Charles Gasparino: 'Woke' Hypocrisy Is Hurting Businesses

The business journalist discusses his new book Go Woke, Go Broke and how CEOs accelerated corporate political activism only to regret its impact on the economy.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Charles Gasparino: 'Woke' Hypocrisy Is Hurting Businesses

HD Video Download

Charles Gasparino is a senior correspondent for the Fox Business Network and a columnist for the New York Post. He's also the author of the new book Go Woke, Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America. Gasparino analyzes major missteps by companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Target, and Disney and explores how CEOs and top management become entranced by things like stakeholder capitalism; diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and environmental, social, and governance plans to the detriment of customer satisfaction, public relations, and the bottom line.

Four years out from the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of George Floyd, Gasparino talks with Reason's Nick Gillespie about whether peak woke has ended and why he views people like Ed Rensi, the former head of McDonald's, as models for how businesses can make profits while being socially responsible. They also discuss how the 2024 election will impact the economy.

0:00—Introduction

1:12—The origins of Gasparino's book, Go Woke Go Broke

9:24—Bud Light X Dylan Mulvaney controversy

18:05—Corporate wokeness started with CEOs

25:06—Trump-world tried to save Bud Light

31:35—Ben & Jerry's pioneered corporate political activism

33:13—Wokeness at Disney

45:22—Does wokeness sell?

47:28—Where is the corporate advocacy for Uyghurs?

49:36—BlackRock, Larry Fink & ESG

59:00—How ESG worsened inflation

1:00:56—Ed Rensi's innovative interventions

1:05:52—Corporate wokeness is in recession

1:07:30—CEOs against campus wokeness

1:10:00—Would Donald Trump or Kamala Harris be worse for the economy?

Today's sponsors:

• ZBiotics. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Make ZBiotics your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Get 15 percent off by going to ZBiotics/TRI and using the code TRI at checkout.
• The Reason Speakeasy. The Reason Speakeasy is a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy that doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. The next event is scheduled for Wednesday, September 11, and features Fox News' Kat Timpf, whose new book is I Used To Like You Until…(How Binary Thinking Divides Us). Tickets are $15 and include beer, wine, soft drinks, and food. Go here for details.

• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

Comments

[Rick James]

1:05:52—Corporate wokeness is in recession

Aaaaand that's why it's safe to talk about.

[Rick James]

9:24—Bud Light X Dylan Mulvaney controversy

Amazing how no one talks about the Nike controversy. No one. It's actually the bigger scandal, and iron-clad proof that the trans movement is wall-to-wall, horizon-to-horizon, floor-to-ceiling sexist and misogynist.

[mad.casual]

Are we talking about the Nike scandal with Colin Kaepernick, the Nike scandal where they got rid of St. George’s Cross from English Soccer Jerseys and replaced it with a more subtle and… diverse... cross stitched into the collar, the Nike scandal where they fiscally and legally supported Lia Thomas and transgender males competing in women’s sports, or the Nike Scandal about the high-cut crotch of women’s uniforms at the Olympic games?

Because I don’t see how any one of those supersedes the cumulative overarching message that Nike seems hell bent on offending every last customer who isn’t Nikole Hannah-Jones or a man striving to look like her.

[Rick James]

got rid of St. George’s Cross from English Soccer Jerseys and replaced it with a more subtle and… diverse… cross

First off, fact check: Everyone agreed, the new one was better.

The new Nike version of the St George’s Cross, revealed earlier this month, looks very nice. I’m sure everyone is agreed on that. It’s neat and stylish. Definitely nicer than a traditional St George’s Cross, an image that dates from the middle ages and betrays the design limitations of the era. Stripping away the connotations of the standard England flag, both positive and negative, and comparing it with the Nike one with complete aesthetic objectivity – and I’m convinced I’m capable of that and you’ll get an earful if you tell me otherwise so don’t bother – the Nike one clearly looks more pleasant.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Anything which refutes the white male patriarchy clearly looks more pleasant.

[Minadin]

Talk about stealing a base.

[mad.casual]

It’s so much better and they’re so proud of it that they took the cross which previously emblazoned the entire uniform and stitched it into one spot on the back of the collar where it would be completely unseen when worn by anyone with long hair.

Again, they seem hell bent on offending every last customer who isn’t literally Nikole Hannah-Jones or a man striving to look like her. Probably hundreds of years of (gay) Englishmen playing soccer, as well as other sports, under St. George’s cross who would wear it with the pride of Britain but… fuck ’em… Nike’s got to profit off modern-day American troon morons.

Edit: In fairness, on second reading, if someone put a gun to my head and said “Write an article favorable to the Nike jerseys.” it wold probably read a lot like that one.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Or maybe just a brown envelope?

[Rick James]

Edit: In fairness, on second reading, if someone put a gun to my head and said “Write an article favorable to the Nike jerseys.” it wold probably read a lot like that one.

Yeah, it would have to be literally on pain of death. The idea that that ridiculous assault on the eyes is better than the one I'd rather see fluttering in the wind as the King's knights rode onto the field of Agincourt is a laugh riot.

[Zeb]

I know which of those controversies I will look for more information about.

[mad.casual]

My personal favorite controversial "Wait, why do we even still have the Olympics again?" moment is when Canadian pole vaulter... and OnlyFans star... twerked after setting an Olympic World national record which wound up earning her a bronze.

I'm all for women stripping off their clothes and twerking in celebration of sport but, finishing 3rd and getting OF money on the side of representing your country (or at least the female athletes getting paid by OF) just seems to run completely contrary to the whole traditional idea of the Olympics. It just seems like such a failure in every dimension when compared to (e.g.) Jesse Owens or George Patton.

Like a past time competed in by ladies and gentlemen at great hardship to themselves and others is being replaced by clickbait entertainment for and by adolescents.

[Zeb]

Yeah, if it's not going to be dignified athletes proudly representing their countries, I'm not sure what the Olympics is for. There are plenty of international sporting competitions and opportunities to be all hot and slutty.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Never really cared about the Olympics but always had a mostly positive view of the athletes. After watching dudes beating up women and the officials defending it my ambiguity has turned into outright antipathy. These motherfuckers have crossed a big red line. Fuck the Olympics.

[Rick James]

A bunch of gap-toothed fork lift drivers who play hockey on the weekend and beat the Soviet National Team agree.

