"Woke" - what does it really mean?

[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?

Edited April 14 by Larry of the Lake

[Tywin 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.  

Edited April 14 by Larry of the Lake

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is it a sincere effort to claim you can make 2+2=5

Offended you think so 

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

or is it a poor attempt at mockery?

Neither

Too petty and minor yet convoluted to explain, let's say the misunderstanding was on my part

[Tywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

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.  

You answered your own questions in the first sentence. The entire point is to confuse people. Destabilize them. Make them ask themselves if truth is truth. By then you've already broken them enough to slide in with something more insidious. And then flood the zone to keep it all working in your favor.

This playbook isn't new or complicated, but it keeps working. So idk, maybe let's stop doing this? 

 

[TrackerNeil]

51 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

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?

I'd advise staying away from names, then, and focusing on what you are being expected to do. If I am told to accept a claim solely because I must Believe Victims, I'm going to refuse. If I am told that I should shout down a public speaker because Words Are Violence, I'm not going to cooperate. Whether that's wokeness or social justice politics, I don't really care. By whatever name, it's illiberal and I'm not going along with it.

Edited April 14 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

The ironic thing here is the entire reason Bud Light is reaching out to other demos in the first place is because they're losing their classic frat boy consumer base of young white males.  It's also quite clear they've encouraged plenty of influencers across the political spectrum to promote their product.  Why wouldn't they?  Why wouldn't any business?  Is it purely capitalistic and not ideological in the least -- of course! -- which is why it's so absurdly idiotic to get outraged over it.

[mormont]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

That's an interesting piece, and I think he's right that everyone knows there are some common ideological and theoretical connecting threads that are simply being refused to be given a name.  

Personally, in general I'm strongly allergic to dogmatism, fundamentalism, and authoritarianism from anyone, right, left, or center.  Illiberalism is not for me, politically speaking.

I mean, most people are opposed to dogmatism or at least would like to think they are, but at the same time I don't know anyone who isn't dogmatic about something. It's a bit like being opposed to apathy in that respect.

As for fundamentalism and authoritarianism, I'm very opposed to those, and in fact being 'woke' is very much about being opposed to those things - or more strictly, being aware of them. Because while there are of course people on the left who are unreasonable and silly about these things, the real threat of authoritarianism and fundamentalism in the Western world at the moment comes from those whose animus against what they call 'woke' is used a rallying cry to ban books, close libraries, restrict healthcare, silence teachers, suppress protests, and more.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'd advise staying away from names, then, and focusing on what you are being expected to do. If I am told to accept a claim solely because I must Believe Victims, I'm going to refuse. If I am told that I should shout down a public speaker because Words Are Violence, I'm not going to cooperate. Whether that's wokeness or social justice politics, I don't really care. By whatever name, it's illiberal and I'm not going along with it.

I do heartily agree that "Words Are Violence" is a way overblown statement. I also think there are some concepts about oppression -- especially some of the complaints about "cultural appropriation" -- that are "virtue signaling" about things that really should not be considered important issues or even issues at all. 

I wonder if "Believe Victims" doesn't have very different associations for people who didn't live through the Satanic Abuse Panic of the 1980s and 1990s.  I remember in the late 1970s when I was a graduate student in psychology at the University of Michigan that "Believe Victims" led to statements like "Children Never Lie about Sexual Abuse", which itself got interpreted as they are also never mistaken about anything they say about sexual abuse.  To my chagrin I remember saying "Children Never Lie about abuse" to an introductory psychology class I was teaching in the late 1970s.

Well, that unfortunately helped lead to the Satanic Abuse Panic, where you had scores of cases across the USA of people being accused of ritual Satanic abuse of children, either on the basis of the "memories" of small children themselves who had been improperly interviewed and fed leading questions, or on so-called "recovered memories" under hypnosis during therapy. It turns out to be way easier to alter memories through leading questions than many people believed, and that hypnosis or similar techniques are extremely unreliable in recovering true memories of the past.  But we had to live through about 20 years of infamous cases like the McMartin Preschool where people who were almost surely innocent were tried (and sometimes convicted) of horrible things that almost surely never really happened.

It seems the culture as a whole learned its lesson about that.  The legal and psychotherapy systems now know they have to have more evidence than just the statements of small children interviewed by poorly trained "therapists", or memories recovered only after hypnosis or other psychotherapeutic techniques, before one can convict someone of sexual abuse.  I think for a lot of younger people who didn't live through that period that "Believe Victims" has gone back to the very valid point that adult women who accuse men of rape or other sexual abuse are very rarely lying or mistaken, at least in the huge majority of cases where "recovered memory" is not an issue. The Satanic Panic of the 1980s should not be used as an excuse to seriously question the accusers of people like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, or Donald Trump. 

 

Edited April 14 by Ormond

[Raja]

I'm glad we have this thread - I can finally reveal what a big fan of both fundamentalism and authoritarianism I am. I thought I'd have to live my life on this board with this being a secret.

I can finally flex those authororitarian muscles

[TrackerNeil]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It seems the culture as a whole learned its lesson about that.  The legal and psychotherapy systems now know they have to have more evidence than just the statements of small children interviewed by poorly trained "therapists", or memories recovered only after hypnosis or other psychotherapeutic techniques, before one can convict someone of sexual abuse.  I think for a lot of younger people who didn't live through that period that "Believe Victims" has gone back to the very valid point that adult women who accuse men of rape or other sexual abuse are very rarely lying or mistaken, at least in the huge majority of cases where "recovered memory" is not an issue. The Satanic Panic of the 1980s should not be used as an excuse to seriously question the accusers of people like BIll Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, or Donald Trump.

