I hear the same rationalizations coming from those that say they are “anti-woke” as I do from those that are racist and sexist, but if I am wrong please tell me how. Frankly, I see no reason to not to refer to someone who spouts anti-woke rhetoric as racist and/or sexist…except for the possibility that if I did it on this message board the Mods would not approve.
Some people equate “woke” with being “elitist” or “virtue signaling”. Because that is how some folks on the right have characterized it. I guess you can, in theory, be a non-bigoted person who accepts and even celebrates diversity who doesn’t like the idea of being woke if they think that it means bragging about not being a bigot. But I doubt anyone like that would actively declare themselves as “anti-woke” and would just not bring it up.
Rather than rejecting the concept of wokeness outright, today’s detractors often claim they are rejecting the word as a signifier of pretentiousness and “cultural elitism”. However, as Fox and others have shown, it is as much to do with the issues of racial and social justice. Criticising “woke culture” has become a way of claiming victim status for yourself rather than acknowledging that more deserving others hold that status. It has gone from a virtue signal to a dog whistle. The language has been successfully co-opted – but as long as the underlying injustices remain, new words will emerge to describe them.
The term has since been co-opted by some Republicans as a pejorative term this midterm election cycle to signify the identity-based social justice issues that some Democrats and progressives push for, representatives from the Democratic Governors Association and Working Families Party tell ABC News.
Way back in July of 2015, I started this thread, If you whine about political correctness, you’re a bigot, with this OP:
Seriously. Maybe I’ve just missed it, but I don’t think so. Every freaking time I hear someone bitching about “political correctness” it’s to make a bigoted comment or to bitch about the person they’re accusing of being “PC” or “Liberal” is being “too soft” on someone the accuser hates–and that hatred based usually on prejudice.
I feel perfectly comfortable with substituting “woke/wokeism” for “political correctness”. It’s just today’s brand of bigots pretending to themselves and their ilk they don’t sound bigoted.
Because (as the articles @Atamasama linked to say) the word “woke” is used to mean such different things by different people, I think it has lost any usefulness it may once have had. I don’t intend to use it myself nor to assume I understand what other people mean when they use it.
As a corollary, I don’t know what does or does not count as “anti-woke rhetoric.” I suspect that many people who use what you might call “anti-woke rhetoric” are racist and/or sexist, but others may just be brainwashed into confusion over just what “woke” is, and their “anti-woke” stance is a reasonable response to that unreasonable depiction of what “woke” is in the first place.
The fundamental quality of someone being “anti woke” is a claim that they won’t accept being told how to behave.
Except that we’re told how to behave all the time. Traffic laws, mortgage payments, workplace responsibilities — living in civilized society is about agreeing to compromise one’s independence. Freedom is not absolute.
Being anti woke is about refusing to be told what to do on specific subjects by specific kinds of people. It is, inherently, a statement that “those people” do not have the authority to impose such a demand. It is fundamentally an assertion of status. “You people don’t get to tell me what I can and can’t do.”
In short, then, being anti woke is absolutely a form of bigotry, but it’s the kind of quiet, insidious, indirect bigotry that gets a pass when our media narratives condition us to expect racism etc. to look like the Klan and other overtly violent and hostile forms of direct oppression.
I’m not really sure what the debate or question is but if I am interpreting it correctly you are equating a person who is opposed to elements of wokeness with a person who is sexist and or racist? I’d disagree.
There is an element of overlap of course between wokeness and anti-sexism and anti-racism but that’s a bit like equating a Christian in general with an inquisitor or a Muslim in general with ISIS. One can be opposed to extremes in ideology and those who advocate extremes in ideology in a disingenuous manner in order to manipulate and gain power without being opposed to elements of the broader ideology that is being exploited.
Some things Woke people say, do and advocate for are racist, sexist, and homophobic. They’ve been the subject of many an interminably long and boring thread round these parts so I trust people know what I’m referring to.
To answer the OP, there’s a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram for sure, but I don’t think the things necessarily have to be the same.
You can be a liberal, left-leaning feminist or anti-racist person and still point out that a lot of tactics, assumptions or attitudes of the feminist or anti-racist people are unhelpful. IMHO, “wokeness” isn’t just about being liberal or standing up for the little guy - it has connotations of “my vitriol, double standards or unreasonableness are good because it’s for a good cause.”
In fact, Obama was and is known for making statements to that effect - that while the liberal cause may be good, the “wokeness” backfires and hurts the cause.
…nope. Not a clue.
Funny how a thread that starts out proposing an examination of the underpinnings of anti wokeness almost immediately gets bodily shoved in the direction of criticizing wokeness itself. Funny indeed.
The underpinning of anti-wokeness is that many people from across the political spectrum find things done in the name of wokeness to be objectionable. I don’t think it’s possible to discuss one without the other.
