Definitely not the way the right is using it these days.
As they’ve told us, extermination.
I’m sorry that your innate differences made you the target of somebody else’s cruelty, intolerance, ignorance, and indecency. Truly, I am.
I appreciate that you’re now willing to advocate for treating vulnerable populations better than you were treated.
But there’s a standard much higher than that. And if somebody had ‘called out’ the people who were bullying you, wouldn’t your life have been easier? And if/when it’s done on a large scale, doesn’t life get steadily better for everybody?
It’s a positive sum game. Intolerant people treating others with a basic level of civility, decency, humanity and respect costs them nothing.
We all win.
Personally, I am rather burnt out on "What the other side says"ism, and would like one of those in this thread advocating for people to be less “woke” answer this. What is the compromise they are looking for in this case?
Which progressive ideas?
I think we can still have principled disagreements as to how progressive taxation ought to be, or whether single-payer universal healthcare is the best option.
I don’t think there’s ever been a time when you could say, “i think Black men are predators and shouldn’t date white women” or “i think gay men are predators and shouldn’t teach children” or “i think trans women are predators and shouldn’t be allowed to use the ladies room” and still been accepted in progressive circles.
And what principles?
But it never achieved much prominence until the Right started using it as a bash word; once they pick another I expect it’ll fade into obscurity again. And possibly fade entirely now that it’s got their reputation stuck to it.
Do you really not know? In a nutshell, the woke agenda as understood by conservatives - and probably a bunch of moderates too - means discriminating against the majority in favour of minorities. Google up the wheel of oppression: anyone in a group labelled ‘privileged’ gets shafted, anyone in a group labeled ‘oppressed’ gets coddled. The last shall be first and the first last. Yes, that means your treatment can turn on a dime depending on who the other person in the equation is. See Ana Kasparian’s experience after being sexually assaulted by a homeless man, for example:
I’m probably going to get a bunch of replies saying that this isn’t happening, and/or that it’s right and good that it’s happening (please don’t bother), but this is what plenty of people believe. It’s what I believe. I can tell you why many progressives want to discriminate in favour of these disadvantaged groups if you like, because I’ve heard it all before. I just don’t agree with it. I think treating people equally is the best and fairest policy, for a variety of reasons that are too long to fit in the margin outside the scope of this thread.
Correct, as they understand it- not as it actually is.
Yes, they believe it. Yes, you believe i.
None of this is proof that it is actually so.
“I know what I’m posting is rubbish. Please don’t point it out.” Is not a winning strategy in a debate.
But if and when that doesn’t happen – say, for centuries – is it really just, fair, and right to declare that “we’re all good, now?”
Even when we aren’t?
The deficits that marginalized people go through life with build upon the deficits foisted on their ancestors. Somebody (in this case, you) declaring that … that’s all behind us now … doesn’t seem to actually achieve that end, nor does it seem to create anything even remotely approaching fairness, equality, or justice.
If I stop beating you to a pulp, can I then declare that you should get over it, move on, and put on your big boy pants and get on with it?
Did the US election of Barack Obama to President, or the featuring of Bill Cosby as a physician in a TV sitcom really mark the end of US discrimination??
I’d argue … not.
Deliberately misunderstood, that is, and if anything can be thought of as a “sin” by non-believers, it is deliberate misunderstanding.
I wrote this post to explain what the ‘woke agenda’ is, as generally understood (IMHO, naturally). You don’t have to agree with it, and I am not interested in debating its accuracy in this thread. Capiche?
“…as generally understood (maybe) by conservatives who oppose it, because they have been fed a toxic mischaracterization of it.”
Definitely the wrong forum for that, then.
Whoopsy!
Yet another example of progressives discriminating in favor of disadvantaged groups!
Fwiw, i grew up with, i dunno, some earlier wave of feminism, that taught that we can all be whoever we want to be whatever our bodies look like. And except in cases where people feel strongly that their bodies are wrong, I’m not convinced that the current approach to gender is a better answer. That is, it’s not clear to me that asking people to pick “male” or “non-binary” to be respected at work is better than asking everyone else to respect women. (To paint with an intentionally broad and imperfect brush.)
But i also know that i don’t understand what’s going on in other people’s heads. And that being accepted as a woman matters a lot to some very obviously feminine people that i know. So, ya know, i try to use the names and pronouns that people indicate they want me to use. Mostly just because I’m not an asshole. I honestly think that 90% of being “woke” is not being an asshole.
Yeah… no. I believe that’s what conservatives think the “woke agenda” is. I don’t believe that’s actually the agenda of any coherent political body in the US. Can’t really speak for outside the US. So, okay, if that’s what you are starting from, sure, let’s not do that. That’s easy, as we already aren’t doing that… So, moving on.
Which is wrong, as stated. Among other things, they aren’t the majority; just the most powerful minority. The majority of people are not, in fact straight right-wing white Christian adult males.
The majority of people by far are the people the right wingers hate and want to persecute.
Okay, this is indeed a terfy talking point. I’m happy to hear that your friends aren’t rejecting you for it. People on social media tend to be a good deal less reasonable in my experience.
So do I. But to the woke what you do is not nearly so important as what you believe. One is not saved by works but by faith (in today’s approved tenets). As an unbeliever, my experience of woke is that it is 90% being an asshole.
I made a partial list of woke-by-this-definition policies from the Biden administration in an earlier reply to @Mijin here:
These are the sort of things the Dems need to stop doing to avoid being seen as woke, though there are potentially more influential examples at local/state level which afaik Biden and the national party would not have been able to do anything about? I don’t know how much Americans lump together the different levels of the same party.
First, have you defined “woke” yet?
Cite? I’m assuming that I’m “woke”, and I don’t think that. Does anybody in this thread? Hands?