"Woke" - what does it really mean?

[TrackerNeil]

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

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, to than the people you are claiming to fight against. I mean this was over a video game of all things.

Good gods, yes. I think self-righteousness is a common companion of utter certainty; after all, if I know The Truth, isn't it my right--nay, my duty!--to spread the good word? I move in some pretty leftist circles, and I cannot begin to relate all of the inanity, insufferability and outright cruelty I have seen on display over some leftist doctine or other.

Edited April 14 by TrackerNeil

[DMC]

Not to open up a whole other can of worms, but I think there's a misuse/conflation of the term "doctrine" on this thread, at least regarding the general understanding of political doctrines.  First, "woke" generally just means being aware of systemic injustices in society and the need to address them.  Recall, btw, that this is pretty much exactly how Ron DeSantis' lawyer - of all people - defined woke when he was asked to in court. 

That's...not much of a political doctrine.  For instance, the "Believe All Victims" aspect that's being discussed.  As far as I'm aware, no reasonable person is saying this should be applied as a legal doctrine - as in the accused are denied their constitutionally protected due process rights.  It's just to emphasize, as others have mentioned, that the credibility of victims is almost always immediately attacked and the media should maybe stop playing into that.

Second, ascribing to a political doctrine isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.  Hell, political doctrines are more about how to approach philosophical/theoretical questions.  In terms of how the term is understood academically, political doctrines are much less rigid than, say, ideologies - which I don't think anyone has a fundamental problem with here.  Anyway, it seems like what's being chalked up to "doctrines" is simply just describing certain people on the left being obstinate/uncompromising, which of course will always be the case.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Second, ascribing to a political doctrine isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.  Hell, political doctrines are more about how to approach philosophical/theoretical questions.  

To return to my previous metaphor, human beings need a map, sure--maps are useful! However, it's easy to insist that the map matters more than the territory, and that what gets people lost in the wilderness.

(I am really overextending this metaphor.)

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

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.

Yeah. Again, I don't know anyone who isn't like that about something... even if it's just who poisoned Joff's slice of pie.

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Good gods, yes. I think self-righteousness is a common companion of utter certainty; after all, if I know The Truth, isn't it my right--nay, my duty!--to spread the good word? I move in some pretty leftist circles, and I cannot begin to relate some of the inanity, insufferability and outright cruelty I have seen on display over some leftist doctine or other.

And again, I've never met anyone who isn't self-righteous about something. We're all human. The best we can do is try to remember to check ourselves now and then. Stay humble, and all that.

But again, if we're discussing the biggest problems with self-righteousness in the world today, those folks you've met are probably causing distress, right enough, but they're not up there with the self-righteous right-wingers picking on LGBT+ people in the name of 'protecting children', are they?

[Ran]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

, those folks you've met are probably causing distress, right enough, but they're not up there with the self-righteous right-wingers picking on LGBT+ people in the name of 'protecting children', are they?

Is this not just an example of tu quoque?

[Raja]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

 "doctrines" is simply just describing certain people on the left being obstinate/uncompromising, which of course will always be the case.

Agreed. It's a stick to beat the left with, which is totally fine if that's what one wants to do

( Of course, I don't disagree that these people don't exist but they're certainly not in these couple of threads)

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

But again, if we're discussing the biggest problems with self-righteousness in the world today, those folks you've met are probably causing distress, right enough, but they're not up there with the self-righteous right-wingers picking on LGBT+ people in the name of 'protecting children', are they?

I take a different view. I expect right-wingers to engage in destructive behavior--I grew up gay in the 80s and I saw it all the time--but when that shit is perpetuated by people on my side? That call's coming from inside the house, and in my view it is way more dangerous.

In any case, those who claim the moral high ground should act like they deserve it. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

To return to my previous metaphor, human beings need a map, sure--maps are useful! However, it's easy to insist that the map matters more than the territory, and that what gets people lost in the wilderness.

I mean, sure.  It just seems to be you are asserting "wokeism" is being applied as some uber-rigid religious doctrine which really isn't the case for most people and certainly wasn't the intent of those that originated the term.  Alternatively, if you take Ron DeSantis' lawyer's definition of the term - which is how I understand "woke" to mean - do you really disagree with that?  Does much of anybody here?  

Again, of course there are some on the left that are rigid, uncompromising, and even absurd about it, but it is demonstrably a misconception to assert this is widespread and worse - and why people are taking issue with this - mimics the weaponization of the term to cast all of the right's political enemies as crazies.  We've already been through this in this country with "liberal" and "socialism" (and, of course "communism").  Really don't see why any "free thinker" would wanna play into such horseshit.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, sure.  It just seems to be you are asserting "wokeism" is being applied as some uber-rigid religious doctrine which really isn't the case for most people and certainly wasn't the intent of those that originated the term. 

I actually do think these folks are somewhat religious in their mindset. Their viewpoint--whatever name you want to apply to it--has a well-defined set of doctrines, a specialized language for discussing those doctrines, a method of punishing the wayward faithful, and zero sense of humor about any of it. Sounds pretty religious to me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I actually do think these folks are somewhat religious in their mindset. Their viewpoint--whatever name you want to apply to it--has a well-defined set of doctrines, a specialized language for discussing those doctrines, a method of punishing the wayward faithful, and zero sense of humor about any of it. Sounds pretty religious to me.

The Priest’s I have interacted with and who I respect the most tend to have pretty good senses of humor about our religious dogma…

[Raja]

To call it a bigger problem than people on the right that are actively engaged in banning books, making access to abortion services harder, or any number of terrible policy decisions is an absurd take, really.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Raja said:

To call it a bigger problem than people on the right that are actively engaged in banning books, making access to abortion services harder, or any number of terrible policy decisions is an absurd take, really.

