"Woke" - what does it really mean?

[Zorral]

14 minutes ago, sifth said:

rue enough, but I can't be certain.

So, "I'll just post shyte that is entirely unproven anyway because ... ?"

[DaveSumm]

When was the last time anyone heard ‘woke’ being used non-ironically by someone on the left? Like “I figured I’d donate to this charity, it seemed like the woke thing to do”? We can lament the changing definition all we want, but in my circles at least, I only see it used negatively now. 

[Week]

16 minutes ago, sifth said:

Apparently two wrongs make a right, in your mind set. Given how I'm so wrong about everything and all.

No, I'm not sure how you ascribe any beliefs around pointing out that you are defining and using terms incorrectly. A straw man argument has a specific definition. The "definition of insanity" typically refers to doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I'm pointing that out.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That is your response to this:

I can see that Sifth is being broad in Sifth’s comment… but aren’t you too?  Is it possible for everyone who disagrees with you to be “evil”… I just have to doubt that… there are far too many gray areas for me to believe everyone who disagrees with me on an issue is “evil”.

How am I being too broad? I'm very specifically stating that a definition is simply incorrect. No judgment on whether "everyone who disagrees with me is evil". I don't know where that's coming from - I don't believe that nor do I think it makes sense for anyone to as a blanket statement.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

 in my circles at least, I only see it used negatively now. 

*Coughs politely* -- ahem. That's not a surprise.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Week said:

How am I being too broad? I'm very specifically stating that a definition is simply incorrect. No judgment on whether "everyone who disagrees with me is evil". I don't know where that's coming from - I don't believe that nor do I think it makes sense for anyone to as a blanket statement.

That’s why I made a point to quote both statements.  If Sifth is saying not everyone is evil… doesn’t your disagreement necessarily imply that you believe it is possible for everyone in the other side to be “evil”?  Not trying leading questions… I’m really trying to understand your point.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s why I made a point to quote both statements.  If Sifth is saying not everyone is evil… doesn’t your disagreement necessarily imply that you believe it is possible for everyone in the other side to be “evil”?  Not trying leading questions… I’m really trying to understand your point.

He said:

Quote

Anyone who believes all people on the other side of the political isle are evil, is what I'd consider "woke"

This is as logical as calling Joe Biden a communist. It's demonstrably incorrect.

[Varysblackfyre321]

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In Philadelphia, Pride used to be administrated by a group known as Philly Pride Presents. Led by Frannie Price, PPP made sure Pride happened, year after year, for decades. Then, in June 2021, the group disbanded over a few Facebook posts that some saw as insensitive

You’re talking about this right

Quote

During Memorial Day weekend, community members were outraged when Philly Pride Presents posted a “Thin Blue Line“-style American flag with a rainbow replacing the signature blue stripe. The “Thin Blue Line” flag is often associated with “Blue Lives Matter” and has become a symbol of police solidarity and white supremacy. The post received lots of criticism on the group’s Facebook page and was eventually removed.

They’re summarization of stonewall was similarly atrocious painting the cops as victims of an unruly, unreasonable mob criminal mob 

They even went out of their way to mention two of the officers were women playing into the fears of the sexual ‘degenerates’ being a threat to women.

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think there was some justification for this viewpoint, but I'm far from certain we needed to lose PPP over it.

Eh with the current leadership it can be  prudent to scrap it rather than have it led by more reactionary actors.

Though to be clear there was no law pushed to 

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In any case, PPP sank, and there was no Pride that year.

This seems like something that could have been reacted to with members of leadership promising to step aside or stepping aside after pride

 

To be clear there are individual horror stories that happen that perfectly encapsulates the worst fears of anyone.

There have been satanists who’ve killed children.
That’s not a common thing. You gotta put things with proportion dude.

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

There was, yes,

Wait a minute there was a pride?

So the harm of “the woke” here is that a pride event was smaller than it typically?

7 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

They refused any corporate sponsorship, which sounds nice until you have to, you know, try to pay for the myriad services required.

Oh so “woke capitalism” that thing people often complain about corporations engaging in—the left because capitalism, the right because “woke”

 

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In addition, PHL demanded that the event be focused on a very specific vision of social justice: anti-capitalism, anti-police, centered on POCs, etc. I am sure many agreed with that vision, but it's not exactly wide-open inclusive.

I’m getting flashbacks to complaints about the women’s march not letting anti-choice activists even though they were women.

24 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

But there is no way that any right-winger could have done the damage to Pride that the left inflicted.

Which was it was smaller for a year,

[DaveSumm]

11 minutes ago, Week said:

*Coughs politely* -- ahem. That's not a surprise.

Yes I’m sure you know all about my browsing habits. I’m sure you’re compiling a list as we speak of examples of people using ‘woke’ non ironically to prove me wrong.

