It’s almost as if we should respect the choice of word(s) the person in question uses to identify themselves!
…at least follows rules of Spanish pronunciation so many in the community give it a “sure whatever”.
Lots of posters are spending lots of time responding to and deconstructing this list, pointing out how and why the various one-line summaries are misplaced. It seems to me, though, that they’re all subtly wrong in the same way: they proceed from fundamental misunderstandings about the views and positions of the people you clearly disagree with. Because you don’t know what they think and what they want to achieve, this manifests as a subtle misrepresentation of, again, the various positions to which you are clearly opposed.
What I have not seen is any indication that you are actually open to learning this, to absorbing what you are being told and to adjust your own opinions accordingly. It feels as though you have started this thread ostensibly to “ask questions,” claiming not to understand, and to be receptive to education on, the subject, but in practice your feet are firmly rooted in your ideological soil and no effort to move you will be successful.
So I am going to ask you directly, before wasting my own time untangling the mess of misconceptions behind that list of bullet points.
Can your mind be changed?
Be honest. Really look inside yourself and give a truthful answer.
Are you open to having your mind changed?
The examples I gave in the OP of minority groups doing better than the majority, plus the differences in wealth and educational attainment of children in different immigrant groups in the UK, make me think there must be other things going on. Although I believe prejudice and systemic racism can and do exist, I don’t think it’s safe to blame all differences in outcomes on them. It doesn’t fit the facts. Maybe it’s culture or religion, maybe it depends on who exactly the initial population was. Maybe we just don’t know yet. And if some differences are due to culture, well, different cultures are different and are allowed to value different things and prefer different careers, right? We don’t want to leave people suffering hardship, but we don’t actually want to create a completely homogeneous society.
These possibilities rarely seem to be taken into account by the people implementing affirmative action etc. For them, any deviation from equal representation according to population percentages is seen as evidence for discrimination or some kind of wrong-doing on the part of employers/government/society as a whole, with no need to demonstrate cause and effect.
I think this gets to the heart of the problem with defining ‘woke’. You want a definition that presupposes your beliefs and perceptions are correct. Obviously no one who disagrees with you is going to produce or accept such a definition. Can you write a definition of woke that you would accept that doesn’t assume the correctness of the beliefs/perceptions involved?
This is perhaps the other problem with the term. People who want to talk about ‘woke’ because they object to particular policies are naturally going to be focused on the excesses, but defining any movement based on its excesses is going to result in a pretty distorted impression.
…I think this gets to the heart of the problem with defining ‘woke’.
I went to the dictionary.
You literally just made something up.
Is that problem the fact you are using it incorrectly?
To me it’s simple. Understand and accept that people are different, and not everyone is like you.
So is there no definition you will accept that doesn’t assume woke people are correct about society?
Communication is impossible if so.
There no definition of woke that is correct if it isn’t the definition that actual woke people are using.
The alternative is denying reality. The fundamental problem with trying to pretend that the opinions of the Right are of equal value is that they are consistently wrong. Not just morally, but factually. No amount of insistence is going to make non-whites and women less intelligent, or Christianity the one true religion, or the Democrats to be behind a Satanic pedophilia conspiracy, or make it so Democrats control the weather, or any of their other nonsense.
Any fact-based discussion inevitably turns against the the Right because they are simply, objectively wrong about essentially everything they believe. “Reality has a liberal bias”.
…I don’t understand the question.
I read the dictionary: I accept the definition.
That’s kinda how language works.
If somebody on the internet decides to redefine that word, thats fine. They can do anything they like.
But I’ve got no reason to accept that definition. Because they’ve literally just made it up.
Why would I choose you over the dictionary?
Communication works just fine if we all use the same definition. Why don’t you accept what the dictionary says? That would make this MUCH easier.
Yeah I absolutely do consider “Latine” to be an improvement over “Latinx”, but I’m sure that one will get flung off the sensitivity treadmill in favor of something newer and hipper. Maybe “LatinZ” will be next, it does have the benefit of being plural-sounding.
