"Woke" - what does it really mean?

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Please cite where in the wikipedia page you cited it ever mentions the left bastardizing the phrase.

I don't know about you, but a term that was about Black political consciousness of matters of race turning into a term that "began to signify a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race" is muddling (using Sam Sanders's usage) it up, which I would consider "bastardization" in terms of understanding the meaning of a word.

If a whole bunch of other stuff is grafted on to a word, it's not the same word anymore. And the grafting started with "white corporate liberals".

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't know about you, but a term that was about Black political consciousness of matters of race turning into a term that "began to signify a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race" is muddling (using Sam Sanders's usage) it up, which I would consider "bastardization" in terms of understanding the meaning of a word.

If a whole bunch of other stuff is grafted on to a word, it's not the same word anymore. And the grafting started with "white corporate liberals".

Not according to wiki, unless ‘beatniks’ were a lot more corporate than I have ever been lead to understand. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't know about you, but a term that was about Black political consciousness of matters of race turning into a term that "began to signify a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race" is muddling (using Sam Sanders's usage) it up, which I would consider "bastardization" in terms of understanding the meaning of a word.

So, nothing from the wikipedia page, just Sam Sanders' op-ed.  Gotcha.  

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't know about you, but a term that was about Black political consciousness of matters of race turning into a term that "began to signify a progressive outlook on a host of issues as well as on race" is muddling (using Sam Sanders's usage) it up, which I would consider "bastardization" in terms of understanding the meaning of a word.

If a whole bunch of other stuff is grafted on to a word, it's not the same word anymore. And the grafting started with "white corporate liberals".

I think there is a pretty significant difference between using a word to sell stuff and using a word to label that which you wish to destroy.

 

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Why are you here

I got involved because someone in the UK thread made the suggestion that conservatives can’t define ‘wokeness’, which I disagreed with, I think the negative view of what wokeness is, is pretty consistent in a lot of peoples heads. ( the insinuation by that poster is generally that right wing objection to wokeness is an objection to anything that isn’t completely racist)

Im just a bit baffled that there seems to be this sense that people are trying to deny that a word can mean different things to different people or that it’s meaning can change. 

[DanteGabriel]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I got involved because someone in the UK thread made the suggestion that conservatives can’t define ‘wokeness’, which I disagreed with, I think the negative view of what wokeness is, is pretty consistent in a lot of peoples heads. ( the insinuation by that poster is generally that right wing objection to wokeness is an objection to anything that isn’t completely racist)

Im just a bit baffled that there seems to be this sense that people are trying to deny that a word can mean different things to different people or that it’s meaning can change. 

Yes, I saw the clip posted of the dingbat right winger who couldn't define "woke." I suggest you send her your definition, which I agree is in keeping with the way revanchist right wingers have used the word. Maybe then she will be prepared to respond the next time someone asks her to define a word she's selling a whole-ass book about.

ETA: Actually I'd like to refine what I said a little bit. I think HoI's definition of the word in the UK politics thread fits the resentful right wing reframing of it, and that definition seems to have resonated with a bunch of ostensibly moderate people who may be smarting from having been called out on something by overzealous leftists, or at least afraid of the possibility.

But having defined that word thusly, it is now applied to all sorts of reasonable ideas that right wing operatives want to stigmatize, like "slavery existed and it was pretty brutal" or "systemic racism exists" or "gay people and trans people should be allowed to live their lives in peace."

[Heartofice]

43 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

ETA: Actually I'd like to refine what I said a little bit. I think HoI's definition of the word in the UK politics thread fits the resentful right wing reframing of it, and that definition seems to have resonated with a bunch of ostensibly moderate people who may be smarting from having been called out on something by overzealous leftists, or at least afraid of the possibility.

But having defined that word thusly, it is now applied to all sorts of reasonable ideas that right wing operatives want to stigmatize, like "slavery existed and it was pretty brutal" or "systemic racism exists" or "gay people and trans people should be allowed to live their lives in peace."

Sure, but you could also say that the 'Wokeish' element tends to over emphasise, catastrophise and maximalise a lot of issues and its that lack of clarity that leads to a lot of talking past each other. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is as Wittgensteinian a discussion as I have ever seen take place…

[Tywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure, but you could also say that the 'Wokeish' element tends to over emphasise, catastrophise and maximalise a lot of issues and its that lack of clarity that leads to a lot of talking past each other. 

There's an intentional lack of clarity being introduced by those who are seeking to make a bad faith argument. Why is that not so clear and obvious to you?

Again, you need to stop and first ask yourself who is trying to muddy the waters.

[DanteGabriel]

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure, but you could also say that the 'Wokeish' element tends to over emphasise, catastrophise and maximalise a lot of issues and its that lack of clarity that leads to a lot of talking past each other. 

Kinda like how "cancel culture" is a threat to all good people and that there is an epidemic of lives being ruined by accusations of racism, I guess.

