“Woke”

[theprestige]

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.

That doesn't explain why this trans-affirming plastic surgeon has the slogan displayed in her office.

 

[theprestige]

I don't recall posting any opinions on trans people here; possibly you've confused me with someone else.

I think it is really weird that people keep handing conservatives words and phrases which they used to openly use, forcing them to come up with new words to describe the same phenomena. "Woke" and "cancel culture" come to mind here—since they both originated from AAVE—but there are plenty of others as well.

"Social justice warrior."

 

[wareyin]

I don't recall posting any opinions on trans people here; possibly you've confused me with someone else.

What you famously can't recall isn't the issue here. Your attempted shoehorning of your trans people discussion into this discussion is. Remember (well, go back and read if you can't remember) that even you admitted to being the "messenger" bringing an article on trans people's surgical rights into a discussion on "woke".

 

[d4m10n]

Your attempted shoehorning of your trans people discussion into this discussion is.

I'll leave it to other posters whether a sighting of "stay woke" in a recent publication is on topic or not. If you really find it objectionable, feel free to report it.

That doesn't explain why this trans-affirming plastic surgeon has the slogan displayed in her office.

Maybe she is yeeting the teets just to trigger the anti-woke.

 

[wareyin]

I'll leave it to other posters whether a sighting of "stay woke" in a recent publication is on topic or not. If you really find it objectionable, feel free to report it.

Maybe she is yeeting the teets just to trigger the anti-woke.

As a reminder, you didn't even link to the article you're pretending was relevant. You linked to the trans thread instead.

 

[d4m10n]

As a reminder, you didn't even link to the article you're pretending was relevant.

And yet somehow people found the article and the exhortation to "stay woke" therein.

Seems obviously relevant to how people use the term these days, at least to me.

 

[wareyin]

And yet somehow people found the article and the exhortation to "stay woke" therein.

Seems obviously relevant to how people use the term these days, at least to me.

That's why it was buried as a picture of handwritten text on a drawing that is almost illegible, rather than anything in the article? And nobody was able to quote it or link directly to it? Yes, this clearly demonstrates both how relevant you personally thought it was as well as how relevant the author of the article who never mentioned it thought it was.

 

[d4m10n]

And nobody was able to quote it or link directly to it?

I linked directly to it here.

If you really want to be mad that I'm pointing out how "woke" and "stay woke" are used in contemporary English, that's fine. I'm going to keep doing it, regardless, because doing so strikes me as illustrative and topical.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think it is really weird that people keep handing conservatives words and phrases which they used to openly use, forcing them to come up with new words to describe the same phenomena. "Woke" and "cancel culture" come to mind here—since they both originated from AAVE—but there are plenty of others as well.

I don't think anyone's handing conservatives these words. I think conservatives are taking them without permission.

 

[d4m10n]

Every time a poster says that a word or phrase must be taken to mean precisely what conservatives say it does (e.g. #336) they are handing over that word or phrase to them.

 

[arthwollipot]

Every time a poster says that a word or phrase must be taken to mean precisely what conservatives say it does (e.g. #336) they are handing over that word or phrase to them.

#336 is an observation that the word has already been taken by the conservatives. It in no way constitutes handing it to them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

#336 is an observation that the word has already been taken by the conservatives. It in no way constitutes handing it to them.

He asserted it as a fact. If he is wrong then he is contributing to turning it over to them.

 

[arthwollipot]

He asserted it as a fact. If he is wrong then he is contributing to turning it over to them.

It is a fact.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It is a fact.

Prove it.

I am woke. That proves you and Checkmite wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

Prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

"some" is not "all".

 

[arthwollipot]

Checkmite never said "all".

 

[Checkmite]

Every time a poster says that a word or phrase must be taken to mean precisely what conservatives say it does (e.g. #336) they are handing over that word or phrase to them.

In cases where the word is used by conservatives as a criticism, then of course it must be taken to mean "precisely what conservatives say it does" because that's how words work. When conservatives use it, is is intended to be a critical pejorative. It doesn't matter that someone else in a different, non-critical statement about some other thing might use the word to mean something different.

 

[catsmate]

She almost gets it: “… Maybe these people just use "partner" as the default in all their conversations, even with straight people….” But then misses it “… It’s unlikely, but it probably happens…”

I do. Unless I actually know they're married. Many, if not most, of my acquaintances are unmarried but in relationships.

 

[catsmate]

Did you read your link? Because your description seems to miss his point so badly that it is even more hilarious than your white liberals claim.

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