I don’t think Tracker is saying it is “more dangerous than actual right wing efforts to ban and censor”.  I think he is suggesting that too much dogma within any political point of view is dangerous because it rejects and punishes good faith questioning.  

I absolutely acknowledge that the shit in Florida and Tennessee is a larger threat.  But in fighting that threat we need to take care that we do not become a dark mirror of that which we attempt to oppose.  

It is hard because in a fight you want people on your side who are certian of the justice and rightness of their cause.  But… that isn’t the way to govern when the fight has passed. 

But that is my perspective…

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I actually do think these folks are somewhat religious in their mindset. Their viewpoint--whatever name you want to apply to it--has a well-defined set of doctrines, a specialized language for discussing those doctrines, a method of punishing the wayward faithful, and zero sense of humor about any of it. Sounds pretty religious to me.

I dunno, just me, but when the comms director of the self-proclaimed leader of the "anti-woke" movement describes woke in this way - Taryn Fenske, the communications director for DeSantis, described "woke" as a "slang term for activism…progressive activism," reports Florida Politics - that's far more concerning (not to mention revealing) to me.  And moreover emphasizes why I would never want to play into their efforts to combat any and all progressive activism by weaponizing and bastardizing the term.

[Raja]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

too much dogma within any political point of view is dangerous because it rejects and punishes good faith questioning. 

Like I said previously - pretending people on the left are going about their day completely bought into dogma and only dealing with absolutes without a brain is false, and is creating a caricature of these people -  it isn't the case in these threads amongst those of us disagreeing.

[TrackerNeil]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t think Tracker is saying it is “more dangerous than actual right wing efforts to ban and censor”.  I think he is suggesting that too much dogma within any political point of view is dangerous because it rejects and punishes good faith questioning.  

I absolutely acknowledge that the shit in Florida and Tennessee is a larger threat.  But in fighting that threat we need to take care that we do not become a dark mirror of that which we attempt to oppose.  

It is hard because in a fight you want people on your side who are certian of the justice and rightness of their cause.  But… that isn’t the way to govern when the fight has passed. 

But that is my perspective…

I agree with this, and will add one more thing. You fight more effectively when you can consolidate your allies into a cohesive , unified force. The problem with these [fill in whatever term least bothers you] types is that they will absolutely destroy the entire movement based on their dedication to their ideals. So instead of fighting just the right, you're also fighting the left, and since the left is part of your very movement, they can cripple you in away that the DeSantis's of the world never could. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Raja said:

Like I said previously - pretending people on the left are going about their day completely bought into dogma and only dealing with absolutes without a brain is false, and is creating a caricature of these people -  it isn't the case in these threads amongst those of us disagreeing.

I’m not “pretending” that is taking place.  I’m saying that being wary of it starting and being on guard to it is not a bad thing.  With the absolute recognition that what is going on in Florida, Tennessee, and other places is much worse.  

We can fight against the right and be wary of over-dogmatic belief from those with whom we are allied, at the same time.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So instead of fighting just the right, you're also fighting the left, and since the left is part of your very movement

I mean, this seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You're the one fighting the left and employing DeSantis' tack of inaccurate over-generalization to do so.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Explain what it is, or don't.

Yeah this shouldn’t be a big ask.  if the person using it actually has a cogent definition in their head they should be able to explain what they mean instead of assuming that/acting like everyone intuitively knows exactly what they mean and becoming offended.

If someone says x political movement is evil it’s not unfair to ask what parameters they use to call something evil. That may seem intuitively obvious but people can mean “x is objectively evil because it causes materialistic harm” to others” or “x is evil because my interpretation of a god says so.”

Though by explaining woke in specifics it loses the broad based popular appeal and can make its invocation or lack of invocation during a specific time seem deranged, or at least inconsistent.

 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

which is why it's so absurdly idiotic to get outraged over it.

But trans woman bad/s

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

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

Unfortunately not really though. We’re in midst of another one.

Shame because it makes it a lot harder to actually tackle CSA abuse when the organizations who deal with it have to spend precious time investigating every far right conspiracy claim that comes their way.

 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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? 

 

Without a simple turn over arching word like woke” or “SJW” one might actually have to explain why a certain thing they dislike is bad instead insinuating it is by lumping all things they hate under an umbrella term.

Edited April 14 by Varysblackfyre321

[Conflicting Thought]

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I agree with this, and will add one more thing. You fight more effectively when you can consolidate your allies into a cohesive , unified force. The problem with these [fill in whatever term least bothers you] types is that they will absolutely destroy the entire movement based on their dedication to their ideals. So instead of fighting just the right, you're also fighting the left, and since the left is part of your very movement, they can cripple you in away that the DeSantis's of the world never could. 

it seems to me that you are playin right into what the right wing whants, to scare you into thinking that the woke mob is out to get you, that they are religious fanatics, and as raja and others have said that doesnt seem to be true. sure on twiter and some online spaces there are some people like that but dont you think that focusing so much on them is doing exactly what right wingers want?

is so crazy to me, if woke means to be awake of the inherent injustices that many people are subjected to in our society, are you against that? being that you are a part of the left, you would be and should be, woke.

[Raja]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not “pretending” that is taking place.  I’m saying that being wary of it starting and being on guard to it is not a bad thing.

I don't disagree with your post but I think it's important to realize we're talking about a hypothetical here whilst laws and policies are being passed both in the US & UK right now about the issues I mentioned previously.

Within that context, stating that what's more dangerous is us on the left and our perceived 'dogma' - not you, but the crux of the posts here, and we haven't even been given any evidence of what effect, if any, that's had on laws and policies - is to me an absurd take.