“Woke”

[RecoveringYuppy]

Checkmite never said "all".

He said it stopped being one thing and is now another thing. That is a variation of "all".

Pretty soon liberals won't be able to talk. Any time the right starts using a word offensively too many people declare the word immediately lost.

 

[theprestige]

He said it stopped being one thing and is now another thing. That is a variation of "all".

Pretty soon liberals won't be able to talk. Any time the right starts using a word offensively too many people declare the word immediately lost.

A lot of liberals have already woken up - so to speak - to the idea that "Democrat" is now a dirty word.

 

[wareyin]

He said it stopped being one thing and is now another thing. That is a variation of "all".

Pretty soon liberals won't be able to talk. Any time the right starts using a word offensively too many people declare the word immediately lost.

Checkmite described what the word means when conservatives use it. Not when "all" people use it or "all" the times it is used.

 

[d4m10n]

Checkmite described what the word means when conservatives use it.

Why should we defer to their usage?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Checkmite described what the word means when conservatives use it. Not when "all" people use it or "all" the times it is used.

No. His post does not say that. His post says it stopped being one thing and is now another. That new thing that it has become is that the conservative definition but he does not say "only when conservatives use it".

As I have pointed out several times in this thread already, the word "woke" stopped applying to any specific ideology long ago; it is now used instead as an indiscriminate shorthand for various unrelated things conservatives don't like.

This isn't an interesting level of discourse. I'll just conclude by repeating that we shouldn't be encouraging simply rolling over when conservatives define something.

 

[wareyin]

Why should we defer to their usage?

Because we aren't idiots, and refusing to understand what they mean when they say it would make us look like idiots?

 

[wareyin]

No. His post does not say that. His post says it stopped being one thing and is now another. That new thing that is has become is the the conservative definition but he does not say "only when conservatives use it".



This isn't an interesting level of discourse. I'll just conclude by repeating that we shouldn't be encouraging simply rolling over when conservatives define something.

Wait, "the conservative definition" doesn't mean "when conservatives use it" to you?

And I'll repeat what I said to d4m10n: refusing to understand what someone means when they use a word is a pretty stupid way to communicate.

 

[tyr_13]

A lot of liberals have already woken up - so to speak - to the idea that "Democrat" is now a dirty word.

It can be depending on the usage.

'He's a Democrat.' - Probably a description without other context making it an insult.

'The Democrat Party' - Misstating a party's name, doing which intentionally is a childish tactic that has become popular with the intellectually bankrupt hoping to make complaints about it look childish.

But you know this.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wait, "the conservative definition" doesn't mean "when conservatives use it" to you?

No. If you mean to say that you would have to add wording that implies there is some other definition. Checkmite did the opposite using wording that said that other usages had stopped. And note Checkmite did not use the phrase "the conservative definition", I did.

And I'll repeat what I said to d4m10n: refusing to understand what someone means when they use a word is a pretty stupid way to communicate.

Are you repeating that for me? Not sure why you think I'm refusing to understand. For the word "woke" I would think it's easy to take from context and tone which meaning a person intends.

 

[d4m10n]

Because we aren't idiots, and refusing to understand what they mean when they say it would make us look like idiots?

You misunderstand my question. We know that "woke" can be used in the original sense (i.e. aware of various forms of systemic oppression) or in the revised conservative sense. Why should we defer to the new usage when we are using the term or even just discussing it? It seems much vaguer and less useful to me.

I'll just conclude by repeating that we shouldn't be encouraging simply rolling over when conservatives define something.

Precisely this. I have a hypothesis as to why progressives like to give up on their own words so quickly, but I've no idea how to test it.

 

[wareyin]

No. If you mean to say that you would have to add wording that implies there is some other definition. Checkmite did the opposite using wording that said that other usages had stopped. And note Checkmite did not use the phrase "the conservative definition", I did.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Your introduction of "the conservative definition" demonstrates that you did understand that Checkmite was referring to how conservatives use the word.

Are you repeating that for me? Not sure why you think I'm refusing to understand. For the word "woke" I would think it's easy to take from context and tone which meaning a person intends.

