“Woke”

[SpuriusMaximus]

Could everyone go around the room and dutifully acknowledge that "Woke" was a term used in a completely different context so everyone will stop bringing it up as if its means something?

Yeah. Sure. Most words did.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why is it people who treat various forms of "Goodness Theater" as the absolute worst thing you can do have zero problem with ******* Theater?

'Cause the former is more widespread? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who's actually trying to look more evil or anything. Some people may try to look more acceptable to the group with the wrong morals and values (in your opinion) but it's still just that: trying to look more acceptable.

 

[tyr_13]

Exactly the one you were describing and I quoted: the expectation that you just need to use magic words like "racist" or "sexist" and everyone must automatically feel afraid, drop anything else they're doing, and change their behaviour to whatever you want them to be doing instead. No need to actually have a logically sound case for why they need to give you whatever lollipop you want, you just need to sling some mud and they better start complying. Or insert convoluted bulverism for what's wrong with them if they don't.

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.

Yes, the right uses 'woke' in exactly the way they say everyone else uses 'racist'. Ironically one of the problems with the use of 'racism' right now isn't the overly broad use of it as a magic word to 'get what they want', but some who you, personally you this time, would call 'woke' try to narrow it to the institutional racism definition of 'power plus' to bolster nonsense conclusion like 'black people can't be racist' in an attempt to mitigate the power the term could apply to people they don't want it to apply to. You're saying it, accusing others of just being woke, is a way to avoid turning off critical thinking but that's just not so. It's used as a shield to avoid the need to discuss accusations like racism on their specific merits. 'I don't want this magic word to have 'power' (need to 'drop everything' and think about what was said) so I'm ok with using another magic word' isn't defending critical thinking; it's bypassing it.

Not really much risk at this point, I would say. More like just telling them that no, they're not Michael from Lucifer, the mojo of using others' fears to control them doesn't work.

If that were true, there wouldn't be the need to even dismiss them as 'woke'. The fact that the fear is there is why the attack is needed. Otherwise the merits or lack thereof for a specific accusation is all that would be needed.

 

[wareyin]

Well, then I haven't explained it well enough. My bad.

The point was really that you can't just string assumption after assumption until you get the result you want. You don't know for example what nationality someone is on the Internet. Yet people seem to just assume that nah, it couldn't have been a German or some other reasonable cause, it must be evil intent.

This isn't "assumption after assumption", however. This is saying "in this language, this particular spelling/pronunciation is offensive to the group in question, as members of that group have explained. It's a fair larger assumption to think every person writing in English on a topic might just be German instead. Add in the whole "I have/had this black (or Muslim, or Jewish, or whatever group is being discussed) friend, and he wasn't offended by it" combined with a stated knowledge that even back in the 90s it was so problematic that TV newscasters were running around trying to find Muslims on the street to interview about it, and we're almost into a caricature of a bigot.

Nah, at the smoking area. Fun guy, and into history too, so we talked quite a bit.

Plus, he was from Kossovo, so the topic of, say, Serbs vs Muslims did come up a few times. You know, bit of a sore point after the genocide in Yugoslavia. And he was pronouncing it as "Moslem", unless my memory epically fails me.

Point being, I literally didn't know until today that anyone finds it offensive, after even hearing an actual Muslim pronounce it that way.

Now we're getting into a guy from Kosovo and a guy from Germany discussing whether or not a certain pronunciation is offensive to Arabic language speakers. Do you see why your example may not exactly be the "get out of jail free" card you're presenting it as?

We were talking about a starting point farther back in time, in the previous paragraph, remember? You CAN scroll back and read again what we were talking about if you forget, ya know?



Sometimes yes. And then sometimes it's just a case of someone trying really hard to find something to be offended about.



Probably because most are smart enough to not end up arguing with idiots on the internet. Less likely to get one of them brow-beating for whole pages about how you're racist/sexist/whatever if you disagree with him in any way about anything, even if he has to manufacture a strawman for that. Me, I never seem to remember to stay out of it.

There seems to be about a 1:1 relationship to those who complain about "woke" people and those who claim to be called racist/sexist/homophobic so often that they're desensitized to it. I'll repeat, most people aren't being called those things so often by so many people that they're desensitized to it. And I guess it's easier to just say 'everybody gets called this stuff' than think about why I/you/generic poster gets called this stuff so often by so many people in so many places.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

None of that makes any sense. In fact, the whole thing you're seeing lately is that people have become too desensitized to care that much any more. That supposed "fear", half the times it exists only in the delusional imagination of those having that power trip. They like to think they're having all this effect, but they really have a lot less than they think. People used to actually feel threatened and feel like they absolutely must try to defuse it, even if by inventing an imaginary black friend who agrees with them, or anything. Key words: used to. Nowadays you see more and more feel safe to shrug it off as being just that 'woke' gang throwing a tantrum again, no need to worry.

