Ahimsa Bodhi's blog: "AnarchoTalk"

I just want to, piece by piece, break down and correct this drastic misunderstanding of the so-called "woke" movement. 

"A lot of people want to convince you that you need a Ph.D. or a law degree or dozens of hours of free time to read dense texts about critical theory to understand the woke movement and its worldview. You do not. You simply need to believe your own eyes and ears"
Well, kinda. Like say, if you think you know more than an expert on a certain field because you watched a YouTube video or read a Facebook post, i'm just saying, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, you should believe your own eyes and ears, literally nobody said you shouldn't. But what you shouldn't do, is lie. Just because you heard or saw something doesn't mean you understood it.

"Let me offer the briefest overview of the core beliefs of the Woke Revolution, which are abundantly clear to anyone willing to look past the hashtags and the jargon"
Oh, this should be fun.

"It begins by stipulating that the forces of justice and progress are in a war against backwardness and tyranny. And in a war, the normal rules of the game must be suspended. Indeed, this ideology would argue that those rules are not just obstacles to justice, but tools of oppression. They are the master’s tools.  And the master’s tools cannot dismantle the master’s house"
This is just a bunch of fucking gibberish. The usage of big words and complex sentances I'm sure even she can't ascertain. 

"So the tools themselves are not just replaced but repudiated. And in so doing, persuasion—the purpose of argument—is replaced with public shaming. Moral complexity is replaced with moral certainty. Facts are replaced with feelings"
Public shaming a racist? Yes. Public shaming lies and slander? Absolutely. Persuasion is not replaced by Public Shaming. But if you think you can, say, make a nazi change his mind with facts? Very rarely, as what they believe is easy to see bullshit. So many people have no interest in facts. As we'll find out in your nonsensical blog. And Moral Certainty, which is "probability so great as to allow no reasonable doubt" doesn't sound too bad to me. As for Moral Complexity, are you seriously telling us it's hard to determine right and wrong? It's not. Facts are replaced with feelings? No. You just disregard facts when they don't align with your worldview, and you claim said fact is not fact and you turn around and accuse us of something you're doing.

"Ideas are replaced with identity. Forgiveness is replaced with punishment. Debate is replaced with de-platforming. Diversity is replaced with homogeneity of thought. Inclusion, with exclusion"
I'll leave be the first sentence, but forgiveness is replaced with punishment? No, but you do have to actually show that you are at least remorseful. You want people to say whatever they want without consequences. So far, everything you're claiming the woke people do, are actually what you do. And debate has not been replaced with with de-platforming. I don't know, I don't think deplatforning racists is a bad idea. We can still debate, but if you use your platform to espouse hate speech and harmful ideas- ideas that inspire hate crime, you should be de-platformed. "Diversity is replaced with homogeneity" is just clearly incorrect. Come on, inclusion with exclusion? Sure, if you mean we don't include hate and lies, I'd say so. And where do you get the nerve to accuse us of exclusiveness? That's your whole bag, hypocrite.

"In this ideology, speech is violence. But violence, when carried out by the right people in pursuit of a just cause, is not violence at all. In this ideology, bullying is wrong, unless you are bullying the right people, in which case it’s very, very good. In this ideology, education is not about teaching people how to think, it’s about reeducating them in what to think. In this ideology, the need to feel safe trumps the need to speak truthfully"
Speech is not violence but it can lean to violence. That's simple. Violence in response to violence isn't violence, it's self defense. Bullying is wrong, unless your giving a bully a taste of his own medicine, you know, that whole eye for an eye thing. "education is not about teaching people how to think, it’s about reeducating them in what to think" oh, so making kids stand for the pledge of allegiance or else be punished isn't teaching people what to think? Telling us to respect the law or else, that's not teaching people what to think? Saying there's only two genders so stop looking into it, that's not you teaching people what to think? You fucking moron. And no, the need to feel safe trumps the freedom to be hateful and slanderous. 

"In this ideology, if you do not tweet the right tweet or share the right slogan, your whole life can be ruined. Just ask Tiffany Riley, a Vermont school principal who was fired—fired—because she said she supports black lives but not the organization Black Lives Matter"
No ones life has been ruined, no one. All those "canceled" people are still making money, still getting jobs. If you tweet comparing black people to apes, that's wrong and you need called out for it. In this class, did she compare BLM to a hate group? Did she lie and mislead students? Where's the context? You're not giving the whole story, something ya'll are very good at. 
"In this ideology, the past cannot be understood on its own terms, but must be judged through the morals and mores of the present. It is why statues of Grant and Washington are being torn down. And it is why William Peris, a UCLA lecturer and an Air Force veteran, was investigated for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” out loud in class"
YES, YES IT SHOULD. Just because Homophobia was the norm in the past, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Wrong is wrong. If a child was raped in 1894, are we not allowed to condemn it in 2021? That's just the dumbest fucking argument so far.Statues of Grant and Washington should be torn down, because OWNING SLAVES IS MORALLY FUCKING WRONG NO MATTER WHAT YEAR OR FUCKING CENTURY, JACKASS. Ah! Some common ground, why was that gentleman investigated? I truly don't understand that part.

"In this ideology, intentions don’t matter. That is why Emmanuel Cafferty, a Hispanic utility worker at San Diego Gas and Electric, was fired for making what someone said he thought was a white-supremacist hand gesture—when in fact he was cracking his knuckles out of his car window"
Intention does matter, again, literally no one has said otherwise. More common ground, being fired for that misunderstanding is just plain fucking stupid. Unless, again, you are purposely disregarding context. 

"Racism has been redefined. It is no longer about discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin. Racism is any system that allows for disparate outcomes between racial groups. If disparity is present, as the high priest of this ideology, Ibram X. Kendi, has explained, racism is present. According to this totalizing new view, we are all either racist or anti-racist. To be a Good Person and not a Bad Person, you must be an “anti-racist.” There is no neutrality. There is no such thing as “not racist.” 
Not true. It's still based on that. But it's easy to see why allowing"disparate outcomes between racial groups" can be seen as racist. Yes, you do need to be anti-racist, you cannot be neutrality about racism. Yes, if you do not speak out against racism, you are allowing those notions to stand. How can you say we think you must be anti racist, then say we don't think that's a real thing? Are you an idiot?