Being "Woke" is good, actually

Being a Status Quo Warrior is cringe and bad. Don't get infected by the reactionary mind-virus.

The term "woke" (and before it, “social justice warrior”, “feminazi”, “politically correct”, “virtue signaling”, “snowflake”, “identity politics”, “cancel culture”, the term “triggered”, and “cultural marxism”) has become one of the central battlegrounds in 21st century political discussion, being weaponized by reactionary forces to mock and diminish any advocacy for social justice fighting against racism, sexism, and other forms of inequality, hierarchy, and discrimination, as mere virtue-signaling or emotional overreaction.

The “anti-woke” think we’ve gone too far, and that the current situation is an overreaction to merely perceived injustices. The “woke” think we haven’t gone far enough. Let me make the case that the “woke” side is right.

Anti-Woke Radicalization

Immediately, I get what you’re going to say. You’ll appeal to the common online trope of how the feminists are “strident”, particularly in those videos that are clickbaity “ideological porn” for radicalizing you towards the right. You know the ones, the ones that go “FEMINIST gets DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC”. These videos become carefully selected ideological traps aimed at radicalizing viewers against progressive ideas. Even though the feminist might have a valid point about a long-standing form of discrimination, her tone is too bossy, and the guy replying, Mr. Classical Liberal, speaking with a calm tone of voice over her video, can own her in debate. And isn’t winning more important?

But first, consider the unfairness of such debates. A detailed, calm, 45-minute rebuttal dissecting every phrase of a five-minute feminist video will pretty much always appear stronger through a sheer landslide of words and a more controlled presentation. It will exploit asymmetrical attention to detail, framing minor errors or emotional expressions as evidence of irrationality. Simply put, you can nitpick your opponent to death. Even a Flat-Earther could look good and own a scientist in such a situation.

Second, these critiques focus disproportionately on tone. The feminist's anger contrasts unfavorably with the calm presentation of the hyper-rational commentator.

But maybe being angry when faced with injustice is perfectly fair. Philosopher Amia Srinivasan has called this affective injustice, where marginalized people must suppress justified emotions of anger and indignation to appear rational or credible in public discussion. Let me make my own example. Imagine a scenario where your friend or family member is unjustly and brutally beaten by the police, and you're forced into calm composure to be taken seriously by lawyers or policemen. This compulsory suppression of justified anger is unjust, essentially blaming victims for their natural and justified emotional responses. Forcing you to silence this side, to just bottle your feelings completely, seems unjust. It is similar when we force feminists to bottle their indignation, or for people who have been generationally disadvantaged by practices such as slavery. In a way, it’s just blaming the victim.

Also, falling prey to this type of manipulative content indicates cognitive vulnerability to ideological radicalization, a psychological “bug” that manipulative content deliberately exploits in you. Andy Masley has recently suggested that we should recognize susceptibility to radicalization by this kind of negative polarization as a cognitive vulnerability that should be seen more negatively. I am inclined to agree. If you became a classical liberal or moved significantly to the right because of this type of content, you should probably reevaluate why you’re adopting your beliefs a little. There is just so much stuff out there that can radicalize you in so many possible directions, you’re just at the mercy of the online algorithms at that point.

I did go through this funnel myself. As a teenager, I was drawn into anti-feminist rhetoric through the New Atheist movement, following figures like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Many online atheists at the time, such as Thunderf00t and a dozen of other “atheist skeptics”, expended great energy criticizing feminists like Anita Sarkeesian (for some reason), pulling impressionable teenage viewers, including myself, into anti-progressive echo chambers.

Fortunately, I got out of it over time. It took effort, hanging out with other people outside of my online echo chambers, the New Atheism movement becoming stale, and studying contemporary political philosophy, but I left that past behind. I was able to escape this radicalization. Sadly, many others haven’t, and the situation seems to have gotten worse.

