Kijimea helps with irritable bowel syndrome, that’s what the permanent TV commercials drummed into us. But what helps against irritable journalism? Currently Fynn Kliemann and before that Judith Sevinç Basad have found their antidote: the woke attack. After an initial moment of remorse, Kliemann agitated violently against the research by Jan Böhmermann’s investigative team, who found him to be dirty in mask deals in “ZDF Magazin Royale”.
The “Bild” journalist Basad combined her public resignation with the tabloid with fierce allegations against Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner that he was in front of “woken activists” when he judged a guest article in the “Welt” – he called it “underground”. “ buckled. Kliemann also takes the same line when he criticizes a “left-wing woke scene”.
In the dictionary, “woke” is defined as “highly politically alert and committed against (particularly racist, sexist, social) discrimination”. Not bad, right? It doesn’t have to become an attitude right away, it’s enough if the term is used to perceive contemporary society.
Basad/Kliemann use “woke” as a derogatory battlefield term. Are they doing what Kijimea is for IBS? Terms such as “woke”, “cancel culture” or “politically correct” look for the abbreviation, the short cut, in complex debates. Is woke, can go. Is left, can go. Has something to do with morals, can go. In a constantly active society, perhaps not the wrong way to bring the clarity and unambiguity that is desired and needed into research and into a gender debate. If desired and needed.
An anti-woke – and in the same way woke – view is combined with the identical disadvantage: It clarifies in lightning speed where it is necessary to explain objectively and clarify objectively. Woke or not-woke facts don’t exist. Facts each have their own integrity, which can be violated according to one’s own interests. You need fact benders for that. Not a rare species.