"Woke" - what does it really mean?

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Are you talking about this lady?

 

Yes

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

My first instinct was to cite polls showing a large amount of the American public denying climate change and wanting a reinistution of sodomy laws and examples of people using woke to deride the concept of mammade climate change and being anti-sodomy laws

If aliens attack, or Korea invades or society collapses these same dumbos would call 911 a dozen times and give up. No offense but my opinion of the average American public IQ is meh to say the least.

ffs a turd like tRump could come to power

 

smfh

 

 

tsk tsk tsk

 

 

Ok I overdid it

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But can you see how others not you, have dubbed the positions I listed as woke?

Shrug

What am I to do

sry for the triple post

[Heartofice]

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

One of the latest moral crusades against woke companies is  Budlight for having a trans woman say she’ll enjoy their beer to celebrate the anniversary since she started transitioning.

To anyone of reasonable character this sounds ludicrous and/or evil.

One thing I didn’t know about  until watching this video is that a lot of reactionary organizations just buy cheaply made products they in bulk and slap a anti-woke label to justify the ludicrous price

Right but the Bud Light thing is really an example of ‘woke capitalism’, as in a corporation attempting to be seen as progressive in the most superficial way in order to enhance its own image.
 

In this case however it sounds like this was more about drumming up some controversy in order to put the spotlight on their brand. Why else would they pick Mulvaney who is hardly the best advocate for the trans movement, but is instead an incredibly divisive figure. 
 

That sales for Bud light dropped like a stone makes me think this is like a ‘new Coke’ thing where they go back to the old brand and suddenly everyone is talking about Bud Light again.

It’s all very cynical and has almost nothing to do with promoting social justice or making society better. It’s about using controversy to make money.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Darzin said:

I pretty much agree with leftist and Marxist Freddie Deboer that it's a name yourself or you will be named type situation and that of course everyone knows what woke means, there is just a lot of benefit to pretending you don't.

Not everyone does no.

Near as I can tell it’s a pejorative for any Perceived Progressive, leftist, liberal sentiments.

My eyes glazed over while reading Debonair’s rant but genuinely didn’t see an actual definition other than what he finds triggering by those he calls woke.

He does show how easily Social justice, identity politics,can be swapped out for woke without making a difference.

3 hours ago, Darzin said:

I agree woke is often used as a catchphrase by right wingers for everything they don't like but it's at least as defined as terms like Alt right

That’s just a politically correct way to say White Nationalist.

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

and incel which get thrown around in prestigious publications all the time. 

Person whose socially antagonistic towards others about their lack of sexual intimacy.

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

I don't think you can say that woke is just being "a good person" or "opposing racism

Yeah it can be things like buying your son a shirt with a rainbow on it.

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

because the policies around this are different then they were before and it's the policies that matter as much as the goal.

What policies exactly?

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

Woke is an imprecise  and dare I say problematic term, but until the people who support these policies name themselves they will continue to be named. 

Again what policies exactly?

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Yes

Yeah that’s  Kariyn  Borsenko a right wing activist whose been featured on Prager University(a large far right YouTube channel) gushing on the kindness of conservatives.

In the clip you saw she  was summing up her view of her opposition in a mocking way.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Right but the Bud Light thing

It’s fine.

I’m happy the trans lady got some free beer and money to drink the beer seems to be happy with her transition.

It’s a shame far right conservatives find rage in such an innocuous thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

The other day there was this woman saying math is racist, 2+2 can equal 5 and so on.

Let’s see the link to back up that particular assertion.  I’ve seen the assertion made any number of times in various online circles.  I’ve never seen it backed up.

[TheLastWolf]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Let’s see the link to back up that particular assertion.  I’ve seen the assertion made any number of times in various online circles.  I’ve never seen it backed up.

Huh? 

It's right there in this thread a few posts ago

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Right but the Bud Light thing is really an example of ‘woke capitalism’, as in a corporation attempting to be seen as progressive in the most superficial way in order to enhance its own image.
 

In this case however it sounds like this was more about drumming up some controversy in order to put the spotlight on their brand. Why else would they pick Mulvaney who is hardly the best advocate for the trans movement, but is instead an incredibly divisive figure. 
 

That sales for Bud light dropped like a stone makes me think this is like a ‘new Coke’ thing where they go back to the old brand and suddenly everyone is talking about Bud Light again.

It’s all very cynical and has almost nothing to do with promoting social justice or making society better. It’s about using controversy to make money.

do you accept though (bud light is a bad example as its a terrible product) that anyone who likes a product, but don't like their ad campaign so stops drinking it and has a massive huff and goes on social media and practically explodes with hatred is a total twat?