In Defense of “Wokeness”

Beneath the polarized rhetoric, we have lost track of the simpler truth: being “woke”, that is, alert to injustice, aware of systemic inequalities, and committed to social progress, is, overall, morally good. To be “woke” is to have a critical awareness that the status quo is not fair. To be woke means recognizing structural unfairness, historical injustices, and ongoing biases embedded in society, that women and minorities are currently still disadvantaged because of power structures that have been there for millennia, and patterns of behavior that we keep repeating.

Critics who deride "wokeness" as “excessive” or “performative” often disguise their actual stance: a defense of the status quo, which is problematic, because our current world is not morally just. These people have now become Status Quo Warriors, sometimes missing the clear arguments for equality, feminism, anti-racism, and reparations, and desperately fighting to preserve existing hierarchies and privileges. Status Quo Warriors are intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, clinging desperately to outdated hierarchies and privilege. Ideologically, they have become deeply cringe. Meanwhile, the “woke” ideology they criticize involves recognizing historical injustices, structural biases, and ongoing inequalities in society. From this perspective, anti-woke is, then, not neutrality or common sense, but willful ignorance and complacency in the status quo.

I think history consistently shows a recurring pattern. Most significant advances toward justice, such as abolition, civil rights, gender equality, animal welfare, etc. were initially derided as radical, impractical, or unnecessary by defenders of the existing order. Yet these movements succeeded precisely because they were "woke," marked by a heightened awareness of injustice and the courage to confront it, and driven by courageous activists who recognized injustice and refused to remain neutral.

To illustrate concretely: my mother's generation, under Spain's dictatorship, lacked fundamental rights like abortion, divorce, or even the power to open and manage their own bank accounts. Achieving these basic liberties required courage, anger, and sustained protest. In their day, this was also seen as unnecessary and woke. Obviously, it was a moral advancement. We should see current feminists as continuing the fight, and I applaud them for it.

The Political Philosophy of Woke

I used to be a boring utilitarian and Rawlsian kind of guy, and I still am, being the main framework from which I do most of my moral and political evaluations.

Yet, researching the topic of moral progress, as well as teaching at university, I recently had to read a substantial amount on non-ideal political philosophy, which means caring about forms of injustice beyond the distribution of wealth. In a way, they attempt to make recommendations for changing current society, rather than attempting to build a “realistic utopia” from scratch.

In that regard, my favorite recent reads have been Iris Marion Young and Charles Mills, which, in some way, provide an intellectual foundation of some of the pillars of “wokeness”. They start from the Rawlsian framework of contemporary liberalism, but their work on structural injustice, the epistemology of ignorance, racial liberalism, and democratic justice is quite powerful.

Young’s work aims to show how injustice can be replicated in our everyday routines and norms in a well-intentioned liberal society. She argues that many injustices do not trace back to a single bad actor or discriminatory law, but to “unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols” built into institutions and practices. In her famous theory of the “five faces of oppression” (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence), Young aims to show that oppression is often invisible to those who do not experience it. A claim that is echoed by Mills in his work of the epistemology of ignorance. Oppression can be the default setting of society’s institutions. This analysis provides a strong philosophical foundation for wokeness: being “woke” means one is aware to these pervasive injustices lurking behind our everyday routines, that we simply reproduce without realizing it.

Regarding Mills, his theory of racial liberalism aims to expose part of the liberal tradition as practiced under versions of white supremacy. First, we started in the Enlightenment era with ideas of universal human equality while in reality fully excluding or subordinating people of color. Then, we refused to make any form of serious reparations to the descendants who have been harmed by practices such as slavery, genocide and exclusion. Political philosophy also decides to not even talk about it, and just do “ideal theory”.

We white people yap a lot about meritocracy, yet we start the 100-meter race with a 50-meter head start. Young teaches us that structural advantage isn’t achieved through moral merit. Mills points out that the “racial contract” front-loads the race, then calls the result fair.

