I'm not even saying that all of the movement's tactics are bad (I really like some of the community-driven work in accessibility that it's driven, for instance) - just that most of the prominent ones are, to the point where I personally am strongly opposed to the movement itself.
> Again, say what you want about where it's gone if that's your thing, but stripped down the core of wokeness is "people should be more sensitive to marginalized communities" is it not? Once you get the swinging dick culture war BS out of the way, that's the original impulse right?
I'll reproduce my answer here since it goes into detail on why people react badly to wokeness:
---
This kind of sentiment gets expressed often, but I'm skeptical of it being the original impulse, given a lot of the woke theory's roots in neo-Marxism and the like. For a lot of the average people who go along with it, that kind of impulse is how it sneaks itself in. People want to be kind, and wokeness speaks of kindness in a way.
But ultimately kind, it ain't. For example, a person who really was concerned about racism would be pleased to hear people were not racist - the world's a better place with a little less racism in it. But that's not the activists' reaction, is it? They vehemently deny it's possible to be not-racist - you have to be actively antiracist (ie. actively onboard with their specific program, other ways of getting to the goal are wrong) or you're a racist (and thus need to be pressured to get on with the program).
Both positions allow the activist control over the other person - them not being a racist would mean the activist can't exert pressure on them, since they're already not racist and there's nothing to fix. The person can go on with their life. But that is not okay to the activist, anything but! It gets spoken against vigorously, and much is spent defining terms and theorizing how that stance of non-racistness is impossible. They also actively disparage and fight against people who try to get to the goal in other ways.
Many think eg. individualism-focused 'colorblindness' works better and makes for more pleasant environments than 'antiracism', but the activists are viciously against this, because meeting people as individuals and trying to not let their skin color influence decision making means the activists are out of a job, and they can't boss the colorblindness advocates around. One thing that clearly betrays their allegiance to their method rather than their stated goal is that they're not interested in whether what they do actually works.
If someone's concern really was ending racism, they'd be very interested in learning things like different methods, comparing them, is the goal ultimately even possible, and if not what's the best that can be done, and so on. 'Antiracists' do essentially none of that. Instead, they try to shut down other approaches, and hold utopian perfection as essentially the only acceptable end-state. This doesn't really fit the profile of someone who really open-mindedly wants to get things done. It fits with a person whose goal is to be able to fight.
Fighting for a righteous cause feels really good, so it's no surprise people want to do that. If you gain earthly power over other people in the process and feel you're a part of something greater than yourself - two deep, primal human motivations - all the better. Fighting or raw societal power to order others around as the actual goals have some very perverse effects on the activists' incentives. It would actually be really good for them to pick methods that intentionally do not work. Why? Because then they never solve the problem. This means they can fight and feel important - how terrible the foe if they and their comrades struggle and struggle and it still just won't be destroyed. Clearly, the activist is very necessary! Power, same thing: If the excuse exists, they can keep using it to boss people.
It's worth noting another perverse incentive too, namely that rebuilding your identity is psychologically expensive. If you build your identity around being an activist, and then succeed on your goal, you get a nice dose of satisfaction but your identity ends up being a fat load of nothing if you have nothing else going on. It's like an athlete getting too old to play competitively and having to transition to a coaching or commentary role. That is hard, and often unpleasant. An eternal cause pursued with ineffective methods is a perfect solution to the issue. A person who set themselves an actual project, like, say, building N wells in Africa, knows that the job is done someday. They build themselves in a way that's capable of moving on to a far greater extent than the warrior who wears an abstract fight as their identity.
And as far as I can tell, this is exactly the pattern of the activist class today: They work in simple good-evil binaries towards a utopian end-state, and are fiercely attached to the methods, not eg. news that the problem is overstated and things are surprisingly good. So even if I can regard most ordinary people as basically motivated by a need to be good, polite and decent, the activists I can't in good conscience think of as being genuine or benign. They use the kindness as cover for less savory ends.