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

do you accept though (bud light is a bad example as its a terrible product) that anyone who likes a product, but don't like their ad campaign so stops drinking it and has a massive huff and goes on social media and practically explodes with hatred is a total twat?

Er yeah of course.

But that is exactly what Budweiser wanted to happen I suspect. You put someone like Mulvaney in your advertising you aren’t looking to be more inclusive, you want clicks and outrage. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Huh? 

It's right there in this thread a few posts ago

Is it a sincere effort to claim you can make 2+2=5 or is it a poor attempt at mockery?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Er yeah of course.

But that is exactly what Budweiser wanted to happen I suspect. You put someone like Mulvaney in your advertising you aren’t looking to be more inclusive, you want clicks and outrage. 

What does it say when the right wing outrage machine is this predictable this easily manipulated… if that was in fact AmBev’s goal?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What does it say when the right wing outrage machine is this predictable this easily manipulated… if that was in fact AmBev’s goal?

You could turn it back and say why is Budweiser so happy to stoke the right wing outrage machine but would never do anything to upset the left wing outrage machine. It's not like they ever thought about making Joe Rogan the face of their drink.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, Darzin said:

 

I don't think you can say that woke is just being "a good person" or "opposing racism" because the policies around this are different then they were before and it's the policies that matter as much as the goal. Using terms like this makes as much sense as defining communism as "people who follow ration economics" it's a platitude that means nothing because it's the policies implemented to achieve these goals that matter. Woke is an imprecise  and dare I say problematic term, but until the people who support these policies name themselves they will continue to be named. 

Interesting link.  I think on the material / immaterial angle Freddie is mostly wrong.  In my experience people pushing for material gains for trans people are labeled "woke" right now probably more reliable than anyone.  

I guess I'd ask what are the difference between "woke" policies and normal progressive policies.  

[Knight Of Winter]

Although (disclaimer) I generally don't view wokeness favorably, I'll deliberately not going to tackle the essence of such discussion, debating its flaws and merits here. Instead I'll point to a wider meta-problem: that such discussions were proven time and time again to be fruitless, with both sides talking past each other with none being any wiser afterwards.

Part of it surely comes from semantic confusion, as I'm convinced that different people have totally different concepts in mind with regards to same word. While for me it means something like "dogmatic, authoritarian and deeply tribal ideology which is ineffective in achieving its (noble and admirable) goals", for many of you that same word means "fight against systemic prejudice and helping disadvantaged groups". I'm not saying either mine or the other definition is the correct one - but I am saying  that we're having completely different things in mind while discussing ostensibly the same concept. Such discussion will be very difficult from the start.

The other part of linguistic problem, which Darzin and Ran talked about - is inability to label to concept with a word - any word - which is a prerequisite of any reasonable discussion. The fact is - there is a ideology of a left side of political spectrum, that we're all (judging by the number of participants in this discussion) interested in discussing. You don't like the term "woke" and think it's being unfairly coopted and misused by right-wingers - fine by me. But then give my any kind of alternative. Give me any other word (already existing one of newly minted word, it doesn't matter), upon which broad definition we can agree upon and finally have some common ground on which we can base debate on.

The third point of contention with term wokeness (and again - feel free to propose any alternative word here) is that it's deeply personal, sentimental and important part of identity for many people. And when something is deeply personal, sentimental and important part of identity - people on both sides lose the ability to argue objectively, with myself being just as guilty of it as the next person. It's not caused by malice or bad faith, it's simply how the human brain works with regards to concepts that constitute the important identity-building block. They subconsciously start to twist the other side's arguments, interpreting them in worst possible ways and using strawmen all around. Each of you probably witnessed it a hundred times before, mostly with religious or political issues. So I'm not proposing anything new here.

One one hand (and not to worry, I'll cover the reverse as well) - that's the problem that TrackerNeil or Darzin or Heartofice or myself face: every time we criticize something woke (or whichever term you'd like to use instead) or woke-related, usually we're met with some combination of always-the-same bullet points which rarely address the essence of whichever argument we provide. Usually we hear something like: 
1) why are you talking about woke when right-wingers are much bigger problem
2) you're just blind to systemic prejudices in this world
3) or maybe you're not blind, you just don't care
4) you're adopting right's talking points
5) you should support us since we share the same end-goal etc.
which obviously make you feel a bit shitty, misinterpreted and ignored.

