Just about everyone—even liberals—seems to be alarmed by and opposed to “wokism,” which Wilfred Reilly defines as “the belief that (1) all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress; (2) all gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this’ and (3) the solution is ‘equity’ – proportional representation without regard to performance.”
And yet wokery continues its relentless advance. Why? Cue Michael Robillard, writing in Chronicles:
Whereas leftism possesses a telos of unrelenting egalitarianism and neverending revolution, mere anti-wokeism possesses no such countervailing telos of its own. On a long enough timeline, in a game where one player is committed to seeing every dialogical and cultural contest as zero-sum while the other is committed to seeing no such contest as zero-sum whatsoever, the winner is clear. Hence, by its own commitments, mere anti-wokeism lacks the conceptual, normative, and metaphysical resources to draw any kind of nonnegotiable line in the sand whatsoever against ideological opponents hell-bent on pressing their own interests further and further.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.