[Ron]

Apparently Harley Davidson is going thru the WOKE pains now with corporate mandated DEI and moving plants out of the U.S.

[Rick James]

Hey, the CEO referred to himself as "The Taliban of Sustainability". What's not to love?

[JohnZ]

The reaction a couple weeks back at the Sturgis Rally really convinced HD that was the correct decision.
People are now deciding to buy Indian.

[Rick James]

Go Woke, Go Broke

I believe this has been somewhat debunked. It has been observed to be: Go broke, get woke, go bankrupt.

[Overt]

I think the whole Harley debacle is a good example of this. In the 2010's they massively over-extended. They were building stores everywhere, and selling cheap versions of their bikes everywhere. Now those bikes have no resale value, and they are hemorrhaging money from these overbuilt retail outlets. They needed to turn to something to change the story, and naive people think that they can suddenly make zoomers and millennials adopt their brand. It is bizarre, but a perfect example of Woke being more of a Plan B than a means to an ends.

[mad.casual]

They were building stores everywhere, and selling cheap versions of their bikes everywhere.

Don’t forget about pumping a bunch of money into bikes (or just one) that were so radically divergent from their own and their domestic customer base that they were virtually guaranteed to flop (and did).

[Mother's Lament]

"Gasparino talks with Reason's Nick Gillespie about whether peak woke has ended"

Nowhere near cresting the wave yet, this is just a little half-hearted pushback right now. They're going to strike twice as hard as soon as they rally...

[Beezard]

A few nanoseconds after the election, I’d reckon.

[Overt]

The Woke Mind Virus is the direct result of millennials entering the work force. As soon as they started showing up at my company, political email lists turned into conservative-bashing whine-fests where pushing back on any of their BS meant getting reported to HR for making them feel unsafe. During 2020, ever time there was the slightest problem, the millennials all demanded to take the day off (even though they were already working from home). Floyd riots? Too unnerving. Take a mental health day. J6 Riot? Take the day off.

At some point some marketing research on millennials went over the top, suggesting that a company just had to make them feel like it matched their employees' and customers' values. These performative dances were a cheap way to earn inflato-bucks and the companies never looked back.

[defaultdotxbe]

Millennials began entering the workforce in 2003 (or earlier for jobs without a college degree) are you sure it's them?

[Rick James]

That would track pretty tightly. I’m not making any iron-clad statements about laying the blame on their feet, but given that they started entering the workforce in the mailroom in 2003, and then by 2012-2015 would have significantly increased their numbers and influence on the company as they climbed up the ranks, I would say that tracks very well.

Things don’t start the moment the first millennial stepped into xer cubicles... this would take ~10 years or so to take root. Also, my generation, Gen X isn’t completely off the hook either. We kind of started it with PC 1.0 in the 1990s.

[defaultdotxbe]

Personally I think the issue is less Millennials themselves, but more what Gen X thinks Millennials/Gen Zers want. Your 10 year point marks the time Gen X would be taking over most executive roles from Boomers and start making the big company-wide decisions, so I think you are pretty on the mark with PC 1.0, they saw the seed of 2.0 and decided to water it.

[Rick James]

Gen X would be taking over most executive roles from Boomers and start making the big company-wide decisions

The one thing to understand about corporate wokeness is CEOs are... as a class, kind of dumb. Especially in modern times. Especially in Silicon Valley and media-- which is where a large chunk of corporate wokeness exists. They will latch on hard to whatever they think is the 'current thing'. As much as I hate and loathe corporate wokeness, I never once believed it was particularly sincere. I predicted, and thus far I appear to be mostly correct, that as soon as there's a widespread recognition that it's not only not paying off, but causing real damage to their bottom lines, they'd reverse course. The ESG thing made that more difficult to do, because that represented a kind of squeeze coming from two sides. The one side, their customers, were clearly voting with their wallets. But because of the outsized influence of ESG, they couldn't immediately reverse course because then the investment/banking/finance side would penalize them. And for really big corporations, that mattered.

Then there was the internal monster that the CEOs created: The modern HR department. That kind of put most of these corporations into a kind of 3 front war. 1: Customers. 2. Banking/finance. 3. Their own employees who "brought their true selves to work".

Ironically, the internal part was the scariest because that was when they realized the phone calls were coming from inside the house.

But regardless, once the financial pressures from lost sales and revenue became big enough, that has been the catalyst for some CEOs to finally say "enough is enough" and reverse course. When the choice becomes "survive" or "die woke and in Larry Fink's good graces", the choice will be "survive".

[Quicktown Brix]

Robin DiAngelo is a boomer. Ibram Kendi is a millennial. It skips a generation, you know.

I think you may be on to something, but I think boomers were still on watch when this took off. Incidentally, GenX is the most conservative and least approving of Biden of all generations including boomers and the silent generation.
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1217878506/gen-x-conservative-disapprove-biden

Plus GenX couldn't possibly care enough to be woke.

[Rick James]

Plus GenX couldn’t possibly care enough to be woke.

And this is why I've always contended that wokeness couldn't (and didn't) take off with the ferocity it has in this latest iteration. Gen X was, in the end, too apathetic to give a shit about global social justice.

I think you may be on to something, but I think boomers were still on watch when this took off.

It was boomers who invented it and infested the academies with it. The results are the subsequent generations who graduated.

[BYODB]

Boomers created the monster, and then were horrified when they lost control of the monster. It's never failed to amuse me when Boomers who are 'mostly socialist' also happen to have amassed a huge amount of personal wealth and then have the gall to complain about taxes. Apparently that cohort is completely unaware that they are the very people they claim to hate, and they trained a whole generation to hate them in particular.

Mary Shelly could have given them some notes, one might think.

[mad.casual]

Your 10 year point marks the time Gen X would be taking over most executive roles from Boomers and start making the big company-wide decisions, so I think you are pretty on the mark with PC 1.0, they saw the seed of 2.0 and decided to water it.

Pushing back a little bit on this: a 90s era hallmark was the tech boom, where scads of Gen Xers were getting together and founding companies while the Boomer money men were telling them that it's OK to have a game room in their office but they need to be extra careful not to exclude the blacks, or at least be seen as excluding them on paper.

Again, not to exculpate Gen X entirely, but the subsequent 20 yrs. Millennials leapfrogged to the VCs in much the same way and were much more eager to implement proto-ESG social policies. What was a somewhat fringe movement among Gen X became a mainstay under new(er) management (with old financing).

