“Woke”

[tyr_13]

You'll have to elaborate on that, I think. Are you saying that it's those who wrote that maths is racist and toxic because it teaches people that there's only one answer, that are wrong and saying mean things? Or that they actually describe an injustice? It's a bit hard to be 100% sure of how to parse that.

That the injustice, the 'hazard', of calling math racist (which gained little to no traction anywhere) is the person calling it racist being wrong. I'll note that the handwave dismissal of calling it 'woke' for seeming wrong on the face of it would lead to dismissing things like the highway system being racist...even though there is a TON of merit to that argument.

Well, the problem there is that you seem to assume that when two people talk about oppression, they both have the same idea, and both know that person X is right and person Y is in the wrong. That's not the case even when Y is actually being a racist or sexist. And even less so when X could be seeing it as misogyny to hold girls to the same standards as the boys in maths (I just gave you a link as an example), while Y could be thinking that X is actually the one showing his own mysogyny. You know, because X is the one making the underlying assumption that girls are inherently less capable in maths. And incidentally there Y would be the one in the right, and having the studies to prove it on his side.

Anyway, of course Y will think X is wrong, either way. Thinking that Y actually thinks of X as "being aware of various forms of oppression" when calling X "woke" is bizarre and bordering on delusional.

The power to have them consider that what they're doing might be 'wrong'. The accusation is to avoid the fear, the feeling of insecurity, and not need to even consider if they have a logically sound case or not. ...
...Otherwise the merits or lack thereof for a specific accusation is all that would be needed.

They can't be honestly wrong (or right)? ...
...That doesn't need reestablished every time racism is accused and the conversation can move on to if or how something is related or caused by racism.

At no point did I say that accusations of racism and sexism and the like don't need to have good evidence and reason, and specifically said the utility of not relitigating if the base concept is wrong or not can allow for the conversation to move on to if it applies or not.

Does it seem that way?

No, let me reassure you that whenever "woke" is being thrown around, regardless of whether it's for good or bad reason, what is actually meant is an ass-clown who's just looking hard for a reason to get offended. Which may be correct or not, but it's kinda the opposite of thinking of you as "aware of oppression"

And that's pretty much a dead end for all those fantasies that start from that premise.

You sound pretty woke about woke then.

And that's not the common usage, and it's not even reasonably arguable that it is. The people looking to, and succeeding in, banning books around the US right now are not accurately described as 'woke' are they? (You're going to pretend the major movement doing so are the perennial misguided people looking to ban Huck Finn for the use of the N word, but those aren't the ones succeeding right now.) The people who take offense to the US not being described as a Christian nation are not described as woke. The people angry about and brigading over movies having non-white/non-straight/etc characters go ostentatiously out of their way to be offended, and they are not described as woke. Indeed in all these cases people who don't support their offense are the ones described as 'woke'.

So what is the through line with the term 'woke'? Not how you use it or wish it to be, what is it in practice?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I added “politically correct” as a tag because, in contrast to “woke,” I view it as inclusiveness gone wild, to the degree where it's used a cudgel to shut down discussion because some snowflake somewhere might be offended.

I would suggest you see it this way because the right was successful at hijacking the phrase "politically correct" as they are trying to do to "woke" now.

Resist both. Continue to use and own both phrases.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Because that is very much part of the complaints about "wokeness": some people cannot stand being criticized and will react even in self-harming ways when they perceive criticism. "Rolling coal", for instance.

It may be more like my limited and probably not random sample, but I've actually only seen used the other way around, i.e., about the conservatives. We had a link posted to a comic essentially saying that that's what the MAGA folks are doing. Joe's own post also seems to think that that's (similar enough to) what's happening. As in, people actually know that they're in the wrong, but for some reason like opposing the 'woke' or whatnot, choose to be evil and oppose it. Hell, he's been posting his... misconception about the "proudly wrong" for years now, IIRC. Boiling down to the same thing, some people actually know they're wrong, and they're just damn proud to keep saying the wrong thing.

And frankly, that seems to be your own misconception too, from what you write.

The whole "everyone knows I'm right, some are just too evil to admit it" is a wank probably older than writing. And quite counter-productive. As in, with some rather nefarious consequences at various points in time. Back in the early middle ages, it was the self-flattering delusion behind the blood libel, for example. It was exactly the issue of finding it easier to believe that Jews KNOW that the Christians are right, and are just choosing to be evil and go to hell rather than admit it, than just that no, they have good reasons to think Christians are NOT right.

