School choice can only do so much. You have to go after the teachers academies and eliminate the ideological roots of the problem. Teachers trained in woke pedagogy will push wokery regardless of where they teach. Fix the training of teachers and the rest of the solutions can follow.
The problem is that right now there are no incentives for the schools to change. School choice does more than give alternatives to families. It provides a financial incentive for the public schools to improve their performance and change their values to reflect those of their communities.
Well-articulated argument with practical application. Everything starts with answering the "why" question. The most powerful "why" is the one that brings people together around the greatest good we want for ourselves and others. Christopher Rufo is nailing it.
I don’t identify as anything, other people get to decide based on their observations of me. I can only be what I am and do what I do. I cannot identify out of reality, I cannot make other people bend what they observe.
Absolutely. We are defined, identified, by our words and actions. If most of your actions are to pretend to be something you’re not…… we’ll, you’re a fraud.
There seems to have been a shift in conservative thinking. Being based simply isn’t enough. We need to start appealing to emotion the same way the left does, while speaking the truth and knowing we have have good, moral intentions. Dylan Mulvaney has managed to do what we have failed at. He pissed people off enough to get them to speak out against clown world.
@TJ Plaine Yeah... this is all nonsense. "We're the smart guys, everyone else is dumb." Everyone thinks this way. Everyone thinks they are logical. Everyone thinks they are smart. With few exceptions. Kane Robertson is wedded to the 4chan ideology, though, a forum RUTHLESSLY controlled by emotional appeal, (and indeed, what is "we're smart, they're dumb" but an emotional appeal, masquerading as a logical one? Where in all of mathematics, the very language of logic, is the idea of "smart" and "dumb"?) Maybe if he looks up what a Barnum statement is he'll figure it out, but, unlikely. Its even a good thing that we aren't entirely logical. There's a guy who lost pretty much all his ability to think emotionally, and he became essentially paralyzed by indecision. He'd spend literal hours at the store weighing the pros and cons of buying different kinds of peanut butter. Emotion is the language of morality. Intelligence and logic are then used *to implement* morality. At the same time, Rufo here is so wedded to the idea of using emotion while still looking down on it that his tactics are downright abusive. He lies about what CRT is, openly brags about it on Twitter, gets people to desperately search school records for his strawman until they give up and simply declare "well, uhh, maybe To Kill A Mockingbird is why my kids not a god fearing patriotic covert racist anymore, because uhh To Kill A Mockingbird is about white people bad." Its nonsense, and its *emotional* nonsense, but if you peel back all the layers, you'll find its not driven by a sense of self preservation, not in the people who *originate* this stuff, unlike, say, the emotions behind Civil Rights, its driven by a sense of just anger. Anger that the halls of power have been called out for being unfair. They want you to think people who want civil rights are also angry at *you.* Well, sometimes they may be, but usually, only if you put yourself on the side of the halls of power.
I 100% agree. The moral argument has so much more depth, more impact. We are now witnessing, living the consequences of not making the making moral argument
What you are getting at is something I observed. I noticed that the more statistical arguments really only appeal to those who have a high enough IQ to comprehend them. My guess is that this is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 115-120 minimum. We are talking about roughly 10-20% of the total population here. My observation is that the lower the IQ the more reliant a person is on connotative rather than denotative meaning of a word. Double digits do not care about dictionary definitions and rely on feeling. You finally see that you must appeal to the double digits and that they are motivated by affect, not logic (they aren't that capable of logic outside of "x invokes good feeling , y invokes bad feeling", sorry not sorry).
Nowt wrong with statistical, cost-benefit arguments. But if you cede the ground of ethics to your opponents you may get a severe beating. Fortunately, for conservatives, the Left's ethics look like woke, and don't work.
@@mark4asp It is more that those of us with higher IQ often make the mistake of communicating with those of lower IQ in the same way we communicate with higher IQ. They may actually take the advice if we give it in a way that manipulates their feelings in that direction. Remember, humans are animals, we are just primates. The higher functions we associate with "human" are mostly only really accessible to high IQ people (or rather on a sliding scale of capability based on IQ). So you have to basically condition them more than teach them. If they are already programmed one way then it is nearly impossible to change them. Further, genetics predisposition in certain directions and IQ affects how much you can deviate from your predisposition.
I never said you one should lecture people. We should engage in a conversation. BTW: Your idea is surely amenable to research. So: do you have quantitative research to back up your connotative rather than denotative hypothesis?, or is it only an idea?
@@mark4asp It is from my experience and further from what was said in the video. The one piece of research was from a study done by one of Jordan Peterson's students where she found that having lower verbal/language comprehension skills increased the risk to political radicalization into authoritarianism. That may have influenced my thinking on that combined with said experiences. It certainly would be something worth researching. Might even get approved under a woke administration since researching that aspect in isolation does not get into the political side of things.
I have 2 t shirts I recently bought. 1- UNWOKE 2- FREE SPEECH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR FEELINGS. I am sick of this woke nonsense. There's a a bunch of companies I saw in an interview saying that they have chosen the method of 'forced behavior ' to control people'.They believe they know what's best for everyone. They want to tell us how to live or lives. They want to tell us what to think etc. I think this nonsense is disruptive and divisive.
Mr. Rufo: I recommend you locate a copy of Alan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” from the 1980s and read the sections comparing and contrasting “values” and “principles.”. “Values” are inherently slippery and not helpful for clear thinking. Principles are matters that can be well defined and deeply discussed.
I suppose we're then conceding that our citizenry is no longer rational or capable of critical thinking. Whatever the political strategy, this doesn't bode well
We've never assumes that the general public was rational. Thats why we live in a republic, not a democracy. Because people are idiots, who would vote to give the gov. The ability to kill or imprison everyone they don't like - without realizing that doing such a thing would backfire horribly.
It's not as simple as "the majority of the country (countries) is stupid." A. Wokism is a cult. Even normal people can get sucked into cults. B. Western culture has been eroded for decades, including Christianity. C. This erosion was facilitated by the lack of visual western cultural art, ruins, and unique non-consumerist traditions in canada/USA. If you're over 45 you might not know that many young people genuinely believe white people have no culture. This is because all our holidays are now cheap and commercialized, our religions a joke that no one wants to be associated with (common feeling I've observed, not my opinion), and because western culture is based more on our legal and moral systems than noticeablely unique race, ancient architecture, customs, or art (again in USA/Canada mostly, maybe Australia, and probably least of all, the UK).
Also: For decades, people were saying we don't need religion to tell us what's right and wrong. Turns out, that doesn't seem to be the case. People are desperate for A. Group identity, and B. some kind of moral framework to tell them what makes one a "good person". We've abandoned both religion and culture (which are in reality, interlinked) and so again, it's oversimplification to say people are Just Stupid. Western nations are demoralized and lost. People have nothing to guide them through life, nothing to tell them who they are. Wokism fills those voids, whether we humans (so above nature and religion) care to see that.
@@llIlIlllII What? You mean an ancient institution that dominated culture and society for a million years was for so long considered the sole arbiter of morality, and now that its power has faded, like, *a little,* people are talking about finding a new moral system? What a surprise. This isn't exactly a winning argument for religion, its mask off the Machiavellian nature of the old religious institutions. And ultimately, its precisely their ancient moral codes that are their undoing --- just like King Josiah (I think it was) needed to conjure a whole new book of religious laws as Israelite society became more metropolitan (and also to push his own ideas of morality onto the public,) ancient religions often need to conjure new moral codes to deal with new problems that the old codes were never designed to solve. Ancient agriculture is over. Industrial agriculture has replaced it. People don't pass on property the same way, they don't live in the same exact family units, they need to get along with people who moved in from across the country because modern transportation made it possible, they need to cope with new material conditions, and your religion codified its moral system as "god given and inerrant" and, suddenly, it stopped being able to effectively govern people's lives. There's all kinds of interpersonal conflicts that occur that you can't solve with it anymore. There are interpersonal conflicts that it can *exacerbate.* If the moral code was never assumed to be god given, then people would have easily kept the religion, because it wouldn't have this blindingly obvious contradiction with basic reality. Indeed, look at what churches are cropping up --- those that are willing to modify or reinterpret the code, (often, ironically, by delving into the history of that code and finding, hey, it used to be different.)
Thank you Christopher. I have been thinking about what the 'final cause' of DEI is because it is never stated. I have been fortunate to work for a family run business that hadn't pushed the DEI ideology until recently. We now have a DEI HR representative that is sending out e-mails for the NOW (network of women) and Black and Latinx groups. I envision that this will expand into other groups in the future. I am tempted to e-mail HR and the CEO with your replacement concept of Equality, Merit and Color-Blindness. Do you have resources or any recommendations?
@@mark4asp Hello Mark. I mean final cause which Christopher described as one of Aristotle's four causes. That is: what is DEIs purpose...its final cause.
This channel is propaganda in service of the corporate oligarchs to keep working Americans blaming and hating each other for their lousy quality of life rather than the oligarchs. It is nothing other than empty slogans.
Whoever controls how people talk controls how people think. So my fellow cultural conservatives: Do not say someone "is gay," say someone "experiences same sex attraction." Do not say you "oppose abortion," say you "favor protecting the lives of unborn people." And for God's sake, do not refer to anyone as "transgender." Someone can be a "cross-dresser" or even "had a sex change operation." And that's just for starters. But we cannot give up the "civil rights" high ground. There is no more fundamental civil right that the right not to be dismembered alive while still in your mother's womb.
I find it weird that you want to protect that right but you're coaching conservatives on how to euphemistically invalidate and shame gay and transpeople. Apparently people deserve rights until they exit the womb, huh?
So if you don't want to use their terminology, why are you calling this Anti-Woke? And why are you framing this in terms of being a conservative movement? It's not anti-woke, it's simply preservation of reason, of the US Constitution, of the Enlightenment. It's not a conservative movement. Classical liberals, libertarians, constitutionalists and an increasing number of social welfare liberals are waking up to the danger of woke ideology. Groups not associated with conservatives oppose most woke ideology. Very few of the remaining original anti-war hippies support woke ideology. Other groups not normally associated with conservatives that are finding themselves on the opposite side of woke are feminists, Asians, gay men, anyone black or Latin who isn't also a neo-Marxist. In just a minute the woke will be going after Jews, right after they finish normalizing pedophilia as a lifestyle choice.
There ya go! I don’t use the lefty brainwashed language. I’m not just talking about their silly words. They have a weak feminine cadence to their speech. “I feel like as a bla bla bla period 2023” lefty speech patterns. Like Leonitus said “give them nothing but take from them everything”
agreed...I am gay, a PhD clinical psychologist, Stanford grad who walked along side Joan Baez in an anti-war march in Palo Alto, had drinks with Black Panther members in 1969 find this new 'woke' to be totalitarian as do most of my gay friends. Am I 'conservative'?