We have yet to have a Gen X fed chair. Not that I think they'll do a better job, just that Gen X proportionally making the C-level in the 00s and 10s (after the bust) doesn't put them in charge of a/the industry.

[Beezard]

You can probably blame an increasing portion of every generation since about the 1850s and still be close to the mark.

[JFree]

I think it's been a decreasing problem ever since the printing press. You should have seen how woke companies were then. But no one wrote about it then.

[Beezard]

Not the same thing. Protestant nut jobs still actually worked hard and created stuff. Even if they did dabble in iconoclasm.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, there’s a bit of a causality/categorical error going on as well.

Hitler ascended to power under/during The Lost Generation and The Greatest Generation’s watch but the idea that he ascended *because* of either generation is a bit of a stretch.

The Boomers, largely, marched through the institutions keeping the useful Lost and Greatest idiots that were already there. Gen X was certainly touched by it but not wholly captured the way we’ve seen everyone with a degree be captured by or subjected to it in the last 10-20 yrs. As Rick James indicates, even a few years of completely brainwashed undergrads doesn’t transform any given corporation until HR becomes entrenched and EEOC regulations get enshrined into law.

If a Boomer sets up an HR department to comply with EEOC, appoints a Gen X successor who doesn't believe all the bullshit but mostly abides the law and culture, going along to get along, and a bunch of Millennials and Gen Xers, some hired by the Boomer, some by the Gen Xer, all educated by Boomer Marxist holdovers, start making waves about ESG and passive-aggressively influencing policy, is that the Boomers, Gen Xers, or Millennials' fault? Yes.

[Minadin]

I don't know that it's really millennials, either, certainly not the early ones, anyway. I graduated college in 2002, my middle sister was a couple years after me, so I'm one of the last Gen-X'ers and she is technically one of the first Millennials, and there just isn't that much difference. Our youngest sister graduated in 2006 - same deal.

We did not see this kind of 'woke' stuff on campus going to college in the early 2000's. Lots of liberal professors and policies, and a couple of odd gender-studies type courses, but nothing like what you see today. I think a lot of that started taking root later on. 2008-12, maybe.

[DesigNate]

Granted my Architecture program kept us pretty secluded from any shenanigans on campus (mostly just due to the shear volume of work and time commitment), but the only activisty things I remember hearing was in relation to global warming. And I also graduated in 2002.

[mtrueman]

"Granted my Architecture program kept us pretty secluded from any shenanigans on campus"

Didn't your program emphasize the importance of accessibility? I would have thought making buildings wheel chair accessible was a part of any self respecting architectural program by 2002.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

FOAD, shitstain.

[DesigNate]

We didn’t get into the minutia of code compliance (a great disservice to all architecture students IYAM).

But seeing as the ADA was already 10 years old when I was in college, there weren’t a lot of activist pushing for inclusivity in building design by then.

[mtrueman]

"there weren’t a lot of activist pushing for inclusivity in building design by then"

That's understandable. The professors would already be teaching about the adaptations necessary to make buildings wheel chair friendly, the upper limits of the pitch of a ramp, for example. Or at least include references to the subject in their reading assignments.

No need for activism when the professors are already raising awareness. It's not exactly shenanigans, but it's the result of shenanigans, in this case the activism around the passing of the ADA.

[Minadin]

We had the option to do a day on campus in a wheelchair, and I took advantage of it. It was pretty interesting, especially the library stacks.

Did you see the new thing they're pushing for in the next IBC to come out, with the adult changing stations in Family Assist Restrooms being required? Almost doubles the size of the room.

[Square = Circle]

the only activisty things I remember hearing was in relation to global warming

The activists-waving-signs thing is something that definitely went away for a period in the late-'90s, early-'00s. It wasn't even really happening in Berkeley. It seems like that stuff made a comeback in the Occupy era.

[DesigNate]

I think that’s a good observation.

[defaultdotxbe]

I've often felt that the ~25 year generational cohort doesn't work for classifying people. There does seem to be a better correlation when you combine that with the generation that raised them. Older millenials (raised by Boomers) tend to have more in common with Boomer-raised Gen X, with later Gen X raised Gen Zers. Millenial-raised Gen Z is still a little on the young side but I suspect we'll see a blending with the Millenial-raised Gen Alpha, and then a shift in the Gen-Z-raised Gen Alpha.

[Square = Circle]

Older millenials (raised by Boomers) tend to have more in common with Boomer-raised Gen X, with later Gen X raised Gen Zers.

Funny - it's always looked almost opposite from this to me, with those of us on the older end of Gen X being the ones who were born to the young, reckless Boomers of the late-'60s, early-'70s - a sort of 'accidental generation,' if you will - while the older Millennials represent the 'lifestyle choices' of the aging Boomers of the '80s and '90s who literally invented helicopter parenting.

Those of us who were raised by the Boomers who got pregnant during the Summer of Love and just went with it, well, let's just say we had somewhat less supervision and insulation than the second round of Boomer spawn had.

[JFree]

I agree. The generational cohorts that we currently identify are an advertiser creation. The primary target market for companies to advertise their goods is roughly the 17-35 demographic. So whenever their new target market ages to 17 or so, they create a framework for how they are going to appeal to that ‘generation’ for the next 15-20 years. The first specific example of that artificial creation was the boomers and TV. In early/mid 60’s, marketers adopted the term ‘boomers’ and started deciding how popular culture would adapt to better appeal to them as adults. It is no accident that the entire TV schedule switched en masse (in synch with the technical switch from black&white to color) in the mid/late 60’s as the oldest boomers hit adulthood. Boomers grew up on westerns and shows with an almost pre-WW2 rural/small town vibe. That all switched in a heartbeat as TV moved to cop shows and urban/edgier stuff – because that was what was deemed to appeal to either boomers-as-adults or advertisers-who-wanted-their-ads-shown-in-that-context.

That 17 year switchover by advertisers – generations that are cultural as defined by mass media – doesn’t cleanly correspond with a 20-25 year or so ‘generation’ that is defined more by adults having kids who share a common/similar set of experiences and thus some commonality in how they parent. Boomers whose parents were WW2 generation are very different from boomers whose parents were ‘Silent’ are very different from GenX whose parents were ‘Silent’ are very different from GenX whose parents were boomer etcetcetc.

