Jump to content

"Woke" - what does it really mean?


Ser Reptitious
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Please cite where this is going on.  Legally, not just because you lost an argument of the internet.

Oh come on.  First, there are many ways to control speech below the threshold of making it illegal.  One example being the speech codes on college campuses.  I know your side also now objects to the term 'cancel culture' but there must be hundreds or thousands of examples of someone losing their livlihood over perceived 'hate' speech.  One of my personal favorites was the Brooklyn artist and liberal activist whose life was ruined because she put up 'brown colored' Halloween decorations that the community deemed racist.

https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-racist-display-halloween-dolls-with-nooses/5646772/

Second, I believe a majority of Democrats support making 'hate' speech illegal, suggesting it is only a matter of time until sufficient political power exists to enact those laws.  Lastly, there are already hate speech laws on the books in many countries.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then a reaction from people accurately saying that's not what the word means.

Just rehashing what we started the whole thread with, but you can’t ‘accurately’ say that a word doesn’t mean something if a significant amount of people think it does. And they basically won; it’s now so loaded a term that I don’t think anyone on the left would casually describe their behaviour as ‘woke’. 

You keep trying to shift the argument to ‘yea but there’s nothing wrong with being woke’ and I don’t think anyone is taking part in that same argument. And you’re starting from the assumption that you’re right, I mean you basically defined ‘bastardised’ earlier as ‘the point at which I stopped agreeing with whatever it meant’. Did everyone agree when the left co-opted it? 

Honestly, I don’t even think there’s that much difference in how the right use the word. They just believe that virtue-signalling and a need to demonstrate ‘correct’ behaviour to what you perceive as your tribe are the motivators, not a genuine sense of empathy. The actual practise of it amounts to the same thing really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

.....No.  Try reading my post that you JUST fucking quoted.  Do you have a "right" do to so?  Absolutely!

You have a right to brazenly and inaccurately define political terminology.  And I have a right to point out how brazenly and pathetically inaccurate your "definition" is.  Get it yet?

I guess the disconnect comes with them with a more for a lack of a really “conservative” deposition towards equating something being called wrong with something being illegal or needing to be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

One example being the speech codes on college campuses.  I know your side also now objects to the term 'cancel culture' but there must be hundreds or thousands of examples of someone losing their livlihood over perceived 'hate' speech.

I do think this is a problem on college campuses, I'll give you that.  But as someone that actually works and interacts with those on college campuses, the idea that "cancel culture" has cost "hundreds of thousands" of people their jobs is...whatever beyond ludicrous is. 

I teach political science/intro to American government, and I've never had a problem saying anything over the past decade.  This is a very small problem that is predominately within Ivy League campuses.  I actually agree with you - a lot of such examples are absurd - but it's really not a problem with 99% of colleges/universities.

Other examples are, again, few and far between.  It's just something for the right to whine about because they can't think of anything else.  Which, frankly, is a lack of imagination on the right's part.  Maybe attack Biden and the Dems on what they actually do or are not doing.  Indeed, that would be a much better electoral strategy for the GOP.  Free advice!

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Second, I believe a majority of Democrats support making 'hate' speech illegal, suggesting it is only a matter of time until sufficient political power exists to enact those laws.  Lastly, there are already hate speech laws on the books in many countries.

I don't really care but hate speech laws in other countries are almost always confined just as hate crime laws are.  The right got their panties all in a twist when hate crime legislation passed, pretty sure it didn't become some major deal unless I'm missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

know your side also now objects to the term 'cancel culture' but there must be hundreds or thousands of examples of someone losing their livlihood over perceived 'hate' speech.

Do you oppose Adias not doing business with Kanye over him saying  “things like “I’m going deathcon on Jews!”

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Oh come on.  First, there are many ways to control speech below the threshold of making it illegal.  One example being the speech codes on college campuses.

Yes, yes, everything is relative, no one knows anything don’t judge for people for having my stupid and/or horrific beliefs  nothing matters except power I hear you.

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

They just believe that virtue-signalling and a need to demonstrate ‘correct’ behaviour to what you perceive as your tribe are the motivators, not a genuine sense of empathy.

Unfortunately this is where you become wrong again in an effort to sugarcoat  the right’s bigotry (whether knowingly or unknowingly who can say) as being more substantive than the traditional screeches about the gay agenda being forced down people’s throats.

There wasn’t a moral outrage about Light year being woke because of some facile belief of none of the people making it actually thinking including some queer representation would be good morally. There was outrage about light year being woke because queer rep which they find equivalent to grooming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So you are saying the right is not allowed to use the word woke?