They might or might not fear something else you're trying to do. But just some dude going "OMG, you're racist!!!111eleventeeen"? Nope. That's less fear not more. That's what half of America feeling safe to dismiss it as just "woke" nonsense again is actually showing.

If that were true, there wouldn't be the need to even dismiss them as 'woke'. The fact that the fear is there is why the attack is needed. Otherwise the merits or lack thereof for a specific accusation is all that would be needed.

1. I didn't say that. I just said that the mojo isn't working. They might or might not cause other people to feel threatened. But they're still not gonna get what they want that way.

2. That's some strange logic. You can dismiss lots of things with a word without any fear being involved. I mean, take just the word "woowoo", coined by Randi himself. I don't have to feel afraid or threatened by, say, dowsers or voodoo practitioners to dismiss it as "woowoo." Saves writing a whole dissertation every time to explain why no, I don't expect that that guy's curse will actually work

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Now we're getting into a guy from Kosovo and a guy from Germany discussing whether or not a certain pronunciation is offensive to Arabic language speakers. Do you see why your example may not exactly be the "get out of jail free" card you're presenting it as?

That determined to make up your own strawman again, huh? Actually all I said was that that's the way he was pronouncing it, e.g., when talking about the genocide the Serbs had just done against Muslims. The rest is you just replacing all that with your own idiocy that you feel able to counter.

Which, sadly, just illustrates the problem I was saying I have with the woke gang: that willingness to use any strawman, distortion or outright invention.

 

[wareyin]

That determined to make up your own strawman again, huh? Actually all I said was that that's the way he was pronouncing it, e.g., when talking about the genocide the Serbs had just done against Muslims. The rest is you just replacing all that with your own idiocy that you feel able to counter.

Which, sadly, just illustrates the problem I was saying I have with the woke gang: that willingness to use any strawman, distortion or outright invention.

Which part is the strawman? That you're German? That he's from Kosovo? That the article I linked to was about Arabic pronunciations? That you're specifically saying that your friend from Kosovo (who very likely isn't a native English, German, or Arabic speaker)^* being ok with "Moslem" means that "Moslem" is ok? Because that last one is certainly the impression you're giving me, and I don't think I'm alone in that.


^*You do realize that this hodge-podge of different languages and accents and pronunciation alone means that your recollection of something your friend told you decades ago isn't a reliable guide, right?

 

[pgwenthold]

*Raises hand* Hey is anyone even going to pretend this isn't just going to be the "Cancel Culture" and "CTR" threads again?

Only because the "Politically Correct" threads predate jref....

 

[wareyin]

None of that makes any sense. In fact, the whole thing you're seeing lately is that people have become too desensitized to care that much any more. That supposed "fear", half the times it exists only in the delusional imagination of those having that power trip. They like to think they're having all this effect, but they really have a lot less than they think. People used to actually feel threatened and feel like they absolutely must try to defuse it, even if by inventing an imaginary black friend who agrees with them, or anything. Key words: used to. Nowadays you see more and more feel safe to shrug it off as being just that 'woke' gang throwing a tantrum again, no need to worry.

They might or might not fear something else you're trying to do. But just some dude going "OMG, you're racist!!!111eleventeeen"? Nope. That's less fear not more. That's what half of America feeling safe to dismiss it as just "woke" nonsense again is actually showing.



1. I didn't say that. I just said that the mojo isn't working. They might or might not cause other people to feel threatened. But they're still not gonna get what they want that way.

2. That's some strange logic. You can dismiss lots of things with a word without any fear being involved. I mean, take just the word "woowoo", coined by Randi himself. I don't have to feel afraid or threatened by, say, dowsers or voodoo practitioners to dismiss it as "woowoo." Saves writing a whole dissertation every time to explain why no, I don't expect that that guy's curse will actually work

I don't think things like "Muslim people are saying 'Moslem' is calling them evil in their own language and so offends them" is supposed to evoke fear. Do you typically only refrain from deliberately offending groups of people out of fear, rather than because it's a dick thing to do?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Which part is the strawman? That you're German? That he's from Kosovo? That the article I linked to was about Arabic pronunciations? That you're specifically saying that your friend from Kosovo (who very likely isn't a native English, German, or Arabic speaker)^* being ok with "Moslem" means that "Moslem" is ok? Because that last one is certainly the impression you're giving me, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

If you want to know the strawman, just read what I had quoted in that message. You CAN read your own English, right?