And yet you and d4m10n are both trying to Humpty-Dumpty (When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less) away the fact that conservatives using the word have a different definition for it.

 

[wareyin]

You misunderstand my question. We know that "woke" can be used in the original sense (i.e. aware of various forms of systemic oppression) or in the revised conservative sense. Why should we defer to the new usage when we are using the term or even just discussing it? It seems much vaguer and less useful to me.

When the majority of uses of a word are the "new usage", it's still pretty stupid to insist you can redefine it back to your, and only your, preferred usage.

 

[shuttlt]

As I have pointed out several times in this thread already, the word "woke" stopped applying to any specific ideology long ago; it is now used instead as an indiscriminate shorthand for various unrelated things conservatives don't like.

Are you meaning something very specific and narrow by "ideology" here? If one were going to give some kind of definition, surely it would be something like "somebody is woke if they have metaphorically woken up to the systems of oppression and privilege articulated by the intersectional Left and see them as a dominating force behind normal human interactions and history".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Your introduction of "the conservative definition" demonstrates that you did understand that Checkmite was referring to how conservatives use the word.

Right. But the rest of his words (the part with the word "stopped") imply that the conservative definition is the only one remaining.

Not going down this rabbit hole.

 

[theprestige]

It can be depending on the usage.

'He's a Democrat.' - Probably a description without other context making it an insult.

'The Democrat Party' - Misstating a party's name, doing which intentionally is a childish tactic that has become popular with the intellectually bankrupt hoping to make complaints about it look childish.

But you know this.

"You can't use 'Democrat' neutrally because that guy over there is using it to be mean."

"I had no idea. I'm just using it neutrally."

"Nope. Now that you know he's using it to be mean, you can't use it at all."

"Why not? You know I'm not using it to be mean. Why are you bringing his meanness into our conversation?"

"Look, you just can't, alright?"

"Why don't you tell him that I'm using it neutrally, so now he can't use it at all?"

"That's not how any of this works."

 

[Stout]

I doubt it. More likely random Google result when trying to find something to support his argument.

See, this is what happens when nobody actually reads the article and simply has a melt down over the source. "Woke is now a dog whistle for Black" is literally the title of the article.

 

[wareyin]

See, this is what happens when nobody actually reads the article and simply has a melt down over the source. "Woke is now a dog whistle for Black" is literally the title of the article.

Have you ever heard the phrase "you can't judge a book by it's cover"?

 

[Darat]

Are you meaning something very specific and narrow by "ideology" here? If one were going to give some kind of definition, surely it would be something like "somebody is woke if they have metaphorically woken up to the systems of oppression and privilege articulated by the intersectional Left and see them as a dominating force behind normal human interactions and history".

If you want to go back to its apparent original use it would be "always be aware of systemic and institutional racism of black people by white people", it had nothing to do with any political left-right axis.

 

[wareyin]

"You can't use 'Democrat' neutrally because that guy over there is using it to be mean."

"I had no idea. I'm just using it neutrally."

"Nope. Now that you know he's using it to be mean, you can't use it at all."

"Why not? You know I'm not using it to be mean. Why are you bringing his meanness into our conversation?"

"Look, you just can't, alright?"

"Why don't you tell him that I'm using it neutrally, so now he can't use it at all?"

"That's not how any of this works."

Your fiction is most definitely not how any of this works. The whole pretense or presumption that it's just one guy 'over there' using a word as a slur, for instance. Or the whole sanctimonious 'I don't care that it's a slur, I'm using it "neutrally" so you can't get upset', as though that's a convincing argument.

 

[shuttlt]

If you want to go back to its apparent original use it would be "always be aware of systemic and institutional racism of black people by white people", it had nothing to do with any political left-right axis.

I'm not going back to original definitions. I'm going with the way I see it used ubiquitously on the Right now. If you want to claim that the notion of institutional racism and the rest of it that came out of the Academy isn't Left wing, then, well I don't know if you are splitting hairs, or what. I suppose one could abstract Marx's analysis of society from the Left as well.