I think the disconnect has probably gotten worse over time as media/marketing/messaging is FAR more powerful now in defining how individuals view the world - which in turn now defines the experiences that shape the way we parent. We don't really share a universal real world experience anymore that imposes itself. We OBSERVE common experiences that are created for us.

[mtrueman]

"The first specific example of that artificial creation was the boomers and TV."

I remember reading somewhere that in the first half of the 20th century, advertisers tailored their messaging not to generational cohorts, but regional and ethnic differences. Blacks, Southern Whites, and everyone else. Three different advertising strategies for any given product.

[Azathoth!!]

Try it this way--

Alfa-2020-2040
Gen Z 2000=2020
Millennial 1980-2000
Gen X 1960-1980
Boomer 1940-1960
Greatest 1920-1940
Silent 1900-1920

With blurring at the edges.

Fits better than a 25 or 15

[Square = Circle]

I started teaching Freshman English in 1997 and taught my last class in 2005, and there was a noticeable difference over that period. Every term I taught one session on the history of the language, and by the last couple of years I was noticing more and more students squirming at any discussion of "Aryans," even from 3,000 years ago, and one of my last students joked that I was going to be reported for teaching Nazism. By this time it was clear to me that I had no future in academia.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What is a 'Woke Mind Virus'? Surely not a real physical virus, right?

[Rick James]

I like to think of it as a bear in the trunk...

[chemjeff radical individualist]

When does your flight to Brazil leave? I hear Glenn Greenwald needs a new fluffer.

[DesigNate]

I love that you hate him since he turned on the Democrats. Well, more accurately, since the Democrats turned on him.

Edit: I mean love in the sense that it amuses me.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But he hasn't turned on the Democrats, or at least not left-wing politics. He's still a big fan of Glenn Greenwald and he isn't exactly a MAGAhead.

The reason why I give Rick/Diane/Paul a hard time now is because he's made it very clear that he is going to stay firmly in his little Internet media bubble and he isn't leaving. Maybe he could tell us all again how he believes Glenn Greenwald is more trustworthy than, say, the AP, when it comes to delivering the news.

If anyone has succumbed to some sort of "mind virus" around here, it's a "post-modernist conspiracy theory virus" that people like Rick/Diane/Paul exhibit, when they create a socially constructed reality that is impervious to objective facts. In their mind there is ALWAYS some reason why some Youtuber's hyperventilating opinionated drivel is more compelling and more believable than literal empirical facts. Just look at the discussion yesterday about the crime rates. The statistical data literally does not matter - they are instead absolutely convinced that violent crime is not just up, but WAY up, and it's Biden's and Kamalamama's fault. In their mind, they feel completely free to absolutely disregard literal empirical evidence that contradicts their "reality" and substitute Facebook anecdotes and public opinion polls in their stead. It is madness. Part of me hopes that it IS the result of a literal virus, because if it isn't, the actual problem is far deeper and more serious.

[Nobartium]

Nah, it's only a problem if you support universal suffrage.

[Minadin]

He was talking about Glenn Greenwald, not Rick.

[DesigNate]

That is correct.

Not really sure why he didn’t get that….

[Minadin]

Reading for comprehension. Lack of.

[Rick James]

Youtuber’s hyperventilating opinionated drivel is more compelling and more believable than literal empirical facts. Just look at the discussion yesterday about the crime rates. The statistical data literally does not matter – they are instead absolutely convinced that violent crime is not just up, but WAY up

Youtuber shows homicides way up.

[Rick James]

Another youtuber records violent crime up, up, up, to the mooooooon!

[Rick James]

Youtuber notes crime increasing, increasing, increasing...

[Rick James]

How's that #Defunding workin' out for ya, Act Blue?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Congratulations, you have discovered the fallacy of composition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_illicit_transference

The discussion yesterday was about the violent crime rate of the entire nation, not just Seattle. It is entirely possible for the national crime rate to be falling even if Seattle's local crime rate is increasing.

So, here is some actual data on the violent crime rate over time.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

According to this source, the violent crime rate was 363.9 per 100,000 population in 2019, jumped to 385.2 in 2020, and has steadily fallen to 369.8 in 2022.

"But but but the data is incomplete and imperfect!" Yes that is correct. No data set is completely flawless. However that does not mean one may just impute any meaning one wishes from the data, nor is it responsible to simply ignore the data entirely.

So the entire narrative of "OMG VIOLENT CRIME WAVE" is a complete lie, *from a nationwide perspective*. Yes there was an increase in 2020 due to the pandemic and the Floyd riots. But it was small compared to historical trends. Yes there were localities that had bigger increases in crime than the nation as a whole. But those specific instances does not invalidate the general trend.

By the way, when you read my comment, this is what I think you happened. Instead of trying to find data to challenge the narrative presented by your iron-clad Internet media bubble, instead, you tried to find mainstream media sources that seemed to agree with your narrative and project those onto everyone else. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong, but I don't think you can. And if I'm right, it just reinforces what I've been saying: the data and facts don't matter, all that matters is your narrative. Anyone who comes along to try to question that narrative is "a liar".

So fuck off and go back to giving Glenn Greenwald a blowjob. You're an indoctrinated moron at this point.

[Minadin]

You guys don't know logical fallacies at all, and because you don't understand, you're proud to display your ignorance, not knowing that it exposes you as rejecting logic, in support of a narrative that 'feels' right.

You must continue to crush those unbelievers who are not at all loyal enough to the party. Please, continue. It's a great ongoing case study.

[Beezard]

I haven’t ruled out some sort of fungal infection that controls the brain like the Ophiocordyceps unilateralis does with ants. But so far the evidence seems to tend towards a neo-Marxist/post-modern esoteric cult that finds predominance in higher education, which then spreads to everywhere else via institutional capture.

One notable symptom is being able to find social injustice anywhere and everywhere. While being totally unable to see how ubiquitous wokeness itself is.

[mtrueman]

“One notable symptom is being able to find social injustice anywhere and everywhere. ”

Social injustice is everywhere. What’s important is your attitude towards those afflicted by it. If wokeness is increased sensitivity to minorities whether ethnic or sexual preference, many conservatives reflexively oppose it. When wokeness is about bringing awareness to the sexual abuse of children, spanking or shaking, conservatives support the agenda.

