Socialism is a topical one. We’ve had many debates on these boards with people who espouse very anti-capitalist ideologies. There has been a rise in that kind of -ism ever since Bernie Sanders put it front and center in his runs for POTUS. Others took it and ran with it.
Fascism is another one that’s getting lots of attention for obvious reasons.
Feminism and Trans-activism are locking horns in a very long running thread right now.
We are surrounded by -isms. I don’t know why woke-ism should be so difficult to believe.
Well, there is the minor detail that “woke” doesn’t actually end with “ism”.
Plus, to be a bit more linguistically serious, “ism” is a suffix that asserts adherence to an ideology. I’m not sure that woke is really an ideology, especially when it’s being used as a pejorative. But to the degree it’s just a slur for liberalism, then yes, it’s an ism/ideology.
Well, I was responding to “ism” as a pejorative in that it connotate religious belief, as that seemed to be the context it was being used in in relation to the Crichton piece.
For instance, we also have racism and sexism.
Things that people just blindly believe in are religions. Things that people have evidence for are not.
But yeah, you can put an ism behind anything, and then use it as a pejorative.
Would you say that woke-ism is the awareness that there are racists and sexist and other forms of bigots out there? Would you say that it is a blind belief, and that the notion that racism, sexism, homophobism and other forms of bigotry do not exist has just as much evidence to back it?
Ha ha HA! That would imply that “woke” is not an ism, because otherwise it wouldn’t make sense to tack “ism” onto it. It would “woke” into the same category as “race”, “female”, “liberal”, and “social” - something that beliefs and opinions are formed about.
That, or that some people cobbling together words are idiots.
I just have to say that is a simplistic and overall incorrect assessment of the argument against the notion of the existence of cancel culture, in that it completely ignores the argument that people should be allowed to express criticism of the speech of others.
I was not aware that that had changed. My understanding was that those who presented that argument were lacking in examples, and their only argument was that people who criticize public figures should be silenced.
Probably a mix of both. Those who advocate that such a thing exists kept moving the goal posts, and went all the way from “People’s lives are destroyed for an accidental slip of the tongue”, to “People should not be allowed to criticize public statements, because it may hurt the original speaker’s reputation and/or feelings”.
Let me clarify – I think most of the worry about “cancel culture” is not a concern, because it’s either canceling those who deserve to be canceled, or having a negligible effect on the very wealthy and influential. But there’s a sliver of legitimate worry about canceling regular folks who probably didn’t do anything to deserve it, but I think that’s a minuscule part of the discussion.
That’s right, words don’t mean anything. Go ahead and alter and change them, and then use them as pejoratives towards those who you feel resemble the caricature that you have built up.
To be “woke” is similar to “being PC”. Where being PC is simply a matter of spending a bit of empathy and understanding of how your actions affect others, being woke is to understand how the actions of our culture and institutions affect others.
And that is the absolute antithesis of the beliefs of those who mock both.
I recall hearing of a case where a woman made an insensitive tweet before boarding a plane, and by the time she landed she’d been fired or something. But the answer to this is not necessarily to force companies to continue employing people they don’t want - a better solution would probably be to burn down Twitter.
And to the degree it was, the problem lies in the firing practices of the company. In my company there are reviews and warnings and discussion and chances to correct your behavior, for anything short of physically attacking people.
Though, again, dismantling Twitter via judicious application of fire could be a viable alternative solution.
Are you talking about when a PR executive got on a plane and tweeted:
and the company decided that they didn’t want someone with that sort of judgement as their communication’s director anymore? That they didn’t want their reputation to be damaged by giving support to her voice?
I didn’t think that that was unjust at all.
To get back to the thread, firing her was pretty woke.
When I worked for the cable company I was specifically told that we would be fired if we used social media in a way that would embarrass the company. I was not allowed to say that I worked for them, even if I was just giving technical advice, and if something that I said got tracked back to me and threatened their reputation, they would terminate me immediately.
Kevin Spacey was cancelled for sexual misconduct, not for espousing the wrong opinions. Maybe it was always common for people to be fired/deplatformed/harassed for wrongthink, but except for literal holocaust deniers, I don’t remember that being the case before social media.
Yes, this. It’s not the ideology itself, which may be fine as far as it goes, but the way some people treat it as a religion. 100% agree that certain structures always reappear in one form or another.
People have always been fired for embarrassing the company.
Go to a Christmas party and insult one of your clients or vendors, see how long you last.
The only thing that social media has done is made it easier for people to embarrass their company. Perhaps people should take more care in what they say publicly, rather than demand that they face no consequence for it.
People are often accused of treating certain ideologies as religions, but that is generally all it is, an accusation. An empty, evidence free and biased accusation.
