That said, my feeling is Trump et al. weren’t reacting against any specific woke activism, but very woke policies (and opinions) which resulted from the activism.
I don’t think this is true, and that indeed the counter-reaction is strongly to the woke activism. My sense is a lot of current US politics stuff is very identity focused, the policies on both sides matter surprisingly little (instead a lot of what is going on is something more like personal persecution of the outgroup and trying to find ways to hurt them, and to prop up your own status, which actually ends up with surprisingly similar policies on both ends).
I agree, but I don’t think individual woke activists writing books and sending it to policymakers, can directly increase the perception of “there is too much wokeness,” even if no policymakers listen to them.
They only increase the perception of “there is too much wokeness,” by way of successfully changing opinions and policies.
The perception that “there is too much wokeness” depends on
Actual woke opinions and policies by the government and people
Anti-woke activism which convince conservatives that “the government and leftwingers” are far more woke than they actually are
Not pro-woke activism (in the absence of actual woke opinions and policies)
So the only way activists can be a net negative, is if making policymakers more woke (e.g. more pro-abortion), can causally make future policymakers even less woke than they would be otherwise.
This is possible if it makes people feel “there is too much wokeness” and elect Trump. But for a single subtopic of wokeness e.g. pro-abortion, it’s unlikely to singlehandedly determine whether Trump is elected, and therefore making policymakers more pro-abortion in particular, probably has a positive influence on whether future policymakers are pro-abortion (by moving the Overton window on this specific topic).
This is probably even more true for strategic/scientific disagreements rather than moral disagreements: if clinical trial regulations were stricter during a Democrat administration, they probably will remain stricter during the next Republican administration. It’s very hard to believe that the rational prediction could be “making the regulations stronger will cause the expected future regulations to be weaker.”
You don’t hear about the zillions of policies which Trump did not reverse (or turn upside down). You don’t hear about the zillions of scientific positions held by Democrat decisionmakers which Trump did not question (or invert).
I agree, but I don’t think individual woke activists writing books and sending it to policymakers, can directly increase the perception of “there is too much wokeness,” even if no policymakers listen to them.
Why? This seems completely contrary to how I understand things.
Ibram X. Kendi mostly did not get any of his proposals enacted by any legislature, yet his association with progressivism caused significant backlash among centrist voters who became convinced the left believes any measure of success that doesn’t have perfectly equal results between races is inherently racist.
Tema Okun mostly did not get any of her proposals enacted by any legislature, but her work was pushed by universities and non-profits, became part of the standard curriculum for DEI teachings at many companies throughout the US, and entrenched in the general population the idea that the left thinks “a sense of urgency” is white supremacy and should be eliminated.
“Defund the police” and ACAB chanters in 2020 mostly did not get their proposals enacted by legislatures, but they also created significant backlash among voters who became convinced the left is talking crazy on matters of crime detection and prevention.
Frankly, opposition to wokeness has almost entirely flowed from opposition to cultural instances of wokeness as opposed to specific pieces of legislature.
I guess they succeeded in changing many people’s opinions. The right wing reaction is against left wing people’s opinions. The DEI curriculum is somewhere in between opinions and policies.
I think the main effect of people having farther left opinions, is still making policies further left rather than further right due to counter-reaction. And this is despite the topic being much more moralistic and polarizing than AI x-risk.
I don’t think this is true, and that indeed the counter-reaction is strongly to the woke activism. My sense is a lot of current US politics stuff is very identity focused, the policies on both sides matter surprisingly little (instead a lot of what is going on is something more like personal persecution of the outgroup and trying to find ways to hurt them, and to prop up your own status, which actually ends up with surprisingly similar policies on both ends).
I agree, but I don’t think individual woke activists writing books and sending it to policymakers, can directly increase the perception of “there is too much wokeness,” even if no policymakers listen to them.
They only increase the perception of “there is too much wokeness,” by way of successfully changing opinions and policies.
The perception that “there is too much wokeness” depends on
Actual woke opinions and policies by the government and people
Anti-woke activism which convince conservatives that “the government and leftwingers” are far more woke than they actually are
Not pro-woke activism (in the absence of actual woke opinions and policies)
So the only way activists can be a net negative, is if making policymakers more woke (e.g. more pro-abortion), can causally make future policymakers even less woke than they would be otherwise.
This is possible if it makes people feel “there is too much wokeness” and elect Trump. But for a single subtopic of wokeness e.g. pro-abortion, it’s unlikely to singlehandedly determine whether Trump is elected, and therefore making policymakers more pro-abortion in particular, probably has a positive influence on whether future policymakers are pro-abortion (by moving the Overton window on this specific topic).
This is probably even more true for strategic/scientific disagreements rather than moral disagreements: if clinical trial regulations were stricter during a Democrat administration, they probably will remain stricter during the next Republican administration. It’s very hard to believe that the rational prediction could be “making the regulations stronger will cause the expected future regulations to be weaker.”
You don’t hear about the zillions of policies which Trump did not reverse (or turn upside down). You don’t hear about the zillions of scientific positions held by Democrat decisionmakers which Trump did not question (or invert).
Why? This seems completely contrary to how I understand things.
Ibram X. Kendi mostly did not get any of his proposals enacted by any legislature, yet his association with progressivism caused significant backlash among centrist voters who became convinced the left believes any measure of success that doesn’t have perfectly equal results between races is inherently racist.
Tema Okun mostly did not get any of her proposals enacted by any legislature, but her work was pushed by universities and non-profits, became part of the standard curriculum for DEI teachings at many companies throughout the US, and entrenched in the general population the idea that the left thinks “a sense of urgency” is white supremacy and should be eliminated.
“Defund the police” and ACAB chanters in 2020 mostly did not get their proposals enacted by legislatures, but they also created significant backlash among voters who became convinced the left is talking crazy on matters of crime detection and prevention.
Frankly, opposition to wokeness has almost entirely flowed from opposition to cultural instances of wokeness as opposed to specific pieces of legislature.
I guess they succeeded in changing many people’s opinions. The right wing reaction is against left wing people’s opinions. The DEI curriculum is somewhere in between opinions and policies.
I think the main effect of people having farther left opinions, is still making policies further left rather than further right due to counter-reaction. And this is despite the topic being much more moralistic and polarizing than AI x-risk.