Jump to content

"Woke" - what does it really mean?


Ser Reptitious
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I find these semantic debates really pointless.

Well, then you're in the wrong thread.  This is a thread explicitly about the semantics of the term "woke."  And - at least in terms of my interest - how it is used and exploited in US politics.

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's certain groups within any activist space that feels like "the conversation is over" and aggressive tactics to enforce their orthodoxy are all that matter. Whatever we call that certain strain, I don't really care, but I want to distance myself from them, and convince the exhausted majority of this world to just ignore them and go back to political tactics that aren't toxic and counterproductive.

Ok, sounds good.  There certainly are examples of this.  As far as I'm aware, they are very limited.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.  But, generally, I agree, we should ignore these aspects -- the fight against the right is far too important at this point to engage in these petty squabbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

What I'm saying isn't both-sidesism. I clearly have said that one is worse. But one being worse doesn't make the other one go away, or justify it, or make it any less bad. And what's worse, our best weapon against the right is coalitional politics gained through persuasion. And to that effect, all of the performative policing BS shoots that larger cause in the foot.

A pebble on one side of a scale is less worse than a boulder on the other. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A pebble on one side of a scale is less worse than a boulder on the other. 

Maybe it's because I was raised into the religious right, but I don't want anything to do with that awful way of thinking and interacting with people. Yes, they are worse. But to the extent that the wackiest on the left remind me of them, I will also call it out as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe it's because I was raised into the religious right, but I don't want anything to do with that awful way of thinking and interacting with people. Yes, they are worse. But to the extent that the wackiest on the left remind me of them, I will also call it out as bad.

You can call out the left, trust me I get shit here doing it all the time, without making an argument that both sides are in any way comparable. One is a lot worse, clear as day, and what helps conservatives hold on to power that's far more destructive than anything the scary lefties want to do is exactly what you're doing right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I was gonna let this lie but it’s getting silly, so imma get silly too. 
 

Here’s what I know: Oxford added the non-sarcastic term in 2017. The secondary one was added sometime in or after 2021. 
 

The black community had been using the term for almost a century, no joy. Liberal whites has been using it for a few decades before it was entered. Conservative whites began inverting it sometime in the year or so before that got added too?

So, the dictionary also proving that if you want to be heard, you’d better lean right and sure as shit be white. 

Also, irregardless. Which, as anyone with an education in English can tell you, isn’t really a word but if it were should by rights mean the opposite of what it means, ‘ir’ prefix ~ meaning the same as ‘un’, so unregardless, but meaning regardless. Not a word.

But stupid people, no comment on their pigment or politics, kept mixing up ‘regardless’ and ‘irrespective’ which both make sense, but combining them into an unword to account for stupidity. So they added that to the dictionary, they’re lexicographers essentially saying it was a concession to misuse. I think a while later someone tried saying that the ‘ir’ which heretofore had meant ‘un’ in this particular case was just an added emphasis. Lol. Irrational, by which I mean extra rational!!
 

So that’s the company you’re keeping with this crap. 

And?  I don't think anyone has disputed that the term originated in the black community, or that it was used as positive, then usage expanded to become mainstream, and then, there was a backlash where now a segment of the population uses 'woke' as a negative.  You know, just like the dictionary has it listed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Crazy how we've managed to successfully ban the usage of "wo*e" after just a couple of threads.

Everyone who says the w word has been violently cast out of the public discourso-sphere.

 

The oppression of the "anti-woke-guys" is a subjugation this country has never seen throughout its storied history.  You can not understand how unpopular it is to be an "anti-woke-guy," and the stigma that it entails.  These people need to be provided a safe space in which they are allowed to be "anti-woke-guys."  If you say "anti" "woke" and "guys" in succession within a sentence, you clearly are demonstrating illiberalism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, and doctrinaire politics.  May the gods have mercy on your soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

what helps conservatives hold on to power that's far more destructive than anything the scary lefties want to do is exactly what you're doing right now. 

...How, exactly am I doing that?

From where I see it, I am only calling out select behaviors among certain strains of activists on the left, while also acknowledging the general craziness that social media has introduced into our social dynamics. 

Most of my energy in politics is spent highlighting the anti-democratic insanity of the right, but whenever relevant I also make sure to call out nuttiness on my side. To me that's someone trying to hold on to principals, and trying not to be a hypocrite, or a cynic.

The persuadable people I'm around, the people who don't lean strongly one way or the other, tend to appreciate stuff like that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The oppression of the "anti-woke-guys" is a subjugation this country has never seen throughout its storied history.  You can not understand how unpopular it is to be an "anti-woke-guy," and the stigma that it entails.  These people need to be provided a safe space in which they are allowed to be "anti-woke-guys."  If you say "anti" "woke" and "guys" in succession within a sentence, you clearly are demonstrating illiberalism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, and doctrinaire politics.  May the gods have mercy on your soul.

Just reported you for using it, even if it's in quotes, c'mon dude.  Be better.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe it's because I was raised into the religious right, but I don't want anything to do with that awful way of thinking and interacting with people. Yes, they are worse. But to the extent that the wackiest on the left remind me of them, I will also call it out as bad.