There’s a policy upshot here of how reparations or targeted investment aren’t “special favours” but partial correction of a historically flawed system. Though, depressingly, as Mills says, nothing gets white people riled up against than bringing up the idea of morally justified reparations: “Unsurprisingly, then, few public policy proposals so unite whites in opposition as the idea of reparations: polls show that no less than ninety-five percent of whites are hostile to the idea.” Which is a sad situation. We should aim to do better than that.

Yet, for all their criticisms, neither Young nor Mill are anti-liberal. Rather, they think we should be some form of liberal, but also conscious that we must first rectify both historical and structural injustices that liberal societies have produced until now. This reconciliation of progressive “woke” activism with liberal and democratic ideals of justice actually also counters the reactionaries who claim that social justice advocates are betraying “Western values”. On the contrary, they aim to show how we need to correct past and present sexist and racial wrongs in order to fulfill the promise of the classic values of equality and liberty for all.

"Woke" Might Not Be “Optimal”, But It Can Still Be Good

For those in the Effective Altruist and rationalist communities, which is the majority of my followers, woke individuals mostly are "low decouplers", which in practice means that they interpret criticisms of progressive ideas as implicit support for reactionary politics. That means that if you criticize stuff having to do with progressive ideas, you might be seen as a MAGA Trump supporter. This admittedly complicates nuanced philosophical discussions, as sensitive topics easily lead them into moral outrage. Overall, I think that we don’t need to drag them into niche discussions of interspecies welfare comparisons or population ethics. They can be allies without full overlap. They are high Altruists with less Effectiveness mindset. Some of them can be turned into EAs, while others will just represent “big tent allies”, with some areas of overlap.

Woke individuals fundamentally share morally good intentions. Broadly, they aim to achieve beneficial social outcomes, fighting discrimination, expanding rights, and promoting the advancement of the worst-off in society. Compared to niche movements like Effective Altruism, woke progressives form a significantly larger contingent among college-educated and politically engaged people. Despite occasional tribalism and emotional reactivity, and despite some particular cases where they lose their cool (e.g., some online discussions, some of those videos where feminists are angry), woke individuals usually remain open to reasoned dialogue and collaboration for social improvements.

Contrast this with the MAGA-aligned reactionary right, characterized increasingly by irrationality, performative cruelty, and a pathological obsession with “owning the libs”. For this group, reasoned debate is irrelevant. The reactionary mindset has devolved into a postmodern form of harmful performance art, evidenced starkly by events like the Capitol riots, the undermining of democratic procedures, widespread COVID and vaccine misinformation, killing thousands through the elimination of PEPFAR, or tanking the national economy, causing tangible societal harm. Woke individuals, despite their imperfections, represent vastly preferable allies.

We live in a time of easy politics, because “Orange Man Bad” is, simply put, a good heuristic. As Ari Shtein has written this week, “Even among all the rationalists who disavow both the Red and Blue Tribes, who shun political affiliations, I think there’s broad agreement on a few (real, moral) values: namely, principles like Orange Man Bad and Rule Of Law Good.”

Defenders of Trump have always been embarrassing, and now it’s the time when it has become the clearest. Maybe it’s time to build a broad political coalition across a wide range of views across the left and center of the political spectrum. But for that, we should aim to befriend and rehabilitate “the woke” ideals in the current culture war.

Don’t be Cultish, though

Overall, I think the “woke” package is pretty good. It keeps some extreme ideas that are “beyond the pale” at bay. “Woke” is able to uphold progressive moral values about a basic sense of justice, basic rights, and basic empathy for others. Many other political ideologies (libertarianism, classical liberalism, conservatism, reactionaries, fascism, Soviet-style communism) don’t even have those basic sensibilities.

Many of those ideologies also include the blatant denial of scientifically established facts, whitewashing or rewriting history. These are deep mistakes with huge and consequential moral ramifications, such as the dismantling of basic rights for people. Many of those people’s views become “beyond the pale” when they follow their ideology to these consequences.

Yet there are some dangers with any labels and political allegiances. Sometimes, they come as a package deal. You find yourself agreeing with 70% of what the ideology says, and you’re funneled and pushed by group pressure into conforming with 99% of the ideology, even though you don’t really have an argument for why you should make those changes in your beliefs.

