Jump to content

"Woke" - what does it really mean?


Ser Reptitious
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I do not mean offense.

But I must say I am 100% certain when Britain begins the process of banning medical transitioning for trans adults you will downplay it, be outright be supportive or be silent on it and give a thumbs up to those saying the angst over it is hyperbolic

Ah, one last “because X, then far worse Y” for the road. Today it’s “because you listened to a podcast, I’m 100% sure you’ll be in favour of this massive infringement of rights”.

Stay classy Varys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Bad example.

 

Why was Graham a bad example for the point I was making? I wasn't saying that King working with Graham led to X outcome. My point is that King did work with Graham. Whether or not he felt like the work payed dividends is another matter. He at least felt like it was worth pursuing, and he pursued it, just as he did with others he disagreed with.

The underlying matter is that you're distorting MLK's pragmatism to suit your own stance for orthodoxy and performative purity politics. Why not instead champion Stokely Carmichael for your rhetorical purposes, or the young Malcolm X before he learned better?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You think that Purity politics is getting the cause somewhere substantial

I’ve literally given you parameters  where I’d work with people who’d have a view or views I’d find repugnant to achieve a particular goal and an example of what that’d look like.

Its more nuanced. It’s not either “we have to work with nazis when they attack corporations because corporations bad small disagreements don’t matter!” Or “we have to immediately cast out people for not wanting to abolish capitalism and do communism right now!” 

Just because I don’t see a good reason for seeing jk Rowling as potential ally on trans issues doesn’t mean I’m engaging in purity culture. 

It’s just being realistic.

 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You're fine when it's Rowling.

Yes. I actually wish she’d been actually canceled.

You haven’t given me any actual reason to think this virulent transphobe is more a potential ally on trans issuers than Mtg, or Walsh or pat Robertson. 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Then a court overturns all of the things we've been fighting for, and shouting "you're on the wrong side of history" doesn't mean a fucking thing. Maybe then you'd deign to do a little persuasion?

Is this an abortion Refrence?
Dude I’ll say right now if leftist groups took your approach they’d become as useless as the log cabin Republicans.

The New York Democratic Party centrist to a ludicrous extent scrambled to persuade conservatives to get conservatives on board with them by using right wing talking points like being tough on crime, 

They probably cost dems the house and any opportunity to pack the court for half a decade at least.

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

Ah, one last “because X, then far worse Y” for the road. Today it’s “because you listened to a podcas

No. it was the entirety of your conduct this thread with your gleeful attempt to frame people using woke derisively as just really irritated with insincere progressive advocacy.

Apologies I read some disturbing news and seeing you post it just boiled over and I let loose my honest thoughts at an inappropriate time. 
 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Why was Graham a bad example for the point I was making? I wasn't saying that King working with Graham led to X outcome. My point is that King did work with Graham. Whether or not he felt like the work payed dividends is another matter

Oh because there are other examples where king would have far greater reason to believe working with a bigot was necessary. 
 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

He at least felt like it was worth pursuing, and he pursued it, just as he did with others he disagreed with.

Sure—that doesn’t help demonstrate the fruitfulness of the approach which I agree needs to happen sometimes.

It’d be unwise if he tried to work with George Wallace to enact integration. 
 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The underlying matter is that you're distorting MLK's pragmatism to suit your own stance for orthodoxy and performative purity politics

I do think you’re presenting a false dichotomy where you either work with everyone despite a particular view of theirs(let’s say they’re a Nazi who’d heavily regulate banks) and only care for support the immediate individual cause in discussion always, or just cancel everyone.

I’m saying it’s far more nuanced. It’s a case by case basis.
 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I do think you’re presenting a false dichotomy where you either work with everyone despite a particular view of theirs(let’s say they’re a Nazi who’d heavily regulate banks) and only care for support the immediate individual cause in discussion always, or just cancel everyone.

I’m saying it’s far more nuanced. It’s a case by case basis.

I can acknowledge that you have at least a little more nuanced an outlook than simple black and white. Maybe beyond those colors there's "basically black" and "basically white." Which would lead to more pragmatism than some people, but it's still too eager to collapse and conflate levels of transgression, and all of the complexities of real world problems, into an unworkable cartoon full of straw men. Or, I concede, a mostly unworkable cartoon, with a few correct calls peppered in. 