You can’t rule out the extremists from any social behaviour. What needs to happen is an objective good faith assessment of proportion and solution. Just for starters, to need to decide on which side you’ll err, because error is endemic to humans. But if your ‘solution’ is to wait for the perfect solution, be aware you ARE helping the people who want doing nothing to be the result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

You can’t rule out the extremists from any social behaviour

No, but I can articulate what I don't like about said extremism. It's nothing personal, and I'm all for the old-school definition of "ally," i.e, working with people with whom I disagree for practical purposes. But I will call out illiberalism when I see it.

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But if your ‘solution’ is to wait for the perfect solution, be aware you ARE helping the people who want doing nothing to be the result. 

I agree, and my main complaint about the illiberal strains of the left is that they are looking for performative perfection rather than pragmatic opportunities to enact real substantive changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Just reported you for using it, even if it's in quotes, c'mon dude.  Be better.  

Also politically correct term is “People against wokness.”

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

agree, and my main complaint about the illiberal strains of the left is that they are looking for performative perfection rather than pragmatic opportunities to enact real substantive changes.

There is a segment of the left that does do that.

Though a lot of times the pragmatic opportunity  is the most seemingly performative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Just reported you for using it, even if it's in quotes, c'mon dude.  Be better.  

Hey!  Don't get me started on the dangers of Lake-people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

let's get back to actual political organizing for real gains.

Great! Please provide some stories out of your own experience doing this, so we can learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Great! Please provide some stories out of your own experience doing this, so we can learn.

Me? The extent of my own experience has been phone banking, working as an election officer, and the occasional protest. But my own experience doesn't really apply to what I was suggesting. 

Here's an example: After pointing out why J.K. Rowling's tweets about trans people were misguided and potentially harmful, why not nevertheless extend a hand of alliance to her? She would be on board for so many LGBTQ issues, despite the obvious points of difference. Even though she has some bigoted views toward trans people, she still thinks of them as humans deserving of protections and respect. She could be a solid PR influence in helping to humanize them in the eyes of people who might be susceptible to right wing propaganda about trans people. It would be an alliance much closer to the traditional sense of the word. Not a friendship, and not perfect performance done to stay in everyone's good graces. It would be a pragmatic move, done for tangible political and cultural outcomes. And it would be a public example of grace, which can encourage other people to join in as well.

I have a feeling that Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints would be amenable to doing something like that, as she is more pragmatically minded than a lot of other prominent activists. But what's the actual chance of her doing so in this day and age? About zero, as she would instantly be dragged as someone little different than a Nazi. She already was dragged for having Buck Angel do a voice on her video, who himself was marked as evil because he was somewhat dismissive of nonbinary identities. Rather than conflate rudeness with evil, maybe some day it would be okay to make common cause with people, lest we fragment into smaller and smaller bands of people dragging each other all while getting nothing done?

Some day. Maybe. Hopefully. 

Edited by Phylum of Alexandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

After pointing out why J.K. Rowling's tweets about trans people were misguided and potentially harmful, why not nevertheless extend a hand of alliance to her? She would be on board for so many LGBTQ issues, despite the obvious points of difference.

JK Rowling had myriad opportunities to reevaluate her views.  She decided not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

JK Rowling had myriad opportunities to reevaluate her views.  She decided not to.

Sure, but that wasn't my point. My point is why not call out what she said, then reach out anyway to work in areas where agreement can be found and action can be taken?

Yes, she remains bigoted and a little paranoid. That doesn't make her a Nazi. In fact, part of what made her go deeper into the rabbit hole is the toxic social media dynamic of being mob-shamed and then groomed by TERF people. A little grace would go a long way pragmatically speaking, but instead everyone just wants her to recant, i.e. display the correct symbols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Me? The extent of my own experience has been phone banking, working as an election officer, and the occasional protest. But my own experience doesn't really apply to what I was suggesting. 

Here's an example: After pointing out why J.K. Rowling's tweets about trans people were misguided and potentially harmful, why not nevertheless extend a hand of alliance to her? She would be on board for so many LGBTQ issues, despite the obvious points of difference. Even though she has some bigoted views toward trans people, she still thinks of them as humans deserving of protections and respect. She could be a solid PR influence in helping to humanize them in the eyes of people who might be susceptible to right wing propaganda about trans people. It would be an alliance much closer to the traditional sense of the word. Not a friendship, and not perfect performance done to stay in everyone's good graces. It would be a pragmatic move, done for tangible political and cultural outcomes. And it would be a public example of grace, which can encourage other people to join in as well.

I have a feeling that Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints would be amenable to doing something like that, as she is more pragmatically minded than a lot of other prominent activists. But what's the actual chance of her doing so in this day and age? About zero, as she would instantly be dragged as someone little different than a Nazi. She already was dragged for having Buck Angel do a voice on her video, who himself was marked as evil because he was somewhat dismissive of nonbinary identities. Rather than conflate rudeness with evil, maybe some day it would be okay to make common cause with people, lest we fragment into smaller and smaller bands of people dragging each other all while getting nothing done?

Some day. Maybe. Hopefully. 

You mean there's nothing to be done to win over the people who out and out kill, or try to kill, or plan to kill you? Or that you haven't tried to do so?

You see, defanging those people is infinitely more important in the minds of parents with kids in schools who are subject to any conspiracy etc. etc. etc. hater and racist believer in witches that sodomize tractors, etc. etc. with a gun gotten w/o checks or training or registration than shaking hand with Rowling.  Thinking having Rowling out there insulting trans people for 'your side' is at best a waste of time, or maybe ... just ... insulting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...