The Emerging Religion of Wokeness

Really really good point there, crank. Thank you for your thoughts.

Within my sphere of trusted people (my tribe if you will), we care about each other and I am more than happy to help others in need with whatever they need. And I know that they would do the same for me in return. But outside of my tribe, there are many who would not help me one bit if I was in need, in fact, they would eagerly steal my stuff if they had the chance, and perhaps even kill me for a twenty dollar bill. And outside of my tribe, there are plenty who make no effort to be self-reliant, make piss-poor decisions, and then they feel entitled to a portion of my earnings and there is no chance in hell that they would ever give anything to me if I was in need.

You hit the nail on the head... the taxpayers' largesse is hugely abused in the United States.

 

This describes basic human tribalism (the flip side of empathy) well. Humans did not evolve to live in giant cities and nations. The challenge of overcoming this is the greatest challenge of our species.

 

Yes, thank you for the reply. Even the most empathetic person alive has to draw a line somewhere though. There is a limit to what can/should be given, especially when there is no reciprocity, or even concern from those who would abuse that empathy.

 

It’s an article written from a position of fear. Fear that this horde of people trying to protect their identities is coming to strip away the author’s identity.

There a lot of generalization going on that makes things seem bleaker for white people that it really is. It’s like the author thinks suddenly all of our wealth is going to get stripped away and we are going to be holding out a cup like slumdog millionaire.

Either we have created a system with institutions that are adequate to this task - or we haven’t. I tend to think that we will broaden our societal understanding of human rights.

 

1) Not such fundamental and obvious mistakes, though. There are no shades of grey with this. Give lab rats everything they need and want, and they'll soon become so helpless that they can't keep themselves alive (even the rats themselves probably know it). It's especially unlikely in an advanced society, which coincidentally claims to hold the worlds' wisdom in such matters. It literally cannot be an oversight. It must come from either intention to disempower, or self-agrandisment. Both possible motivations are horrifying.

2) And consistent 'challenging' times keep us alive. Those rustic peasants referred to, have maintained equilibrium for centuries. No cycles of boom/bust - nor all the chaos and woe which attends a repetition of mistakes.

3) Not at all. The vast majority know not to 'spoil the child'. It's only First World, Anglo-Europeans who have it wrong - a tiny proportion of humanity.

 

A caring and supportive community can ONLY exist in a 'circle of trust'. Remove that trust, and no sane person will divest themselves of survival resources for someone outside their circle - who may not repay that care debt. And in fact doing so would be a deriliction of care for their own circle.

 

One answer is to ensure nobody is teetering on the edge of survival, so that if a care isn't repaid it isn't going to end anyone.

 

It has nothing to do with institutions. This is a SOCIAL failure, entirely. Granted, our institutions (ie the Welfare State) caused the problem in the first place, but it's on us as individuals to ensure we don't allow the complete dismantling of the circles of trust essential to decency and care.

 

And how do you propose that individuals do that?

 

That is exactly the 'answer' which caused the problem in the first place. It was only in assuring people they didn't need to protect their circles of trust (nor need to be a trustworthy member of a circle), that we acquired the hubris to abandon them. That abondonment is precisely what lead to so many people 'falling through the cracks'. Had we retained our circles of trust, there would be no cracks.

For ALL to be cared for .. ALL must be prepared to repay care. In a world of finite resources and cause/effect, there is no third option to avoid repaying care. Once you enable that fantasy option, you can give up any hope of universal care.

 

How can I say how any given individual should do it? We all build our circles of trust according to personal preferences. We all ensure we're worthy of that trust in different ways. Etc etc.

Personally though .. I would say it means being rock solid for your entire life. Stable, dependable, responsible, productive, and generous. You must be the rock you need others to be. Because they will need that from you, just as you will need it from them. You do not get to ask others for care, if you're a **** up yourself. That's a sociopathic, selfish, b@stard of a thing to do - and breaks the circle of trust.

 

I’m not sure I understand.

 

By trusting nobody outside your small circle of friends? And can you even trust them? No. Some of them will take advantage of you too. Seems you can only trust yourself. But can you even trust yourself? My past self has done some bad things to my current self. And I don't know if I can trust my future self either.

 

A circle of trust is something its members EARN. To retain the highest possible benefit from such a circle, the trust has to be there. If a member breaks that trust (by being an ******), the potential caring capacity of the group is diminished, or even destroyed. The strength of the circle - and their ability to care for every member - is dependent on each member trusting every other member, to behave consisently and reciprocally. Every member must continuously earn their position of trust. It's not like that's a difficult thing to though - it basically just means don't be an ****** - and for most normal functioning adults that's fairly easy to avoid. Just don't be irresponsible, selfish, an addict or other kind of loser, dysfunctional, or lazy. Don't abandon your circle - stay where they can find you if they need you, and where you can find them if you need them. Be CLOSE - geographically, emotionally, financially, and in all the important ways.

