kind of eking into that territory anymore. So why don't we do it in a little bit more structured way? You can give us some of your thoughts on why it's bad and we can go. Okay, sounds good. We're back. Like voldemort. We're back and like voldemort. I'm going to talk about bad, bad things like that. You took us in a good direction in differentiating between those two things. And I would highlight that that difference is one of behavior or like the definition I gave earlier, it's one of affect. And the problem with wokeness, in my estimation, I mean, there's a number of problems, but I'm going to start with the problem of the moniker. So I think going off of what we are talking about now, I think the first place that I want to look at these problems is precisely that moniker. And let's look at that from a point of well, first, let's look at that from a point of self satisfaction. I think I want to in that you know how I hate the term raising awareness. Okay, right. I don't think I knew that, but okay. Oh, I could swear that we've talked about that regard. Maybe it didn't register. The reason that I hate this idea of raising awareness is that it allows someone to gain the feeling of accomplishment, of making change while not actually having to do any of those things. Okay, the first problem I want to talk about regarding how wokeness is, or how woken is problematic is that one can identify themselves as woke without ever doing anything that addresses those core values. You can identify yourself as woke simply by opposing things in your head without ever acting on those oppositions. Does that make sense? So if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that you don't get to define your own wokeness that your actions or your thoughts, and even if it's lack of actions, your thoughts define your wokeness for you. You and I have just defined wokeness pretty effectively, almost scientifically in the whole bunch of definitions and pull out commonalities, right. The two main commonalities, of course, being knowledge, being aware of these issues of power and action, taking action to dissolve these power in different power difference. Right, okay. That as well something that you said at the end of the last segment. I would add to that as well. Caring for your community and worrying for the future of your community. Sure. Because I would say those are very much components and they're something that drive action. Right? That's right. Gibbering masses that call themselves woke generally are able to call themselves that without acting on it. They can be woke without engaging those core principles in the slightest. You have people think you are woke when you're not engaging those corporate principles in the slightest. That girl is so woke, all she talks about is reparations or whatever it is. Right, yeah. That's why this show is free. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, I do. And I do think that there's something to be said for that. There's this idea I'm okay, generally speaking, with self identification with you being able to identify with your truth. If that makes me a little woke, so be it. It makes you nuts is what it makes you. But I believe that it is a natural part of humans have been doing for a long time. So I do think it's possible for someone to self identify as woke, but not necessarily be following wokeness. And I would say that those people are a different kind of not a good kind, but they are okay for people living their own truth and defining what they are as long as it has some basis in reality. So if I call myself woke and I'm having awareness and bringing awareness but also acting and doing whatever I can in terms of actions, then yeah, sure, maybe I'm wokeless. But if I'm not I'm just calling myself woke and talking a lot, then I'm falsely calling myself woke. In my opinion, that is not very much different from someone calling themselves a lawyer and not being or being a lawyer. I can call myself a lawyer, right. But New Jersey Bar doesn't recognize me as a lawyer. I ever went to law school and graduated law school, right. So I can say I'm a lawyer and yeah, maybe there's some fraud involved with that. I'd have to worry about legal consequences. But generally speaking, I could call myself, I could call myself a podcast host or co host. I have a podcast that I co host with you. But am I really a podcaster? Is that really what I am? Is that really define me in any meaningful way? So is there a difference between me as a podcaster and Joe Rogan as a podcaster? Well, yeah, there's a lot of them. So is it fair for me to self identify as a podcaster if I leave? I am, if that's what I want to be? No, I don't think so. But different people are going to view that differently. And so if I write a letter to a podcast company trying to get them to support or to a company trying to get them to support our podcast, I am a podcaster. And they say, well, how many podcasts have you put out and how many podcasts, what's your audience, what's your listenership, blah, blah, blah. All these things that might metrically define everything that they use to judge a podcast or by. I might not meet their definition of podcast. I think someone calling themselves woke when not being woke is problematic, but that's the world's job to parse that out and understand that it's problematic. And we've seen instances of this throughout history and such like, I'm trying to think of the girl's name, the woman's name out in Washington state who was like the head of the local NAACP chapter, identified as black, had, like, darkened her skin, but white. I remember that years back. Right. But she went for a long time identifying as a black. And it wasn't until people realized that that definition didn't match who she was that people called her off for it, but for a while, she lived that, and people just acknowledged that that's what she was. Elizabeth Warren. Rachel Dolezal. That was her name. Rachel Dolezal. That's right. Yes. Well done. I would not have been able to dig I said well done, and I would not have been able to dig that out. I wouldn't remember. Elizabeth