Speaking only for myself, my primary objection to the use of the word “woke” is that the definition is at best nebulous. The word means vastly different things to different people. Until we get a definition we can all agree on it is impossible to provide any alternatives.
Except that some people are annoyed at having anyone point out things that are genuinely bigoted. Or even were genuinely bigoted, in the case of the ones who don’t want children to be taught American history.
And it’s difficult to fix anything that it’s considered impolite to mention.
– I don’t think that’s the sort of thing you mean. But “potentially annoying” potentially covers an awful lot of ground.
Various groups of White people have already rejected the definition used by the American Black community when given by White people . . . what makes you think they care what Black people have to say?
Yes. I wanted to make a separate thread so I could easily use it as a reference, in that GD thread and in future discussions.
I didn’t start that GD thread and I’m under no obligation to provide a definition, but I thought that it would be useful to have one to refer to. I do not, however, have time to have a whole separate debate about it, so I will not be providing cites at this time.
You’ve made this post personal more than about the post, IMHO. It’s allowed to start a similar thread in a different forum if you want to discuss using a different style. Usually, posters spin off from p&e to the pit, but i don’t think there’s a problem moving from GD to IMHO.
Of course, there’s a risk this thread will go off the rails and get closed. In fact, it may already be off the rails, but I’m at a dance and don’t have time to read it, or even to read the full op So I’m going to temporarily close it until i or another IMHO mod has a chance to review it.
it’s okay to start a new thread in a new forum to discuss a tangent from a thread, or to discuss in a different style. In many cases, we encourage that.
after reviewing the thread, i don’t see any other issues with @DocCathode’s post. It is primarily aimed at the details of the post that is the OP. Those are all fair game.
It’s actually easy to define; they just don’t want to say it directly and out loud yet.
Woke for them is the acknowledgment of the existence and humanity of anyone who is not a straight white cis Christian man, and any attempt to increase their visibility or rights.
I would like to know how many posters agree with the various ideas I discussed in my post, even if you don’t think the way I described them is exactly (or even at all) correct. And if you do think I got them wrong, how does your understanding differ from mine? That’s the discussion I was hoping to have by posting in IMHO.
Here’s a summary for convenience:
That social justice is about achieving equality for (racial, sexual etc) minorities and women.
Privilege in the form of ‘white privilege’, ‘male privilege’ etc.
Systemic racism explains differences between groups.
Equity replacing equality as the goal
Members of the privileged group should defer to the opinion of members of disadvantaged group on the relevant issue (eg men should defer to the opinion of women on sexism).
‘Punching up’ is good or at least acceptable, ‘punching down’ is not.
Support for deplatforming, firing etc people for speech that is harmful to minorities.
Changing the language we use to avoid harming minorities.
Speaking as a bleeding-heart liberal American, I agree with most, but not all, of the above.
I don’t think that punching, in either direction, is acceptable.
I don’t support, on a blanket basis, punishing people for “speech that is harmful to minorities,” especially when that comes from a place of ignorance or lack of knowledge, rather than bigotry or hatred. But, I do support sanctioning people who clearly (and, probably, repeatedly) are saying things that they know are hateful and hurtful.
IMO, it seems, from what I see, that many conservatives who are opposed to “woke” policies and actions are those who do not see themselves as bigoted or racist, but who are also unwilling or unable to understand that, by dint of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., they do operate from a level of privilege compared to those in minority groups. They believe that they worked hard and overcame difficulties to achieve their successes, and they struggle with the idea that those in minority groups aren’t similarly able to succeed solely by the same level of hard work.
They seem to want to believe that discrimination is now a thing of the past, and that there is no further need for any remedial actions: that “equity” actions are not only unneeded, but are, in fact, reverse discrimination against themselves, because they had nothing to do with any past discrimination. And, they oppose any educational content which could make their kids feel guilty about being white, straight, Christian, etc.
One is people who genuinely want to help what they see as oppressed or disadvantaged groups.
The second is people who remind me disturbingly of certain religious folks who try to impose “the doctrine” on others and punish anyone who questions or contradicts. This particular type of wokeness feels like the secular version of that, where “Here is the line, now toe it!”
There is overlap between those two groups, of course. But the first seems motivated by good intent while the second gets pleasure out of being “the enforcer” and gets great moral satisfaction. Kind of like the joke about how “You are from Great Lakes Baptist Council of 1879? Jump, Heretic!”
If that is the discussion you want, why are you not answering my question? Why and how is the definition of BippityBoppityBoo wrong? Why and how is your definition the right one?