 

You can't earn trust if you never showed trust, and if you never had any trust from people in the first palce. It is a bit of a catch-22, isn't it?

 

Not at all. As young adults we get to decide how we'll conduct these relationships going forward. We start as we mean to go on, being very careful to preserve any circles of trust from our childhood and/or adding only those new people we understand to be up to the challenge of trust going forward. It's very obvious and simple stuff.

You either care enough about this stuff to act accordingly, or decide you don't like the obligations and work involved - instead choosing to go it alone. Though you can't make the latter decision, then complain when you have no one to turn to later on. It's what you will have chosen, after all.

Edited to reinforce that choosing to preserve circles of trust is a two way street. You have to ensure YOU are worthy of the trust of others .. just as surely as they have to earn your trust.

 

interesting, I never heard of this

 

“The primary means by which the privileged may join the struggle is through "allyship"
- the subordination of their privileged identities to those who have historically endured
the greatest suffering. For this reason, Mitchell is not quite right when he says there is
no possibility of forgiveness in wokeness; it's just not the kind of Christian forgiveness
that he and others recognize. Forgiveness for the woke comes from becoming a good
ally. There is no absolution, however, as privilege is permanent. The privileged,
therefore, are required to engage in constant, public acts of atonement.“

I occasionally deal with the Ministry of Childhood and Family Development. This ministry of the British Columbia government is the group that places children in foster care (I am a foster parent of sorts). During a phone meeting recently they stop to say that they feel grateful because they live and work on the unceded territory of First Nations people. The emails they send always have this in the signature: “Gratefully acknowledging the Musqueam, Squamish & Tsleil-Waututh peoples on whose traditional, unceded territories we are privileged to live & work.”


The paragraph I quoted from the article above reminds me of this policy requirement of the MCFD. But again, it sounds more like the article is written from a place of fear, making statements of appreciation like the one from the MCFD seem to be somehow negative or that it threatens our identity as white folks or something.

So my questions are: 1. Does the statement from the MCFD qualify as the type of “constant, public atonement” referred to in the article? 2 Is there something wrong, or right, about such a statement?

 

My answers are no and sort of yes.

1. Woke atonement isn't for things you can change, such as in this case you could move.

2. Imagine if our Immigration policy required immigrants to state their appreciation for being here in every email they wrote. Even the USA with their constant chest thumping and pledge of allegiance don't do that.

2a. It is also disingenuous. If it is recognized as unceeded land, then the government of BC shouldn't exist or hold any power there.

It is also a statement from an organization that did something historically questionable, and not from an individual taking personal responsibility for something they are not at fault for.

It would be quite different if this statement was something more like "I am so sorry that I am a colonizer" and then all non-first nations government employees were forced or pressured to write this, including recent immigrants. And something like that does not feel far off.

 

I agree that white racism is as bad as black racism, neither is good for society

the problem I think is that we seem to be getting more narcissists of each race now taking advantage of it

is it our diet, what is changing people? it wasn't like this when I was growing up

 

My hope is that it is the pendulum overcorrecting.

Me did seem to be headed in the right direction a decade or so ago, pushing colourblindness. Then that was declared not enough, and we regressed back towards racism being called for, just in a different guise.

 

land ownership is not a perfected title, all land in any brit organized country is owned by the state and rented under the tenure system, yes merca too. there is no tax requirement on perfected ownership

 

If it is unceeded land it is not 'in any brit organization".

 

true, not supposed to be anywayl, should be first nation status, aboriginal
Despite that, I have no doubt the guv will fight tooth and nail to claim jurisdiction anyway, exactly like they did with the indians in the US

And what gave some landowner the right to sign over territory to a guv in the first place, which by default grants the power to tax?

I fully understand and have no issues with politically motivated boundaries for the purpose of communal governance, however for the guv to 'own' underlying property rights for the purpose of taxation rather than simply provide record keeping services is despotic. We never left the feudal system.

 

“The primary means by which the privileged may join the struggle is through "allyship"
- the subordination of their privileged identities to those who have historically endured
the greatest suffering. For this reason, Mitchell is not quite right when he says there is
no possibility of forgiveness in wokeness; it's just not the kind of Christian forgiveness
that he and others recognize. Forgiveness for the woke comes from becoming a good
ally. There is no absolution, however, as privilege is permanent. The privileged,
therefore, are required to engage in constant, public acts of atonement.“


So what is an example that would validate the claim from this paragraph?