Giving a list of bullet points would’ve been easier, but then you would just have demanded a definition of each one. 
I wanted to also provide a neutralish description of each idea, explain how I think they are related, and also a bit about what my objections to them are. In retrospect, it might have been better to put that last part in a separate post.
Instead of explaining the poster’s own understanding, it attributes ridiculous strawman views (who exactly doesn’t believe in the existence of women or black people??) to an unspecified ‘them’.
Also in retrospect, I should have used a different title. I forgot that so many people don’t read the OP and just reply to the title of the post. Perhaps I can ask the mods to change it?
It would be like agreeing to define religious people as “aware of the existence of God”. Would you expect an atheist to accept that?
Oh, like if “them” had not been pointed out before:
When hundreds of books got hauled away in a dumpster from the library of the New College of Florida on Thursday, the tiny liberal arts college with a governing board dominated by appointees of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis once again found itself at the center of the state’s culture wars.
“We abolished the gender studies program. Now we’re throwing out the trash,” Christopher Rufo, a DeSantis appointee to the Sarasota college’s governing board, posted Friday on X, formerly Twitter.
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, condemned the college for “a brazen act of censorship.”
The “ridiculous straw-man” was yours. “them” was referring to the real cancellation of studies about women, blacks and other groups by the ones wanting all to not even know what issues or injustices are out there.
As a cis white male, I can vouch for the idea that white and male privilege definitely exists. When I get pulled over by a cop, they call me sir and politely ask for my ID. My white wife gets let off with a warning more times than not. No one follows me around in stores. I’m given the benefit of the doubt.
My son was walking late at night with a hoodie on through our quiet suburban neighborhood. Someone called the cops and the pulled up to him. He took off his hood and the cops said that someone had said there was a “shady” person walking around this area at night, have you seen him? No other questions, no frisking, nothing. Of course, the white kid couldn’t be the shady person, but with his hoodie on, how could the neighbor know??
When I vote, we have plenty of machines, no wait, even for this giant election. No one is trying to take away my vote.
If I have to use the bathroom, I can stop at a hotel – hey, can I use your bathroom? No problem, of course. Starbucks doesn’t call the cops on me for asking that either.
My son’s good friend, who is Black, has lived the same lifestyle in the same neighborhood, done the same things as my son, and yet somehow has had multiple bad experiences with the police.
White privilege exists, regardless of the few anecdotes of white people getting the short end of the stick. Male privilege exists, regardless of the few anecdotes…
Being woke, in its original meaning, is being aware of these things and trying not to make it worse, or even trying to make it better. I try to be more careful in my use of language, so as not to perpetuate stereotypes, or accidentally belittle others.
I know I’m privileged, and much of that is due to my skin color, my orientation, and my gender.
…why would it be like that?
The word “religious” and “people” have definitions in the dictionary.
Religious: “relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances.”
People: “the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class.”
Religious people are people who are devoted to religious beliefs.
As an atheist, I accept the dictionary definition and not the definition you literally just made up.
I usually ask for definitions of terms that are nebulous at best and mean different things to different people. I don’t see what is laughable about that.
The post did not say ‘They don’t believe in the existence of these groups’. It said ‘They do not want these groups to continue to exist’. Again, how is that not a serious response?
Click the arrow next to BippityBoppityBoo’s name to read the post in question.
Re reading it, I see a possible third interpretation- ‘They refuse to acknowledge the continued existence of these groups’. That interpretation is also backed up by OTTOMH Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay’ law.
Of course not, because it’s false. Just like basically everything the Right claims is false. Not just immoral, not just “a matter of opinion”, but false. They make up falsehoods and demand everyone pretend they are true, backed up with threats of violence if they can get away with it.
And no, the Left is not always correct. But they are not systematically, absurdly wrong like the Right is. Capitalism at least exists. Prejudice and economic equality at least exists. Satanic pedophile rings and Democratic weather control don’t.