Honestly I wasn't going to comment again until you commented again.
But you literally didn't read the article.
You can make the argument that they don't believe those things exist (because the article does state as much)
But what you say is patently false.
This is literally entirely about a lawyer getting suspended because they felt certain people should not get charged with crimes because they believe in systematic injustices etc etc etc
You're literally cherry picking a piece of a quote and ignoring the entire context of it
And don't get me wrong I'm not defending the whole politics of this thing. There's a million valid arguments you can make about this whole situation. But you're choosing to harp on the wrong one
I think you're trying to read far too much into this, and make it more complex than it is. I'm only really interested in one key fact here, which is that the official legal representative for Ron De Santis and his government was asked to define "woke", given it's a term that they have specifically used both in legislation, and in their justification for firing Warren. He define "woke" as follows:
“To me it means someone who believes that there are systemic injustices in the criminal justice system and on that basis they can decline to fully enforce and uphold the law,” Newman said.
Asked what “woke” means more generally, Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.
We are at least agreed that this is a matter of record, yes? That he is in fact the official legal representative of De Santis, and that he did in fact say this, and that this therefore is De Santis's view and by extension that of his government?
As long as we can agree on that, then my issue is that the legislation that they have enacted in direct opposition to this view (specifically
the Stop Woke Act) means that
- they do not believe that "there are systemic injustices in American society [or] the need to address them", or
- they are aware that "there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them" and they want those injustices to continue, or
- they are aware that "there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them" but it's inconvenient to do so and so they'd like people who do want to address them to shut up and stop addressing them, and they're willing to use the law to make them.
I don't know which of those it is, although I could hazard a guess, but they all seem hugely problematic.