Who the fuck has stopped you from using that word? Are you posting from prison? 
 

People are complaining about your misusing it. Not because we’re language pedants, but specifically because you are taking part in an overt attempt to replace a term about something important that has real, tangible impact on people’s lives with something that mocks the entire idea.
 

Coincidentally, the group doing this is overwhelmingly made up of the same segment of society that is regularly shown through polling and studies to believe things like racism is over, and/or it’s worse for white people now, (same applies for gender, etc.) or that celebrating slavers is cool if that’s not explicitly what their celebrants have in mind regardless of how that makes descendants of slaves feel, or that ‘new ideas and beliefs’ brought in by immigrants are a bigger threat to society than anything present in ‘traditional values’, that it’s dangerous to have openly gay people around children,  or that if you can imagine a ‘woke’ rationale for anything anyone does, that’s as good as a proven cause, or other stupid, bigoted shit like that. 
 

So considering the matter on its merits, and given the priorities of its source, yes, we’re going to call bullshit. And you are free to keep pretending to be dense enough to miss the point, because we know you’re not. 
 

 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

.....No.  Try reading my post that you JUST fucking quoted.  Do you have a "right" do to so?  Absolutely!

You have a right to brazenly and inaccurately define political terminology.  And I have a right to point out how brazenly and pathetically inaccurate your "definition" is.  Get it yet?

You stating that someone is using a word inaccurately when it’s meaning is perfectly well understood to that person is basically telling them they can’t use it. You are getting upset that people are not using a word in the way that you want them to. 
 

Davesumm just said it, but if people are using a word in a certain way, that is it’s meaning. You don’t get to tell them they are wrong or using it inaccurately. Because they aren’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

but you can’t ‘accurately’ say that a word doesn’t mean something if a significant amount of people think it does.

Yes, you can.  There is an accurate definition for liberalism despite the right's perversion of it.  There is an accurate definition of socialism despite the right's perversion of it.  Acting like "...hey, well, a bunch of idiots think this word means something different so :dunno:" is not how language works -- and is especially not how politically terminology works.  Hell, I recall last spring/summer @Ran corrected me in a thread about the new LOTR show because I misused the word "cheesy."  Clearly, the definitions of terms mean something to most people.

18 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

And you’re starting from the assumption that you’re right, I mean you basically defined ‘bastardised’ earlier as ‘the point at which I stopped agreeing with whatever it meant’. Did everyone agree when the left co-opted it? 

No I didn't.  You're making this up.

19 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

They just believe that virtue-signalling and a need to demonstrate ‘correct’ behaviour to what you perceive as your tribe are the motivators, not a genuine sense of empathy. The actual practise of it amounts to the same thing really.

The "motivators" for what is "woke" don't matter.  That's not part of the definition.  This sounds like part of your confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The promotion here is one Lego store employee wearing a pride flag.

 

I remember a few years ago Kirk getting blasted by Nick Fuentes(a white nationalist) for being too cozy with the lgbt.

@DaveSumm hey Buddy would you like to try explaining how this isn’t an example of bigotry  and instead AcKtually concern over the I’m sure ultra powerful  Lego employee being insincere by wearing a pride flag?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You stating that someone is using a word inaccurately when it’s meaning is perfectly well understood to that person is basically telling them they can’t use it.

No it's not, it's telling you your definition is wrong.  I have no ability to stop you from using your terminology -- and even if I did I wouldn't use it.  Again, you can say whatever you want, and I can say you are wrong about it.  THAT'S public discourse.  I'm just about done clarifying this basic point for you.

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Davesumm just said it, but if people are using a word in a certain way, that is it’s meaning. You don’t get to tell them they are wrong or using it inaccurately.

Nope, it's the wrong meaning.  And yes, I get to tell them the meaning is wrong.  You know why?  Because we don't live in an "illiberal" society where you can tell me what definition of words is wrong and what is not.

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The point here is what people are complaining about is an empty virtue signal by Hollywood to lazily replace old characters with new diverse actors as a form of tokenism and virtue signalling to hide the fact they are still shitty and making  bad movies. 

My God the cynicism and projected bad faith here. So, it's okay to take note of race when you are criticizing the perceived woke mob apparently running Hollywood. Got it.

 

58 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This gets misrepresented on the left ‘see look at all the racists!!’. Those same people on the right  are usually fine with diversity when it feels organic and  isn’t done cynically.

