Quillette64%

The Destructivists: Wokeism Turns to System Destruction 74%

By John Aziz0%

6/12/2026, 3:15:03 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 39.3% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 1,243 faulty-reasoning hits from 328 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.2% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,719 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

In February 2022, Tyler Cowen made a prediction that sounded premature to many people: wokeism had peaked. 
At the time, this seemed far from obvious. 
The elite institutions most associated with wokeness as a kind of new moral politics—universities, media organisations, nonprofits, foundations, publishing houses, museums, professional associations, and large corporations—still seemed firmly under its grip. 
DEI bureaucracies were still expanding. 
"Cancellations" still carried real social and professional force. 
Corporate America still spoke the language of "equity" with missionary confidence.  
In Cowen's original 2022 formulation, he suggested that the movement would survive as a subculture: educated, affluent, disproportionately white, and institutionally influential. 
But no longer commanding the country’s morality. 
The pendulum, he thought, had begun to swing. 
School-board revolts, growing impatience with cancellations, the backlash to progressive overreach and lawlessness in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the sheer unattractiveness of the movement’s cultural style all suggested that wokeism had passed its high-water mark.  
Four years later, in <em>The Free Press</em>, Cowen returned to the subject with a darker twist. 
In retrospect, he was right that wokeness was peaking. 
DEI retreated in many institutions. 
Universities became more cautious. 
The public appetite for cancellation declined. 
Trump defeated Kamala Harris, and the Trump administration moved aggressively against DEI and affirmative-action-style policies. 
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, now X, shifted one of the central arenas of elite discourse sharply rightward. 
But the successor to wokeism is not socialism, at least not in any classical sense. 
Socialism wanted to reorganise society—often disastrously—but it did want to organise it. 
It had a programme: who should own the factory, how production should be planned, how economies should be structured. 
The new radical mood is different. 
It has little interest in designing a replacement order—its instinct is punitive and obstructive. 
The danger now is what I would call <em>destructivism</em>: the belief that the most necessary form of political action is to destroy the systems one regards as oppressive. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%John Aziz: 2.2%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%John Aziz: 4.7%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic19.2%This article: 22.6%John Aziz: 2.2%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic22.6%This article: 4.9%John Aziz: 1.0%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias4.9%This article: 14.6%John Aziz: 1.6%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias14.6%This article: 19.5%John Aziz: 6.3%Quillette: 7.5%Framing Effect19.5%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%John Aziz: 0.6%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 38.4%John Aziz: 8.1%Quillette: 9.3%Negativity Bias38.4%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%John Aziz: 1.0%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error9.8%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 3.5%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 1.8%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.8%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%John Aziz: 0.5%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 5.2%John Aziz: 0.3%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 3.0%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.3%John Aziz: 5.8%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man4.3%This article: 8.2%John Aziz: 0.5%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 4.6%John Aziz: 1.6%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 2.1%John Aziz: 1.1%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope2.1%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.6%John Aziz: 10.0%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization22.6%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.4%John Aziz: 3.9%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 12.5%John Aziz: 0.8%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question12.5%This article: 23.5%John Aziz: 2.1%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.5%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.1%John Aziz: 2.3%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division9.1%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 7.9%John Aziz: 0.5%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman7.9%This article: 33.8%John Aziz: 2.1%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.8%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%John Aziz: 0.1%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground2.4%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.7%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 1.5%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 39.3%John Aziz: 13.4%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice39.3%This article: 12.8%John Aziz: 1.3%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination12.8%This article: 0.0%John Aziz: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%John Aziz: 6.6%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias23.5%This article: 4.9%John Aziz: 0.3%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.9%

328 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech274writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageTyler Cowen • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageTyler Cowen • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageTyler Cowen • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tyler Cowen

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.1 ptsWriter: 47.1%Tyler Cowen: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +29.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tyler Cowen: 29.6%29.6%Politically Right Leaning -28.1 ptsWriter: 28.1%Tyler Cowen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.3 ptsWriter: 15.3%Tyler Cowen: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.