Well all you're offering right now is banning To Kill A Mockingbird and telling teachers not to talk about the underground railroad. You're literally trying to erase history.
The schools belong to the taxpayer- the choice should be theirs: teachers union operator or KIPP, or Barney or IDEA, NAIS, or Friends, or AMCSUS or perhaps a local pedagogy partnership. If Union Education wants full control, let them build their own schools, these belong us and they are guests who have done poorly by our wishes and measures. Don't pull the kids, boot the unions.
The public school is literally supposed to educate the poor, who, by definition, pay less taxes. It benefits the taxpayer by being something they can fall back on if they stop making the money that they then use to *be* taxpayers. Also, this entire moral panic is premised on a lie. A lie so paper thin that people have had to claim that "To Kill A Mockingbird" is CRT just to summon the dread specter of it to justify all this outrage. CRT is a college level course. No one is teaching it in elementary, middle, or high school. Most kids wouldn't understand a word of it, its technical and complex legal shit. Rufo has literally bragged about lying about what CRT is on Twitter, where he declared that he was oh so clever for rebranding CRT so that "anytime anyone reads something insane in the newspaper" (people read newspapers, still? There's way more effective ways to get the news lol) they'll think "CRT" and when they think "CRT" they'll think "bad." Its a thought stopping technique. You know, the kind of thing *cults* use. And he justifies it with an elaborate tu quoque fallacy, a "but they do it, too." Well, every large political movement has bad actors in it, that's just statistical mechanics at work. You don't start a movement tens of millions strong without a few Machiavellian bastards. But instead of emulating them, you should teach how they operate, and like, NOT emulate them. At all. Machiavelli literally stated several times, "I don't want people to follow the advice of my book, I want them to know when others are, and how to fight those techniques. Its an education satire." (That's... a paraphrasing of what he said, not an exact quote, but you get the idea.) Don't be Trump, don't be AOC, don't emulate them. Just don't. Public schools only ultimately suck because you people *want* them to because you generally hate the poor, (even those of you who ARE poor. Just look at MTG declaring that 'poverty is a moral problem on the part of the poor.' And "boot the unions" LMAO that's what the billionaires and the higher ranking adminstrators want, now isn't it. That's what half of this is about. People start thinking, "hey, this is unfair to black people, this is unfair to women, this is unfair to the poor, this is unfair to train laborers, this is unfair to..." and then they start wanting something done about it. We have an instinct for fairness, right? So then they start agitating, "well, maybe its NOT unfair, maybe it SHOULD be unfair, maybe the people telling you its unfair are the ones who are unfair." Rufo's entire shtick is DARVO and the Narcissist's Prayer in action.
I don't understand why conservative videos all seem to have the obsession of two camera setups, cutting to a needless and awkward side shot all the time. Deliver your message looking straight into the eyes of your audience. The 2nd camera adds nothing. Just a cheap way of faking higher production values.
I've always said to people "I don't care what results I get as long as my methods are morally good". Yes, good methods almost always result in good results, long term. But that's not the point. And anything short of that is Utilitarian, ends-justify-the-means post-hoc justification for being evil.
Well who defines what are good and bad methods? It looks like conservatives love imposing arbitrary principles or the left’s own principles on themselves. Then they stay happy when they lose for 100 years because they are at least “morally right but politically wrong” lol. “Keep schools neutral!” “We support free speech in school!” This is slave morality to a dominant progressive power. Who defines neutral? Who owns the bureaucracy for education? Who writes the history books and who provides popular views of histories? Not conservatives. There is never a right-wing push for more right-wing ideas, only a entropic defense from left wingers. This has been the case for as long as public school has been a thing. That’s why this attitude is not a winning proposition and current conservatives ensure there never will be one with such attitudes. And if you want to “reform” this system, you’d do better to simply pulverize it first and build it up and give your side institutional control.
"Utilitarian?" - means: "it works". DEI does not work. It is not utilitarian. It's the opposite. DEI is worse than useless because it does not work. I know that what you wanted to say is "based on utilitarian, Benthanite, consequentialist, or 'socialist' ethics" - but don't forget. Just because they claim their ethics are utilitarian - it doesn't make it do. "ends-justify-the-means post-hoc justification"
@Morgan Allen Utilitarianism is psychopathic in nature. It asks "How do I get the result I want regardless of morality?" It treats people as tools to be used. Therefor, a properly moral system would think about how to achieve results after ALL moral questions regarding methods were addressed. Methods are either moral or immoral and results can never make immoral methods "okay".
I think part of the problem with communication has been that the conservatives tend to take it for granted that stupid is wrong, so if you point out that something's stupid you don't need to add a moral layer. It's stupid so we shouldn't do it. But the progressives really don't care if an idea is stupid or not. They don't ask, "Will this accomplish what we want to accomplish?" They ask, "Will this make me feel good about advocating for it?" So you have to say, "This is mean so we shouldn't do it." THEN they'll get behind it.
Then why did conservative lawmakers in Texas float a bill that would ban critical thinking, (no, not critical race theory -- no one had even heard of it back then,) from public education, saying it would "destroy religious faith in children"? Almost everyone thinks the other guy is stupid. Most people think stupid is morally wrong, (even though morality is about responsibility, and responsibility comes with agency, and stupidity halts agency... rather, it is wrong to take advantage *of* the stupid, and it is wrong to force others into ignorance and take away their responsibility. I mean, consider that psychopaths and sociopaths are often quite smart.) These are *borderline* Barnum Statements. I've heard liberals and leftists say essentially the same thing but reversed. Try to actually think through what you are saying and think, "hey, does the other guy think this way," before you say these things. This could be written in like a pseudoscientific personality pop quiz or in a description of what someone's astrology sign is, "many people think emotionally, but not you. You understand that stupid is wrong." C'mon dude. Conservatives think that all kinds of things that other countries have shown to work are stupid, (like, say, reparations,) and often, its because they're propagandized into believing that this or that moral thing to do is stupid so that the rich and powerful don't have to do the moral thing. I mean, how else do you stop someone from doing what they are certain is moral? You make them think that its stupid. That's Rufo's angle here. That's why he strips CRT of all nuance and meaning until its just "corporate diversity training." (Nevermind that the very same scholar who gave CRT its name thinks corporate diversity training *is stupid.* Interestingly, she never said it was immoral, just misguided, an attempt to find a simple silver bullet that a manager can use to make things all better. The result of the cognitive sense of superstition, if you will.) Once he does that, he can rely on the assumption that "stupid is *morally* wrong" (rather than just *simply* wrong) to convince you that CRT is also all these various immoral things, (its "actually racist," for example.) (Of course, he and his friends are so hard pressed to find any actual CRT or reverse racism in schools, they declared To Kill A Mockingbird to be a book that "makes kids hate white people." Nevermind that THAT is a stupid claim.) In reality, CRT isn't about all white people "being inherently racist"... (a claim I rarely even see out of anyone, every time I hear about it, its almost always a strawman out of the mouths of conservatives completely misrepresenting arguments about white privilege or fragility,) its not even about white people. Its about legal systems. You can even apply a lot of its theory, even though most of its studies have focused on the American context, to other societies that have a racism issue. Even societies that are racist against people of European descent, like Japan's legal system, (where being European in ancestry can get you harassed by the police.) Many of the things in schools being decried as CRT... aren't CRT. Many of them were optional, like the reading of that "Not My Idea" book, which, frankly, doesn't claim whiteness is racism, (it claims, really, that benefiting socially from white privilege is a bad deal, because in the long run, racism hurts everyone. Which is just... kind of obvious? And it generalizes to any kind of privilege provided by any society on any grounds, and I would doubt conservatives would be saying that "benefiting from Japanese privilege is a bad deal, because in the long run, racism hurts everyone" if they heard that a Japanese textbook taught that.)
Thing A vs Thing B in politics is never going to work. Pendulum is going to swing your way, then it's going to swing their way. Repeat these two extremes until heat death of the universe. The better option would be taking a centrist approach where you don't HAVE these whiplash swings from hard left to hard right to hard left.
CRT is pretty damn centrist, in... literally every other country. Turns out, the pendulum swinging idea is itself just an ancient Just So Story. Civil rights hang in the balance by a thread. The common mode of operation of human society is that there aren't any. You should treasure it, instead of "both sidesing" the issue with guys like Rufo who literally openly bragged about lying about what CRT was.
I completely agree. Don’t use their framework. However, if you really want to rip this out by the roots, start at the primary and even preschool level. Kids are being taught that their personal thoughts and feelings are more important than anything else. The completely bonkers behaviors seen on college campuses are a direct result of an education that prioritises the individual’s internal perception over all other aspects of their existence. We have been raising several generations of people who want the world to conform to their own personal perceptions, rather than people who want to try to understand how they need to fit in.
Something literally everyone says in every age about every new language. "Its shallow and hollow and stupid." No, you just don't understand it. Congratulations, though, on emulating the French linguistic academics who declared that people shouldn't use loanwords from the internet.
@@wanda520 I've got the impression that Ramaswamy is smart and has much to offer. Interesting that he and Haley have the Indian sub-continental forebears.
This sounds like an amazing goal. My concern is it kinda reminds me of when Christians wanna try and make Christian rock music...it just comes out cheesy. Same with a few years back when the Mormons had those ads where they tried to show some "normal" or "cool" guy riding a motorcycle....and he was Mormon. I agree the Left has a monopoly on the hip, fashionable and emotional appeal of the vibrant youth. I'm not sure how you make responsibility sexy. It seems like one of those things you have to learn the hard way with age....something Conservatives have a monopoly on. I really wish you good luck with this goal and I'll be thinking myself about it more as well.
The Left has "a monopoly" on these things because the Left is natural. Its largely born of the instinct for fairness. But its the people who are unfair who outlive the fair because they steal from them, they starve them, they murder them. And then, all the unfair bastards become old. That's why conservativism isn't hip, its old. And if you don't think Rufo here isn't "unfair," isn't a scheming, machiavellian bastard, look at him brag on twitter about rebranding CRT, a college level course on the legal system and its history of racism, into a meaningless care word that can even be applied to "To Kill A Mockingbird," all in order to get people to just not talk about racism. I wonder why he and his billionaire lords don't want you to talk about that... almost like they're the "unfair bastards" I'm talking about.
The linguistic and emotion valence bound approch is the Jordan Peteron's strategy, and is the best way to counter attack this giant woke tide that is almost drowning all of us.