Warren works as well, right? Yes, it does. You're right. What was it called? POW wow eats or Chiefs eats or something like that. She claimed Indian heritage because she believed through her history and what everything her family had told her that she had indian, Native American, Indigenous, United States, whatever we want to call them, heritage. Turns out that she did not that she was wrong and that was a mistake of information, and she should have done more research into that before she started using that. No, you're absolutely right. She is a good example. She identified as Indian when the facts of the matter turn. Yes. You don't find that to be a problem? What do you mean? Let me rephrase. So you know what? Let's backtrack a little bit to this idea of podcaster, right? Sure. How would you define a podcaster? I think I would define a podcaster to stand any profession someone who makes a living doing that. Interesting, but I would disagree. That's fair. Obviously, the easiest way to address it would be someone who casts pods, right? That's right. In which case neither of us are podcast. Correct. But that suffix er is used to indicate something that you do. Right. At its most basic, that er, or sometimes yer, as in the case of a lawyer or a failure, indicates something that you do. So by virtue of doing a thing, you are a thing. Okay, so then there's a distinction then, I guess what you're saying, there's a distinction between a podcaster and a professional podcaster. I am a podcaster, I'm not a professional. Yes, absolutely. Which is why we have qualifiers like professional or successful or skillful or effective or convincing. You get the idea when we talk about these core defining things about being woke, right? Or about wokeness, rather, because I want to reiterate or rather I want to subscribe to your distinction. When we talk about these core things of wokeness, we are creating a template for qualifications, for considering oneself, and this is going to sound cumbersome and adherent of wokeness. Okay. Because it makes wokeness a thing you do. Right? Yeah. Because you're not just when we talked about being aware of these systems of power, right? We didn't just talk about aware of them. We necessarily linked that to becoming aware of them and learning and researching. We even talked about research a little bit. Right, right. Same thing with and then the next step, of course, was taking action, which clearly is something that you do, caring for your community. Caring is a thing you do. Worrying for the future is a thing you do. So if you're not doing any of these things and these are the core of the concept, there's only two things that that can mean. It means either you are not an adherent of that concept, or that concept no longer means what it used to mean. Okay, I agree with you. So I would say wokeness in how it has incarnated this time around, so to speak, has been so thoroughly polluted that it no longer actually does these things. Granted, some of them might even go through the processes of some of these things, but there is very little attention paid to what the realistic consequences are going to be. Even the people who go out and protest under a banner of wokeness are only thinking those consequences through so far. Say more. More. Say good night, Gracie. Yeah,
okay. I would say, as we talked about earlier, the the resurgence or the reemergence of this, this idea of saying woke started up very much with the BLM and with the Ferguson killing, and that's really where it gained momentum. In fact, I think that if I remember correctly, I saw an interview with one of the founders of BLM, which actually, I learned recently, is actually named the Movement for Black Lives. Which I found really interesting. Yes. Never knew that before, but one of the founders of BLM, in the original tweet that effectively created the organization included the hashtag stay woke. Right? Absolutely. It was reincarnated out of this whole BLM movement. Correct. Now, the biggest consequence of that BLM movement, what its biggest product, its most impactful, most prolific product, is very simply conflict. It has not moved the ball forward in terms of creating positive change. We'd have to explore that, I think, more. But that's an interesting take. Well, thank you. I would even say it has moved the ball backward in that it has generated all this bitterness that we see on, for instance, Urban Dictionary, all this derision. The way it is practiced increasingly makes it harder for the people who practice it to be taken seriously. So affecting positive changes further than ever as a result of wolfiness as it is practiced today. There has definitely been, yes, a backlash to it, and the backlash has been strong. And the backlash has come from the aggressiveness with which people who want to be woke are aggressive in that mentality. But my argument would be, just like, I think that wokeness and woke is different. Someone being aggressively woke ultimately undermines the meaning of wokeness. And so I am disconnecting those two from each other. So someone in the Black Lives Matter using stay woke, but clearly creating more division than solving problems wouldn't be woke to me. Now, maybe they are in the modern language, and I can concede to that, but in my understanding they wouldn't because they're not practicing wokeness. Right. Common parlance, though, do you think most people would not consider someone like that woke? Well, okay, my answer to that question is going to be a little convoluted on mix up front. I think there is probably, if not a majority, a plurality of people made up of people from both extremes that do think of it that way, the new modern way of woke. But everyday people don't think that much about it. And I don't necessarily think that common parlance usage of wokeness is going to be using it in that frame, that same frame as the woke person versus the wokeness. If we were to do a survey of 100 random people, I think that we would find that the majority of them wouldn't understand the new modern term any more than they understood the old term, the criterion for