my mistake,
FWIW though, your attempt at rephrasing my point completely changes what I was saying.
You can have that as a seperate point (6) if you like and I would agree with it but it is not a fair rephrasing of what I said
You have the cites.
In those articles people talk specifically about how the term has expanded in many ways. Do they talk about the mocking usage? yes. Do they also talk about the other causes, actions, policies, areas that they consider to be relevant when talking about the concept of “woke”? yes, they do.
Do you consider the BLM movement to be people who consider themselves “woke”?
Would you say that they sought to expand the reach and defintion of what it means to be “woke”?
It isn’t a matter of whether we think the BLM movement considers themselves to be “woke”-That is too damn meta. Do they actually refer to themselves as "woke?
Yes, or no?
Oh, that’s interesting. If pushed by a poll like this, I’d cringe a lot and probably self-identify as “woke”–but it’s never something I’d volunteer. When I say that it’s not a term commonly used for self-identification, I should clarify: it’s very rarely volunteered as a term for self-identification. People commonly self-identify as progressive, or liberal, or anarchist, or feminist, or anti-racist; but in the past couple of years at least, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone self-identify as “woke.” Does that help clarify?
I did not see any examples where someone said, in essence, “Here’s a cause that I support, and I think the word ‘woke’ is a good descriptor of the cause.” Its expansion is, as near as I can tell, purely as a pejorative, used by folks to describe causes/actions/tactics/etc. that they oppose.
Did I miss a cite where someone used it to describe something that they support, and advocated for the term’s expansion thereby?
Out of curiosity, has anyone watched the show Woke? It’s pretty delightful IMO, and it gets at a lot of the discomfort that folks on the left feel with the term. But discomfort with the term is very far removed from the use of the term as a pejorative to discredit the underlying ideas.
Yeah, that makes sense, thank you.
Just a data point - I do self-identify as woke and have done so on this board. And I mean the “aware of systemic racial injustices and prejudices” meaning when I use it.
If I’m in a playful mood, I’ll use “woke” as a self description but mostly I use the term left-liberal.
See, I’m not remotely a liberal, and just saying I’m left doesn’t say anything about my attitudes to racism. Plenty of racist commies out there.
And as an aside, saying I’m an anarchist tends to cause as much boring pointless side-debate here as saying I’m not an atheist does, so I must say I don’t agree with the earlier point by LHOD about “commonly” identifying that way, at least on the Dope. I tend not to do so specifically because this board is in some ways more hostile to far leftists than it is to even Libertarians.
Only “pacifist” seems to trigger people more.
Terms are hard and I hate them. It feels like every one comes with a bunch of extra baggage beyond the stuff I like. Terms come with assumed stances on positions, and I often disagree with some core assumptions you may make if I picked a given term and used it.
Instead, I will happily tell you my position on any given issue, without pigeon-holing myself.
Everyone wants to attack the pacifist for the easy win 
If I think for a minute I can come up with better self-descriptors. I believe in manifesting self interest through social action, so any broad flavour of “lefty” would be fine. I’m very anti-bigot so Anti-racist/sexist/etc is fine. I’m firrmly for pushing back at all the weekly-rotating, paranoid, right-wing conspiracy/cultural-war stuff so anti-facist/SJW (or anti-anti-SJW)/woke/etc is good.
And I really really dislike all the proud ignorance that comes with most bigotry. (aside) We are all ignorant of something (hell, most things), I just find that bigots have put up rock-solid defences to nurture their ignorances. So pro-knowledge, and pro-learning is best.
Trying to understand: do you disagree with this point?
I’m just not sure that your views are common. Neither are mine–I don’t mean to belittle your views, and there are certain views I have about e.g., the military that are so out of the mainstream that I don’t generally talk about them on the board. But your data point, while interesting, doesn’t seem to me to contradict that quoted bit above. Do you find that self-identification as “woke” is in any sense common?
yes, I’ll say with a decent degree of confidence that there are people in the BLM movement who identify with and support the term “woke”.
I’ll say with a decent degree of confidence that you don’t personally know a single one of them and that this is a useless assertion in this debate.
You are unlikely to see such a clear statement of intent with a wording that you approve of.
The most recent expansion defintely has been to use it as a general-purpose pejorative but those writing the articles give their own views on how the word has morphed and expanded in usage and meaning in ways that are not purely pejorative.
It would be deeply weird for such a loosely defined word with poltical significance not to be used in indiosyncratic and individualised ways beyond its original coinage.
I made reference to “feminism” upthread. Same principle. Has it been co-opted as a term of derision by opponents? definitely. Has it also been expanded upon and moulded by its adherents? Also definitely. Same goes for many of the -ism’s out there.
I know people who are BLM supporters, don’t you?
So the goalpost drifts, without any evidence whatsoever, from “the BLM Movement considers themselves to be “woke” to " I’ll say with a decent degree of confidence that there are people in the BLM movement who identify with and support the term “woke”.”
Yeah…I think that counts as a “no” for now.
Aaaand…the drift has gone continental.
Color me skeptical.
Either way it’s a bald assertion with no citation and functionally valueless in a debate.
And also support the expansion of the definition of the word.
This constant projection of “I do it, therefore they must do it, too!” gets old fast. The only evidence they have of their opponent’s malfeasance is their own.