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian hack whose epistemology is literally "whAtEvEr iS hEaltHy tO bEliEvE is TrUe," which is LITERAL nonsense. (How do you determine what is healthy to believe until you first determine what is healthy... and how do you determine what is healthy without first determining what is true?) Remember when he claimed that ancient depictions of snakes going at it were ancient depictions of DNA? That's the hack fraud nonsense this machiavellian strategy leads to. Machiavelli didn't write his guide on political power so that people would *follow* it. Also, "woke tide" --- this kind of moral panic / apocalyptic thinking is just a refined version of the "War on Christmas" bullcrap. That narrative was an attempt to wedge antisemitism back into the mainstream, (I mean, if that idea really took off, who do you think was going to be blamed for trying to replace Christmas with other holidays... holidays like, say, Hannakuh? The original dude to claim Christmas was under attack did so in like the 1880s... guess who he blamed?) Its like the satanic panic. Only now its... civil rights, I guess? Its "omg a woman in a Call of Duty game oh no!" "Omg the M&Ms have white limbs now!" "Omg Anita Sarkeesian made fun of how batman's cape sticks to his behind because the devs felt awkward at the thought someone might have gay thoughts about his backside!" "Omg Disney made another gay character!" "Oh my god a book said that mindlessly ignoring systemic racism was a bad deal for white people because they eventually come for us too!" "Oh my god they teach To Kill A Mockingbird in class!" "Oh my god, they teach critical thinking in school, that might destroy my child's faith!" (Yeah, that last one? Real thing. Some legislators in Texas tried to remove critical thinking from curricula. Critical thinking being things like, yknow, logic. And for that given reason. Apparently logic is a secular attack on Christianity, too, and you conservatives wonder how you're losing the culture war.) You know how to win the culture war? How to really win it? By developing a moral system by which people can cohabit a large scale society together. You know how you do *that?* By making a *fair* system. A system in which black people aren't left with a twelfth the household wealth on average for the next estimated 200 years, (how long it will take them to catch up economically with everyone else without reparations because, get this, *meritocracy is a lie.* America ain't meritocratic. I mean, grocery store chains literally charge MORE in the outlets that are closer to black neighborhoods. Online stores often hike prices up on IP addresses from black neighborhoods. C'mon. That's literally systemic racism.) Black people don't want your shame. They want your anger.
School choice allows your child to learn and focus on the type of learning styles and subject focus that best serve our kids. Vs the factory schooling model we have from the 19th century.
Kne of the reasons we lost it was most communities refused to talk about leveling the playing field in schools for generations. I however have seen what happens between my genration and my nephews generation when better school choice options are privided. My generation had our parents and grandparents facing jail time for trying to get kids into just safer schools. My nephew got access to safety and quality choices that really gave him options. Choices!!! This was honestly something that my brother and family still had to take action for, but it was a legit iption.
What I’ve noticed is they seem to rely on connotations heavily in their ideologies. It’s the case with every ideology (especially religions or cults or anything else in this regard).
I would say that we already have those things without needing a collective term for it, and whats more is I would say that if "woke" indeed was about kindness, empathy and compassion that I have yet to see it acted out. Its always used as an excuse to get aggressive, unpleasant and to bully people and to mock them strenuously if they in any way point this out and worse than that it is used as an excuse to be racist under the guise of fighting for racial justice.
@@ScandinavianHeretic We don't even remotely have those things in our culture. And it is because of the Christians Who Vote Republican. They literally hate everyone else and are filled with malice towards them. They don't even try to hide their violent fantasies of attacking and rampaging throughout the country. Lord knows they've been fantasizing about a race war for decades. "Woke" is listening to and being kind to others, and not punching down on the young, the weak, the vulnerable, the minority. Christians Who Vote Republican hate that.
@@nsbd90now ""Woke" is listening to and being kind to others, and not punching down on the young, the weak, the vulnerable, the minority." - Maybe this is what you hoped it would mean but it isn't what it means in practice, nobody has demonstrated that they are these things they claim to be. It is almost Always used as an excuse to get aggressive, unpleasant and to bully people and to mock them strenuously if they in any way point this out and worse than that it is used as an excuse to be racist under the guise of fighting for racial justice. America absolutely have these things in its culture ever since "woke" came around as a term, and it is an American slang term, I am sure that "Republican Christians" are terrible in their own way but everything you are saying sounds like projecting to me, including the fantasy of rampaging through the country and achieving a race war, that is what "woke" looks like in practice, because I can't find "woke" and the kind things you describe, nobody can. People keep Saying its being kind and listening but that actual reality of what happens is violence, division, racism and mockery and bullying and destruction.
1. Bring back "classical" education and make that the standard. 2. Offer youth another path into adulthood and success OTHER THAN academia (4 yer degree, maybe masters). Stop letting the universities operate as shallow money making schemes. These are missing from your video. Theyd help a lot to inspire kids to pursue excellence.
Do you mean classical education like, reading To Kill A Mockingbird, (something Rufo's cronies declared was "racist against white people,") or do you mean, like, the "fair to the south" nonsense "history" books written by the Daughters of the Confederacy that stated that "the slaves were so happy in their fields, otherwise why would they sing while doing it?" Hey, remember when conservative lawmakers in Texas declared that critical thinking skills "destroyed faith" and that they should be removed from the education curricula?
Oh, I should also point out... CRT, intersectionality, etc., all preceded the commodification of university education. These are themselves OF the classical education standards. Its a testament to the demolition of those standards that you don't know that.
Nikki Haley just does not get it, not at all. She is a political NPC. She thinks Conservativism is just the Economy and Defence. Everything else is just trivia. That's why we're in this mess.
I would pair this with human centric design, where it talks to the things u can do with these revised value based policies. Super cool and super powerful. This is what we do in business to gain funding.. what's your value proposition and how does this map to a customer journey
You people claim to be pro-free speech, and then here you are talking about manipulating people *gleefully.* Fuckin wild. Rufo here, btw, has literally admitted to lying about what CRT is. And with the result that people are trying to ban To Kill A Mockingbird. Remember when conservatives claimed that some liberals were trying to bawdlerize that book? Well, shoes on the other foot now, isn't it? Did you know a parent pulled a kid out of summer school because the teacher talked about the underground railroad for five minutes after googling why the Big Dipper is called that after being asked by a kid? Do you people just want to prevent people from teaching history?
I really enjoy your channel, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I think what you’re saying is that conservatives need to shift their position from making an argument based on logic and reason, to an appeal to emotion. Somebody needs to be the adults in this situation and adults need to make decisions on fact, no matter how uninteresting it may be. Decisions based on emotion are what got the left into the mess it’s in. I fail to see how adopting the same methodology is productive. The left is using linguistics, essentially, to trick people into compliance. Is that really what we want to do? To trick people? Or do we want to show them the evidence and let them draw their own conclusions? The former will devolve into authority seeking behavior. The latter will develop into mature decision makers
Rufo does nothing BUT trick people. His whole shtick about CRT is just that, a language trick. He literally bragged about misusing the term CRT to trick people online. He thinks he's being clever. In any event, I think if you want to see the evidence, read The Color of Law. And don't listen to the people that would have you call To Kill A Mockingbird a book that's racist against white people and have you prevent teachers from talking about the underground railroad.
So, the reason that using "emotional" language like this is preferred by the conservative right is because it doesn't correlate to facts. The "facts don't care about your feelings" argument is answered here by saying "Well then, I don't care about facts". This is dangerous thinking and ultimately you can't argue against moral values because they differ between people and societal groups.
Incorrect, what is dangerous thinking is dismissing morality because "you can't argue against moral values" - no you absolutely can argue against moral values, people do it all the time and it all comes down to what your moral values are and why. You have to work morality out for yourself, but the dangerous thing is to say that morality has no place here. Morality come before laws and policies, always.
@@ScandinavianHeretic You can, but... not with everyone. At the end of the day, the grifter, the serial killer, and the tyrant is going to let the mask slip and show you there's no one there to argue *with.* To successfully argue morality, you need to argue with someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance because of a flaw in their moral thinking that they recognize, or, at least, you need to be someone they care about, someone that they realize may be hurting because of an abusive "moral" value, but that requires they can care about you. And thus, sometimes, the only option is to charge the grifter with fraud, throw the serial killer in prison, and depose the tyrant. With the worst of the worst, debate is not possible, and only ever a means that they use to abuse you and waste your time and energy.
@@billbally4419 He was just your average criminal, a grown man still playing cowboys and Indians with the cops, taking all sorts of risk by escaping from the back of the police car, to swallowing his fentanyl stash, just like he had exactly a year earlier. That time, the police got him to a hospital. Pink Floyd actually lived a year longer than he should have.
We must stop talking about society in terms of ‘citizen communities’ that don’t exist. Those a simplistic labels. There are no gay, black or female ‘communities’, all the same. There’s no organised oppression by one group of another - only by corrupt ideologues in positions of institutional power, who exploit and oppress every citizen. We’re one human society of individuals - all different, all diverse, all included, all equal under the law.
I wish you had explained what "school choice" is, in laymen's terms. I found this video quite impenetrable actually, I watched it through 3 times, your ideas were not easy to grasp. If your point is about reaching the middle class and presenting a compelling NARRATIVE, perhaps you could have done that in this video? I could not summarize in a sentence or 2 what your distilled point was here, other than "Don't focus on stats and numbers, focus on conveying an exciting message that is easy to grasp." Ok but what IS that message, specifically? 2:21 Wokies are doing this already. How is YOUR narrative stronger? 6:51 what SPECIFICALLY are the ideas of the woke which threaten the values of America though? That needs really really clear articulation
Woke: When you see oppression, racism and bigotry under every rock, behind every tree, in every closet and under every bed. When you see oppression, racism and bigotry everywhere except within your own self righteous behavior. Woke: Every single personal or national success and every single personal or national failure is always the result of oppression and exploitation. All those who succeed are the oppressor and all those who fail are the oppressed. Woke: All of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress. All gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this. The solution is ‘equity’ - proportional representation without regard to performance. The validation of discriminating against those who are more qualified but suffer from being from the wrong race and ethnicity.
I like this but too much emphasis is on school choice. I would rather they fix the issue in public schools so that all students can get an education without ideology being forced on them.
Sounds good -- but aren't you making the exact mistake that you're warning against? On the one hand, you're saying (correctly) that you can't defeat the woke on their own turf, where they set the rules. On the other hand, you're suggesting that conservatives shouldn't use reason and facts to argue their cause, but we should deploy the same tactics as the woke, i.e. make moral arguments and "hit the voter in the feels". So why do you think conservatives can win the battle for the moral high ground, if that's already been claimed by the left? And how will (so-called) progressives not see this as an opportunity to point out how it makes the right look like a bunch of authoritarian moral busy-bodies -- which is the argument that was used against conservatives for decades?