understanding being using the term the way that we're describing it now. Bear in mind that I didn't ask about, I didn't ask if somebody would understand the difference between woke and wolfiness, so to speak. What I asked was if somebody saw, and we all know the image of the highly combative left wing protester, sure, if Average Joe saw that, would that person consider and you ask them what that person was, do you think that woke might fall in there somewhere? I would say my personal opinion is that maybe be like 50 50. I think it'd be a 50 50 chance. I work with idiots, okay? And those idiots all know that word derisively. Now, a movement a word and a movement. You know what the ad populum fallacy is, right? Actually, I don't remember that one. Okay. The ad populum fallacy is an argument. That an argument who support rests on a large number of people having similar opinion. Right, okay, sure. It is not always a fallacy used in that way. It's a logical fallacy, certainly. But things like movements, things like philosophies to a certain extent, language, absolutely are driven by this ad populate force. So if the majority of adherence to wokeness are more practicing these attributes of sanctimony and judgment and belligerence and intransigence and polarity and all these things with which we identify Wolfiness number one, and with which we differentiate Wolfiness from other forms of social justice advocacy. So we're differentiating between those things. But we have this moniker, wokeness, that qualifies someone as being woke, as being specifically that kind of person that looks and acts that way and identifies that way. Right. So wouldn't that imply then that both the word and the movement have come to mean something else? I want to try an analogy to make sure I understand what you're saying. Socialism. I believe that the basic principle that drives socialism, economic equality for everyone, is a good and worthy. But socialism will always fail because the way that you bring socialism to the population means that there's going to be somewhere around 50% of the population that has to be forced into it. And the second that you're forcing people into something, it no longer becomes about equality to become authoritarian. And in my opinion and research, every country that has attempted some form of socialism or Marxism, communism, whatever brand of that you want. And I know there's differences, the two, but whatever brand of that you want have always turned to authoritarian. There's never been a successful government at country level for any kind of socialist or communist or Marxist. And therefore I think socialism is inherently bad because even though the principle behind it is good, the practice of it will always be it'll never be able to live up to its principle. And if I'm understanding this correctly, you are feeling the same way about woke. That maybe wokeness the original concept isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's lost now because the idea of implementing wokeness leads to all these other things, like preaching and high and mighty and division and what have you, that the original concept of wokeness is always doomed to fail because of that. Okay, I don't like the analogy to socialist simply because it wasn't. I'm not comparing socialism and wildness. I'm just comparing my view of socialism with your view of Wolfe. Right. Right. I understand that. And it doesn't work for one very specific reason. The core of socialism is fatally flawed. The core beliefs of socialism are fatally flawed. It's not just the way it's practiced. It sounds good, but it can't happen. It's not within human nature for it to happen. Right? Whereas what we've identified as this core of wokeness, being knowledgeable about systems of power and acting on that knowledge to dissolve those systems or to change those systems and so forth, those are practicable and those are effective. So I don't think ultimately that it's a fair analogy. That's fair. But what I would like to say is that I think those idiots that you work with, that's the word you used, right? That all know the word woke. If I said to them that someone is trying to understand the systems of power around African Americans and trying to make sure that African Americans are treated equally to non African Americans, most of those people would identify that probably as wokeness, but think it's a bad thing. They would think that identifying those structures of power when it comes to things like race and gender and sexual orientation are woke and bad. They do not agree with the underlying principle of willfulness. You're referring when you say that, you're referring to the idiots I work with, right? Correct. Yes. Completely inaccurate. Okay? Some of them are black, some of them are gay. Those things are all in there. They all believe in this basic idea of equality. But it's not the idea of equality, but being aware of social justice and the power structures that exist, from my own experience, they're aware of the power structures that exist. They're not complex. Getting into the minutiae of them is complex, and disentangling them is complex, and certainly defeating them is complex. But the basic ideas are not complex in any way. So again, I would disagree. Would they agree that white privilege is a thing by their understanding of it? No, at least for most of them. So yeah, like I said, the socialism analogy has that flaw within it. Because of these central tenants, right? Or because the central tenants of Wolfeness actually can work and have worked martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and all of those words without being woke. Okay? So part of the process of defining a thing is figuring out how it's different from similar things. And the only way that wolfiness is different from other forms of social justice advocacy is essentially their rush to judgment, their sanctimony, their belligerence. And more and more frequently we're seeing even discursively their support for political violence as a viable tool. Those are the things that make wokeness wokeness, as opposed to being a different form of