On the other hand, it's not only probable, but certain to the point of beyond doubt - that myself and others arguing similar things are guilty of similar flaws. That we can also (subconsciously I hope) misinterpret other's side arguments, attribute wrong motivations to them or have glaring blind spots that we're unaware of. As I noted, it happens with heated topics all the time. The entire point of debate is to have different people standing for different ideas, so that each can correct the other's biases and present arguments other side is unaware of - so that everyone can come up a little bit smarter and a little bit more enlightened. But in debates about wokeness this doesn't happen - it didn't in previous ones and I doubt this one will be different. I suspect nobody will change their worldview significantly here, other then to become even more entrenched in the position they already have. 

And this is not about being correct or incorrect. While I don't like wokeness, it's possible that I'm wrong. Maybe it truly is the best possible thing since bread came sliced that will permanently change humanity for the better and we're all be thankful for it. I have no problem being wrong. I do however, have a problem, if good-faith discussion about any topic are impossible, and that's what I feel is happening with this particular topic. This is not the effective way for society to move forward.

Kind of half-baked and half-coherent rant I have with this issue, but nonetheless an issue worth stating. Hopefully next time by someone more articulate then myself.

[TrackerNeil]

13 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think…I probably should not speak for another poster, but my reading was not that s/he disagreed that that is true most of the time, just that talking in absolutes will necessarily cause different kinds of victims. Not saying I totally agree, but if I was correct in my interpretation it’s not a completely unreasonable concern, especially about legal language. 

What I would say is that I think you shouldn't approach life with a map-over-territory point of view. Maps are good, but you have to recognize that, when you're in water up to your knees, you're standing in a river no matter what the map says. So I would not say Believe Victims, but instead Take Claims of Abuse Seriously. My way doesn't make a very good bumper sticker, but then I am not a bumper-sticker kind of person.

Oh, and it's "he" if you are wondering. "Queen of Thorns" simply refers to me being both gay and catty. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Although (disclaimer) I generally don't view wokeness favorably, I'll deliberately not going to tackle the essence of such discussion, debating its flaws and merits here. Instead I'll point to a wider meta-problem: that such discussions were proven time and time again to be fruitless, with both sides talking past each other with none being any wiser afterwards.

Part of it surely comes from semantic confusion, as I'm convinced that different people have totally different concepts in mind with regards to same word. While for me it means something like "dogmatic, authoritarian and deeply tribal ideology which is ineffective in achieving its (noble and admirable) goals", for many of you that same word means "fight against systemic prejudice and helping disadvantaged groups". I'm not saying either mine or the other definition is the correct one - but I am saying  that we're having completely different things in mind while discussing ostensibly the same concept. Such discussion will be very difficult from the start.

The other part of linguistic problem, which Darzin and Ran talked about - is inability to label to concept with a word - any word - which is a prerequisite of any reasonable discussion. The fact is - there is a ideology of a left side of political spectrum, that we're all (judging by the number of participants in this discussion) interested in discussing. You don't like the term "woke" and think it's being unfairly coopted and misused by right-wingers - fine by me. But then give my any kind of alternative. Give me any other word (already existing one of newly minted word, it doesn't matter), upon which broad definition we can agree upon and finally have some common ground on which we can base debate on.

The third point of contention with term wokeness (and again - feel free to propose any alternative word here) is that it's deeply personal, sentimental and important part of identity for many people. And when something is deeply personal, sentimental and important part of identity - people on both sides lose the ability to argue objectively, with myself being just as guilty of it as the next person. It's not caused by malice or bad faith, it's simply how the human brain works with regards to concepts that constitute the important identity-building block. They subconsciously start to twist the other side's arguments, interpreting them in worst possible ways and using strawmen all around. Each of you probably witnessed it a hundred times before, mostly with religious or political issues. So I'm not proposing anything new here.

One one hand (and not to worry, I'll cover the reverse as well) - that's the problem that TrackerNeil or Darzin or Heartofice or myself face: every time we criticize something woke (or whichever term you'd like to use instead) or woke-related, usually we're met with some combination of always-the-same bullet points which rarely address the essence of whichever argument we provide. Usually we hear something like: 
1) why are you talking about woke when right-wingers are much bigger problem
2) you're just blind to systemic prejudices in this world
3) or maybe you're not blind, you just don't care
4) you're adopting right's talking points
5) you should support us since we share the same end-goal etc.
which obviously make you feel a bit shitty, misinterpreted and ignored.