Rufo does not say conservatives shouldn't use reason and facts. In fact, the ONLY THINK Rudo does is use reason and facts. Rufo does say that conservatives cannot allow the Left to own the academy wherein they will be allowed to launder ideas such as Intersectionality, Postcolonianism, CRT, Equity, Diversity, White fragility, ... Conservatives thought those laundered ideas would be inconsequential for society. How wrong you were.
@@mark4asp He does? I seem to recall him bragging about purposefully lying about what CRT is to scare the American public. This entire shtick he outlines here explains so much... why he declares that CRT is teaching kids to hate white people. He is trying to flip the truth on his head, (obvious DARVO,) to say, "nuh uh," because civil rights has historically won more and more territory as the decades roll by, so he thinks by mimicking it, he can foil it, without realizing the plain fact that... the stats back up civil rights. (Read "The Color of Law" for just one in depth breakdown.) The fact is, these ideas show up in university because they are scientific. Indeed, they were produced largely *by scientists.* Using the scientific method. You survey American white people about race, you get an ugly picture about American white fragility. Sorry, them's the facts, however you feel about them. Intersectionality studies how when you create an institution that abuses one demographic, you create the infrastructure that gets used to abuse even more demographics. You should ask yourself, why are the people in your movement declaring To Kill A Mockingbird racist against white people? Why are they declaring a 5 minute discussion of the underground railroad (begun because a teacher was asked why the Big Dipper was called such and looked it up on the spot and read what they found) to be "evil CRT brainwashing the kids to hate white people"? Who does this serve? Truth is, Rufo is funded by some conservative fracking billionaires. Ask yourself, who does all of this serve? Who wants to build and maintain the infrastructure to abuse black people? And might they eventually turn it on you? Billionaires have to climb a mountain of bodies to get where they are. Don't you think that makes a lot of enemies? Don't you think such a person would benefit from being able to expel academics, control school curricula and get environmentalism thrown out, rile up people with nationalism so they die in foreign wars to control the oil market....?
Im not sure that the change to arguing values is why school choice became successful. It could simply be because they suddenly started teaching our kids that they are pieces of sh!t because of the color of their skin. That'll motivate people. Not that I disagree that changing would be beneficial.
You people are so desperate to prove that schools are teaching reverse racism that you clowns have declared To Kill A Mockingbird to be racist against white people. Remember when conservatives complained about liberals "finding racism everywhere?" Its clear you all thought this was an active machiavellian technique instead of like, a few white people being overvigilante, and that you got so scared of it you thought it was an *effective* technique, that you've apparently decided to *emulate* it. I guess that's what happens when you live with a utilitarian, socially darwinist morality system that's utterly bankrupt, utterly predicated on maximizing your welfare at the expense of others, and you can't think even one year ahead into the future. You whine and complain about what others do to you, (or you THINK they are doing,) and then turn around and emulate it. Its why conspiracy theorists so often try to carry out the same kind of conspiracies they make up... (of course, it never *works,* because that kind of nonsense doesn't work. And neither will this.)
The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? That implies one never actually gets there, only constantly chasing the carrot, which many are. Merit goes both ways, everyone deserves a means, before work, to achieve said work and make any pursuit at all. I hope you're interested in more equitable wealth distribution to ensure, despite political differences between the so called left and right, that everyone has access to the value created by countless of workers before us. Value is created beyond mere individual merit but rather from society collectively functioning together. The conditions that create poverty are manufactured by policy, they are not natural givens. Unconditional Livable Income for all would be an excellent starting point for both the left and the right. Btw critical race theory and identity politics do matter, you don't have to try to erase their existence. If you're ideas don't hold up against them, then you've got some thinking to do. Perhaps they're not antithetical to your values in the first place. I bet your fear of supposed 'wokeness' is based on an inflated idea of who these people actually are in real life. Like you're trying to politically war against an invented enemy. A woke politician is not the same as a woke musician or trans person just trying to survive. Be careful your policy ideas don't negatively affect regular people.
Rufo knows what CRT is. He literally bragged about how he's actively lied about it. I would suggest CRT is antithetical to his values, but his values aren't what he paints them as. He claims to be concerned about white children being bullied for being white, but he's not --- he's concerned that American history might get taught and people might realize that the halls of power --- halls of power he is paid by, his little propaganda outfit here is paid for by the Koch brothers --- have done them dirty. He doesn't want Unconditional Livable Income. He wants that money to get dumped into bank bailouts and military excursions, he wants people afraid of environmentalism so that fracking outfits don't pay the piper, he wants to undo antiredlining laws that ensure banks give business loans to the poor more often than they'd like to. Antiracism in general is just one of many things that is antithetical to his values, because his masters use racism to keep poor people divided against eachother --- it keeps poor black people drowning in a sea of hatred struggling to hold their head above the water, it keeps poor white people at the throats of black people, blaming them for the crimes committed against them by rich white people.
Oh boy, federal and political control of universities, that's BOUND to go over well. You know this is EXACTLY what the Nazis tried to do and for EXACTLY the same reasons? "Oh my god, those evil marxist antinationalists control the universities and are brainwashing our children! Reeeeee!" Come the fuck on.
In American Pop culture Explained channel, we have explained: Is it BAD to be WOKE? ruclips.net/video/VzDqqcLVRIY/видео.html Also explained being BASED: ruclips.net/video/AYZeTI9gzZ4/видео.html
Just a suggestion.....drop the word woke. It is getting over used and I believe starting to circle back around to being perceived as a good thing. Many and this includes people that used it often also have problems defining it as witnessed recently on The Hill news show. Either drop it or define it so everyone knows what it means.
Nobody has trouble defining it, the problem is people who smugly show up and point at an online dictionary and go "Actually it means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),"" which is clearly done in bad faith, nobody shows up and says "define woke" while there are screaming rabid children on the screen and buildings are on fire, in good faith, nobody. Because everyone can see what is then done in the name of this term "Woke". Its used for divisive, hateful, judgemental, patronizing, mocking, bullying and very racist behavior. The definition of "woke" doesn't matter because nobody is a demonstrative example of the definition and to use "define woke" as an attempt of a point is just not serious, its underlining how true it is that the definition doesn't matter.
@@ScandinavianHeretic Ir does matter to the layman though. To a person that is not heavy in the political and culture war space but livings with their head in the sand most of the time. I have a person like this ask in my presence what woke meant. We were also in the presence of a woke individual. Trying to get this unknown person to understand was challenging. If I had not been there they would have walked about with the wrong definition from the woke individual.
@@reddirtwalker8041 What matters to the layman is what they see and hear. If anyone tells the layman that "woke" means this wonderful thing and then in turn what the laymen sees and hears from these same people that defined "woke" as a wonderful thing, is behavior and statements that are clearly not at all wonderful. It is violent, hateful, divisive and dreadful in every way. Then the layman is going to reject the definition and associate it with what they see and hear, and the laymen is also no longer going to believe that the people who show up to mockingly ask him to "define woke", are doing so in good faith because the layman has already seen and heard how they behave and talk.
@@ScandinavianHeretic You're assuming they see the hateful side of woke. The person I'm referring to only watches TV news and print news. They will never see the true colors of Woke. They will see some Republican using the word in a denigrating fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about as the news will not likely add context. Instead the person will understand that it's being used in a derogatory/denigrating manner but not the definition of how it is being used. The news will also never use the word in a news story that illustrates the meaning for them to learn.
@@reddirtwalker8041 I am not assuming anything, I am saying what matters to the layman is what they see and hear. If what the layman sees and hears is what the TV tells them then this is a different problem involving the media, not "true colors of Woke". You can't treat one problem by identifying a separate problem. You are describing a media problem. Saying "some Republican using the word in a denigrating fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about" is the same media problem when "some Democrat using the word in a favorable fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about", see? Thats a media problem.
School choice can only do so much. You have to go after the teachers academies and eliminate the ideological roots of the problem. Teachers trained in woke pedagogy will push wokery regardless of where they teach. Fix the training of teachers and the rest of the solutions can follow.
And let's not forget to rid ourselves of teachers' unions. I can't believe how illiterate these children are.
@@foxtrotjulietbravo5536
I love your user name! 😂
@@johnwilliams1223 V xvzxvd gs. I x, and
Only consider schools that do not hire teachers from Schools of Education. That is the hive from which the deranged teachers hatch.
The problem is that right now there are no incentives for the schools to change. School choice does more than give alternatives to families. It provides a financial incentive for the public schools to improve their performance and change their values to reflect those of their communities.
Well-articulated argument with practical application. Everything starts with answering the "why" question. The most powerful "why" is the one that brings people together around the greatest good we want for ourselves and others. Christopher Rufo is nailing it.
As an European I support this message. We tend to import parts American culture and the woke ideology can stay the hell away.
Oops, too late.
I don’t identify as anything, other people get to decide based on their observations of me. I can only be what I am and do what I do. I cannot identify out of reality, I cannot make other people bend what they observe.
Absolutely. We are defined, identified, by our words and actions. If most of your actions are to pretend to be something you’re not…… we’ll, you’re a fraud.
There seems to have been a shift in conservative thinking. Being based simply isn’t enough. We need to start appealing to emotion the same way the left does, while speaking the truth and knowing we have have good, moral intentions. Dylan Mulvaney has managed to do what we have failed at. He pissed people off enough to get them to speak out against clown world.
@TJ Plaine Yeah... this is all nonsense. "We're the smart guys, everyone else is dumb." Everyone thinks this way. Everyone thinks they are logical. Everyone thinks they are smart. With few exceptions. Kane Robertson is wedded to the 4chan ideology, though, a forum RUTHLESSLY controlled by emotional appeal, (and indeed, what is "we're smart, they're dumb" but an emotional appeal, masquerading as a logical one? Where in all of mathematics, the very language of logic, is the idea of "smart" and "dumb"?) Maybe if he looks up what a Barnum statement is he'll figure it out, but, unlikely.
Its even a good thing that we aren't entirely logical. There's a guy who lost pretty much all his ability to think emotionally, and he became essentially paralyzed by indecision. He'd spend literal hours at the store weighing the pros and cons of buying different kinds of peanut butter. Emotion is the language of morality. Intelligence and logic are then used *to implement* morality.
At the same time, Rufo here is so wedded to the idea of using emotion while still looking down on it that his tactics are downright abusive. He lies about what CRT is, openly brags about it on Twitter, gets people to desperately search school records for his strawman until they give up and simply declare "well, uhh, maybe To Kill A Mockingbird is why my kids not a god fearing patriotic covert racist anymore, because uhh To Kill A Mockingbird is about white people bad." Its nonsense, and its *emotional* nonsense, but if you peel back all the layers, you'll find its not driven by a sense of self preservation, not in the people who *originate* this stuff, unlike, say, the emotions behind Civil Rights, its driven by a sense of just anger. Anger that the halls of power have been called out for being unfair. They want you to think people who want civil rights are also angry at *you.* Well, sometimes they may be, but usually, only if you put yourself on the side of the halls of power.
