“Woke”

[wareyin]

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

ftfy

 

[tyr_13]

"You can't use 'Democrat Party' neutrally because that guy over there is using it to be mean and it's not their name."

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

"Nope. Now that you know he's using it to be mean, and wrong 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? It isn't a neutral use."

"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."

Fixed it for you.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Citation needed on the stats here, but I still don't see why progressives would want to cede the word to conservatives in the first place.

 

[wareyin]

Citation needed on the stats here, but I still don't see why progressives would want to cede the word to conservatives in the first place.

Ok, you keep on using the usage you believe should be the only right one and see how far that gets you. Extra points if you're consistent (hahahaha) and apply your definition only when understanding what others mean when they use the word.


The rest of us will continue understanding that we can't exactly stop conservatives from coming up with their own definition and using the word according to their definition, so your advice is useless.

 

[theprestige]

Citation needed on the stats here, but I still don't see why progressives would want to cede the word to conservatives in the first place.

Probably because it's not worth hanging on to. Whatever noble purpose it was ostensibly to serve, it got overtaken too quickly by clowning to really establish itself as a serious word for serious business. Same thing happened to "social justice warrior".

Contrariwise, "social justice" did manage to establish its seriousness. Thus conservative efforts to deprecate it have largely gone unnoticed or else fallen flat.

 

[catsmate]

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

Indeed. But that would require effort and comprehension, things anathema to many rightists.

 

[d4m10n]

Probably because it's not worth hanging on to. Whatever noble purpose it was ostensibly to serve, it got overtaken too quickly by clowning to really establish itself as a serious word for serious business. Same thing happened to "social justice warrior".

I'm a bit surprised to hear that phrase was originally coined in earnest.

Contrariwise, "social justice" did manage to establish its seriousness.

That phrase has changed a fair bit since the heyday of Charles Coughlin.

 

[d4m10n]

Ok, you keep on using the usage you believe should be the only right one and see how far that gets you.

Don't recall ever saying or implying that words can carry only one correct meaning.

 

[wareyin]

Don't recall ever saying or implying that words can carry only one correct meaning.

You don't remember your stance (as recently as an hour ago) that we shouldn't defer to the definition a conservative means when they use the word? Man, such prolific memory loss must be a burden.

 

[theprestige]

Don't recall ever saying or implying that words can carry only one correct meaning.

Have you considered switching to a stipulative polythetic definition that is based on present function and will eliminate all confusions? I have some lexical references and selections from Bartlett's On Wish that may or may not help you with this.

 

[Stout]

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

Show me where on the doll the article touched you.

Was it the scary Wapo, a news outlet that's been cited by LibsofTikTok or was it the author himself going all clickbaity with his title?

I gotta warn you, the ending will shock you.

Today, “woke” is mostly used by the right to signify the presence of Black people (or women) where they didn’t expect them to be.

I’m usually not a fan of franchise reboots, but maybe we should go back to the source material, where racists don’t have to twist themselves into bigoted little knots. Just say n----r with your chest.

Wait, that’s too offensive? Too explosive? Too dangerous to say in public? Whatever. Who’s the snowflake now?

In today's woke news, which has nothing to do with Black people.

San Francisco Unified School District has released a guidebook for teachers to facilitate secret child sexual transitions and to let students use the pronoun “it” at school. Yes, you read that right "it". Projected to be one of the reclaimed words like ****** we may see a similar use of restrictions on just who and who cannot use this word.

SFUSD has also suggester recommends that teachers identify parents as “caregiver 1 and caregiver 2 instead of mother and father which is strikingly similar to The Borg naming convention.

Link

 

[theprestige]

I'm a bit surprised to hear that phrase was originally coined in earnest.

As far as I can tell, it started out as conspiracy-theoretical jargon. Kind of an AAVE reference to the concept of the special sunglasses in They Live. You used to be asleep to the Unjust System of the World. But now that you're wide awake, you can see evidence of the System everywhere. Unlike the sleeple.

 

[wareyin]

Show me where on the doll the article touched you.

Was it the scary Wapo, a news outlet that's been cited by LibsofTikTok or was it the author himself going all clickbaity with his title?

I gotta warn you, the ending will shock you.

It wasn't shocking at all, way back when I read it right after Brainster posted it. In fact, that's how I knew both he (and now you) were missing the point this badly.

In today's woke news, which has nothing to do with Black people.

San Francisco Unified School District has released a guidebook for teachers to facilitate secret child sexual transitions and to let students use the pronoun “it” at school. Yes, you read that right "it". Projected to be one of the reclaimed words like ****** we may see a similar use of restrictions on just who and who cannot use this word.

SFUSD has also suggester recommends that teachers identify parents as “caregiver 1 and caregiver 2 instead of mother and father which is strikingly similar to The Borg naming convention.

Link

Oh noes, they advised teachers to let a student use a pronoun they they (the student) may prefer?

 

[Checkmite]

He said it stopped being one thing and is now another thing.

I said it stopped being about one thing. Key difference.

 

[Checkmite]

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".

But, clearly there is now a common usage that does not align with that definition, but is more along the lines of simply "liberal-ish".

 

[wareyin]

I said it stopped being about one thing. Key difference.

Hush now, RecoveringYuppy is busy telling everyone what you meant and he certainly doesn't need you chiming in to tell him he's wrong!

 

[Stout]

It wasn't shocking at all, way back when I read it right after Brainster posted it. In fact, that's how I knew both he (and now you) were missing the point this badly.

Prey tell, enlighten us then. What is the article really about?

Oh noes, they advised teachers to let a student use a pronoun they they (the student) may prefer?

Excellent. Then I shall add it to my vocabulary and start using it to refer to trans people until I'm corrected by the trans in question as to their preferred pronouns. If San Fransisco says it's valid, then it's valid.

 

[wareyin]

Prey tell, enlighten us then. What is the article really about?

My goodness, I forget how badly some struggle with reading comprehension. I really didn't think the article was subtle. At all. Damon Young is clearly pointing out that those complaining about how "woke" Disney is with the little Mermaid played by a black actress are bigots and/or against equality. These three quotes pretty much sum it up:
"It was around then that the right finally caught wind of it[woke], since they are 20 to 60 years behind everything, and it became their umbrella for literally anything that even hinted at possessing a sliver of social consciousness."
"Today, “woke” is mostly used by the right to signify the presence of Black people (or women) where they didn’t expect them to be."
"I’m usually not a fan of franchise reboots, but maybe we should go back to the source material, where racists don’t have to twist themselves into bigoted little knots. Just say n----r with your chest."

Excellent. Then I shall add it to my vocabulary and start using it to refer to trans people until I'm corrected by the trans in question as to their preferred pronouns. If San Fransisco says it's valid, then it's valid.

Because saying they're allowed to use it if that's what the student requests is clearly a green light for you to use it no matter what their preferences are.

 

[d4m10n]

You don't remember your stance (as recently as an hour ago) that we shouldn't defer to the definition a conservative means when they use the word?

I do remember that stance, it definitely doesn't imply one correct meaning.

 

[d4m10n]

Have you considered switching to a stipulative polythetic definition that is based on present function and will eliminate all confusions?

I'll try anything once.