Haha...I love Satanic panic, which is a great way to remind people that you can't take everyone's word for any old claim. I remember distinctly reading that one "victim" of the McMartins identified Chuck Norris as an assailant.

Has the culture learned its lesson? I'm not so sure. Tik Tok is full of people ready to showcase their multiple personalities for all the world to see--just how these personalities are summoned on cue is not explained. Americans are deathly afraid of children dying from being left in hot cars, even though way, WAY more kids die in cars that are being driven. Maybe we're wiser when it comes to "recovered memories", but I think Americans remain far too vulnerable to pop-psychology and trumped-up fears.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Haha...I love Satanic panic, which is a great way to remind people that you can't take everyone's word for any old claim. I remember distinctly reading that one "victim" of the McMartins identified Chuck Norris as an assailant.

My Mother’s youngest sister absolutely hyperventilated when she learned I played “Dungeons and Dragons” as a child.  I wasn’t prone to “back talk” against adults when I was a kid but I completely shut her down and got my grandparents to back me when I asked how D&D was different from acting?  

She dropped the topic with me from that point forward… but… she is today a big fan of the twice impeached, indicted, one term, losing former President who lives in Florida and loves the Russian dictator…

(You can’t pick your family…)

Edited April 14 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Zorral]

19 minutes ago, Ormond said:

t seems the culture as a whole learned its lesson about that.

Actually, the reich -- just moved to bigger! better! conspiracy jerkwaddie conspiracy think to push on Their minions-- such as satanic lesbian Hillary drinks the blood of the children kidnapped by satanic pedophiles in the basement of Florida pizza joint while They All sexually abuse the kids.

Therefore we must allow our children to be killed with the surfeit of guns in the population in order to save our children from Hillary Clinton.  While they themselves groom and abuse the children.  How many politicos have been revealed just this far in this year alone to have kiddie porn on their devices, have and are abusing women sexually, etc. etc. etc.

That is how incredibly stupid those run by the reich are.

Edited April 14 by Zorral

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My Mother’s youngest sister absolutely hyperventilated when she learned I played “Dungeons and Dragons” as a child.  I wasn’t prone to “back talk” against adults when I was a kid but I completely shut her down and got my grandparents to back me when I asked how D&D was different from acting?  

I LOVE D&D panic. Remember the college kid who supposedly got lost in some tunnels because he was obsessed with the game? Then it turned out he had really just fucked off to Florida and had never been in danger?

People develop these certainties about the world that they are unwilling to question, which is OK until they start causing trouble for others based on those certainties. For myself, I've seen more harm done by those who were sure they were right, than by those who thought they might be wrong.

[Zorral]

How much are you willing to bet that this guy doesn't throw around sneers about ' the woke' all the time -- meaning of course expressions of common ideas that all varieties of people are entitled to be treated with respect, humanity, fairness and justice?

Quote

... Other members of Teixeira’s server have showed The Post video of Teixeira shouting racist and antisemitic slurs before firing a rifle and said he referenced government raids at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and in Waco, Tex. — events with deep resonance among right-wing, anti-government extremists. The name of the Discord server itself derives from a meme taken from a gay porn video often used for its shock value and laughs, the members said. ....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/13/jack-teixeira-discord-document-leak/

In my long experience those who relentlessly express their hatred of anything that they can come up that speaks to all varieties of people are entitled to be treated with respect, humanity, fairness and justice are those with oceanic resentment and fury that it means there are no groups upon which They can exercise nastynesses, cruelties, dehumanization, name-calling, even killing, just for fun.  That is who constantly howl about tyranny of 'woke' and CRT, etc. That is what They mean when They say, They fear the direction of the country's trajectory -- nobody on whom They can beat, rape, and kill with impunity.l

Edited April 14 by Zorral

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I LOVE D&D panic. Remember the college kid who supposedly got lost in some tunnels because he was obsessed with the game? Then it turned out he had really just fucked off to Florida and had never been in danger?

Yeah, the novel and film "Mazes and Monsters" was based on this. How playing D&D could drive you insane. Not much different than Reefer Madness. 

I think some conservative Christians hate D&D so much because of some of the occult content. It's no different than some of these churches that ban celebration of Halloween. There's some overlap in the content.

I have played D&D 32 years now and I can confirm I have had no urge to join any cults.

Edited April 14 by Martell Spy

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

I have played D&D 32 years now and I can confirm I have had no urge to join any cults.

You say that, but you're a member of this board.

[sifth]

I think part of it has to do with being overly self righteous, sometimes to the point of near insanity. The recent Harry Potter Legacy boycott was an example of this, where you had people bullying and harassing others on twitch to the point of basically becoming just as bad, if not worse, than the people they were claiming to fight against. I mean this was over a video game of all things.

Edited April 14 by sifth

[Ran]

43 minutes ago, mormont said:

but at the same time I don't know anyone who isn't dogmatic about something.

I imagine most people are dogmatic about the color of the sky and where the sun rises and sets. I'm talking about dogmatism regarding things that are more subjective, but treating them as obvious, unimpeachable, and undeniable truths, to the point where there is no room for questioning, and indeed questioning is itself anathema.

In any case, that's what I mean when I say dogmatism in the same breath as fundamentalism and authoritarianism.

And yes, silencing teachers, banning books, etc., all bad!

 

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

nobody on whom They can beat, rape, and kill with impunity.

A pretty decent example of the sort of levels of exaggeration, catastrophic thinking, demonisation and maximalism that I was talking about earlier when defining wokism. 
 

Yes yes yes, those things happen on the right too, it’s all part of human nature, but when critiquing ‘woke’ it’s stuff like this that comes to mind.