I 100% agree. The moral argument has so much more depth, more impact. We are now witnessing, living the consequences of not making the making moral argument
What you are getting at is something I observed. I noticed that the more statistical arguments really only appeal to those who have a high enough IQ to comprehend them. My guess is that this is somewhere in the neighborhood of around 115-120 minimum. We are talking about roughly 10-20% of the total population here. My observation is that the lower the IQ the more reliant a person is on connotative rather than denotative meaning of a word. Double digits do not care about dictionary definitions and rely on feeling. You finally see that you must appeal to the double digits and that they are motivated by affect, not logic (they aren't that capable of logic outside of "x invokes good feeling , y invokes bad feeling", sorry not sorry).
Nowt wrong with statistical, cost-benefit arguments. But if you cede the ground of ethics to your opponents you may get a severe beating. Fortunately, for conservatives, the Left's ethics look like woke, and don't work.
But do other people take advice from those with higher IQ? Do people talk to each other about politics outside the bounds of media?
@@mark4asp It is more that those of us with higher IQ often make the mistake of communicating with those of lower IQ in the same way we communicate with higher IQ. They may actually take the advice if we give it in a way that manipulates their feelings in that direction. Remember, humans are animals, we are just primates. The higher functions we associate with "human" are mostly only really accessible to high IQ people (or rather on a sliding scale of capability based on IQ). So you have to basically condition them more than teach them. If they are already programmed one way then it is nearly impossible to change them. Further, genetics predisposition in certain directions and IQ affects how much you can deviate from your predisposition.
I never said you one should lecture people. We should engage in a conversation.
BTW: Your idea is surely amenable to research. So: do you have quantitative research to back up your connotative rather than denotative hypothesis?, or is it only an idea?
@@mark4asp It is from my experience and further from what was said in the video. The one piece of research was from a study done by one of Jordan Peterson's students where she found that having lower verbal/language comprehension skills increased the risk to political radicalization into authoritarianism. That may have influenced my thinking on that combined with said experiences. It certainly would be something worth researching. Might even get approved under a woke administration since researching that aspect in isolation does not get into the political side of things.
I just want a t-shirt that says:
"I identify as a person who doesn't give a crap what you identify as."
@ Noah Namey, that's so funny. 😂😂😂
I have 2 t shirts I recently bought. 1- UNWOKE 2- FREE SPEECH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR FEELINGS. I am sick of this woke nonsense. There's a a bunch of companies I saw in an interview saying that they have chosen the method of 'forced behavior ' to control people'.They believe they know what's best for everyone. They want to tell us how to live or lives. They want to tell us what to think etc. I think this nonsense is disruptive and divisive.
Mr. Rufo: I recommend you locate a copy of Alan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” from the 1980s and read the sections comparing and contrasting “values” and “principles.”. “Values” are inherently slippery and not helpful for clear thinking. Principles are matters that can be well defined and deeply discussed.
I suppose we're then conceding that our citizenry is no longer rational or capable of critical thinking. Whatever the political strategy, this doesn't bode well
We've never assumes that the general public was rational. Thats why we live in a republic, not a democracy. Because people are idiots, who would vote to give the gov. The ability to kill or imprison everyone they don't like - without realizing that doing such a thing would backfire horribly.
It's not as simple as "the majority of the country (countries) is stupid."
A. Wokism is a cult. Even normal people can get sucked into cults.
B. Western culture has been eroded for decades, including Christianity.
C. This erosion was facilitated by the lack of visual western cultural art, ruins, and unique non-consumerist traditions in canada/USA. If you're over 45 you might not know that many young people genuinely believe white people have no culture. This is because all our holidays are now cheap and commercialized, our religions a joke that no one wants to be associated with (common feeling I've observed, not my opinion), and because western culture is based more on our legal and moral systems than noticeablely unique race, ancient architecture, customs, or art (again in USA/Canada mostly, maybe Australia, and probably least of all, the UK).
Also:
For decades, people were saying we don't need religion to tell us what's right and wrong. Turns out, that doesn't seem to be the case.
People are desperate for A. Group identity, and B. some kind of moral framework to tell them what makes one a "good person". We've abandoned both religion and culture (which are in reality, interlinked) and so again, it's oversimplification to say people are Just Stupid.
Western nations are demoralized and lost. People have nothing to guide them through life, nothing to tell them who they are.
Wokism fills those voids, whether we humans (so above nature and religion) care to see that.
@@llIlIlllII We definitely don’t need religion to teach “right from wrong.”
@@llIlIlllII What? You mean an ancient institution that dominated culture and society for a million years was for so long considered the sole arbiter of morality, and now that its power has faded, like, *a little,* people are talking about finding a new moral system? What a surprise. This isn't exactly a winning argument for religion, its mask off the Machiavellian nature of the old religious institutions. And ultimately, its precisely their ancient moral codes that are their undoing --- just like King Josiah (I think it was) needed to conjure a whole new book of religious laws as Israelite society became more metropolitan (and also to push his own ideas of morality onto the public,) ancient religions often need to conjure new moral codes to deal with new problems that the old codes were never designed to solve. Ancient agriculture is over. Industrial agriculture has replaced it. People don't pass on property the same way, they don't live in the same exact family units, they need to get along with people who moved in from across the country because modern transportation made it possible, they need to cope with new material conditions, and your religion codified its moral system as "god given and inerrant" and, suddenly, it stopped being able to effectively govern people's lives. There's all kinds of interpersonal conflicts that occur that you can't solve with it anymore. There are interpersonal conflicts that it can *exacerbate.* If the moral code was never assumed to be god given, then people would have easily kept the religion, because it wouldn't have this blindingly obvious contradiction with basic reality. Indeed, look at what churches are cropping up --- those that are willing to modify or reinterpret the code, (often, ironically, by delving into the history of that code and finding, hey, it used to be different.)
I have heard Americans argue about these things for 60 years.
No shit Sherlock. The feds have been abusing black people for even more.
I still cant believe that the government let it get this far
We are the government.
I know. It’s pretty troubling
WE let it get this far. They just took advantage of the situation, as always.
YOU are the government. That's how America is set up. Anyone receiving a govt paycheck on any level, stats or federal, is your employee.
Wakey wakey! Globalists have a "dumb-down America" policy.
Nikki Haley is Indian-American. India has over 1 billion people. She’s hardly a minority.
Thank you Christopher. I have been thinking about what the 'final cause' of DEI is because it is never stated. I have been fortunate to work for a family run business that hadn't pushed the DEI ideology until recently. We now have a DEI HR representative that is sending out e-mails for the NOW (network of women) and Black and Latinx groups. I envision that this will expand into other groups in the future. I am tempted to e-mail HR and the CEO with your replacement concept of Equality, Merit and Color-Blindness. Do you have resources or any recommendations?
Do it.
Don't use "Latinx".
@@saintsheepy6682 Got ya. That was the term they used.
'final cause'?
@@mark4asp Hello Mark. I mean final cause which Christopher described as one of Aristotle's four causes. That is: what is DEIs purpose...its final cause.
Spot on about Haley; she should fire her PR.
John, Paul, Luke,..and Jesus didn't care what people thought.
They spoke the truth and let it fall on ears that are listening.
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt. The last balanced budget we had was under Bill Clinton.
This channel is propaganda in service of the corporate oligarchs to keep working Americans blaming and hating each other for their lousy quality of life rather than the oligarchs. It is nothing other than empty slogans.
Whoever controls how people talk controls how people think. So my fellow cultural conservatives:
Do not say someone "is gay," say someone "experiences same sex attraction."
Do not say you "oppose abortion," say you "favor protecting the lives of unborn people."
And for God's sake, do not refer to anyone as "transgender." Someone can be a "cross-dresser" or even "had a sex change operation."
And that's just for starters.
But we cannot give up the "civil rights" high ground. There is no more fundamental civil right that the right not to be dismembered alive while still in your mother's womb.
No
I find it weird that you want to protect that right but you're coaching conservatives on how to euphemistically invalidate and shame gay and transpeople. Apparently people deserve rights until they exit the womb, huh?
So if you don't want to use their terminology, why are you calling this Anti-Woke? And why are you framing this in terms of being a conservative movement? It's not anti-woke, it's simply preservation of reason, of the US Constitution, of the Enlightenment. It's not a conservative movement. Classical liberals, libertarians, constitutionalists and an increasing number of social welfare liberals are waking up to the danger of woke ideology. Groups not associated with conservatives oppose most woke ideology. Very few of the remaining original anti-war hippies support woke ideology. Other groups not normally associated with conservatives that are finding themselves on the opposite side of woke are feminists, Asians, gay men, anyone black or Latin who isn't also a neo-Marxist. In just a minute the woke will be going after Jews, right after they finish normalizing pedophilia as a lifestyle choice.
There ya go! I don’t use the lefty brainwashed language. I’m not just talking about their silly words. They have a weak feminine cadence to their speech. “I feel like as a bla bla bla period 2023” lefty speech patterns. Like Leonitus said “give them nothing but take from them everything”
agreed...I am gay, a PhD clinical psychologist, Stanford grad who walked along side Joan Baez in an anti-war march in Palo Alto, had drinks with Black Panther members in 1969 find this new 'woke' to be totalitarian as do most of my gay friends. Am I 'conservative'?
Great work Chris. We must offer a better alternative to win minds.
Well all you're offering right now is banning To Kill A Mockingbird and telling teachers not to talk about the underground railroad. You're literally trying to erase history.
The schools belong to the taxpayer- the choice should be theirs: teachers union operator or KIPP, or Barney or IDEA, NAIS, or Friends, or AMCSUS or perhaps a local pedagogy partnership. If Union Education wants full control, let them build their own schools, these belong us and they are guests who have done poorly by our wishes and measures. Don't pull the kids, boot the unions.
The public school is literally supposed to educate the poor, who, by definition, pay less taxes. It benefits the taxpayer by being something they can fall back on if they stop making the money that they then use to *be* taxpayers.
