“I’m very depressed how in this country you can be told “That’s offensive!” as though those two words constitute an argument.” Christopher Hitchens
Recently I was told on a certain social platform that a post of mine “violated community standards” because it might be considered offensive by some people. I was informed that the post had been removed and that if “this continued”, I would be permanently barred. I was miraculously able to find a way to communicate with the gate keepers of that social platform (chat option, so who knows who or what I was “chatting” with) and asked why they found it so and what specific standard was violated; I was directed to what is commonly called the “Terms and Conditions of Use.”, which read like a sophomoric essay about avoiding expressing just about any idea based on reason and logic. I have not published on that platform since as I don’t do “woke” and admit I am addicted to the use of the forbidden reason and logic paradigm.
Years ago, I think it was 2022, I read an interview in “Reason” (very catching name for a publication, likely “triggered” some people) with the famous actor and comic satirist John Cleese discussing comedy and how modern culture was basically killing it; one of his remarks was that “Wokeness is people sitting around deliberately waiting for the thrill of being offended.” Every time I hear some particularly stupid woke idea, I also hear Cleese’s definitive summary of this mental disorder.
During the 2024 presidential election campaign, I was asked by both Democratic and Republican friends who I would vote for; they all knew I was a libertarian who would vote for neither major party and didn’t subscribe to the “lesser-of-two-evils” rationalization. This was a replay of the same situation in 2016, but this time I mischievously played them and said if there were no alternatives I would vote for Trump. Most were shocked knowing that I really didn’t like this guy, and even more so when I espoused the “lesser-of-two-evils” rationalization because I detested the support of the rampant “wokeness” in the Democratic Party. In some cases, friends pointed out my long-standing aversion to the “lesser-of-two-evils” rationalization because by definition it could only provide evil; some lectured me as to where the word “woke” came from, which we all know was from African American culture cautioning awareness of danger, a reality for blacks in the Jim Crow South.
I had played this game to see what the reactions would be; invariably Republicans encouragingly supported my decision as if it were a religious conversion, while Democrats were appalled and also dismissed the “wokeness” claim as just a Republican narrative. I eventually confessed my mischief, which in both cases predictably produced similar reactions as neither accepted or in some cases even understood libertarianism. However, the one thing that had similar reactions was their disclaimer about “wokeness”, which I also think neither really understood. Imagine if I had told them that they both in dissimilar but ultimately fatal means and methods supported socialism, a sacred mantra of the woke.
Other than basic existential principles, everything changes over time, and wokeness is no exception; unfortunately, it always gets worse. Take for instance the growing antisemitism coupled with anti-Islamophobia promoted among progressives, socialists (redundant, right?) and of course Muslims; actually, that’s an example of “strange bedfellows” if there ever was one. Imagine a scenario where advocates for LGBTQ found themselves in a Muslim country were they would be thrown off roofs, or even worse. They might try arguing with their newfound friends that silencing an argument is not the same thing as winning one…as they find themselves experiencing the reality of gravity. In a way, they are all part of the “Wokerati”, who on the one hand deflect criticism by claiming that there’s all this misunderstanding about who and what they represent, which happens when you’re bold face liars.
Being “Woke” became all the rage in 2014 with the BLM movement and the crusade for social justice, a concept that represented the classical “basic fallacy of assumptions”, i.e., beliefs that have no factual basis; this used to be called “begging the question” where the premise of the argument is presented as a conclusion, a fact without evidence. In the George Floyd case, the facts were that the police officer was sentenced to over 20 years in prison for murder and civil rights violations; justice was served but this case was used as a justification for what became known as the “Summer of Love”, a prolonged national “peaceful protest” that was in reality a rampant orgy of arson, vandalism and violence destroying the property and businesses of many innocent victims, none of whom had anything to do with the Floyd case. The justification for such criminality was rage against systemic racism, but where was the justice for the victims of the destruction that followed? Well, there was none because that did not fit into the progressive narrative.
What followed was a disjointed outpouring of grievances and victimhood, mostly having nothing to do with the Floyd case. Suddenly we had victims of just about every transgression imaginable, many we never even knew existed, and usually didn’t. Most philosophers considered such behavior “sophistry” meaning providing false arguments as a deception; the question we should ask is what purpose does that serve, but should you ask, you are now considered racist, fascist, misogynist, and a whole pantheon of evil labels to shame you. There are “Trigger Warnings” “Microaggressions”, “Oppressor Politics”, “Transphobia” “Ableism” …and an endless list of transgressions you could be guilty of without even knowing what they are; neither do the accusers.
“It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.” Thomas Sowell
