…we’ve had a few of “lets define woke” threads already, and they all ended well! I think a review of those threads will be all you will ever need to read in order to figure out why they can’t define it.
Are they stupid, evil, or spiteful? I don’t really know, but I do know that anyone who continues to support Trump is beyond shame at this point. I used to think his supporters would see the light, but every time Trump sinks to a new low, his supporters are happy to bust out the shovels and join him.
They cannot possibly be “discovered as stupid”. Because they will dismiss out of hand any opinion that does not come from one of their approved on-side sources. Who will not call them stupid because they agree with all that their talking heads say. And any claim of them being stupid coming from the Other Side will be laughed off as the ravings of deluded leftwing morons unfit to even be in this Great Amerikan country of theirs.
There is no reasoning with these folks. There is no thinking by these folks. Their little club is an impervious circular house of mirrors. And for those up on stage, it’s all adulation all the time from the only constituency that matters: the ones that agree with them.
Yes…
Musta been them danged Episcopalians or Disciples of Christ. Libtards, all of 'em.
(snark off)
“Woke” is what “critical race theory” was a few months ago - something where most people who talk about it have no idea what it really is.
Personally, I think that ‘woke’ actually does have a definition, and it’s pretty simple: it means “anti-bigot”. That is literally what it meant when it started being used; it was a mocking term for people who had awakened to the idea that -gasp!- bigotry is bad and to be avoided. And when people complain about ‘woke’ media or whatever this is explicitly what they’re talking about, women or gays or minorities being given focus.
The reason they tend not to want to define it, of course, is because the definition of “woke” is “I, the republican using the term, am a bigot.” That’s the quiet part that they’re not supposed to say out loud, while dog whistling it through a bullhorn.
Reminds me of the growling about “Antifa” without mentioning what the full word means to people.
I also now want to try a scientific experiment with a dog whistle and a bullhorn, but it seems cruel.
I flatly reject the whining from the right on what “woke” is, what the word means, what the movement does, etc. because I’m not interested in listening for a moment to the rationales of racists for their racism. I’ve spent my life listening to too much of that bullshit.
But I would be interested in refuting the anti-woke claims by certain self-proclaimed “liberals” who maintain that certain aspects of “woke” go too far.
Notoriously, and boringly, Bill Maher has argued against “woke” at length while proclaiming himself to be a “true liberal”–without disputing that label, I would bear down on specific instances of what he calls wokism, and probably find him complaining about things that affect him personally and inconveniently for him. Things like types of language that woke folks want discontinued because it has the potential to offend certain people. Maher rejects this, as a self-interested comedian, because it restricts his vocabulary, but he refuses to see it as self-interest, claiming that it’s the fascist principle of outlawing certain words that bothers him.
I think the specific discussion of specific words might yield some lively discussion, and I might even agree with him on certain points, but the broader principle is that some people on my side of the discussion will often make points that I don’t personally endorse or agree with. That doesn’t make them my enemies, or make them universally wrong, as Maher seems to think.
“Wet Love Hike”
It was probably in a Klepper klip that I heard someone called a “antifa fascist”.
Bill Maher (a very good example of a certain type of guy, which is to say an asshole) notwithstanding, I think 90% of people believe that’s true in the privacy of their own minds. I believe it. Don’t you?
That’s the real magic of the anti-woke crusade. It’s why it’s good culture war politics to use these broad terms and laugh at complaints about definitions. Next time there’s some college protest about some tiny misunderstood thing that makes national news, or someone gets fired for something they shouldn’t, they’ll all point to that and say “and they say Woke doesn’t exist,” and it will have real resonance. It’s a more complicated political struggle than this thread would suggest. I don’t know what the numbers are, but my real world experience tells me that when you say “X person is a little bit too woke,” a lot of normal people are able to conjure up exactly what you’re communicating to them.
I said it before: I seriously would like to hear Christian nationalist MTG explain how Jesus wasn’t woke.
You say you would like to, but she would simply say that Jesus was against sexual immorality and hatred and for family values, and you would both walk away thinking you crushed the other.
Yes, I do. That’s why I said I agree with him on certain anti-woke points. When something hits close to what we do for a living, or are particularly well informed about, we can often see reasons for doing things that people can’t see at all looking from the outside, so the interested and valid discussions of “woke” behavior are those from the better informed, not the angriest, among us.
Maher had Bryan Cranston on his podcast a month or so ago, a format in which Maher is often deferential to his guests, unlike on his TV show where he kisses Elon Musk’s ass but gives everyone else short shrift. And Cranston really handed Maher’s ass to him on the subject of woke and cancel culture. Worth listening to. Maher tried to talk over him and to make his tiresome point, but Cranston was having none of it, and Maher sounded as if he learned something, at least during the time he spent with Cranston.
You might find this article from the CBC interesting - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/woke-trudeau-poilievre-1.6840196
TL/DR - "According to Pollara, 31 per cent of Canadians who have at least heard the word think woke is “usually” a “bad thing,” while 16 per cent think it’s usually a “good thing.”
BUT - "while many Canadians understand woke to be a bad thing, they maintain a positive view of other words associated with social justice causes. According to Pollara, “Black Lives Matter” had a net good/bad rating of plus-35, while pride flags were plus-34. Feminism, #MeToo, allyship and affirmative action were plus-30, plus-28, plus-26 and plus-21, respectively.
Canadians seem to suspect that there’s something different about being woke even as they broadly support the sorts of causes that, once upon a time, would have been associated with wokeness."
As many posters above have said, the lack of definition is an advantage, allowing right wing politicians to get people to repudiate positions that they approve of. This survey, and its analysis, just puts some facts and statistics behind that assertion.
“Woke” is like “pornography” - they just know it when they see it.
Woke kind of reminds me of social justice warrior. Year ago, a SJW was the type of person who would introduce their pet cause into a conversation no matter how strained the relationship to the current topic might be. Or they were the type of person who would talk big online about social justice issues but didn’t do anything online. After a while, anyone who voiced any concern about social justice issues even when it was relevant to the subject at hand was labeled an SJW. But I don’t hear many people using SJW these days and I guess I’ve got woke to thank for that.
Yep, it’s all just a mind game to them, to confuse the issues and conceal their real intent. It’s like the push to label everyone a “groomer”. They know just coming out and saying, “Hey, let’s all hate the queers again!” is a non-starter, so instead they mix it up; “We don’t hate the queers, nosiree! We only hate those queers who are “grooming” kids (which is all of them)”.
That’s because two-thirds of “Social Justice Warrior” have positive connotations, which made it a bit awkward to be anti-SJW. “Okay, sure, maybe ‘social’(ism) is a bit sketchy, but why are you opposed to “warriors” and “justice”?”
“Woke” is easier to demonize, because there isn’t a lot of built-in cultural baggage of positive connotations to overcome.