Also, this entire moral panic is premised on a lie. A lie so paper thin that people have had to claim that "To Kill A Mockingbird" is CRT just to summon the dread specter of it to justify all this outrage. CRT is a college level course. No one is teaching it in elementary, middle, or high school. Most kids wouldn't understand a word of it, its technical and complex legal shit. Rufo has literally bragged about lying about what CRT is on Twitter, where he declared that he was oh so clever for rebranding CRT so that "anytime anyone reads something insane in the newspaper" (people read newspapers, still? There's way more effective ways to get the news lol) they'll think "CRT" and when they think "CRT" they'll think "bad." Its a thought stopping technique. You know, the kind of thing *cults* use. And he justifies it with an elaborate tu quoque fallacy, a "but they do it, too." Well, every large political movement has bad actors in it, that's just statistical mechanics at work. You don't start a movement tens of millions strong without a few Machiavellian bastards. But instead of emulating them, you should teach how they operate, and like, NOT emulate them. At all. Machiavelli literally stated several times, "I don't want people to follow the advice of my book, I want them to know when others are, and how to fight those techniques. Its an education satire." (That's... a paraphrasing of what he said, not an exact quote, but you get the idea.) Don't be Trump, don't be AOC, don't emulate them. Just don't.
Public schools only ultimately suck because you people *want* them to because you generally hate the poor, (even those of you who ARE poor. Just look at MTG declaring that 'poverty is a moral problem on the part of the poor.'
And "boot the unions" LMAO that's what the billionaires and the higher ranking adminstrators want, now isn't it. That's what half of this is about. People start thinking, "hey, this is unfair to black people, this is unfair to women, this is unfair to the poor, this is unfair to train laborers, this is unfair to..." and then they start wanting something done about it. We have an instinct for fairness, right? So then they start agitating, "well, maybe its NOT unfair, maybe it SHOULD be unfair, maybe the people telling you its unfair are the ones who are unfair." Rufo's entire shtick is DARVO and the Narcissist's Prayer in action.
Would be great to see a conversation with Joshua Slocum (Disaffected). He’s been developing these ideas for a few years and does a great job.
I don't understand why conservative videos all seem to have the obsession of two camera setups, cutting to a needless and awkward side shot all the time. Deliver your message looking straight into the eyes of your audience. The 2nd camera adds nothing. Just a cheap way of faking higher production values.
I've always said to people "I don't care what results I get as long as my methods are morally good". Yes, good methods almost always result in good results, long term. But that's not the point. And anything short of that is Utilitarian, ends-justify-the-means post-hoc justification for being evil.
You're more eloquent than me.
My idea is Eliminate the Federal Dept. of Education.
Well who defines what are good and bad methods? It looks like conservatives love imposing arbitrary principles or the left’s own principles on themselves. Then they stay happy when they lose for 100 years because they are at least “morally right but politically wrong” lol.
“Keep schools neutral!” “We support free speech in school!” This is slave morality to a dominant progressive power. Who defines neutral? Who owns the bureaucracy for education? Who writes the history books and who provides popular views of histories? Not conservatives. There is never a right-wing push for more right-wing ideas, only a entropic defense from left wingers. This has been the case for as long as public school has been a thing. That’s why this attitude is not a winning proposition and current conservatives ensure there never will be one with such attitudes.
And if you want to “reform” this system, you’d do better to simply pulverize it first and build it up and give your side institutional control.
"Utilitarian?"
- means: "it works". DEI does not work. It is not utilitarian. It's the opposite. DEI is worse than useless because it does not work.
I know that what you wanted to say is "based on utilitarian, Benthanite, consequentialist, or 'socialist' ethics" - but don't forget. Just because they claim their ethics are utilitarian - it doesn't make it do.
"ends-justify-the-means post-hoc justification"
@Morgan Allen Utilitarianism is psychopathic in nature. It asks "How do I get the result I want regardless of morality?" It treats people as tools to be used. Therefor, a properly moral system would think about how to achieve results after ALL moral questions regarding methods were addressed. Methods are either moral or immoral and results can never make immoral methods "okay".
There is a Chinese proverb for this you might enjoy. "If the wrong man uses the right means, then the right means work in the wrong way."
I think part of the problem with communication has been that the conservatives tend to take it for granted that stupid is wrong, so if you point out that something's stupid you don't need to add a moral layer. It's stupid so we shouldn't do it. But the progressives really don't care if an idea is stupid or not. They don't ask, "Will this accomplish what we want to accomplish?" They ask, "Will this make me feel good about advocating for it?" So you have to say, "This is mean so we shouldn't do it." THEN they'll get behind it.
Then why did conservative lawmakers in Texas float a bill that would ban critical thinking, (no, not critical race theory -- no one had even heard of it back then,) from public education, saying it would "destroy religious faith in children"?
Almost everyone thinks the other guy is stupid. Most people think stupid is morally wrong, (even though morality is about responsibility, and responsibility comes with agency, and stupidity halts agency... rather, it is wrong to take advantage *of* the stupid, and it is wrong to force others into ignorance and take away their responsibility. I mean, consider that psychopaths and sociopaths are often quite smart.) These are *borderline* Barnum Statements. I've heard liberals and leftists say essentially the same thing but reversed. Try to actually think through what you are saying and think, "hey, does the other guy think this way," before you say these things. This could be written in like a pseudoscientific personality pop quiz or in a description of what someone's astrology sign is, "many people think emotionally, but not you. You understand that stupid is wrong." C'mon dude.
Conservatives think that all kinds of things that other countries have shown to work are stupid, (like, say, reparations,) and often, its because they're propagandized into believing that this or that moral thing to do is stupid so that the rich and powerful don't have to do the moral thing. I mean, how else do you stop someone from doing what they are certain is moral? You make them think that its stupid.
That's Rufo's angle here. That's why he strips CRT of all nuance and meaning until its just "corporate diversity training." (Nevermind that the very same scholar who gave CRT its name thinks corporate diversity training *is stupid.* Interestingly, she never said it was immoral, just misguided, an attempt to find a simple silver bullet that a manager can use to make things all better. The result of the cognitive sense of superstition, if you will.) Once he does that, he can rely on the assumption that "stupid is *morally* wrong" (rather than just *simply* wrong) to convince you that CRT is also all these various immoral things, (its "actually racist," for example.) (Of course, he and his friends are so hard pressed to find any actual CRT or reverse racism in schools, they declared To Kill A Mockingbird to be a book that "makes kids hate white people." Nevermind that THAT is a stupid claim.)
In reality, CRT isn't about all white people "being inherently racist"... (a claim I rarely even see out of anyone, every time I hear about it, its almost always a strawman out of the mouths of conservatives completely misrepresenting arguments about white privilege or fragility,) its not even about white people. Its about legal systems. You can even apply a lot of its theory, even though most of its studies have focused on the American context, to other societies that have a racism issue. Even societies that are racist against people of European descent, like Japan's legal system, (where being European in ancestry can get you harassed by the police.) Many of the things in schools being decried as CRT... aren't CRT. Many of them were optional, like the reading of that "Not My Idea" book, which, frankly, doesn't claim whiteness is racism, (it claims, really, that benefiting socially from white privilege is a bad deal, because in the long run, racism hurts everyone. Which is just... kind of obvious? And it generalizes to any kind of privilege provided by any society on any grounds, and I would doubt conservatives would be saying that "benefiting from Japanese privilege is a bad deal, because in the long run, racism hurts everyone" if they heard that a Japanese textbook taught that.)
Thing A vs Thing B in politics is never going to work. Pendulum is going to swing your way, then it's going to swing their way. Repeat these two extremes until heat death of the universe. The better option would be taking a centrist approach where you don't HAVE these whiplash swings from hard left to hard right to hard left.
CRT is pretty damn centrist, in... literally every other country. Turns out, the pendulum swinging idea is itself just an ancient Just So Story. Civil rights hang in the balance by a thread. The common mode of operation of human society is that there aren't any. You should treasure it, instead of "both sidesing" the issue with guys like Rufo who literally openly bragged about lying about what CRT was.
I completely agree. Don’t use their framework. However, if you really want to rip this out by the roots, start at the primary and even preschool level. Kids are being taught that their personal thoughts and feelings are more important than anything else. The completely bonkers behaviors seen on college campuses are a direct result of an education that prioritises the individual’s internal perception over all other aspects of their existence.
We have been raising several generations of people who want the world to conform to their own personal perceptions, rather than people who want to try to understand how they need to fit in.
Balance is the key
You are an excellent thinker Chris! Well said 👍
I hate the language that has developed and seeped into the everyday over the last 10 years.
It’s so corporate and hollow yet religious in framework
Something literally everyone says in every age about every new language. "Its shallow and hollow and stupid." No, you just don't understand it. Congratulations, though, on emulating the French linguistic academics who declared that people shouldn't use loanwords from the internet.
I'm interested to know your thoughts about Vivek Ramaswamy.
I like him, though I don't see a based of support. The ideas he brings to the table are time-worthy.
The debates will be a place for people to get to know him.
@@wanda520 I've got the impression that Ramaswamy is smart and has much to offer. Interesting that he and Haley have the Indian sub-continental forebears.
You can’t argue with people who don’t believe in objective truth.
Awesome! Keep going Chris!!
This sounds like an amazing goal. My concern is it kinda reminds me of when Christians wanna try and make Christian rock music...it just comes out cheesy. Same with a few years back when the Mormons had those ads where they tried to show some "normal" or "cool" guy riding a motorcycle....and he was Mormon.
I agree the Left has a monopoly on the hip, fashionable and emotional appeal of the vibrant youth. I'm not sure how you make responsibility sexy. It seems like one of those things you have to learn the hard way with age....something Conservatives have a monopoly on.
I really wish you good luck with this goal and I'll be thinking myself about it more as well.
The Left has "a monopoly" on these things because the Left is natural. Its largely born of the instinct for fairness. But its the people who are unfair who outlive the fair because they steal from them, they starve them, they murder them. And then, all the unfair bastards become old. That's why conservativism isn't hip, its old.
And if you don't think Rufo here isn't "unfair," isn't a scheming, machiavellian bastard, look at him brag on twitter about rebranding CRT, a college level course on the legal system and its history of racism, into a meaningless care word that can even be applied to "To Kill A Mockingbird," all in order to get people to just not talk about racism. I wonder why he and his billionaire lords don't want you to talk about that... almost like they're the "unfair bastards" I'm talking about.
Haley will always see everything through her “ lived experience “.
I haven't seen any evidence of that to this point
The linguistic and emotion valence bound approch is the Jordan Peteron's strategy, and is the best way to counter attack this giant woke tide that is almost drowning all of us.
Jordan Peterson is a Jungian hack whose epistemology is literally "whAtEvEr iS hEaltHy tO bEliEvE is TrUe," which is LITERAL nonsense. (How do you determine what is healthy to believe until you first determine what is healthy... and how do you determine what is healthy without first determining what is true?) Remember when he claimed that ancient depictions of snakes going at it were ancient depictions of DNA? That's the hack fraud nonsense this machiavellian strategy leads to. Machiavelli didn't write his guide on political power so that people would *follow* it.