If this is all coming from a young commenter, I don't judge at all. I was there too. Have fun!

But if not, well, what can I say but, enjoy the life that you've made for yourself. Be well. I think I've done all I can on these points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If this is all coming from a young commenter, I don't judge at all. I was there too. Have fun!

Despite your talk of good faith discussion this comment seems incredibly passive-aggressive and needlessly condescending.

If I were to go “If this is a boomer. I don’t judge at all. They only banned lead in gas in 1978.” you’d see how disrespectful that’d sound I hope.

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I can acknowledge that you have at least a little more nuanced an outlook than simple black and white.

Sure.

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe beyond those colors there's "basically black" and "basically white.

No one’s basically white but I’ll say there are people who I find ontologically evil in my eyes.

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

but it's still too eager to collapse and conflate levels of transgression, and all of the complexities of real world problems, into an unworkable cartoon full of straw men.

Your example of the left’s treatment of J.K Rowling when theoretically she could’ve been a potential ally on trans issues is terrible. You’re pointing to her not literally wanting to kill all trans people as reason there can be progress made if not an attempt at exaggerating sounds insane.

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Or, I concede, a mostly unworkable cartoon, with a few correct calls peppered in. 

 

Yeah I’m sorry I think groups trying to reform banks should expel Nazis from their ranks just because of their slight disagreements.

/s

Oh wait just thought of something, hey why didn’t say the left should have worked with Kanye on critzing Netanyahu?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No. it was the entirety of your conduct this thread with your gleeful attempt to frame people using woke derisively as just really irritated with insincere progressive advocacy.

Apologies I read some disturbing news and seeing you post it just boiled over and I let loose my honest thoughts at an inappropriate time. 

Well, I appreciate the apology. And in fairness, that’s not a terrible summation of my thoughts (other than gleeful; I can assure you there has been no glee during any my posts here) - I really do think there are a sizeable number of people for whom that is the definition. Although I’d amend it to maybe ‘not consciously insincere’. I’d just point out politely that isn’t my definition; as I started by saying, I don’t use the word because there’s such low agreement on what it means. It’s a poor means of communicating, if genuinely communicating is what one intends.

Edited by DaveSumm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Despite your talk of good faith discussion this comment seems incredibly passive-aggressive and needlessly condescending.

Well, yes, this comment was intended as snarky dismissal. Because while you haven't been completely in bad faith, I don't get the impression that you are really proceeding in good faith. Far too defensive, closed up in a protective wall of disdain and embattled righteousness. Which, fine. But as I said, I am not here to persuade the orthodox, or the mostly-orthodox. I am here to persuade the rest of the left to ignore the orthodox.

If you truly feel you aren't in the orthodox category, and truly were trying to reach out in good faith, I apologize for the snark. But I would need a lot less snark and straw men from you going forward. If you don't wanna give that, well, Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Well, I appreciate the apology.

:ack:
 

 

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

And in fairness, that’s not a terrible summation of my thoughts

I know and that’s unfortunate.

4 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

other than gleeful; I can assure you there has been no glee during any my posts here)

I’m sure it’s been a struggle. :(

:grouphug:
 

5 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I really do think there are a sizeable number of people for whom that is the definition. 

Ehhhhhhhhhggggfffhdsshg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If you're going to dismiss my ideas as "fantasy" as you've done, maybe at least be a little less lazy and yes, obtuse? I'll be generous and assume you were sleepy.

Nope, wasn't sleepy.  Your ideas are obviously unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nope, wasn't sleepy.  Your ideas are obviously unrealistic.

Didn't you say you're a teacher? Hopefully a lot more cognitive effort goes into your lessons than these comments. Otherwise I feel bad for the students!

"Teacher, why did you give me an F?"

"Because it's a failure."

"Can you please explain?"

"Nope. It's obvious."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Didn't you say you're a teacher? Hopefully a lot more cognitive effort goes into your lessons than these comments. Otherwise I feel bad for the students!

