I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
She implied being woke is bad-the exact opposite is the reality-no matter how hard Republicans make us believe being woke is bad.
I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
None of that is craziness in my opinion.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
Point being, make progress, not riot or troll.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/03/12/opinion-berkeley-might-name-a-street-after-kala-bagai-this-is-her-story
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.