[Heartofice]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's an intentional lack of clarity being introduced by those who are seeking to make a bad faith argument. Why is that not so clear and obvious to you?

Again, you need to stop and first ask yourself who is trying to muddy the waters.

My point is the waters are already muddy. 
 

Saying the right wing are applying it to reasonable ideas like ‘systemic racism exists’ without acknowledging that there are degrees to which that statement goes from reasonable to unreasonable depending how extensive and intrinsic systemic racism you suggest is.

Or saying ‘trans people just want to get on with their lives’ without acknowledging the complexities that arise from that, is another example of misrepresenting what ‘the right’ is objecting to. 
 

So while I admit there are elements of the right that over use the term woke and misapply it, that is in part due to the way the left misrepresents the objections to its positions 

[Heartofice]

28 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Kinda like how "cancel culture" is a threat to all good people and that there is an epidemic of lives being ruined by accusations of racism, I guess.

At least nobody ever said cancel culture doesn’t exist or that nobody’s lives were ruined by accusations of racism. Phew.

[DanteGabriel]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

At least nobody ever said cancel culture doesn’t exist or that nobody’s lives were ruined by accusations of racism. Phew.

I'm glad you have finally admitted that.

[Tywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point is the waters are already muddy. 

So essentially your starting point is something is broken, but why figure out who broke it? Everyone played a part?

I'd love to play Clue with you someday (and yes while that is intended to be a slight, you actually do seem like you'd be a lot of fun to play board games with).

Quote

So while I admit there are elements of the right that over use the term woke and misapply it, that is in part due to the way the left misrepresents the objections to its positions 

It really isn't though. I'm not going to lie, there are many on the left who are annoying as fuck and fail to communicate in the best way, but their intentions are generally well placed. The counter from the right is very rarely so and we have a universe of evidence to draw from that shows the problem is pretty disproportionate and conclusive. 
 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So essentially your starting point is something is broken, but why figure out who broke it? Everyone played a part?

Well sorta. I’m not sure what the point of any of this is. It just seems like recriminations about something that doesn’t matter. Two groups of people use a word different ways. So what?

[Tywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well sorta. I’m not sure what the point of any of this is. It just seems like recriminations about something that doesn’t matter. Two groups of people use a word different ways. So what?

I hate to be overly rude, but this mindset is exactly what stopped me from wanting to be a therapist. Or at the very least drove me to consider working with children. I am asking you to listen, and your response is basically "no or why?"

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hate to be overly rude, but this mindset is exactly what stopped me from wanting to be a therapist. Or at the very least drove me to consider working with children. I am asking you to listen, and your response is basically "no or why?"

I’ll start listening when I recognise something worth listening to. 
 

What is the problem we are talking about? That the right has taken a word and twisted it and made it the butt of a punchline? My response is.. yeah.. so what? 
 

Or that it’s a term too liberally thrown and misapplied. But also I think it actually is being used against something quite specific that many people recognise.

Again, it’s mostly a shrug from me, but also as I said earlier the left is frequently misrepresenting what the right is complaining about so it’s very hard to get a clear view on what exactly anyone is talking about. 
 

If you are asking me to listen, I’m all ears but it’s not clear what your actual point is right now.

[Cas Stark]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So essentially your starting point is something is broken, but why figure out who broke it? Everyone played a part?

I'd love to play Clue with you someday (and yes while that is intended to be a slight, you actually do seem like you'd be a lot of fun to play board games with).

It really isn't though. I'm not going to lie, there are many on the left who are annoying as fuck and fail to communicate in the best way, but their intentions are generally well placed. The counter from the right is very rarely so and we have a universe of evidence to draw from that shows the problem is pretty disproportionate and conclusive. 
 

That's just an opinion, not a statement of fact.  There are millions of people who have drawn a different conclusion about political discourse, policy and which side is more destructive/dangerous.  It also seems to pre suppose that the intentions of conservatives are not 'generally well placed' which is also an opinion not a fact.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Per the history I cited, it was the left and corporate America that bastardized it, and the right began to lampoon it and weaponize it.

Blame white people and/or capitalism.

bastardize here meaning to use the word in other context of being aware other brands oppression and wanting to solve or lessen them.

Please understand there’s a moral difference between a moral difference between a white liberal praising a company as woke in its promotion of lgbt rights and conservatives denigrating it because a cartoon showed one same-sex couple kiss.

[Tywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’ll start listening when I recognise something worth listening to. 

Then you've already failed.

Quote

What is the problem we are talking about? That the right has taken a word and twisted it and made it the butt of a punchline? My response is.. yeah.. so what? 

Do you not see how people are communicating this hurts them? 

Quote

Again, it’s mostly a shrug from me, but also as I said earlier the left is frequently misrepresenting what the right is complaining about so it’s very hard to get a clear view on what exactly anyone is talking about. 

The right's complaint is a response to the left, by and large, and it's when it's asked to consider how they're hurting others, the resounding answer is no. A shrug frankly is better than that, but it's still the problem.