Edit: Anti-wokeness is not a movement, and it’s certainly not cohesive. There’s no obligation for any one person who calls themself ‘anti-woke’ to defend anyone else who ascribes to that label.
One which springs to mind is discrimination against Asian students when applying to elite universities. There was a very long thread about that which (as often happens with very long threads) devolved into veiled ad-homs and tedious nitpicking.
…and what part of this is “woke”, exactly? Can you link to the parts where “woke people” say, do and advocate for are racist, sexist, and homophobic things? I’m gonna assume that you at least flagged them for moderation?
I never flag anything for moderation. And I can already see how this thread is doomed to fail on account of the fact that we’re not operating with a cohesive, shared definition of ‘Woke’.
To me, Woke = progressivism taken too far. What’s too far? I know it when I see it. This is pretty much how everyone who calls themself ‘anti-woke’ operates. Like I said, it’s not a cohesive movement.
Handicapping Asian students to make room for students of other races (including white) with lower SAT scores is racist. But it’s being done with ostensibly progressive intentions. To me, it’s an example of progressivism gone too far. Ergo it’s Woke, and I’m opposed to it.
…this is Great Debates. You asserted that “some things Woke people say, do and advocate for are racist, sexist, and homophobic” then you asserted that “They’ve been the subject of many an interminably long and boring thread round these parts so I trust people know what I’m referring to.”
If you refuse to provide evidence of either of these things, then concession accepted.
Woke has an actual definition.
Woke - Wikipedia(%2F%CB%88wo%CA%8Ak,to%20racial%20prejudice%20and%20discrimination%22.
That the word has been co-opted to mean:
in other words: whatever you want it to mean, is kind of an issue here. I think its perfectly reasonable to stick to the accepted definitions here, or else we end up down the Critical Race Theory rabbit hole, another thing that has been co-opted to mean whatever people feel like it means at the time.
So lets just stick to the original definitions then. At least we will know what we are talking about here in this thread.
(And FYI: this is generally how the “anti-woke” use the word)
So the way you have chosen to define it here sides with the people who use the term to mock.
I’m confused. I view the exclusionary handicapping of Asian students at elite universities as an example of Woke racism - that is, progressivism taken too far. What, specifically, do you want evidence of? That these policies exist? That there have been threads about them on the SDMB? Or both?
And the definition of Woke you provided is still much too vague, IMO. The section “…used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice” encompasses an awful lot. Very few people are accepting of everything done in the name of progressivism. Nearly everyone, to an extent, is “Anti-woke”.
…obviously.
What on earth are you talking about? Which thread is this? Which elite universities? What exclusionary handicapping of Asian students?
You are citing random things at the moment. You’ve already conceded you aren’t going to link to the thread. Are you going to link to it now?
What exactly is progressivism taken too far? What on earth are you talking about?
Ummmm, the thing you are talking about? For this assertion, right here?
Are the “woke” people in that thread? Are they allegedly at the university? Are you using the actual definition of woke, or the made-up-one that means whatever it is you want it to mean?
Yes. That would be a start.
Yes. That would be helpful.
I would say that it’s not necessarily bigoted, but it does seem to almost always be tribal.
To elaborate:
Here in the UK at least, most of the people I encounter who are anti-woke just happen to believe what they read in the daily mail, or see on GB news. They are things that *I* would also be annoyed by, if I didn’t know that those sources make stuff up or deliberately mislead with out of context information.
So, viewed that way, their positions are perfectly reasonable.
But, on the other hand, it’s not like they are willing to criticize indoctrination or cancel culture on their “side”. And the reason that they watch GB news or whatever in the first place is because it’s a source that’s going to tell them those people are bad and stupid, not the right kind of person, like you.
Apologies for not responding to every statement, but I detest the multiquote style of posting.
The policies I’m talking about are these:
And a search for Harvard Racial Bias will bring up the threads I’m talking about. Really, though, the threads aren’t the issue. Their existence merely shows that the issue of racial discrimination against Asians at Harvard has been discussed here before. The key issue is the exclusionary policies that elite universities employ are racist because they target Asians. They’re an example of Woke racism. Objecting to that kind of thing does not make one a racist, no matter what the OP might think.
…well, no, that isn’t the “key issue.”
The key issue here is that you’ve labeled either these policies “woke”, or the people that implemented the policies “woke”, or very possibly both, yet your working definition of "woke appears to be:
Well: I don’t see it.
Woke means “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” That’s the generally accepted definition. That would exclude these policies being “woke.”
I don’t think we should be using your definition here. The origins of your wide-ranging definition are in the mocking of AAVE. And any definition that includes the line “I know it when I see it” simply can’t have any common ground.