I found an early case of wokeness in comics from 2006.
People are presented as good or bad contingent on their skin color.
There is an evil dictator in Uganda. If white people kill him, they’re bad. If black people do, they’re good.
Look closely and see who this PRESENTS to us at “the bad people” and “the good people.”
And why are the good people good? Because they are black and African. Even though they admit to being terrorists, essentially, having assassinated a number of people.
It’s not ever coherent.
“It’s our country! So stay out of Africa.”
But Uganda isn’t Africa. Did a bunch of Ugandan supers just declare they own Africa?
“Africa did not ask for your help.”
Well, as Doctor Spectrum says, it was a UN mission, which presumably the African nations that belong to the UN, that is, all of them, would have been involved in.
Who wrote this masterpiece of wokeness in comics?
Ta-Nehisi Coates?
Kwanza Osajyefo?
Oh. This guy.
AFRICAN TO THE BONE.
We should be CLEAR that by this logic, America did a VERY BAD THING when it killed Osama Bin Laden.
That’s not for WHITE PEOPLE.
We never see these characters again.
As things play out, Hyperion probably killed them all.
And even if Hyperion didn’t kill them all, declaring Africa “off limits” doesn’t do much good when a global plague kills your whole planet.
Oh well.
But it was a pretty good example of an EARLY WOKE VIRTUE SIGNAL, don’t you think?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values."
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.
What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.
There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.
It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!
As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:
Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.