What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[DGuller]

This conversation for a while has reminded me of a Russian joke.

The teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A": Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Arse!" ("Жопа" in the original)
The teacher, shocked, responds "For shame! There's no such word!"
"That's strange," says Vovochka thoughtfully, "the arse exists, but the word doesn't!"

[Berkut]

This conversation for a while has reminded me of a Russian joke.

The teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A": Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Arse!" ("Жопа" in the original)
The teacher, shocked, responds "For shame! There's no such word!"
"That's strange," says Vovochka thoughtfully, "the arse exists, but the word doesn't!"

It's kind of amazing how the entire discussion just perfectly highlights exactly what the problem is with the virtue signalling left politics.

There is a real nastiness to it - fanaticism towards the form and language at the expense of the actual problems themselves.

I mean, the basic response to "We should not have politicians calling to abolish the police if we want to convince non-left wing people to vote for progressive politicians" has been a jihad against the wrong way to use the word "woke".

[Berkut]

After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police

Who did that?

[Sheilbh]

It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.

Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.

The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.

[Berkut]

It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.

Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.

The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.

So your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?

Really? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.

[Sheilbh]

So your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?

I'm not railing and ranting

But yeah - basically - I think it's a bit like "defund the police" in that way. I want to know what people mean by that because I think it's a slogan that is used by activists and protesters on the left but seems to cover about a million different ideas - so I'm dubious as to useful it is as a slogan and, it seems to me, it's probably more of a shibboleth or a signifier of "I'm on this side". Similarly with "woke" it's a word that is used to describe almost anything to the point that I think it's effectively meaningless and is instead basically saying I don't like this.

I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".

It is also, at least in this country, a word associated sort of low-status right wing columnists in forming opinion. So people who think they are thoughtful, or don't want to be associated with that don't use it. This was the issue the centre-right guy had when, in response, someone shared an article on why "woke" is a useful word: "Thanks. I think you miss my objection, which is that using the term groups you in with very low level eejits. In debates as sensitive as this it's important to me to not be associated with people who I think are dumbasses, with opinions I think are really stupid."

Really? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.

Yes - it is difficult to believe that an English literature grad and current Jesuitical lawyer would get very interested in understanding the "meaning" of words

[Berkut]

So your objection is you just don't know what people mean when they don't use the word "woke", but instead talk about extremely specific behavior, and even actually quote the exact words used, and then in order to avoid that a bunch of other people start railing and ranting about how people use the word woke?

I'm not railing and ranting

But yeah - basically - I think it's a bit like "defund the police" in that way. I want to know what people mean by that because I think it's a slogan that is used by activists and protesters on the left but seems to cover about a million different ideas - so I'm dubious as to useful it is as a slogan and, it seems to me, it's probably more of a shibboleth or a signifier of "I'm on this side". Similarly with "woke" it's a word that is used to describe almost anything to the point that I think it's effectively meaningless and is instead basically saying I don't like this.

I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".

OK, so I guess that makes you right there on he side of Carville. Which makes you probably a racist.

It is also, at least in this country, a word associated sort of low-status right wing columnists in forming opinion. So people who think they are thoughtful, or don't want to be associated with that don't use it. This was the issue the centre-right guy had when, in response, someone shared an article on why "woke" is a useful word: "Thanks. I think you miss my objection, which is that using the term groups you in with very low level eejits. In debates as sensitive as this it's important to me to not be associated with people who I think are dumbasses, with opinions I think are really stupid."

Isn't that what I said? This effort to attack people because they use a word (or in this particular case, DID NOT use a word, but we won't let that stop us from our bigotry).

That's what is so funny about this. The debate is about using the term you just said you thought was problematic (or rather a term), except that Tlaib actually ratcheted her rhetoric up from "defund" to actually calling for police to be abolished.

The discussion was not about using the word woke at all. That was assigned in order to do exactly what you are doing now - why, people who use the word woke are "low level eejits"! That makes it easy to just dismiss their views, and the fact that they didn't even use bring up the term in the debate is no reason to just not pretend they did, right? It's just so damn useful to dismiss them as morons rather then address the issue, so lets do that.

Really? I am skeptical that is "exactly" what you want to know.

Yes - it is difficult to believe that an English literature grad and current Jesuitical lawyer would get very interested in understanding the "meaning" of words
[/quote]

My skepticism remains.

You are working really hard to avoid the actual subject of the conversation, which you tangentially claim to agree with, while focusing on how you can safely assume that anyone who has ever used the word "woke" is a "ejeet" and "dumbasses". How...convenient.

[crazy canuck]

It feels like the issue is that it is being used to describe a largely amorphous set of despised behaviors. After all it is being used to describe negatively black people calling for de funding the police all the way to 'privileged' individuals like Zoupa as the prototypical example.

Yeah - exactly this is why I want to know what people mean by it. As I say here I've seen it cover everything - avocadoes, veganism, the BBC, health and safety laws.

The issue here isn't the "left" somehow regulating the way people use it. It's that a prominent group of writers (Spiked, Toby Young, Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson) have used it as shorthand for all the things they dislike - rathter than something specific. And the same thing has previously happened with political correctness, SJW, right on. It'll happen to another word in the next few years too.

Virtue signaling is another term that fits nicely into the category of a phrase which has become meaningless.  It is now being used as a slur along with "woke" to mean things the person using the phrase (usually someone on the right) does not like - whatever that might be.

[grumbler]

I think there's more to be gained by talking about what we actually mean rather than in code or shibboleths like "defund the police" or "woke".

I agree.  When words and phrases have no fixed meaning and thus mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean without being clear to the listener what the speaker wants them to mean, they are no longer useful as words.  They become, as you say, code words.

