Absurd debate - it is what Hobbermaus referred to as a performative contradiction to hold this proposition that woke culture can go too far. To say that woke culture can go too far is to side with the status quo. To say that it is a matter of debate is to reinscribe the epistemic home terrain of the dominant culture and to do epistemic violence against the members of marginalized groups who occupy marginalized knowledges.
To platform in any location an opposition to woke culture is again to reinscribe violence.
Let's take an example of someone who has been invited to such a debate. How can that have happened?
Let's look at James Lindsay's greatest hits: famously known for being against woke culture, involved in the Grievance Studies affair from years ago, wrote a book in which he defined Critical Race Theory calling everything you wish to control racist until you control it. At the center of identifying the sexualization of children through queer theory as groomer behaviour. Danced on Karl Marx's grave.
More than that, look at the dress code. People with white privilege have the means of dressing up nicely.
Colonizer formal wear. What is the impact of marginalized groups who cannot bring their full authentic selves to a forum where people wear formal wear to shar etheir ideas.
How is it possible that woke culture has gone too far, when it hasn't even come to this house? (well, that's arguable).
If we want to debate this, we must first understand it.
What does it mean to be woke? I draw a definition from the Brazilian Marxist educator, Paulo Freire:
Conscientization is the essence of woke. You learn to see these things so that you can denounce these things critically in order to announce the possibility of liberation from them.
Woke pursues Social Justice, and if we look for a definitio nof Social Justice, we find a different definition in Karl Marx:
Karl Marx was a damn conservative because he was a privileged white european male who didn't recognize the forms of social and cultural property he benefitted from so he ignored those and focused on material property.
Social justice is the necessary extension of this idea - the positive transcendence of all forms of private property such that we end human self-estrangement.
Social justice is the consummation of something called Social Equity. Where Karl Marx believed in somethign called Socialism that consummates to Communism (an administered political economy where shares are adjusted so citizens are made equal - it just so happens that's the exact definition given to the public administration literature of George Frederickson, for social equity). We don't even bother to take rea lsteps towards social equity. We turn to Kendy: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discriminiation"
Look at the supreme court of the United States: Harvard and UNC are being challenged on their antiracist discrimination that points towards justice. We are trying to walk back our walk towards Social Equity and it's no surprise.
In 2019, for politico, Kendy wrote: "In the United States, at least, if we wish to have social equity, then what we need is wish to have social equity then what we have is an antiracist ammendment to our constitution that makes unconstitutional racial inequity. We don't have that, we havent' even tried! What would it do?
It would establish thorough bureau/bureaucracy that has absolute authority over all state, local, federal public policies. Public figures. Private Entities, their officials, make sure that racial idees and