Also, "woke tide" --- this kind of moral panic / apocalyptic thinking is just a refined version of the "War on Christmas" bullcrap. That narrative was an attempt to wedge antisemitism back into the mainstream, (I mean, if that idea really took off, who do you think was going to be blamed for trying to replace Christmas with other holidays... holidays like, say, Hannakuh? The original dude to claim Christmas was under attack did so in like the 1880s... guess who he blamed?) Its like the satanic panic. Only now its... civil rights, I guess? Its "omg a woman in a Call of Duty game oh no!" "Omg the M&Ms have white limbs now!" "Omg Anita Sarkeesian made fun of how batman's cape sticks to his behind because the devs felt awkward at the thought someone might have gay thoughts about his backside!" "Omg Disney made another gay character!" "Oh my god a book said that mindlessly ignoring systemic racism was a bad deal for white people because they eventually come for us too!" "Oh my god they teach To Kill A Mockingbird in class!" "Oh my god, they teach critical thinking in school, that might destroy my child's faith!" (Yeah, that last one? Real thing. Some legislators in Texas tried to remove critical thinking from curricula. Critical thinking being things like, yknow, logic. And for that given reason. Apparently logic is a secular attack on Christianity, too, and you conservatives wonder how you're losing the culture war.)
You know how to win the culture war? How to really win it? By developing a moral system by which people can cohabit a large scale society together. You know how you do *that?* By making a *fair* system. A system in which black people aren't left with a twelfth the household wealth on average for the next estimated 200 years, (how long it will take them to catch up economically with everyone else without reparations because, get this, *meritocracy is a lie.* America ain't meritocratic. I mean, grocery store chains literally charge MORE in the outlets that are closer to black neighborhoods. Online stores often hike prices up on IP addresses from black neighborhoods. C'mon. That's literally systemic racism.)
Black people don't want your shame. They want your anger.
School choice, whatever I don't care as long as it keeps the miscreants out of my daughter's school.
Please say anti Marxist.
Agreed. I'm so sick of the word, "woke". It sounds so hokey and is way too simplistic.
Its sugarcoating.
Yuri Bezminov explained all of this.
I use brainwashed,tv watching, video game nerd lefty.
School choice allows your child to learn and focus on the type of learning styles and subject focus that best serve our kids. Vs the factory schooling model we have from the 19th century.
This should be required viewing for everyone on the right
Kne of the reasons we lost it was most communities refused to talk about leveling the playing field in schools for generations. I however have seen what happens between my genration and my nephews generation when better school choice options are privided. My generation had our parents and grandparents facing jail time for trying to get kids into just safer schools. My nephew got access to safety and quality choices that really gave him options. Choices!!! This was honestly something that my brother and family still had to take action for, but it was a legit iption.
What I’ve noticed is they seem to rely on connotations heavily in their ideologies. It’s the case with every ideology (especially religions or cults or anything else in this regard).
There is nothing wrong with learning from your enemies, so long as you don't learn the wrong lessons
It's actually very EASY - OWN the WOKE LANGUAGE and USE IT AGAINST THEM - USE THEIR RULES and they WILL get even stupider...
How do you re-work the language the NOT call it ANTI-woke but rather PRO-?
What do you say to this argument/belief that woke is just about kindness, empathy and compassion?
They never define it. They can't. It's a scary boogieman dog whistle.
I would say that we already have those things without needing a collective term for it, and whats more is I would say that if "woke" indeed was about kindness, empathy and compassion that I have yet to see it acted out. Its always used as an excuse to get aggressive, unpleasant and to bully people and to mock them strenuously if they in any way point this out and worse than that it is used as an excuse to be racist under the guise of fighting for racial justice.
@@ScandinavianHeretic We don't even remotely have those things in our culture. And it is because of the Christians Who Vote Republican. They literally hate everyone else and are filled with malice towards them. They don't even try to hide their violent fantasies of attacking and rampaging throughout the country. Lord knows they've been fantasizing about a race war for decades. "Woke" is listening to and being kind to others, and not punching down on the young, the weak, the vulnerable, the minority. Christians Who Vote Republican hate that.
It's not
@@nsbd90now ""Woke" is listening to and being kind to others, and not punching down on the young, the weak, the vulnerable, the minority." -
Maybe this is what you hoped it would mean but it isn't what it means in practice, nobody has demonstrated that they are these things they claim to be. It is almost Always used as an excuse to get aggressive, unpleasant and to bully people and to mock them strenuously if they in any way point this out and worse than that it is used as an excuse to be racist under the guise of fighting for racial justice.
America absolutely have these things in its culture ever since "woke" came around as a term, and it is an American slang term, I am sure that "Republican Christians" are terrible in their own way but everything you are saying sounds like projecting to me, including the fantasy of rampaging through the country and achieving a race war, that is what "woke" looks like in practice, because I can't find "woke" and the kind things you describe, nobody can. People keep Saying its being kind and listening but that actual reality of what happens is violence, division, racism and mockery and bullying and destruction.
I haven't heard Aristotle quoted in a while, so thumbs up!
Great stuff mate articulate and enthusiastic
Can you give a concrete example of what you are talking about?
Do you know what DEI is?
He’s talking about getting the leftist woke agenda out of academia. Kids are being brainwashed by Marxist ideologues.
@@johnwilliams1223 Can you give a specific example of what you are talking about?
1. Bring back "classical" education and make that the standard.
2. Offer youth another path into adulthood and success OTHER THAN academia (4 yer degree, maybe masters). Stop letting the universities operate as shallow money making schemes.
These are missing from your video. Theyd help a lot to inspire kids to pursue excellence.
Do you mean classical education like, reading To Kill A Mockingbird, (something Rufo's cronies declared was "racist against white people,") or do you mean, like, the "fair to the south" nonsense "history" books written by the Daughters of the Confederacy that stated that "the slaves were so happy in their fields, otherwise why would they sing while doing it?"
Hey, remember when conservative lawmakers in Texas declared that critical thinking skills "destroyed faith" and that they should be removed from the education curricula?
Oh, I should also point out... CRT, intersectionality, etc., all preceded the commodification of university education. These are themselves OF the classical education standards. Its a testament to the demolition of those standards that you don't know that.
Universality is VERY important. They can't win against a conservative policy that wants to provide something to EVERYONE.
This sounds like a really long trek to make just to arrive at leftism and call it conservativism.
Sign me up! How can I help?
Nikki Haley proved herself a RINO.
The progressive Lakoff is the person who most spelled out the question of language and framing.
Nikki Haley just does not get it, not at all. She is a political NPC.
She thinks Conservativism is just the Economy and Defence. Everything else is just trivia.
That's why we're in this mess.
I would pair this with human centric design, where it talks to the things u can do with these revised value based policies. Super cool and super powerful. This is what we do in business to gain funding.. what's your value proposition and how does this map to a customer journey
You people claim to be pro-free speech, and then here you are talking about manipulating people *gleefully.*
Fuckin wild.
Rufo here, btw, has literally admitted to lying about what CRT is. And with the result that people are trying to ban To Kill A Mockingbird. Remember when conservatives claimed that some liberals were trying to bawdlerize that book? Well, shoes on the other foot now, isn't it? Did you know a parent pulled a kid out of summer school because the teacher talked about the underground railroad for five minutes after googling why the Big Dipper is called that after being asked by a kid? Do you people just want to prevent people from teaching history?
Why are you not mentioning the BORDER CRISIS as an issue?
Woo-HOO!! . . .Grab the reins, Rufo & Company!----- grab those reins and Hee'YAHHHH!!!
Great commentary.
not conservative.. not woke.. i just fight wokeness with sanity.. nothing more required.. don't need to make it political..
Rufo for President.
okay but how do you reach the moderates and those closer to the left?
First, conservatives need to make up their mind; Are you libertarian or theocratic. Decide or go NOWHERE in politics.
Arguing with the left within their own frame is like Hobbes playing Calvin-ball.
Enough talk. Time for conservative action or we will not have a Republic.
I really enjoy your channel, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
I think what you’re saying is that conservatives need to shift their position from making an argument based on logic and reason, to an appeal to emotion.
Somebody needs to be the adults in this situation and adults need to make decisions on fact, no matter how uninteresting it may be.
Decisions based on emotion are what got the left into the mess it’s in. I fail to see how adopting the same methodology is productive.
The left is using linguistics, essentially, to trick people into compliance. Is that really what we want to do? To trick people?
Or do we want to show them the evidence and let them draw their own conclusions?
The former will devolve into authority seeking behavior. The latter will develop into mature decision makers
Rufo does nothing BUT trick people. His whole shtick about CRT is just that, a language trick. He literally bragged about misusing the term CRT to trick people online. He thinks he's being clever.
In any event, I think if you want to see the evidence, read The Color of Law. And don't listen to the people that would have you call To Kill A Mockingbird a book that's racist against white people and have you prevent teachers from talking about the underground railroad.
I sure hope people latch on to this... and I sure hope it works.
All this is worthless in a heterogenous society. America is done for.
People are afraid even to tell that being homossexual ist no moral.
Define moral.
So, the reason that using "emotional" language like this is preferred by the conservative right is because it doesn't correlate to facts. The "facts don't care about your feelings" argument is answered here by saying "Well then, I don't care about facts".
This is dangerous thinking and ultimately you can't argue against moral values because they differ between people and societal groups.
Incorrect, what is dangerous thinking is dismissing morality because "you can't argue against moral values" - no you absolutely can argue against moral values, people do it all the time and it all comes down to what your moral values are and why. You have to work morality out for yourself, but the dangerous thing is to say that morality has no place here. Morality come before laws and policies, always.
@@ScandinavianHeretic You can, but... not with everyone. At the end of the day, the grifter, the serial killer, and the tyrant is going to let the mask slip and show you there's no one there to argue *with.* To successfully argue morality, you need to argue with someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance because of a flaw in their moral thinking that they recognize, or, at least, you need to be someone they care about, someone that they realize may be hurting because of an abusive "moral" value, but that requires they can care about you.
And thus, sometimes, the only option is to charge the grifter with fraud, throw the serial killer in prison, and depose the tyrant. With the worst of the worst, debate is not possible, and only ever a means that they use to abuse you and waste your time and energy.
Absolutely. Same handicap present when a Sam Harris & Ben Shapiro debate atheism. Sam Harris has Ben on his lexicon
DeSantis!
Ryan gosling really passionate
So Good. Essential statements. Go Christoper!
You mean like when I say George Floyd just had a terrible, awful, no good, very bad day? Those are my values!
Yes he did . What's your point
@@billbally4419 He was just your average criminal, a grown man still playing cowboys and Indians with the cops, taking all sorts of risk by escaping from the back of the police car, to swallowing his fentanyl stash, just like he had exactly a year earlier. That time, the police got him to a hospital. Pink Floyd actually lived a year longer than he should have.