So I’d still recommend keeping a critical eye on the ideology. I don't endorse following any ideology blindly. Overall, I still try to evaluate claims one by one and generally avoid labels. This might reduce your sense of belonging, but it will increase your level of critical thinking.

Conclusion: Embrace “Woke”, Reject the Reactionary Mind-Virus

The reactionary mindset itself is becoming a form of intellectual contagion, where you have to fall within the social pressure of the status quo, since otherwise you are shunned by your community of friends at the local pub or your online circle. As it has been said thousands of times, anti-woke relies on simplified narratives, scapegoating marginalized communities, and idealizing a mythical past of hyper-masculinity, traditionalism, and reactionary purity. This is often symbolized by absurd hyper-masculine tropes and performative displays, adhering to a strict “carnivore diet”, which I guess just started in an attempt to “own the vegans”.

Rejecting the reactionary impulse means embracing open-mindedness that is counterintuitive to our visceral sense of scapegoating outsiders, which means showing empathy for people who are different from you, and the willingness to critically evaluate and improve our social institutions through both daily life and political engagement. The best aspect of being "woke", that is, being politically progressive, does not imply unthinking adherence to political trends (this post is not a defense of any particular political party) but a conscious commitment to social justice, equity, and inclusive progress, a bare minimum that all reasonable members of a society should uphold.

Ultimately, rejecting reactionary politics in favor of “wokeness” is a moral imperative. “Wokeness” represents empathy, intellectual courage, and commitment to progressive social change, whereas reactionary politics rely on fear, resentment, and idealized myths of a regressive past. Furthermore, major expansions of rights, from abolitionism, to women’s suffrage, to civil rights, to animal-welfare laws, were first mocked as radical missteps, then retroactively celebrated decades later once the moral arc bent. So, try to be on the side of progressive social change, rather than a “Status Quo Warrior”.

In short, “woke” is good. Don't fall for the reactionary rhetoric. Don't become a Status Quo Warrior. Choose moral courage over the status quo complacency, choose empathy and progress over fear and stagnation.

Further Links.

Alt-Right Pipeline, on Wikipedia.

Why do I hate pronouns more than genocide?, by Richard Hanania.

Some interesting videos of people who underwent the right-wing funnel, but got out of it, which inspired me to make this post:

Why I Stopped Being Anti-Woke, by DarkMatter2525.

The Alt-Right Pipeline Almost Got Me. Here’s Why It Failed, by Genetically Modified Skeptic.

How to Radicalize a Normie, by Innuendo Studios.

How I Escaped the Alt-Right, by AdamSomething.

Contemporary Political Philosophy Beyond Rawls:

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference — Origin of the “five faces of oppression” and the idea of structural injustice.

Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice — Develops her social-connection model of responsibility for structural injustice.

Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract — Introduces the notion of the current societal “racial contract” that creates and maintains white privilege, including discussions of the epistemology of ignorance.

Mills, C. W. (2005) Ideal Theory as Ideology. - Great essay critiquing analytic philosophy’s obsession with Rawls-style ideal theory and its focus on distributive justice.

Mills, C. W. (2008) Racial Liberalism. - Short, accessible article on how currently existing liberalism has racial bias.

Mills, C. W. (2017). Black rights/white wrongs: The critique of racial liberalism. — Analyzes the racial biases in liberal political theory and advocates for “deracializing” liberalism.

Review of Black rights/white wrongs by Matt Yglesias.

The critique of racial liberalism: An interview with Charles W. Mills. Black Perspectives. — Popular interview where Mills discusses racial liberalism, white ignorance, and paths for transforming liberalism.

Against Political Allegiance (for a different perspective):

Refuse Political Allegiance, by Mon0

Politics is the Mind-Killer, by Eliezer Yudkowsky

In Favor of Political Allegiance:

Political Allegiance is Fairly Cool, by Ari Shtein

Keep Your Identity Small… Within Reason, by Fran