In reality, if you actually listened to what people have to say instead of reaching for the self-flattering bulverism, they'd be more than happy to tell you why they believe that choice X is better than choice Y, and what social issues they think X would solve and/or Y would make worse. Hell, some will even tell you whether you want to listen or not. (*cough*Racist grandpa at the Xmas table stereotype*cough*) They're not actually going for X just because you like Y, believe it or not. They actually have reasons why they think X actually is better than Y.

Mind you, they're not necessarily good reasons. They may not even be sane reasons. But it's not just knowing you're right and trying to spite you.

 

[tyr_13]

Sid and Marty both rail against "wokeness", but Sid is angry that his Communications professor wants him to spell it "womyn", and Marty is angry that the hospital hires Jews.

"Just give everyone the benefit of the doubt!" doesn't fly in this sick, sad world, unfortunately.

In college between classes I was talking to a classmate about how I didn't think it was right that I had been called 'racist' for opposing direct monetary reparations for slavery (my argument being the government would do it intentionally badly then use it as an excuse to end the Voter's Rights Act) when some guy behind me chimed in about how he too had been unfairly called racist. The trivial reason he was called that was because, although he worked with a bunch of black guys and had nothing against them, he very 'reasonably' said that he didn't want his sister to date an n-word.

I have to thank the man for keeping me from becoming overly concerned with my feelings when being called racist, and to always be careful when talking about the 'dangers' of accusation of racism being 'too common'.

 

[Thermal]

Like every other term, "woke" is used by different people to cover different ranges of things. There are people who would accuse you of being unacceptably "woke" for saying "the n-word" instead of the actual word that's a euphemism for.

So when people rail against "wokeness" they need to explain what range of things they're talking about, because other people might end up thinking that it's quite a different range. Sid and Marty both rail against "wokeness", but Sid is angry that his Communications professor wants him to spell it "womyn", and Marty is angry that the hospital hires Jews.

"Just give everyone the benefit of the doubt!" doesn't fly in this sick, sad world, unfortunately.

I'm inclined to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt. I think what bugs me about hearing "woke" is that it sounds like a joke. Like someone deliberately trying to sound like some Deliverance hillbilly. "Hey Maw! That rooster done woked me!" Maybe the popular idea could stand a little rebranding. "Aware" or "Alive" or something. "Alive" sounds too dramatic, though. Lets see if we can hustle up some cash and I'll get a focus group together.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But it's not just knowing you're right and trying to spite you.

That isn't what I said. I said "some people cannot stand being criticized and will react even in self-harming ways when they perceive criticism." It doesn't matter if the criticism is correct or not, it's the reaction that matters. Sometimes people react badly to criticism regardless of whether they believe the criticism to be valid or not -- it's a blow to the pride to be criticized even if it's just criticism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I mean, even about "rolling coal", believe it or not, there are people who think the push towards more bicycles is anywhere between counter-productive and some form of CT. I get to listen regularly enough to two different people who may not actually roll coal with their catalytic converter cars, but will chew your ear off about how it's bad for their city and/or bad for Germany as a whole. They're not against it to spite the greens (you know, on the eco side of the political spectrum), nor because they feel personally criticized. They actually think they're opposing something bad. For... reasons.

Again, they may not be good reasons, or not even sane reasons, but it's not as simple as just trying to spite anyone.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That isn't what I said. I said "some people cannot stand being criticized and will react even in self-harming ways when they perceive criticism." It doesn't matter if the criticism is correct or not, it's the reaction that matters. Sometimes people react badly to criticism regardless of whether they believe the criticism to be valid or not -- it's a blow to the pride to be criticized even if it's just criticism.

Well, SOME do, no doubt, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with "woke" or the criticisms against it, then.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm inclined to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Congrats? You may find yourself in some odd company as a result, sometimes.

I think what bugs me about hearing "woke" is that it sounds like a joke. Like someone deliberately trying to sound like some Deliverance hillbilly. "Hey Maw! That rooster done woked me!" Maybe the popular idea could stand a little rebranding. "Aware" or "Alive" or something. "Alive" sounds too dramatic, though. Lets see if we can hustle up some cash and I'll get a focus group together.

You have a personal distaste for certain accents, manners of speech, and dialects of English? Okay, you're not alone in that. But it's probably not very good skepticism to allow a personal distaste for the manner of speech of a term to color your perception of the concepts behind it. (I have a similar problem with the theological concept of apocatastasis: I quite like the concept but I can't pronounce it aloud to save my life.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, SOME do, no doubt, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with "woke" or the criticisms against it, then.