It's clear to me that "woke" is used somewhat differently in the UK than in the US.  I have students who are proud to call themselves "woke" because to them it still means "to be aware of the pervasiveness of social injustice."  In the UK, it seems to mean only dismissing people who are to the left of the speaker.

In the US, I don't think that the left will ever out-codeword the right, and so shouldn't try.   I like the approach Biden took in his speech Wednesday:  use actual facts to make your points, rather than making up shot about how dishwashers and toilets don't work anymore.  I think that, slowly, swing voters will recognize the difference.

[Berkut]

Biden is kind of awesome. I think I was wrong to rate him as my second to last choice in the Dem candidates.

[Malthus]

Biden has a very unenviable task: actually getting things done in the face of pure obstructionism from the imploding right, and at the same time keeping the progressive left in check, so they do not piss off enough voters to drive them to the right - all while avoiding being classified by the progressives as really no different in substance to the right.

So far, he's done very well. Surprisingly so.

[Caliga]

I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started.

[Sheilbh]

OK, so I guess that makes you right there on he side of Carville. Which makes you probably a racist.

I've repeatedly said in this thread that I basically agree with Carville's point. I also don't think Carville's central point is anything to do with wokeness or that he introduces it - it's a word that generates interest which is why it's the headline (and, puckishly, the interview) not his more central point - speak simply about the issues, with discipline and you'll win (which is what Biden has done and so far is doing in office).

The discussion was not about using the word woke at all. That was assigned in order to do exactly what you are doing now - why, people who use the word woke are "low level eejits"! That makes it easy to just dismiss their views, and the fact that they didn't even use bring up the term in the debate is no reason to just not pretend they did, right? It's just so damn useful to dismiss them as morons rather then address the issue, so lets do that.

That isn't the point he's making or that I'm making. I'm not coming at this from bigotry or political expediency.

You are working really hard to avoid the actual subject of the conversation, which you tangentially claim to agree with, while focusing on how you can safely assume that anyone who has ever used the word "woke" is a "ejeet" and "dumbasses". How...convenient.

That's not what I'm saying. And that's not what he's saying either and again he works at a libertarian think-tank so we're not talking about someone on the left here.

And you know you've said in this thread that people are making bad faith readings of what you're saying - and I'm trying not to - I do try to understand people's views on their own terms even if I disagree with them, whether they're posting here or whether they're people we're talk - like Republicans or Brexiteers or Corbynistas.

But also maybe offer that back as well - normally if I'm posting on something it's because I find it interesting, if I jump in on a specific point it's because I either think I know something, have a question about it or find it the most interesting bit (and I will very rarely post just to say I agree with someone because I'm a withholding bastard ). I'm not working really hard to try and do anything, I'm commenting on the bit I find interesting.

It's clear to me that "woke" is used somewhat differently in the UK than in the US.  I have students who are proud to call themselves "woke" because to them it still means "to be aware of the pervasiveness of social injustice."  In the UK, it seems to mean only dismissing people who are to the left of the speaker.

Okay that's interesting - the first thing I said on this was that it may be different in the UK and the US. But yeah my experience here is that it is - like "right on" - one of those words you never really see in the wild. It's just in tabloid lexicon - a bit like "romp" (as in "sex romp" or "Tory minister caught in three in the bed romp") - no-one uses that word unless they write for a tabloid.

Given that - when you use it, that's what you're signalling even if you don't mean to. If you're aware of the tabloid use and associations then you try and avoid the word because you don't want people to make that link or perception about you.

Edit: It is why, for example, I'd also normally try to qualify or explain "neo-liberal" if I used that because I normally want to mean something specific and not just sound like a tankie and I don't want to sound like a tankie, but I think it's the best word in that situation. (Except if I do want to sound like a tankie for some reason )

In the US, I don't think that the left will ever out-codeword the right, and so shouldn't try.   I like the approach Biden took in his speech Wednesday:  use actual facts to make your points, rather than making up shot about how dishwashers and toilets don't work anymore.  I think that, slowly, swing voters will recognize the difference.

Agreed. I think Biden is right to focus on getting things done. I also think, and as someone on the centre-left, I've always thought that the best course for the left is to campaign and speak moderately, while governing radically. Not least because there is nothing the left love more than obscure doctrinal arguments - so if you speak like them you lose loads of voters who don't care about that stuff - and I think that trend has increased with the rise of Brahmin left. And from the left's perspective I think they've been very canny in campaigning for and supporting Biden and then using their political capital from that to get stuff done. Neither of those lessons have been learned in the UK where a significant chunk of the left still mourns Corbyn who I have issues with in terms of his personal beliefs, but during elections they just gave the impression of being very left while their manifestoes were boring and moderate - which is the wrong way round. Similarly the left would rather they win the internal battle against Keir Starmer than support him, beat Johnson and use their leverage

I also think in the US that Democrats have realised that what voters want is government that gets stuff done and I think that means they have been a little bit better than under Obama at not getting distracted by having a big internal row about some policy minutiae and also are more focused on passing legislation than trying to win one Republican vote to say it's bipartisan (and frankly voters aren't stupid - they see through that).

[Sheilbh]

I tried to tell you guys he was awesome when the primaries started.

I've always liked Biden - but I'm not sure how much of that is because I like actual existing Biden and how much is because I like the Onion Biden

[DGuller]

Biden is kind of awesome. I think I was wrong to rate him as my second to last choice in the Dem candidates.

I agree, I definitely misjudged him as well.  It wasn't the first misjudgment I made in the 2020 Democratic primary.  I probably caught some foam splatter from the "poor Joe has been dragged from the nursing home to run for president" propaganda, and bought into it enough to form the wrong impression.