social justice advocacy. I understand the point you're making, and I think I disagree. I think that is defining people by their most extreme, and I don't disagree with you that that is a component of performative wokeness at the extreme left of the party. But I would argue that the majority of people aren't like that. The majority of people who might be practicing some form of wokeness are not the woke. We're talking about the majority of people here. We're talking about wokeness. Well, we're talking about wokeness versus woke being woke. Right. So the people of the extremes are the people that are woke that are embodying the as you were describing, but the majority of people are not embodying those. So they might be following wokeness but not being woke. And the majority of people also aren't calling themselves woke, correct? Right. So if the majority of people don't embody those things and the majority of people don't call themselves woke, then the majority of people aren't woke and we are talking about the extreme. So it's absolutely appropriate for me to be talking about the extreme. And it's irrelevant that the majority of people don't subscribe to that because we're talking about the extreme by definition. I understand what you're saying, and that's fair. My problem with it is that when woke gets used as a pejorative, it's not making that distinction, it's blanketing everyone. So people who are pointing out that woke is bad are not making that distinction that you are. If that's the distinction that people are making, then I would agree with it and I have no problem with that sentiment. But people calling me woke because I think that white privilege is a thing is kind of laughable, right? But that's what happens. People call me woke for that kind of idea. I could make the same argument that that's only the extremes of people that call me that and the majority of people wouldn't, and in fact, we talked about that earlier, that a majority of people wouldn't in fact be pretty well opened with that, that the majority of people wouldn't call you woke. Correct. So my point but my point is that so if we're going to talk about the extremes, then we have to focus on both extremes. We can't under the extreme definition. I'm woke. There's something wrong with your logic there. We're talking about woke and wokness, right? The extremes on the right simply aren't woke. No, they're not. No. So why are we talking about them? Because they're the ones that are using the term pejoratively. But as you just discounted my use of wolfiness because it only refers to extremes, I can just as easily just eliminate your same argument. Absolutely. But my argument was a counter to your argument of the extremes. If we're going to take the extremes and we have to take the extreme, the people that are using the term and define and creating the new definition is largely the people using it pejoratively. No, it was the people who started using it. We just said it was the people that did BLM. Right, they moved it to the next phase. But that idea of workness that came out of BLM is still different than what it is today. That pejorative that it's used as and again, that sanctimonious that high like that's called out. That's called out by the extreme right of people on the extreme left. Okay? Right. That's my point. It's come to be defined by the extreme. Yes, but they're calling each other that for the most part. They're in a battle with one another. Yes, but there is the side of that where the whole point, the backlash that has come from the right is a backlash to the division that calling yourself and others woke creates and calling some other people not woke. Right? So if I was someone on the extreme left, if I was a matching waters type using the term wokeness, and I started saying, not only am I going to call people out for being woke, but I'm going to say now that person needs to get woke. They don't know what's going on, blah, blah, blah, and I might call people on the right out right. And that leads to the whole idea of things like killers will get into it and stuff like that. And these are problematic issues that come out of wokeness. The response to that comes from the right. The right is calling out people not just on the extreme left, but they are now using it to buttress against any social justice progress. And so they are turning it into this big pejorative, not just to call out people who have become sanctimonious and preachy and calling themselves woke, but actually trying to undermine the principle of woke. Just as bad as the sanctimonious people are for changing and looking down and creating division through the term of wokeness, the other extreme is doing just the same thing. When they pejoratively call people woke as a way to ridicule them and to try to say, when people call me woke, it doesn't bother me because whatever, it's like when someone calls me a libtard, it's the stupidest thing I'm in the world, right? You're calling me out for my opinions and you're saying I'm a bad person because of my opinions, right? That just means spirited. And it's an attempt to stoke its own division, to stoke its own division, to create its own divisiveness, to create its own problems and to stop progress, right? So if we are going to say that being woke and woke is defined by the people who are themselves identifying or being identified as woke, we also have to consider that part of the people that are using the term and calling people woke are doing so disingenuous. They're doing so pejoratively. Okay, well, if you want me to work in that framework, then I will. I'm not sure that I fully just fully agree or fully disagree, but really it doesn't matter. I'll just work in the framework. So all this is only underlining my point more that wokeness has become its own beast, separate from what it initially started out as I'm not disagreeing with that fact, by the way. I'm not saying that it's wrong, which means that it can be a bad thing. It no longer represents knowledge and action and worrying about the future and caring. Rather, it has become its own signifier. There is a segment of