Comment

vonbaronhans@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

So, I gave this a cursory read.

The discussion of essentialism mostly makes sense, if a few weird red flags scattered throughout. But I was curious at what point it would be turned into, as promised in the intro, that essentialism is a fundamental flaw of “wokeism”, and apparently specifically Critical Race Theory.

And uh. That connection was poorly made, in my humble opinion. It’s a lot of philosophical history and bluster to then just sort of… miss the point and mischaracterize the quotes being put on the table.

My apologies, I would be more specific and pointed in my critique here, but I’m on mobile and I usually need a better setup (e.g. on PC) to lay out these thoughts with more precision.

source

Sort:hotnew top

neutronbumblebee@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Ah that what happens when you Google an article which explanes some historical connection but it then uses that to make a completely unrelated point ie woke is bad. I should have read the whole thing before linking it.

source
- vonbaronhans@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Oof. Yeah they’ll get ya like that. I’m certainly not immune.
  
  source
yesman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Yea, I started to get suspicious when he called Hegel a fool and a fraud.

The ironic part is that the author himself relies on definitions to make his point. He slyly asserts that “social constructs” are “made up” and therefore should and can be ignored like Mr. Snuffleupagus. Of course, I doubt that the author would claim that there are no social differences between a black woman and black man, because that would expose his argument for what it is.

He writes to say: There is no essence in these identities, therefore we can ignore them, therefore I don’t see race!

source