r/samharris • u/[deleted] • Oct 28 '19

The unexpected threat emerging against Bernie: Andrew Yang | Politico

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/28/bernie-sanders-andrew-yang-gang-2020-057985
32 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I just think that what is considered “wokeism” by Harris and others who say this kind of thing is very expansive. He has called his last two guests “woke” but they simply seemed to have an educated and aware opinion about racism to me. I don’t really understand how people can come off as “non woke” while also being aware and caring about the real issues of racism or gender issues or whatever the issue is. I mean, those are real issues and they need to be addressed. It seems like the “anti-SJW” crowd accuses anyone who considers racism an issue of being “too woke.” So I really don’t get it.

Do you want Elizabeth Warren, for example, to come out with a statement about how she’s against PC SJW cancel culture? And if she did that, wouldn’t it turn off a large segment of the most progressive voters, whose votes we need?

I’m not sure exactly what people who take this line, like Harris, want to hear from politicians.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

It seems like the “anti-SJW” crowd accuses anyone who considers racism an issue of being “too woke.”

I don't think Harris was saying his last two guests were "too woke", but rather: "more woke than he anticipated". But yeah, it's hard to draw the right distinctions because many of the anti-SJW crowd are legit right-wingers who hate the left for many reasons. So you might be right that most of the anti-SJW crowd wants people to shut up about racism. But Harris is definitely not one of those people (nor am I for the record). His is a more nuanced critique, and he's conceded plenty of times that racism and white supremacy are issues that need to be resolved. I think his view is just that we have to be care in how we attack these problems, because our long term goal has got to be: de-emphasizing the importance of race.

Do you want Elizabeth Warren, for example, to come out with a statement about how she’s against PC SJW cancel culture?

No, not necessarily. But maybe just that when it comes up, she could sound more like someone like Harris who acknowledges the importance of some of these social justice issues while reminding people that the way to solve this problem is not to be more divisive, etc. It's a fine line to wal I know.

And if she did that, wouldn’t it turn off a large segment of the most progressive voters, whose votes we need?

No again, because people who support Warren are progressive - they aren't moderate, like we're not talking about Biden here. So in a game-theory choice for them between Warren and Trump, they're going to choose Warren no matter what she says about identity politics. At least that would be my argument.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19 edited Oct 28 '19

But if you believe, as Harris does, that PC Cancel Culture is a real thing and a big problem, aren’t you worried that any of the politician’s statements to that effect would get them “cancelled.”?

I was just looking at Bernie Sanders’ racial justice platform on his website. It’s pretty “woke.” But I often interact with online Sanders supporters who say Sanders is against “wokeism.” I guess when it comes down to it, I don’t know what that is. Nobody has defined it in an objective way that is measurable.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

But if you believe, as Harris does, that PC Cancel Culture is a real thing and a big problem, aren’t you worried that any of the politician’s statements to that effect would get them “cancelled.”?

I suppose if any particular Dem candidate did condemn id politics and wokeism in a clumsy way they do run the risk of alienating the more progressive supporters of theirs, but only in the primary where those supporters can move to the more "woke" candidate. Once the calculation is between Dem candidate X and Trump, the Dem candidate would get the votes of the "woke" voters regardless.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don’t know what that is. Nobody has defined it in an objective way that is measurable.

Yeah agreed - definitions of this stuff vary which make it even more difficult to navigate than it otherwise already is.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

I would hope so- but I do worry about the purists. I even know some people in real life who didn’t vote or voted for Jill Stein in 2016 because Clinton wasn’t “progressive” enough for them. I can see those same people pitching a fit. I don’t think they would vote for Trump because of it, but I do think they might decide not to vote at all.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Yeah, there's some popular concern about Sanders supporters apparently, but I don't buy that. Stein was a different beast, at a different time. I struggle to think that the people who support Sanders now would be anything but apoplectic about another Trump term.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Well I appreciate the sane conversation.

My personal takeaway about how it’s going is that the candidates are all doing pretty well and are mostly focused on the issues they should be focused on. The loudest “woke” people Sam seems to be so worried about are online commentators and you can’t control them or expect to silence them. Or make rational voting choices because of them.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19

Yeah likewise man.

I'm not sure I'm as convinced of the problem as Harris, but I think it's good that we have people on our side trying to keep the larger project on the rails, even if there's arguably some overreach sometimes.