More like it’s been replaced by this meaning:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm=woke&=true
Yeah, see, I see that as being less of a definition of the term, and more a reaction to ‘woke’ people that racists assholes have because they’re tired of being told that it’s not great to be racist assholes.
And admittedly, it must get old hearing that over and over.
No, it’s a reaction to people who think if you don’t agree with defunding the police or whatever antiracist idea du jour then you must be a racist asshole.
Reminds me of this: Excommunicate Me from the Church of Social Justice
I run in very liberal circles. I attended an excellent seminar by this same author on the subject of “compassionate callout culture.” It impressed upon me how much private information people (especially on the internet) feel entitled to when others need to prove their innocence of some wrongdoing. The best example I can think of is when the author of a novel had to out herself as a sexual assault survivor to prove to an angry Twitter mob that she had a right to fictionalize what had happened to her.
Some of these people scare the crap out of me. But it is a bit different dynamic how you are treated within the group vs. as an outsider. At its worst, “stay woke” is a means of controlling people within that subculture. It’s not really meant to be applied to the not-woke, in the same way that confession isn’t meant for non-Catholics.
So… I can sympathize with your point. But I also think mockery of “wokeness” is an easy way for privileged people to ignore real and systemic forms of oppression. I favor some kind of Middle Way - everybody gets to say their part while also bearing the social consequences of what they choose to say. But that’s pretty much how reality already is in the majority of cases.
Indeed. And then first hollowed and distorted in content by those unfamiliar and and then grabbed by outright opponents for use as a pejorative.
(which is similar, though not equivalent, to the path of “politically correct” from being used internally in the Left to the way it is now used by the Right)
These people aren’t exactly winning hearts and minds. I know I’m not the only one who was drawn to look at what the ‘cancelled’ people were saying, and ended up changing my views as a result.
Huh, I’ve heard the word more from lefterly-leaning folks than not. But I don’t get out much.
Last instance I recall not on these boards was some radio show in ~Denver talking about big corporations faking wokeness.
How could you hear what they were saying, if they were canceled?
Can we please stop being coy or overly-clever about the meaning of the word ‘cancelled’, as it is commonly used in this context?
I doubt anybody thinks Kevin Spacey’s career is anything but cancelled. Or are we to deny that reality because we can still stream pretty much any movie he’s ever starred in or follow him on whatever social media he may still take active part in?
Michael Crichton said something similar about environmentalism in his Commonwealth Club speech back in 2003:
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
I wasn’t being coy or clever.
I was pointing out that @DemonTree is listening to people that are telling a bunch of bullshit and is drawn to professional victims, crying that they are criticized for the statements they chose to make to the public.
And, them having that platform, that leverage that their celebrity status gives them, gives them more credibility. @DemonTree is correct, and is not the only one who is drawn to and influenced by famous people talking out of their asses about shit they don’t know anything about.
Speaking of:
Crichton writes a good book about dinosaurs, but is shit when it comes to pretty much anything else.
He is(was) a climate change denier, that takes some religious level delusions in and of itself.
Well, Crichton is wrong about Climate Change denial. He’s not wrong about human penchant for -isms of various types. Human’s latch on to absurd ideologies all the time.
Who are then described with a pejorative that literally means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice”. Because, to them, not being a racist is a bad thing.
Which is to say that calling things like belief in science or climate change a “religion” is an insult intended to delegitimize them by drawing a false equivalence to actual absurd ideologies.
(Though that’s really a subject for another thread.)
I don’t agree with that assessment. I think that one person reasonable activity or advocacy is another person’s -ism.
There may be a “penchant” for -isms, but that doesn’t mean that they are inevitable.
As he uses climate change as his example of a religion, I’m not sure that many of his other conclusions based on that foundation have much validity.
Wokeness, pc, etc are modern versions of medieval religion. The zealots and inquisitors of today are actually just as dangerous as their historical counterparts. I’m not sure how you can defend that. Unlike the woke I don’t think they should be physically assaulted, I mean consequenced, for expressing a different point of view.
You agree that was a good thing, right? If so, then ISTM that the problem isn’t that sometimes celebrities are “cancelled”, but sometimes people are unjustly cancelled. If you agree with that, then what’s new? Yes, it’s possible for people to undeservedly be “cancelled”, and this is not a good thing. ISTM that the only thing new is that wealthy white people are now being cancelled more than they used to be – which IMO is mostly a good thing, considering all the assholes that got away with whatever for decades and decades due to their wealth and influence.
This is very true. I saw a torture chamber organized by some social justice warriors. JK Rowling was stretched on a rack, and I heard her screams as her body was torn apart. Louis CK was in the iron maiden, and his blood pooled on the floor and ran toward the drain. And out front, the SJWs were building an actual pyre around a stake to which they’d lashed a local Blue Lives Matter activist; and soon we knew that his fat would bubble from his flesh as he screamed for mercy.
But none of this compared to the literal crusade they were organizing against the entire state of Idaho, where they planned to dash the heads of unbelievers’ babies against the cobblestones in an effort to reclaim the state for their leftist gods.
I’m so glad you made this incredibly important and accurate point.
“Cancelled” just means “the free market allows employers to notice when their employees become a problem to the business for one reason or another, and then fires them.”
Opposing “cancellation” is some combination of saying that employers shouldn’t have freedom, and that customers shouldn’t be allowed to choose what they want to consume.
Yes, yes, we know that you are for free speech when it is for hate, but only oppose it when it criticizes that hate.
I don’t see what happened to K.S. as an issue. He was deservedly punished.
I’m actually talking about something else. I’m saying that often the rebuke against somebody’s claims of person “X” being cancelled is something along the lines of: ‘Well, X is still around, and rich, and posting dumb shit on the interwebs for everyone to see. Therefore: Not Cancelled! Cancelling is a myth!’
To that extent, “unjustly cancelled” is not a “what’s new?” thing. Until very recently, argued right here on the boards, being unjustly cancelled was virtually a myth not worth worrying about.
Honestly, I always regret inserting myself into the “cancelled/not cancelled” conversation. Either I don’t understand the phenomenon at all (which is possible), or the goal posts keep moving so much that the discussion becomes entirely dependent on a specific instance/subject of cancellation.