Wokeness has nothing to do with ‘mind viruses.’ I think it goes back to the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement, The late 1700s. Increased sensitivity to the suffering of others. The anti-slavery movement took off during this period. Same with women’s rights, worker’s rights, animal rights. Even environmentalism and vegetarianism. (See the poetry and etchings of William Blake.) Scientists also started to take an interest in anaesthesia around the same time.

[Beezard]

Utter horseshit.

It’s telling how you mention the enlightenment and romantics as if they’re not completely antagonistic movements. Rousseau is the end of liberalism. William Blake was a fine poet and a lunatic spiritualist who talked to his dead brother.

Woke is the absolute rejection of concepts like “reason” or “rights”. And it doesn’t even pretend to want to build or make anything for anybody.

Being sensitive to minorities jumps the shark once you actively discriminate against innocents to achieve some arbitrary collectivist goal. And the proof is when they have make up new minorities in order to keep the revolution going.

You know this. So I won’t waste any more breath with your “woke is just the natural extension of the enlightenment” motte and bailey.

[mtrueman]

"It’s telling how you mention the enlightenment and romantics as if they’re not completely antagonistic movements."

Not completely antagonistic. The Enlightenment preceded Romanticism. And Romanticism played a role in anti-slavery, woman's rights, etc. These are also Enlightenment/Liberal principles.

" William Blake was a fine poet and a lunatic spiritualist who talked to his dead brother. "

He was also a nudist, if you find yourself short of ammo to smear him with. What I thought was amazing was that he's compose poetry not with pen and paper, but engraving it on copper, backwards!

"Woke is the absolute rejection of concepts like “reason” or “rights”."

It's not clear what you mean by 'woke.' You haven't defined what you mean by it. You are merely sloganeering. I have defined woke thusly:
"Increased sensitivity to the suffering of others. "

"Being sensitive to minorities jumps the shark once you actively discriminate against innocents to achieve some arbitrary collectivist goal."

I'm not addressing jumping the shark. It's not an issue that piques my interest. My comment was about the origins of 'woke' which I date back to the late 1700s. Others here date it to the 1990s or 2000s which I disagree with. How about you? When do you think it originated? Are you in the 1990s camp?

"So I won’t waste any more breath with your “woke is just the natural extension of the enlightenment” motte and bailey."

I would never want you to waste breathe on my account, so don't feel obliged to respond. But woke originates with the Romantics and the Enlightenment Liberals who believed that human rights were universal, hence the anti slavery business and the rest.

[Beezard]

Abolitionists were as often as not zealous Christians. Not laid back deists.

The enlightenment you’re talking about is not of the rationalist English/Scottish but mostly of the Frog/Kraut variety. To me they are barely liberals by 1792 or so. But of course neither were the progressives who stole the term all over again by the 1930s.

Rousseau, someone I can agree on as an early ancestor of woke, put forth a romantic reaction against the enlightenment. He is an antithesis. And since I don’t really buy that dialectic shit, he’s not sublating us into a higher philosophy. He’s backsliding us into esoteric spiritualism and handing power back to feudal lords.

The motte and Bailey you’re trying to construct here is that the woke just care about the plight of the weak. So that when someone attacks the obvious lunacy of putting male rapists in women’s prisons (or some such), you can retreat back behind the wall of legitimate examples of actual civil rights.

[Beezard]

Shorter version: Woke is fundamentally anti-enlightenment. That’s the influence it ultimately obtained from the enlightenment.

[mtrueman]

"Woke is fundamentally anti-enlightenment."

I disagree. It's about increasing sensitivity to the suffering of others. The Enlightenment was about the recognition of universal human rights, as the Founding Fathers wrote. The first follows directly from the second.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"I disagree. It’s about increasing sensitivity to the suffering of others. "
It's about virtue-signaling, lying pile of lefty shit.

[JohnZ]

There are so many people suffering because they can't afford sex change operations or for trans men who are refused the use of women's bathrooms.
Of course the suffering of young women from being raped by a trans female or male or whatever the hell they are is nothing in comparison with the horrible suffering of that trans person.

[mtrueman]

"There are so many people suffering because they can’t afford sex change operations or for trans men who are refused the use of women’s bathrooms."

If it's any consolation, there are more people who aren't suffering for those reasons.

"Of course the suffering of young women from being raped by a trans female or male or whatever the hell they are is nothing in comparison with the horrible suffering of that trans person."

I disagree. Being raped seems to be a traumatic experience, from all accounts. Maybe you need to rethink these ill informed opinions of yours. Try that for me, won't you?

[mtrueman]

"Abolitionists were as often as not zealous Christians."

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Christianity was commonly held in Western society in the late 1700s and wasn't seriously undermined until the mid eighteen hundreds with Darwin, the study of geology and critique of the Bible. Check out the writings of George Eliot, a novelist who read all the contemporary German thinkers on the subject. She rejected the supernatural elements of Christianity but recognized the important role of the Bible in our culture.

"The enlightenment you’re talking about is not of the rationalist English/Scottish but mostly of the Frog/Kraut variety. "

I'm not sure what the difference is. Voltaire was French, but read widely in English and lived in England in exile. Adam Smith also read Europeans, and Arab thinkers, and lived for a spell in France.

"Rousseau, someone I can agree on as an early ancestor of woke, put forth a romantic reaction against the enlightenment. "

Sorry, I don't know much of Rousseau, so I never mentioned him. My interest in the period of the late 1700s came about because it seems to have been the origin of the anti slavery movement, women's rights, animal rights, environmentalism etc. They all have this increased sensitivity to the suffering of others in common. I don't agree that these came about as a result of a rejection of rationality or the Enlightenment. Rather they fit in nicely with notions of universal human rights, which the Founding Fathers wrote of.

"that the woke just care about the plight of the weak."

I'm not speaking for what 'the woke' care about. I'm putting forth the idea that wokeness (Increased sensitivity to the suffering of others) originated not in the 1990s, as you evidently believe, but in the late 1700s.

" So that when someone attacks the obvious lunacy of putting male rapists in women’s prisons"

Again, I'm not really interested in who is imprisoned with whom and where. My comment, which you should read again, was only about the origin of woke. Maybe some other day we can discuss how it evolved and widened over time, a topic, I'm sure you have strong opinions on.

[Azathoth!!]

I’m putting forth the idea that wokeness (Increased sensitivity to the suffering of others) originated not in the 1990s, as you evidently believe, but in the late 1700s.