That said, I already TOLD you what that was about: there was no actual indication that it's an offensive term, when hearing an actual Muslim use that term about his own people.

And yes, none of that was his mother tongue. But that's the POINT. English isn't my mother tongue either, yet here I am posting on an English forum. Yours probably isn't Arabic, but here you are talking about what it sounds like if you replace the s with a z. You can't just ASSUME that whoever whoever uses a certain term is automatically familiar with what other word it sounds like in Arabic, and it's automatically malice that makes them write it that way.

 

[d4m10n]

Bringing up pre-internet social/political fandoms usage means exactly diddly and squat and one of them just left town.

I would not concede that the pre-internet usage differed significantly from the #staywoke hashtag examples at post #20.

 

[wareyin]

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the idea that people feel threatened by being called "racist" or whatnot, and it's what makes them behave in some way or another. It's Tyr. More than once, in more than one thread, in fact. Take it up with him if you too disagree with his assessment

Not to speak for tyr_13, but I don't think he's saying calling someone "racist" is supposed to evoke fear.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And the actual Muslims who stated in the interviews that you brought up telling you that they were bothered by it? Is that still no indication? Or is it just an indication you'd rather ignore?

Again, the point was that none of them seem to have said it actually means "evil" or actually say it's offensive. Just that either they preferred the Arabic way to pronounce it -- which I can respect -- or that the Arabic one sounds better.

CAN you answer to what I actually write, or are you that fundamentally unable to do anything else than strawmen?

'Cause you know, the way this is going, it's a waste of both my time and yours. If this is all you can do, I think we can both use our time for something more productive.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Not to speak for tyr_13, but I don't think he's saying calling someone "racist" is supposed to evoke fear.

Uh, dude... like... duude... Message #95 explains the whole "woke" retort as this: "The insecurity this invokes has to be defended against, to protect either ego or social position. An easy way (and intellectually bankrupt way) to defend from this is to attack instead. You feel threatened? Do something to make them feel threatened."

Message #113 is even more explicit: "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." or "The fact that the fear is there is why the attack is needed."

 

[wareyin]

Again, the point was that none of them seem to have said it actually means "evil" or actually say it's offensive. Just that either they preferred the Arabic way to pronounce it -- which I can respect -- or that the Arabic one sounds better.

They didn't say it was offensive, they just said they preferred "Muslim"? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt you have an eidetic memory, and further that as invested as you are in dismissing the multiple citations of sources saying "in Arabic, that pronunciation is calling us evil" as mere assumptions, your memory may be a bit unreliably biased in what you recall from some 30 year old TV interviews.

CAN you answer to what I actually write, or are you that fundamentally unable to do anything else than strawmen?

'Cause you know, the way this is going, it's a waste of both my time and yours. If this is all you can do, I think we can both use our time for something more productive.

If you'd prefer to bow out of this conversation, go right ahead.

 

[wareyin]

Uh, dude... like... duude... Message #95 explains the whole "woke" retort as this: "The insecurity this invokes has to be defended against, to protect either ego or social position. An easy way (and intellectually bankrupt way) to defend from this is to attack instead. You feel threatened? Do something to make them feel threatened."

Message #113 is even more explicit: "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." or "The fact that the fear is there is why the attack is needed."

You are conflating a perceived reaction of the person being called "racist" (or sexist, or homophobic, etc) with the intent of the person who is calling out the racist/sexist/homophobic language or action or even the person who is calling out the racist (etc) person rather than just their actions.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Uh... https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/muslim-oder-moslem-respekt-drueckt-sich-auch-in-der-100.html

That's from 2021, not from 30 years ago. Including this quote from a professor of Islamic theology: "Ich glaube, um ehrlich zu sein, spielt es auch eine Rolle, dass da beim Wort Muslime natürlich ein langes „i“ drin ist. Es ist bekannt aus der Namensforschung, dass Namen mit „i“ natürlich positiv klingen." I'll spare you the copy and paste into Google Translate, this is what it says: "I think, to be honest, it also plays a role that the word Muslim naturally has a long "i" in it. It is known from name research that names with an "i" naturally sound positive."

Which does sound like said professor is bloody daft, but still... The worst the whole article has to say is that it doesn't sound nice in someone's ears.

Hardly the same as your "but if you replace the s with a z..." BS that you seem to assume is on everyone else's mind, and part of their intent.

 

[Venom]

That is the way I see it. Sometimes I think the real "woke" is being able to see through that routine. Which many can't do.

Around eight or so years ago most of the time I saw it used was seeing supposed conspiracies that others don't see, or the "truth" about the system, known only to a select few. Things we'd deal with in the conspiracy theories section.