[sifth]

18 minutes ago, Week said:

No, I'm not sure how you ascribe any beliefs around pointing out that you are defining and using terms incorrectly. A straw man argument has a specific definition. The "definition of insanity" typically refers to doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I'm pointing that out.

How am I being too broad? I'm very specifically stating that a definition is simply incorrect. No judgment on whether "everyone who disagrees with me is evil". I don't know where that's coming from - I don't believe that nor do I think it makes sense for anyone to as a blanket statement.

I mean you are, but I’m use to it around these parts, so it doesn’t bother me much. 

Edited April 14 by sifth

[TrackerNeil]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You’re talking about this right

I'm just going to say that Ernest Owens is not the source I'd turn to for any impartial view of the situation. But, as you like.

Edited April 14 by TrackerNeil

[Week]

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

 

:facepalm:

[Zorral]

As far as I can tell the only group(s) that Their kind call 'woke' against whom any case might possibly made wrt to 'fanaticism' and propensity toward violence are some -- not all at all! -- environmental activists.  And even then the violence is directed against material that promotes the ruination of the environment, not against people, in the way Proud Boys etc. have done and do -- as forced labor sorts have done and do.

How can anyone ignore that these violences, and deaths too, along with every cruel and degrading action They can dream up, are almost entirely directed toward those These ilks call woke and crt and threats, etc., such as women, LGBTQ, Black or Indigenous Or Asian Or Muslim Or Jews Or poor and powerless, and it is committed over and over and over right here in USA Yay!.  This is why I cannot accept good faith declarations from anyone who acts as if possible or potential things that have not happened, is what I am supposed to concern my pretty little head with.  I don't and I won't because I face every single day multiples of actual real threat to me and mine from Their ilks.

[Heartofice]

I’d say anyone who regularly lists every type of minority in a sentence, especially with all the various extensive  acronyms is probably woke. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Week said:

 

Oh is this the cancel culture?

The quality of the service or product isn’t important but the political machinations of the people who’d produce it is.
I can probably piss in a bottle and sell it for a hundred bucks if I say “the WOKIsts don’t want you drinking this proud American drink” 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

In addition, PHL demanded that the event be focused on a very specific vision of social justice: anti-capitalism, anti-police, centered on POCs, etc. I am sure many agreed with that vision, but it's not exactly wide-open inclusive.

 

Yeah after reading that NPR article in full, can't say I understand how this is an example of undue "harm" to much of anybody other than the organizers that apparently made offensive posts.

To clarify, by "anti-capitalism" and "anti-police," you mean refusing corporate sponsorship (and also, btw, not charging people to participate), as well as refusing to honor police and/or allowing them to march in uniform?  Because, regarding the former, yeah, really hard to see a problem with that from a political point of view (albeit, as you mentioned, perhaps a logistical one).  If refusing corporate sponsorship is "anti-capitalism," then, uh, good.

As for the police thing, seems eminently understandable why many would have a problem with this during an event that began by commemorating the Stonewall Uprising.  I suppose this is "anti-inclusive" in a way, sure, but it's not like there's not obvious reasons for it.  Anyway, if the changing of leadership/organizers in these events is your example of "illiberal" or "doctrinaire" politics...well, let's just say we have a fundamental difference in understanding of what illiberal means. 

Further, if using these events to encourage the involvement of POC and/or trans people - particularly considering the current political climate - is your example of being "anti-inclusive," then we really have polarized understandings.  Sounds a lot more like you just disagree politically with the new organizers rather than anything remotely "illiberal" going on.

Edited April 14 by DMC

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

Anyone who believes all people on the other side of the political isle are evil, is what I'd consider "woke"

Wait, so the hardcore MAGA/Q-Anon/etc. types are woke? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

Antifa is just as bad as the Proud Boys in my mind and always has been, because all forms of extremism are wrong.

Yeah this sentiment sounds good but it gives a false idea that anything deviant from the status quo must be looked at as equally bad.

Abolitionists were extreme. The moderate position post-civil war would have been to keep a formal racial caste system or just try to ship black people out of America. 

12 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Wait, so the hardcore MAGA/Q-Anon/etc. types are woke? 

Sometimes people do give a definition of woke that would apply to advent culture warriors on the right.

Like if you believe abortion is a systematic injustice especially if you think/say it’s racist, then Desantis by definition was “woke” by his curtailing it.

Edited April 14 by Varysblackfyre321

[sifth]

16 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Wait, so the hardcore MAGA/Q-Anon/etc. types are woke? 

Yes, people like that are scum, some of the worst of the worst.

Edited April 14 by sifth

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Wait, so the hardcore MAGA/Q-Anon/etc. types are woke? 

In their perspective and taking “woke” to mean “awaked to reality” I’d be surprised if they don’t think they are “woke”.  In that sense I’m confident the “QNuts” see themselves as “woke”.

 

 

Edited April 14 by Ser Scot A Ellison