The problem is that wokeness is not what you suggest. Rather it is the increased vocalization about the suffering of others, both real and imagined (others AND suffering)

It is an abrogation of the alleviation of suffering in favor of conversation and blame assigning about suffering.

Care about suffering originated long before the date you suggest, before the first homo sapiens was born, in fact. Care about other's suffering is one of the first steps on that ladder towards humanity.

But those like you think it was 'discovered'. And they started blathering about it in the mid to late 1700s. And created the seeds that would become the pestilential leftism we are plagued with today. Holier than thou morons who think noticing something and 'raising awareness' --even of imaginary things-- is more important than actually doing something about real issues.

[mtrueman]

" both real and imagined "

How are we to judge whether the suffering of others is real or imagined? The abolitionists of the late 1700s thought that the suffering of the enslaved was real. Are you suggesting that it was imagined? Based on what? My contention is that it is based on your own attitudes. You believe the suffering of sexually abused children, for example, is real, but that of the 'gender confused' is imaginary. It's all too subjective, in my opinion.

"Care about suffering originated long before the date you suggest"

That's why I wrote 'increased sensitivity to suffering.' I wrote that wokeness originated in the late 1700s, not that caring originated then. I thought it was interesting that all those social movements started with the Enlightenment. And they reverberate still today.

"started blathering about it in the mid to late 1700s."

Why the dismissive language? Do you also resent people blathering about wicked teachers forcing young boys to have their genitals removed? No? I thought not. As I said, your resentment of wokeness is switched on and off depending on your attitude toward the sufferers rather than any consistent principles.

"Holier than thou morons who think noticing something and ‘raising awareness’"

You oppose people noticing things? You haven't thought this through. You have to notice something and call attention to it before you can do anything about it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

One notable symptom is being able to find social injustice anywhere and everywhere.

Do you mean, being able to perceive social injustice that was hiding in plain sight? Or, trying to twist reality to 'discover' social injustice where it doesn't really exist?

[Beezard]

The woke literally think words are oppression. Theories of decolonization have been written about gardening and mountain climbing. The whole point is to call something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever until you can destroy or control it.

understand that the critical consciousness they want you to achieve isn’t some sort of equal rights for some specific demographic being held down by a specific law or institution. Social Justice is explicitly anti-rights. Rights are just a lie concocted by the oppressive superstructure to keep the oppressed down.

The Justice they speak of isn’t legal justice. Equity isn’t legal equality. It’s literally identitarian socialism. And the point is to control and/or destroy. To perpetuate the revolution and to cause the reaction that will justify further revolution. In the short term it gives power to vindictive sociopaths and narcissisticwanna be super heroes.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Okay, so it's a set of ideas that you disagree with, and you disparage it by comparing it to an illness. Got it.

[DesigNate]

I am yet again mystified why anyone would accuse you of being a leftist or a post-modernist.

[JohnZ]

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Joseph Stalin

[Zeb]

Have you ever heard the phrase "going viral"? Or of the concept of a meme (the original one, not the funny picture caption one)?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, in that case, let's talk about the "MAGA Virus"...

[LIBtranslator]

That's easy. Pepe the frawg stands in for Colombia's cult of christianofascist mutilation murder vigilantes. They were made popular by Reagan, Biden, Kerry and Bush² in the 1980s.

[Mother's Lament]

“Pepe the frawg”

Oh wow! Hank actually invoked something post 1970s.

As expected he has taken the Hillary campaign's narrative on the meme to heart though.

Silly old fuck.

[Zeb]

Yes, people go overboard with personality based politicians like that. It can be pretty dumb. But I'm a lot more worried about the people who think they are going to radically reshape society and human nature.

[Mother's Lament]

“What is a ‘Woke Mind Virus’?”

You, Jeffy. You are a Woke Mind Virus viron.

Just go look at all the insane and evil things that you advocate for the symptoms.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, if I was a "woke mind virus" then there would be a lot more liberty in the land. I think objective reality disproves your point.

[DesigNate]

If you think woke = liberty, you’re even more delusional than I thought.

[Azathoth!!]

No, Jeff, you're a viron.

You reproduce by stealing the genetic information of the cells you infect and make it form copies of you.

So you THINK you're 'spreading liberty' because you're made of corrupted liberty.

But all you spread is the corruption.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

entranced by things like stakeholder capitalism; diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and environmental, social, and governance plans to the detriment of customer satisfaction, public relations, and the bottom line.

No "stakeholder" has ever contributed a dime to company investment, nor likely spent as much on a company product. They get their specious "power" from social media and just making a lot of noise. And of course the inverse celebration of victims, whomever that might be at any moment in time.

[JohnZ]

Let's see how well "woke" works out for Tractor Supply, John Deere and Harley Davidson......
Just ask Robby Starbuck

[Uncle Jay]

...or ask Anhauser Busch with their Bud Light commercials with Dylan McGulvey...or whatever the hell its name is.

[mtrueman]

It's working fine. Check out all the safety features in modern tractors that didn't exist a few decades ago.
https://husfarm.com/article/innovations-in-tractor-safety-features-for-farm-worker-protection
ROPS (roll over protection shields), seat belts, improved lighting and marking, emergency stop features, AI, etc.

[Truthfulness]

^ See, this is what denial looks like. Nothing in there refutes the terrible financial situation that's happening to those companies.

[mtrueman]

I don't know anything about the financial situation of any company, really. Though I doubt that an increased emphasis on customer safety is going to drive them into bankruptcy.

[JohnZ]

It has nothing to do with the current woke ideology. Nothing at all.
In fact just the opposite with DEI hires being so incapable of even the simplest task.
Just ask Boeing,oh wait a minute, the last person who blew the whistle on Boeing COMMITTRD SUICIDE!
Oh yes and then there’s the two stranded astronauts who foolishly went up in another Boeing built vehicle who may very well die there.
Yup DEI works great.

[mtrueman]

I thought we were discussing wokeness. That's why I raised the issue of the increased concern over customer in the tractor business.

"Yup DEI works great."

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A minute ago you were busy minimizing the trauma of rape. You're an ignorant yahoo.

