Really enjoying , but noticed in the latest issue the mention of “Woke Thought Police” and “canceling everyone”. I’m really interested in this, and curious what’s going on with this idea, that there’s a crisis of some kind, taking root. 1/2
Conversation
My take is that the consternation is largely a reaction to the loss of privilege, and in fact there’s been little actual “cancelation” in the grand scheme of things. Availability heuristic might apply, as there are many ways in which “canceled” people are doing just fine. 2/2
2
IME I’m not seeing dialog being stifled, but rather a stronger consideration of what maybe used to be unexamined assumptions. If there’s greater hesitation when speaking hurtful or repugnant ideas, then that’s for the better IMO.
1
I’m sure it can get out of balance, but the balance has been tipped the other way for so long that complaining about cancelation looks a lot like protecting privilege. Adjusting to a more equitable position is going to inherently bring discomfort.
1
The issue with woke is not that it makes the privileged uncomfortable. It is using an insincere pretense of protecting the underprivileged to grab authoritarian power. If it actually distributed power more equitably, a lot more people would be supportive.
2
What it actually appears to be doing in institution after institution is create an unaccountable new class of apparatchiks. Very little of this power struggle is visible in public, but it is certainly playing out.
How are some people so clued in and concerned, when it is not visible in public? And what sort of institutions? How do we know this is a pervasive problem, rather than something that rubs some people the wrong way who then get vocal about it?
1
You mistake this for a high-visibility thing. This is 90% iceberg under water. The fact that the visible 10% is so raucous only underlines how big the invisible part is. I don't know where you work or what you've seen, but I've seen far more of this 90% than I care for.