Just from the title and this guy's photo= he's full sigma. He turned down a job at the CIA.
We must stop talking about society in terms of ‘citizen communities’ that don’t exist. Those a simplistic labels. There are no gay, black or female ‘communities’, all the same. There’s no organised oppression by one group of another - only by corrupt ideologues in positions of institutional power, who exploit and oppress every citizen. We’re one human society of individuals - all different, all diverse, all included, all equal under the law.
I wish you had explained what "school choice" is, in laymen's terms. I found this video quite impenetrable actually, I watched it through 3 times, your ideas were not easy to grasp. If your point is about reaching the middle class and presenting a compelling NARRATIVE, perhaps you could have done that in this video? I could not summarize in a sentence or 2 what your distilled point was here, other than "Don't focus on stats and numbers, focus on conveying an exciting message that is easy to grasp." Ok but what IS that message, specifically?
2:21 Wokies are doing this already. How is YOUR narrative stronger?
6:51 what SPECIFICALLY are the ideas of the woke which threaten the values of America though? That needs really really clear articulation
just ask them what a woman is. when they look at you with glazed over eyes, you just walk away.
Pay what you owe, 40 acres and a mule.
excellent point
What is the definition of “woke”?
Woke: When you see oppression, racism and bigotry under every rock, behind every tree, in every closet and under every bed. When you see oppression, racism and bigotry everywhere except within your own self righteous behavior.
Woke: Every single personal or national success and every single personal or national failure is always the result of oppression and exploitation. All those who succeed are the oppressor and all those who fail are the oppressed.
Woke: All of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress. All gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this. The solution is ‘equity’ - proportional representation without regard to performance. The validation of discriminating against those who are more qualified but suffer from being from the wrong race and ethnicity.
I like this but too much emphasis is on school choice. I would rather they fix the issue in public schools so that all students can get an education without ideology being forced on them.
Excellent
Nikki is a good politician. Don’t be fooled by her.
No she's not. She's a rino.
Sounds good -- but aren't you making the exact mistake that you're warning against? On the one hand, you're saying (correctly) that you can't defeat the woke on their own turf, where they set the rules. On the other hand, you're suggesting that conservatives shouldn't use reason and facts to argue their cause, but we should deploy the same tactics as the woke, i.e. make moral arguments and "hit the voter in the feels". So why do you think conservatives can win the battle for the moral high ground, if that's already been claimed by the left? And how will (so-called) progressives not see this as an opportunity to point out how it makes the right look like a bunch of authoritarian moral busy-bodies -- which is the argument that was used against conservatives for decades?
Rufo does not say conservatives shouldn't use reason and facts. In fact, the ONLY THINK Rudo does is use reason and facts. Rufo does say that conservatives cannot allow the Left to own the academy wherein they will be allowed to launder ideas such as Intersectionality, Postcolonianism, CRT, Equity, Diversity, White fragility, ...
Conservatives thought those laundered ideas would be inconsequential for society. How wrong you were.
@@mark4asp He does? I seem to recall him bragging about purposefully lying about what CRT is to scare the American public. This entire shtick he outlines here explains so much... why he declares that CRT is teaching kids to hate white people. He is trying to flip the truth on his head, (obvious DARVO,) to say, "nuh uh," because civil rights has historically won more and more territory as the decades roll by, so he thinks by mimicking it, he can foil it, without realizing the plain fact that... the stats back up civil rights. (Read "The Color of Law" for just one in depth breakdown.)
The fact is, these ideas show up in university because they are scientific. Indeed, they were produced largely *by scientists.* Using the scientific method. You survey American white people about race, you get an ugly picture about American white fragility. Sorry, them's the facts, however you feel about them. Intersectionality studies how when you create an institution that abuses one demographic, you create the infrastructure that gets used to abuse even more demographics.
You should ask yourself, why are the people in your movement declaring To Kill A Mockingbird racist against white people? Why are they declaring a 5 minute discussion of the underground railroad (begun because a teacher was asked why the Big Dipper was called such and looked it up on the spot and read what they found) to be "evil CRT brainwashing the kids to hate white people"? Who does this serve?
Truth is, Rufo is funded by some conservative fracking billionaires. Ask yourself, who does all of this serve? Who wants to build and maintain the infrastructure to abuse black people? And might they eventually turn it on you? Billionaires have to climb a mountain of bodies to get where they are. Don't you think that makes a lot of enemies? Don't you think such a person would benefit from being able to expel academics, control school curricula and get environmentalism thrown out, rile up people with nationalism so they die in foreign wars to control the oil market....?
Well said.
So what's different? Emotionalism is emotionalism.
Woke teachers got to go 👋
I think we have to start by literally 'walling off' our communities to these Modern Day Nazis.
Im not sure that the change to arguing values is why school choice became successful. It could simply be because they suddenly started teaching our kids that they are pieces of sh!t because of the color of their skin. That'll motivate people. Not that I disagree that changing would be beneficial.
You people are so desperate to prove that schools are teaching reverse racism that you clowns have declared To Kill A Mockingbird to be racist against white people. Remember when conservatives complained about liberals "finding racism everywhere?" Its clear you all thought this was an active machiavellian technique instead of like, a few white people being overvigilante, and that you got so scared of it you thought it was an *effective* technique, that you've apparently decided to *emulate* it. I guess that's what happens when you live with a utilitarian, socially darwinist morality system that's utterly bankrupt, utterly predicated on maximizing your welfare at the expense of others, and you can't think even one year ahead into the future. You whine and complain about what others do to you, (or you THINK they are doing,) and then turn around and emulate it. Its why conspiracy theorists so often try to carry out the same kind of conspiracies they make up... (of course, it never *works,* because that kind of nonsense doesn't work. And neither will this.)
Thx
The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? That implies one never actually gets there, only constantly chasing the carrot, which many are. Merit goes both ways, everyone deserves a means, before work, to achieve said work and make any pursuit at all. I hope you're interested in more equitable wealth distribution to ensure, despite political differences between the so called left and right, that everyone has access to the value created by countless of workers before us. Value is created beyond mere individual merit but rather from society collectively functioning together. The conditions that create poverty are manufactured by policy, they are not natural givens. Unconditional Livable Income for all would be an excellent starting point for both the left and the right.
Btw critical race theory and identity politics do matter, you don't have to try to erase their existence. If you're ideas don't hold up against them, then you've got some thinking to do. Perhaps they're not antithetical to your values in the first place. I bet your fear of supposed 'wokeness' is based on an inflated idea of who these people actually are in real life. Like you're trying to politically war against an invented enemy. A woke politician is not the same as a woke musician or trans person just trying to survive. Be careful your policy ideas don't negatively affect regular people.
Rufo knows what CRT is. He literally bragged about how he's actively lied about it. I would suggest CRT is antithetical to his values, but his values aren't what he paints them as. He claims to be concerned about white children being bullied for being white, but he's not --- he's concerned that American history might get taught and people might realize that the halls of power --- halls of power he is paid by, his little propaganda outfit here is paid for by the Koch brothers --- have done them dirty. He doesn't want Unconditional Livable Income. He wants that money to get dumped into bank bailouts and military excursions, he wants people afraid of environmentalism so that fracking outfits don't pay the piper, he wants to undo antiredlining laws that ensure banks give business loans to the poor more often than they'd like to. Antiracism in general is just one of many things that is antithetical to his values, because his masters use racism to keep poor people divided against eachother --- it keeps poor black people drowning in a sea of hatred struggling to hold their head above the water, it keeps poor white people at the throats of black people, blaming them for the crimes committed against them by rich white people.
Unless you are tearing these people out of the universities all this is a complete waste of time.
Oh boy, federal and political control of universities, that's BOUND to go over well. You know this is EXACTLY what the Nazis tried to do and for EXACTLY the same reasons? "Oh my god, those evil marxist antinationalists control the universities and are brainwashing our children! Reeeeee!" Come the fuck on.
This is brilliant.
They already have
In American Pop culture Explained channel, we have explained: Is it BAD to be WOKE? ruclips.net/video/VzDqqcLVRIY/видео.html
Also explained being BASED: ruclips.net/video/AYZeTI9gzZ4/видео.html
Well said!
Savannah for President.
Is that Ryan Gosling?!
Just a suggestion.....drop the word woke. It is getting over used and I believe starting to circle back around to being perceived as a good thing.
Many and this includes people that used it often also have problems defining it as witnessed recently on The Hill news show.
Either drop it or define it so everyone knows what it means.
Nobody has trouble defining it, the problem is people who smugly show up and point at an online dictionary and go "Actually it means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),"" which is clearly done in bad faith, nobody shows up and says "define woke" while there are screaming rabid children on the screen and buildings are on fire, in good faith, nobody.
Because everyone can see what is then done in the name of this term "Woke". Its used for divisive, hateful, judgemental, patronizing, mocking, bullying and very racist behavior.
The definition of "woke" doesn't matter because nobody is a demonstrative example of the definition and to use "define woke" as an attempt of a point is just not serious, its underlining how true it is that the definition doesn't matter.
@@ScandinavianHeretic Ir does matter to the layman though. To a person that is not heavy in the political and culture war space but livings with their head in the sand most of the time. I have a person like this ask in my presence what woke meant. We were also in the presence of a woke individual. Trying to get this unknown person to understand was challenging. If I had not been there they would have walked about with the wrong definition from the woke individual.
@@reddirtwalker8041 What matters to the layman is what they see and hear. If anyone tells the layman that "woke" means this wonderful thing and then in turn what the laymen sees and hears from these same people that defined "woke" as a wonderful thing, is behavior and statements that are clearly not at all wonderful. It is violent, hateful, divisive and dreadful in every way.
Then the layman is going to reject the definition and associate it with what they see and hear, and the laymen is also no longer going to believe that the people who show up to mockingly ask him to "define woke", are doing so in good faith because the layman has already seen and heard how they behave and talk.
@@ScandinavianHeretic You're assuming they see the hateful side of woke. The person I'm referring to only watches TV news and print news. They will never see the true colors of Woke. They will see some Republican using the word in a denigrating fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about as the news will not likely add context. Instead the person will understand that it's being used in a derogatory/denigrating manner but not the definition of how it is being used. The news will also never use the word in a news story that illustrates the meaning for them to learn.
@@reddirtwalker8041 I am not assuming anything, I am saying what matters to the layman is what they see and hear. If what the layman sees and hears is what the TV tells them then this is a different problem involving the media, not "true colors of Woke". You can't treat one problem by identifying a separate problem. You are describing a media problem. Saying "some Republican using the word in a denigrating fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about" is the same media problem when "some Democrat using the word in a favorable fashion and not have a clue what they are talking about", see?
Thats a media problem.
Duty
Edification
Integrity