[LIBtranslator]

"Woke" today means "Jew" as bandied about by Goebbels and Streicher during Germany's fling with Christian National Socialism. Unlike today's Sinfest cartoons modeled on Der Stürmer, modern corporate looters and mystical influencers make Woke stand in for earlier slurs--the general thrust of which was "unclean, perverse and not altruistically obedient to Our Divine Führer."

[Mother's Lament]

““Woke” today means “Jew””

The woke are literally rioting in the streets calling for death to Jews and for “From the river to the sea” genocide, but look at this silly old fuck trying to claim otherwise.

[DesigNate]

Hank is a national treasure of ridiculousness.

[Uncle Jay]

Corporate "wokeness" is a disease the board rooms of America due to the CEOs hiring a bunch of clueless Ivy League business school graduates parroting the same bullshit their professor indoctrinated them with in the classroom.
When applied to the real world, this "woke" bullshit exploded in their stupid faces, leaving the new Ivy League hires and their bosses scratching their empty heads wondering what went wrong.
Isn't that right, Anhauser Busch?

[Beezard]

The ESG cartel holds a pretty big carrot/stick over the heads of these companies, too.

[JohnZ]

Blackrock/Larry Finklesteinowitcz

[JasonT20]

Gasparino analyzes major missteps by companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Target, and Disney...

Those companies made missteps in that they underestimated the ability of right-wing media figures to generate outrage over things that have negligible effects on them or their audiences.

[Truthfulness]

This isn't remotely true. Nothing is negligible about determining what is or isn't a woman.

You've been deceived into believing otherwise, JasonT20.

[mtrueman]

"Nothing is negligible about determining what is or isn’t a woman."

That's binary thinking for you. 'You can't live on fractions,' as the Denis Hopper Harlequin character said on Apocalypse Now. Non binary, all the rage with the kids these days, is a different kettle of fish.

[Truthfulness]

And that binary thinking is correct. People on your side are incapable of accepting the truth.

[mtrueman]

Are you telling me you aren't aware of 'non binary?' It's all the rage these days. Try to keep up.

[JasonT20]

And that binary thinking is correct.

There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary, and those that don't.

Gender is binary in the same way that voltage is in my limited knowledge of digital electronics. One of the advantages of digital electronics over analog is that the voltage doesn't need to be that precise for the circuit to function properly. That allows it to function well despite low or moderate levels of noise.+5V = "1"; 0V = "0", for instance. An input or output signal that is approximately +5V would register as a "1", while a signal that was approximately 0V would register as a "0". But how much range is actually accepted by a device? What if the input signal is +2.5V? What does it interpret the value to be?

Binary male and female works just fine for the vast majority of people. They clearly fit within one or the other category and are perfectly comfortable with the gender that society decides that they are. But for some people, that is not true. They don't feel comfortable with their assigned gender. They may transgender (feeling that they are the opposite of their assigned gender) or they maybe "gender fluid" or "non-binary".

You can disbelieve that this is real, if you wish. But you would need some scientific basis for this other than ipse dixit if you wish to impose that belief on other people.

[mtrueman]

" They don’t feel comfortable with their assigned gender. "

Yes, non binary is more about a person's subjective feelings than their actual physical attributes.

[JasonT20]

This isn’t remotely true. Nothing is negligible about determining what is or isn’t a woman.

How does it affect you, personally, for there to be some people with transgender identities?

[Azathoth!!]

You can be male or female.

That is all there is. There is no third sexual role in humans.

There are people who transition visually and artificial hormonally to approximations of a sex other than what they were born.

This a male can transition to appear female to some extent. And a female can transition to appear male.

But there is no third sex to transition to.

In gender expression, one can use male expressions, female expressions or any of an infinity of combinations of both.

But there is no third type of expression to be had. Because there is no third sex.

In orientation, the issue remains the same. Without an actual third sex, one can only have a binary based orientation.

So there are no 'non-binary' people. Because there can't be. One and One cannot make three.

What is referred to as a 'transgender identity' is simply an amalgamation of desired sexual tropes from one or both of the two sexes. It is limited because there is no third sex, sexual role, or sexual orientation.

[mtrueman]

"You can be male or female."

But you can subjectively feel something in between. That's the essence of non binary.

"That is all there is. "

Being human is more than conforming to our anatomy. There are also subjective feelings which you are not taking into account. Without them we'd be more like robots than humans.

I think there's another aspect to non binary. It's a philosophical difference rather than an anatomical one. It comes out of a rejection of modernist structuralism. Male/female, culture/nature, science/art etc. Post structuralism rejects this schema as one binary pole is privileged and the other is denigrated. Hence non binary came into fashion with the questioning of modernism.

[Truthfulness]

But you can subjectively feel something in between. That’s the essence of non binary.

If it's subjective, it's not the truth. One's feelings do not alter the DNA makeup of being either male or female. You're not taking anything away from his point. You cannot objectively be "non binary".

Being human is more than conforming to our anatomy. There are also subjective feelings which you are not taking into account. Without them we’d be more like robots than humans.

No, without them we come out as objectively correct. Being true to the facts does not make us any less human. You're committing the appeal to emotion fallacy.

I think there’s another aspect to non binary. It’s a philosophical difference rather than an anatomical one. It comes out of a rejection of modernist structuralism. Male/female, culture/nature, science/art etc. Post structuralism rejects this schema as one binary pole is privileged and the other is denigrated. Hence non binary came into fashion with the questioning of modernism.

And it is completely delusional, and you fell for their bait. Stop defending them.

[mtrueman]

“If it’s subjective, it’s not the truth.”

It’s still part of human experience. Whether one’s feelings are true or false or something in between is not something an outsider can evaluate. “I feel hungry.” Is that true, false or something else?

” You cannot objectively be “non binary”.

You can oppose binary thinking. You can reject binary labeling. It’s still a free country, isn’t it?

"No, without them we come out as objectively correct."

I don't think ignoring one's feelings makes one 'correct.' It leads instead to an impoverished emotional life.

"And it is completely delusional,"

You're a modernist/structuralist. You believe that things are set up or exist to reflect a system of binary opposites. Very early 20th century. Post structuralists have other ideas. Sorry, I'm no philosopher, perhaps others here might help you with the ideas. I wouldn't hold my breathe, though. You'll probably have to go beyond Reason to get your answers.

[JasonT20]

If it’s subjective, it’s not the truth. One’s feelings do not alter the DNA makeup of being either male or female.