the if we're going to say that people on the extreme right, or anyone really is calling people on the left woke when they're not woke, then we have to deduce that wokeness is a specific segment of the left. And isn't simply those four core components number one? Number two, if the behaviors occurring within that segment of wokeness are so problematic that they're creating increased derision for the people who don't fall into that segment but still fall on the left, that they're moving the ball further, away from those goals of dissolving power structures simply by generating acrimony, then wokeness is no longer the purpose of wokeness is no longer to be knowledgeable about those systems and it's no longer to act on that knowledge or to care about your community or to care about the future. It is to emote, it is to cause chaos. It is without direction. It is structureless Wilkness ceases to be civil rights advocacy, social justice advocacy. And because it's practice now, here's where we could get into socialism. The way it practices moves it away from all those things, right? Which is what we said. That was what we were getting at earlier. I do think that's a good place to stop. I do too. Guys, I hope you enjoyed our first episode in this new format. And here's the fun part. We want to hear from you guys. So this week, as we mentioned earlier, we're going to be continuing this discussion across Social Audio, right? Tomorrow I'll be on the Stereo app at twelve Eastern discussing Woknus on Wednesday, clubhouse 05:00 p.m.. Josh and I will definitely both be at the Spotify live show Thursday 09:00 p.m. Eastern. And then I'll be doing my Wedding Map live feed on Fridays at three. And then we will be back in this feed on Saturday with recap of this week's conversation. And if you bring the fire during our Social Audio appearances, you might just get featured on the podcast. What we need you guys to do now is rate and review this podcast wherever you are listening to it. It helps people find us and it helps keep the conversation going. And we also want to keep this conversation going. You guys, please share this everywhere. Social media, please. Subscribe Follow us on social media. We're on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter. You can email us at sean@twistedlogicpod.com or Josh@twistedlogicpod.com. And please check out our website at the twistedlogicpod.com. Josh, this has been a great first episode and I will see you spotify Live on Thursday night. Excellent. You certainly shall. No one else will see because we're on radio. But you'll see that's, right?
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
Share
Note – this article was written by ChatGPT. I asked it to write an explainer post for my website in the style of Malcolm Gladwell. As part of this week’s podcast, I had ChatGPT co-produce it with me. It came up with script suggestions. I asked it to help me write an explainer companion post for the website. I did not really like the first one it wrote, and so I tried asking for different types of articles, asking for a particular style(witty, snarky, etc) or well know writers (Bill Simmons, Malcolm Gladwell). The below is the one by Gladwell, which I liked the best.
I have made no edits.
A primer / Explainer on the Presidential Classified document Chaos that's been happening in advance of this weeks Twisted Logic Shows!
Discover the biblical perspective on abortion and how it goes against God's instructions. Explore how our role as believers is to glorify Him and uphold His values, and that means NOT supporting anti-abortion laws.
Wokeness is a complex and multifaceted concept that can be seen as both a positive and negative force in society.
Social audio is a growing trend in social media that offers a new way to consume and share information. The rise of social audio apps like Clubhouse, Spotify Live, Stereo, and Wisdom has made it possible for people to engage in real-time conversations, discussions, and debates about a wide range of topics. This interactivity and engagement, which is often lacking in traditional podcasting, makes social audio an ideal platform for discussing current events, news, and other timely topics. Additionally, social audio allows users to create their own rooms and host their own events, which gives them more control over the conversations and makes it easier to build communities around specific topics.
We also introduced a new project, the re-launch of "The Twisted Logic Podcast", that leverages the power of social audio in an innovative new way. This new podcast will be a week-long conversation about a political or cultural issue that is relevant currently, and will provide a more personalized and engaging experience
Shawn and Josh go back and forth on facebook messenger talking about the new allegations by the Rust armorer's attorney that there may have been sabotage involved.
The battle over Covid-19 vaccine mandates is raging in America. In an ironic turn of events, many conservatives who opposed the vaccine and mandates have taken to using the phrase "my body, my choice" in the fight to stay vaccine free. Conservative talk show host, Dan Bongino, who is vaccinated, tells viewers to stop 'capitulating to the left' by giving up their rights to make individual medical decisions. He recently said on Fox News: "My body is mine. It was given to me by God. It was not and is not a ward of the state. I will determine what goes in it." Is he right that people should not be subject to vaccine mandates? And what about the use of the phrase "my body, my choice", is it appropriate here? And how far are we willing to take this?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ras looks at ways to see a White-American Culture that hides in plain sight part of the new Twisted Logic Big Idea Series. Will Be discussed on the live podcast on Thursday October 21.
Shawn's thoughts on why White Culture does not exist - part of the new Twisted Logic Big Idea Series. Will Be discussed on the live podcast on Thursday October 21
Comments from Liberish Shawn St. Peter and Conservative Josh Ayer on the passing of Colin Powell