Well, why persuasion is obviously unrealistic in our polarized era is a part of my class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think your anti trans outrage comes directly out of your own mind -- because you're so smart and so concerned about the children? Guess what, even you all in England bought the Big Deliberate Manufactured Lie  By The Reich For Political Power Reasons.  You ate it all up.

How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives
Defeated on same-sex marriage, the religious right went searching for an issue that would re-energize supporters and donors. The campaign that followed has stunned political leaders across the spectrum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/us/politics/transgender-conservative-campaign.html

For starters:

Quote

 

When the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nearly eight years ago, social conservatives were set adrift.

The ruling stripped them of an issue they had used to galvanize rank-and-file supporters and big donors. And it left them searching for a cause that — like opposing gay marriage — would rally the base and raise the movement’s profile on the national stage.

“We knew we needed to find an issue that the candidates were comfortable talking about,” said Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group. “And we threw everything at the wall.”

What has stuck, somewhat unexpectedly, is the issue of transgender identity, particularly among young people. Today, the effort to restrict transgender rights has supplanted same-sex marriage as an animating issue for social conservatives at a pace that has stunned political leaders across the spectrum. It has reinvigorated a network of conservative groups, increased fund-raising and set the agenda in school boards and state legislatures. ....

 

Putting trans issues in the center of Their ant 'iwokes' campaign is working beautifully to advance Their agenda toward authoritarian everything -- see, even the smartest person in the room at all times, Rowling, fell for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

“Failure, look it up in the dictionary. Unless it says something that doesn’t support my point, in which case ignore that entry.”

Didn’t you know every word only has one correct definition? The second one on the list is just there as a joke.. don’t you even know how to read dictionaries??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may have been discussed before, but the documentary The Family is pretty eye opening to how the religious right co-opted not just American politics, but around the world to fit into their approved agenda. It really explains a lot. 

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, it does have both sides. A writer (who wrote the book and did the doc) was invited by one of his friends after the friend's parents asked buddy to check up on him worried that he was in a cult. Buddy had permission to film and take notes of what went on while he was there and to make the doc. Older members even interviewed so you get those that left and those that are still proudly there. It's where the whole "prayer breakfast" thing started that every president is, might as well say, forced to do. I was shocked, then not really surprised, then sad. It's only hit Alberta hard up here, but it is, hopefully slowly, spreading since covid turned a lot of people crazeballz (my two closest friends of over 30yrs included).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

“Failure, look it up in the dictionary. Unless it says something that doesn’t support my point, in which case ignore that entry.”

That was one of the craziest things I've ever seen on this board.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's become clear that the only way to achieve clarity about the definition of 'woke' is to have a thread that discusses what is the definition of anti-vaxxerwoke, and why one would wish to self-identify this way, while attacking those the antiwoke call woke.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Gaslighting in real time.  I've rarely seen anything like it.  

Now that's gaslighting. :laugh:

Also, this may help you out -- the back and forth you describe, poorly, is not as flabbergasting as you seem to breathlessly repeat.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-to-use-the-dictionary

Quote

Here are some points for your edification:

 

If we define a word it does not mean that we have approved or sanctioned it. The role of the dictionary is to record use of a language, not to regulate it.

If we do not offer a definition for a word, or a sense, this does not necessarily mean that the word is not real. Some words are omitted because they are too obscure or specialized, or too new (and do not yet have a solidified meaning), or simply are as yet unknown to us. Just as inclusion in a dictionary does not confer status upon a word, exclusion from this book does not remove it.

If a word has multiple senses the first one is not the most important one. It is also not the most ‘correct’ one. The senses of each word are organized in one of two possible ways: beginning with the oldest known sense or the most common one. An example of a word which begins with the oldest known sense is dishabille; the common use of this word today is “the state of being dressed in a casual or careless style,” but it is preceded in the entry by the definition “negligee,” which was the word’s original meaning. An example of a word which begins with the most common sense is the previously mentioned debacle. Although the earliest meaning of this word is “a tumultuous breakup of ice in a river,” this sense is preceded by the more common one of “a great disaster.” At one point we arranged all our entries in chronological fashion; we now are in the process of shifting from this style to arranging them beginning with the most common sense.

 

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...