Now, I understand there will be points made against this one being that just because someone aligns with outdated views, it doesn’t mean we should indulge them. Quite the opposite of what the movement set out to achieve. By pushing the centre ground of the country towards the right, as the woke brigade do, politicians see this new form of social conservatism as a vote winner and so implement socially conservative policies. This would have represented true progress and more importantly, it would not have alienated those who see the woke movement as ridiculous. Imagine if instead of getting worked up about a tweet or the mistaken use of a gender pronoun, we used political capital for improving street lighting to make women feel safe or banned gay conversion therapy. Instead of focusing on a change in the curriculum, or police officers in schools, or the cost of sanitary products, the argument has been about Winston Churchill’s statue and this fundamentally has to be missing the point. If the suffragettes had focused on toilet signs, where would we be now. In focusing on the minutiae of the past, we are missing a discussion about doing things that would actually help. I question whether their actions are achieving their intentions.
I do not for one second question they’re intention to facilitate the rights of minorities. And above all, that disagreement is a bad thing. That freedom of speech is only a negative. When we talk of the new ‘woke’ generation, we are talking of a band of people who have decided that offence can be found in all things. Allow me to lay out a progressive argument against the woke trend. There is a current underlying, unchallenged belief that in arguing that ‘woke’ culture is negative, you must also believe that the progress of minorities is a negative.
0 kommentar(er)