On the other hand, it's not only probable, but certain to the point of beyond doubt - that myself and others arguing similar things are guilty of similar flaws. That we can also (subconsciously I hope) misinterpret other's side arguments, attribute wrong motivations to them or have glaring blind spots that we're unaware of. As I noted, it happens with heated topics all the time. The entire point of debate is to have different people standing for different ideas, so that each can correct the other's biases and present arguments other side is unaware of - so that everyone can come up a little bit smarter and a little bit more enlightened. But in debates about wokeness this doesn't happen - it didn't in previous ones and I doubt this one will be different. I suspect nobody will change their worldview significantly here, other then to become even more entrenched in the position they already have. 

And this is not about being correct or incorrect. While I don't like wokeness, it's possible that I'm wrong. Maybe it truly is the best possible thing since bread came sliced that will permanently change humanity for the better and we're all be thankful for it. I have no problem being wrong. I do however, have a problem, if good-faith discussion about any topic are impossible, and that's what I feel is happening with this particular topic. This is not the effective way for society to move forward.

Kind of half-baked and half-coherent rant I have with this issue, but nonetheless an issue worth stating. Hopefully next time by someone more articulate then myself.

"You don't like the term "woke" and think it's being unfairly coopted and misused by right-wingers - fine by me. But then give my any kind of alternative. Give me any other word (already existing one of newly minted word, it doesn't matter), upon which broad definition we can agree upon and finally have some common ground on which we can base debate on."

Well, no, that's not how this works.  I don't like the term because it is NOT clear what it means.  You don't care for "wokeness".  Fine.  Explain what it is, or don't.  But if you're not prepared to do that, or unable to do that, don't be surprised when people view its use skeptically.  It's incredibly easy to critique a specific policy without labelling it "woke".  And yet, that's rarely the case- it's almost exclusively used in a general sense and rarely in a particular material criticism.

Trackerneil articulated a definition, and that's how he uses it and maybe how he hears it being used.  I've not seen it used that way.  How am I supposed to come up with a word to describe something on which even those using the term can't seem to agree?  A general word for people in the left that you personally don't like is far and away the most common way I've seen it used.  But apparently that's not accurate?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

"You don't like the term "woke" and think it's being unfairly coopted and misused by right-wingers - fine by me. But then give my any kind of alternative. Give me any other word (already existing one of newly minted word, it doesn't matter), upon which broad definition we can agree upon and finally have some common ground on which we can base debate on."

Well, no, that's not how this works.  I don't like the term because it is NOT clear what it means.  You don't care for "wokeness".  Fine.  Explain what it is, or don't.  But if you're not prepared to do that, or unable to do that, don't be surprised when people view its use skeptically.  It's incredibly easy to critique a specific policy without labelling it "woke".  And yet, that's rarely the case- it's almost exclusively used in a general sense and rarely in a particular material criticism.

Trackerneil articulated a definition, and that's how he uses it and maybe how he hears it being used.  I've not seen it used that way.  How am I supposed to come up with a word to describe something on which even those using the term can't seem to agree?  A general word for people in the left that you personally don't like is far and away the most common way I've seen it used.  But apparently that's not accurate?

Stop pushing CRT. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Stop pushing CRT. 

Ha.  Gonna use this as a springboard -Yeah, well, part of the confusion I think is that there is an actual difference between how the term is most commonly used ( the "lib smasher" way that I'd imagine Tucker Carlson uses it) versus how TN is using it.  

When liberals use it, it seems to be "people to the left of me" (and I'm not saying that's how TN is using it).  Is Joe Biden woke?  Or the people who post BLM signs but stopped pushing for policies that would reduce black people being killed and harassed by the police as soon as Derek Chauvin was sentenced?  Or even worse are currentlya advocating for giving more money to police?  If we're looking at the Freddie DeBoer usage, when it comes to our criminal justice system, Biden would be more woke than someone fighting to keep bail reform in NY state or asking that $ for police departments instead be spent eradicating the actual causes of crime rather than the symptoms.  

Freddie claims that "woke" people are obsessed with using the right language.  I don't know if I'm woke, but I do know I'd like to be clear what we're actually talking about.  Are we talking about companies slapping a rainbow flag or a BLM sticker on a widget to move a few more units?  Are we talking about someone who wants to abolish the police?  Are we talking about anyone exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble?  Are we talking about a white trust fund dude with dreads lecturing a union janitor about how the janitor's complicity in the "controlled opposition" is problematic?  Are we talking about the people putting fluoride in the water and making frogs gay?  Are we talking about anyone who thinks the right's war on libraries deserves to be stopped?

Use whatever words you want, but if you use one so nebulous and malleable, particularly one so commonly weaponized as a broad pejorative as "woke", don't be surprised when people want clarification.