So leftists are only acting out of cynical motivations and not a sincere desire to make marginalized people a little more comfortable. You know, I could have sworn there was someone around here complaining about treating "the right" as a monolithic block to caricaturize...

What, pray tell, is "organic" diversity?

 

58 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Pronouns in the bio, same thing. The problem the right have with it is that it’s seen as nothing more than an empty virtue signal to others that you have the right beliefs. It’s also one of those things which gets mandated through social pressure. 

Part of my job involves trading emails with university faculty and administrators. A pretty good portion of them have pronouns in their signature blocks. If only I had known what insidious virtue signalers they were!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

of my job involves trading emails with university faculty and administrators

I usually put pronouns mainly because the names I go by on social media tend to be gender-neutral.

Also because I want some people to cry in impotent rage when seeing it.

Hey it’s kinda funny I remember a couple years ago a massive peeve on the right was this idea of getting accused of misgendering trans people when they didn’t  know any better—but when trans people just give their pronouns they’re forcing gender ideology on people(and robbing them of the out of claiming complete ignorance for misgendring).

Also Dante what are you talking about?

HOI was saying don’t refer to the right as a monolith. He said nothing about the left.

Checkmate atheist.

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

So leftists are only acting out of cynical motivations and not a sincere desire to make marginalized people a little more comfortable. You know, I could have sworn there was someone around here complaining about treating "the right" as a monolithic block to caricaturize...

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Part of my job involves trading emails with university faculty and administrators. A pretty good portion of them have pronouns in their signature blocks. If only I had known what insidious virtue signalers they were!

Some of my students have opted to use this option as well in their student profiles.  Fuckers.  I look forward to failing them in two weeks for having the temerity to optionally include pronouns in their profiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

And yes, I get to tell them the meaning is wrong.

 

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because we don't live in an "illiberal" society where you can tell me what definition of words is wrong and what is not.

So … I must be misunderstanding here. You get to tell HoI that his definition is wrong, but he can’t tell you yours is wrong? 

You are fundamentally not getting how words work here. We’ve repeated it again and again, and you keep saying it means what you think it means. 

Apples: widely agreed to refer to the fruit. High level of agreement.

Woke: much dispute over its meaning. Low level of agreement.

With language, ALL THERE IS is levels of agreement. There is no eternal definition carved in stone that is ‘right’.  The only point which is being argued here is that a lot of people use ‘woke’ in a way you don’t seem to like. That’s it. Nobody’s even saying they‘ve got a point; just that it’s happening, they are using it. 

You keep trying to make it the Right vs Left thread, and sorry, I don’t think we’re gonna solve that one here today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:
 

@DaveSumm hey Buddy would you like to try explaining how this isn’t an example of bigotry  and instead AcKtually concern over the I’m sure ultra powerful  Lego employee being insincere by wearing a pride flag?

If you can convince me it’s got anything to do with what we’re talking about, maybe I’ll watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

So … I must be misunderstanding here. You get to tell HoI that his definition is wrong, but he can’t tell you yours is wrong? 

Yeah...you DO have trouble understanding.  Irony, at the least.  Seriously, this wasn't clear to you?  The point was HOI, or you, or anybody, can tell me I'm wrong -- just as I can tell all of them they're wrong.  And the reason?  Because we don't live in an "illiberal" society, at least when it comes to free speech.  And more importantly, the overwhelming majority that are "woke" aren't suggesting we should do so either.

This is a demonstrable, empirical fact.  If you can't get the difference between criticizing the other side in public discourse - wherein pointing out the other side is wrong is pretty fucking inherent to the goddamned discussion - and censoring discussion, then I can't help you.  Or at least I'm done trying unless you start paying me.  Read a book, take a class, this is really basic fucking shit.

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

You are fundamentally not getting how words work here. We’ve repeated it again and again, and you keep saying it means what you think it means. 

No, I'm saying it means what the originators of the term think it means.  What the dictionary means.  What EVERYBODY agreed it means until the right started weaponizing and bastardizing the term.  That is the demonstrable evolution of "woke's" meaning.

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

The only point which is being argued here is that a lot of people use ‘woke’ in a way you don’t seem to like.

Sure!  And the reason I don't like it is because the reason so many people are using it in such a way is because they are trying to bastardize and weaponize the term.  Just like they did with liberal, socialism, PC, etc.  This has all already been discussed ad nauseam not only in this thread but on this forum over the past few years.  If you really do not understand that objection, re-read.

Edited by DMC
Irony, at the least
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...