I think I expressed pretty clearly precisely what I meant.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I mean, even about "rolling coal", believe it or not, there are people who think the push towards more bicycles is anywhere between counter-productive and some form of CT. I get to listen regularly enough to two different people who may not actually roll coal with their catalytic converter cars, but will chew your ear off about how it's bad for their city and/or bad for Germany as a whole. They're not against it to spite the greens (you know, on the eco side of the political spectrum), nor because they feel personally criticized. They actually think they're opposing something bad. For... reasons.

Again, they may not be good reasons, or not even sane reasons, but it's not as simple as just trying to spite anyone.

For the final time, I'm not talking about "spiting". That's an argument you're having with someone else. I said "self-harming". "Rolling coal" is bad for the vehicle itself and costs the perpetrator more money to do. That is self-harming.

 

[dudalb]

What I hate about the "woke" BS is that it makes it hard to poke fun when someone on the left really does do something stupid, which happens quite a bit.

 

[Thermal]

Congrats? You may find yourself in some odd company as a result, sometimes.

Word. But I mean unless I have good reason not to extend said benefit.

You have a personal distaste for certain accents, manners of speech, and dialects of English? Okay, you're not alone in that. But it's probably not very good skepticism to allow a personal distaste for the manner of speech of a term to color your perception of the concepts behind it. (I have a similar problem with the theological concept of apocatastasis: I quite like the concept but I can't pronounce it aloud to save my life.)

Accents? No. Dialects? No. If the manner of speech is to appear intentionally illiterate, well may be a little bias there. My posting history will show that I am somewhat south of refined and genteel. But if I wish to be taken seriously, rocking the dunce cap in my turn of phrase is not my usual go-to.

 

[d4m10n]

I would suggest you see it this way because the right was successful at hijacking the phrase "politically correct" as they are trying to do to "woke" now.

Oddly enough, I've seen people on the left argue that we should defer to the right on the usage of such terms, among others which have been appropriated by the right to criticize or disparage the left. Cannot say it makes any sense to me.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think I expressed pretty clearly precisely what I meant.

Well, then it must be my limited comprehension skills, so please explain slowly like to a retard: in which way do you see complaints about "wokeness" as having anything to do with self-harming behaviours because one was criticized? (Cf message #213)

And sure, you did give the example of "rolling coal", but that confuses me even more. I'll admit I'm not familiar with the practice, nor have even seen it done around where I live, but I was the impression that that's part of the protest against the environmentalism laws, hybrid vehicles, and such. None of which I've ever seen described as "woke" issues. (But then again, it could be just that my limited sample is biased.) They may be both associated with the Democrats in the USA (and only USA), but they're still different issues.

I mean, even our esteemed poster Tyr in this thread says that being called "woke" is about "being aware of injustice." I don't think most of the environmental laws and whatnot have ever been justified as addressing some injustice. The argument is just saving the planet (whether you agree with that or not), NOT that Priuses and Teslas will fix some injustice.

Or as another esteemed coleague on the board likes to bring it up, there's this "go woke, go broke" claim being thrown around by some about movie studios. I've quite literally never seen that used because a movie included a Prius or some wind turbine.

You can hopefully see how when I can't even decipher the connection between your example and your claim, it would leave me a pretty confused puppy.

 

[Brainster]

We are getting close to peak woke in this thread.

 

[Thermal]

We are getting close to peak woke in this thread.

I just heard "retard" used unreprimanded. Backslide to near comotose on the Woke Scale.

 

[arthwollipot]

Remember Steven Pinker's Euphemism Treadmill? This is a never-ending exercise as each new term intended to replace the offensive term because offensive in their own rights as it acquires the offensive qualities of the target of the original term. Rinse and repeat.

Yes, and so what? It's one of the many ways in which language evolves over time.

I would suggest you see it this way because the right was successful at hijacking the phrase "politically correct" as they are trying to do to "woke" now.

Resist both. Continue to use and own both phrases.

Because that always works.

What actually happens is that the language evolves and you look more and more stubborn as your language becomes more and more offensive. Language changes. Our use of language must change with it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Excuse me? How is my language even starting to become offensive?

 

[arthwollipot]

Excuse me? How is my language even starting to become offensive?

Not intending to single you out with that comment, RY. Apologies if that was the impression.