If you want to invoke the biology of sex differences in humans, then you have to deal with intersex individuals. That is not the same as transgender identity, but it does violate your "That is all there is." statement above. (I could also go into the differences between biological sex and gender, but one thing at a time.)

The two women that all of the controversy was over in Olympic Boxing are thought to have XY chromosomes, yet they were assigned as being female at birth. (I don't know if this has been confirmed by those individuals or any sports authority in the position to know and able to speak to it, but that is what seems likely.) There is a condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. That occurs during early development in the womb, when the fetus has XY chromosomes, but hormones like testosterone don't have the effect they do in typical males. Those individuals develop and appear as female, with typical female external features. They don't have ovaries or a uterus, so they cannot have children (nor do they produce sperm).

Those two athletes have spent their whole lives as females. Where would you place them in an XY = male, XX = female binary? And that is just one type of intersex condition.

[JasonT20]

No, without them we come out as objectively correct. Being true to the facts does not make us any less human. You’re committing the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Uh, the fallacy is an argument that aims to persuade by connecting the conclusion to the emotions of the audience. mtrueman and I are saying that each person has various feelings and tendencies that express their sense of their gender. People have emotions and their emotions are an essential part of how they experience anything we'd say relates to the enjoyment of life. That is a fact of human existence.

I don't think about how I feel like a man, but I know that I have those feelings. Those feelings match my biological sex perfectly well, so there is no conflict between my feelings and my body to cause any psychological distress. But I will not dismiss the claims of some people to feel that those things are in conflict within them just because I can't relate to what they experience.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

How does it affect you, personally, for there to be some people with transgender identities?

When they try to groom kids into thinking they're "born in the wrong body," and need to fuck up their physiology to "live authentically," and then demand that people celebrate their mental illness, then it affects everyone.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Honestly if we're going to blame generations most of blame for the problems we face including the lefist takeover of the institutions lies with the greatest. They gave us FDR and passed on Barry Goldwater. It's been all downhill since then.

[LIBtranslator]

So African-American Magnate Musc decides he, Long Dong and Trump are gonna help God's Own Prohibitionists get ahead in politics and kick them uppity female voters in the teeth. Seen the 5-year Tesla stock chart lately? How about the TSLA stock price for this past month? Howcum Elon's licking the blacking off of Trump's golf shoes is not raising them stock prices?

[Brandybuck]

The "go woke" stuff is mostly from corporations who don't actually produce material goods, but digital and cultural goods instead. Firms like Disney, Google, etc.

So for over century now Hollywood thought it was driving the culture. It was not, culture was driving Hollywood. But we now have a Disney/TimeWarner/Netflix/etc who mistakenly assume they drive the culture. They do not. So when they "go woke" and try to preach to us, it turns us off. Even if we agree with them on some things we instinctively know that it's not their role to be the arbiters of cultural correctness.

The new Snow White, where they erased "The Seven Dwarfs" both from the title and the set of actors is just more of the same shit. All because they were afraid of offending the height afflicted. This was NEVER an issue anywhere but in depths of the DEI department of Disney where they decided to narrow their diversity by replacing an entire category of actors with CGI.

So yeah, this shit is backfiring on them. Similar issues with firms in the digital sector.

Meanwhile those producing material goods fully understand that their revenue comes from the good will of the consumer. You produce what the consumer wants. Sometimes it's hard to tell, but you're always triangulating on the shifting demand of the public. Doesn't matter how diverse your staff is, or how many woke shibboleths you include in your marketing, if the customer won't buy your product you're out!

But even that is starting to change as waves of no-thinks from university business schools join the HR departments of firms everywhere.

We face a rough future. The woodchippers will be running full time.

[Truthfulness]

Disney was originally going to go with a DEI set of actors and actresses for the dwarves, and when they were caught in a leak, replaced them with the CGI dwarves. It was going to be much, much worse.

[JohnZ]

Disney continues to plummet . Soon it will become history.
The sooner the better.

[mtrueman]

"We face a rough future. The woodchippers will be running full time."

The past was a lot rougher. Women barred from performing on stage, puritans closing down theaters, banning Christmas etc. It passed, as all waves of iconoclasm, sullying the purity of our cultural heritage, like Snow White, will pass.

[JasonT20]

What is this deal about woodchippers? Is it just a Fargo reference and an allusion to needing to dispose of the bodies of all of the people they disagree with?

[Truthfulness]

Might save more money than giving them a funeral.

[Truthfulness]

Deflection fallacy. Those iconoclasts at least knew what a woman was.

[mtrueman]

"Those iconoclasts at least knew what a woman was."

Did they know what it felt like to be a woman? Probably not, is my guess. How about you? Are you any better informed than those iconoclasts?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

More deflection.

[JasonT20]

It is actually kind of funny to me that people on the right have been using the term "redpilled" for years, yet also turned the term "woke" into an epithet. It is funny to me, because they are really trying to express the same basic idea. That one knows "the truth" about how things really work in this country.

"Woke" is, quite obviously, slang for being awake and aware of societal injustice. The term was used long before the right turned it into a derogatory term by implying that the left goes too far playing up past injustices, makes up new injustices, or otherwise tries to tear down traditions that it doesn't like.

That seems to be the M.O. of MAGA and the modern alt-right. They take some term used by the left to describe something that they view as important and turn it against them. "Fake news" started as a term for literal fake news. Things had been showing up on the internet in various ways, like social media feeds, that might at first look like real news reports. But the simplest attempts to verify them showed that they were completely made up. They were like Onion articles, but meant to be taken seriously instead of being obvious satire. It is no coincidence that Trump started using that term to dispute anything said about him that he didn't like right around the same time that this phenomenon was picking up steam using the 2016 election as fodder. If it is one thing that Trump has shown himself to be good at (the only thing?), it is branding things in a way that resonates with his audience.

[Vesicant]

What makes you think it's hypocrisy? I'm sure Jochen Zeitz is completely honest about wanting to make Harley Davidson into the preferred ride of the Taliban.

[RickAbrams]

Wokeism is the new Nazism. We know the evils of Nazism as we can look back and see where it led, but we are not good at seeing that today’s Wokeism is the same as early Nazism. It divides society into two groups: the evil Oppressors and the virtuous oppressed and the function of government is to eradicate the Oppressors and distribute their property among the Oppressed. These totalitarian movements seldom start out with “Let’s Kill Millions of People,” but that’s where many end up.