This social justice thing attached to the term I think is relatively recent, but in some instances they are connected.

 

[tyr_13]

None of that makes any sense. In fact, the whole thing you're seeing lately is that people have become too desensitized to care that much any more. That supposed "fear", half the times it exists only in the delusional imagination of those having that power trip. They like to think they're having all this effect, but they really have a lot less than they think. People used to actually feel threatened and feel like they absolutely must try to defuse it, even if by inventing an imaginary black friend who agrees with them, or anything. Key words: used to. Nowadays you see more and more feel safe to shrug it off as being just that 'woke' gang throwing a tantrum again, no need to worry.

They might or might not fear something else you're trying to do. But just some dude going "OMG, you're racist!!!111eleventeeen"? Nope. That's less fear not more. That's what half of America feeling safe to dismiss it as just "woke" nonsense again is actually showing.

Appealing to what 'half of Americans believe' is a poor metric.

I didn't say that people calling others things like 'racist' (more often just calling actions racist or based in racism) are trying to cause fear. Indeed I laid out how the reasoning that because one felt bad or threatened leads some to lash back included the assumption that the accusation was made in order to cause the feeling. This assumption is faulty. The reasoning I laid out was to show it was faulty.

States are passing anti-woke laws, your contention there is no fear being leveraged for the anti-woke stuff is flat wrong. Your own fears (I know, you're going to say 'concern is not fear') for wokeness are highly suspect as well. The assertion that people make accusations of racism to make people 'jump to' or 'drop everything' and 'be afraid' is an illustration of the kinds of ego/social defensive knee jerk I'm talking about. They like to think they have this power? How do you know? They can't be honestly wrong (or right)?

It's a 'concern' for you because it's what you feel threatened by, something that you interact with. What if others feel the same way about racism (only, you know, racism is actually causing murders and unjust oppression) that you feel about 'woke nonsense'? You're going to assume my invoking the actual hazards of racism as an attempt to make you feel bad, to get 'power' over you, that it's 'woke nonsense'. But why? It's an important distinction in the categories, in the accusations, and there is no way to explain that which doesn't make one so opposed to examining accusations of racism look, well, 'bad'. There is no law of nature that says opposed or just contrasting ideas have to be equally balanced in any way. Sometimes there is more going for one thing than another.

'I'm not a bad person, they're saying I did this thing which would be a bad thing, but that would make me a bad person so they're just attacking me,' is another way to reword the flawed reasoning I laid out earlier. Lashing out with a way to accuse the other person of being the 'bad person' tries to defuse that and totally sidesteps the merits of the accusations and assumes the goal is ego/social contests. It is quite anti-skeptical. It's also often an attempt at leveling.

1. I didn't say that. I just said that the mojo isn't working. They might or might not cause other people to feel threatened. But they're still not gonna get what they want that way.

Your observations of 'what they want' is faulty.

2. That's some strange logic. You can dismiss lots of things with a word without any fear being involved. I mean, take just the word "woowoo", coined by Randi himself. I don't have to feel afraid or threatened by, say, dowsers or voodoo practitioners to dismiss it as "woowoo." Saves writing a whole dissertation every time to explain why no, I don't expect that that guy's curse will actually work

This sidesteps the utility and nature of these categories to 'level' them all. First, there is nothing that would inherently prevent 'woowoo' from becoming a thought-terminating counter accusation. Indeed many use it exactly as that. 'Woowoo' is actually threatening and has specific hazards, so I'm not sure what you think that example proves anyway. Second, there is nothing to say that all categories are made to do the same thing, or be used in the same way.

Not re-litigating everything every time is a good use for some categories. 'Racism' has been widely discredited as not just harmful but stupid and factually wrong. 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. 'Woowoo' is used to describe a set of unfalsifiable beliefs that reject critical thinking and leverage certain cognitive traps.

What is core to the category of 'woke'? Has it been proven to be inherently wrong, harmful, or flawed? The things called 'woke' range from teaching slavery was wrong, Christian nationalism isn't the foundation of the US, black hair isn't unprofessional, colored hair isn't unprofessional, gay people should be allowed to marry, trans gender people exist and that reality isn't grooming anyone, Trump's claims of a stolen election are false, the US is a democracy, people should be paid at least enough to survive, men should be able to express more feelings than 'horny' and 'angry', to...well the only through line is that they are ideas that go against what traditional society or relatively powerful groups like.

That's the common usage now. You personally might reserve it for only 'worthy' things, but that's beside the point. What specifically has been shown about 'wokeness' that doesn't have to be litigated any longer?

 

[d4m10n]

What is core to the category of 'woke'?

Being hip to what's going down, ya dig? More specifically, being aware of the various forms of oppression.