Woke

[Brandane]

Let's put it nice and simply.
Do you care how other people might feel ? If yes that is woke, if no that not woke.

I disagree with your definition. I haven't fallen for the trendy brainwashing which is woke. But what you are saying is that as long as I keep my opinions to myself, that is ok and I am "woke"? No; woke is a state of mind. What you describe is simply common decency and manners.

So I don't consider myself to be woke, but I do respect other people's feelings and opinions. Therefore I DO keep my opinions on certain matters (which are flung in our faces on a daily basis) to myself. Live and let live, it used to be called. If only "they" would do likewise..... Kathy Burke, take note.

 

[geocycle]

I think the use of woke is offensive. Users are expropriating an African American expression largely used to signal awareness of racism. Applying it to every trivial gripe in the same spirit as ‘politically correct’ was used, is disrespectful. Hopefully the constructed culture wars are ending.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I don't know all it involves but I do understand you shouldn't offend anyone else

That’s not a feature of the term woke.

So as you appear to be an advocate for woke why don't you tell us what it means?

See post #2 in this thread for a comprehensive account of the term’s origins and meaning. The short version is: being alert to prejudice, discrimination or injustice. It’s as simple as that.

People who dislike this idea of not discriminating against others hijacked the term to use it as a pejorative; as though not being a racist, or doing something to tackle injustice, are bad things.

I find it’s not a term used by those who seek fairness and equality but rather by those who oppose such concepts. (And I haven’t found those to be nice people.)

 

[Dogtrousers]

It's a bit like "yuppie" in the 80s. When originally coined it had a specific meaning but - like woke - it ended up over-used and having a vague meaning of "someone who had amassed enough wealth to own a pair of socks".

Just a children gleefully over use swearwords when they discover them, the internet loved "woke" so much that it has batted it around to the extent that now it means little more than "someone who might be slightly disapproving of mass murder".

 

[Andy in Germany]

See post #2 in this thread for a comprehensive account of the term’s origins and meaning. The short version is: being alert to prejudice, discrimination or injustice. It’s as simple as that.

That's the problem with this word: different people define it differently. I've come across people who define it this way, but as I said before, its origins seem to be in Critical Theory, which itself redefines things like "Prejudice, discrimination, or injustice", often basing the definition on the racial groups in a specific situation.

People who dislike this idea of not discriminating against others hijacked the term to use it as a pejorative; as though not being a racist, or doing something to tackle injustice, are bad things.

And this is another problem. Making a statement that implies everyone who disagrees is "racist" or "against equality" isn't helpful, especially if the original term is ill-defined.

Historically, demonising the opposition tends to have negative consequences. If there's a case to support an ideology, we need to make the case for supporting it, rather than demand people follow or be called names.

 

[Drago]

Which brings us full circle.

Those that are typically described as woke can often be some of the most prejudiced people out there.

That's why it's meaningless. We have only "people", and with such a variable commodity it's not really possible to nearly pigeonhole them as woke, discriminatory, fascist, etc, as most people are a mix of all sorts of different proportions of such characteristics, and more, quite often to rhe point if being contradictory.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I find it’s not a term used by those who seek fairness and equality but rather by those who oppose such concepts. (And I haven’t found those to be nice people.)

As I've mentioned above I work with vulnerable adults and often with immigrants of different colours and cultures, and I disagree with "woke" ideology as I see it, because it doesn't help these people. Unfortunately, when I try and explain this I'm often drowned out by people calling me names, as with the quotation above.

 

[Drago]

I think all this silly pigeonholing (at best) and puerile name calling (at worst( is pointless.

Even good people sometimes do bad things.

 

[FishFright]

I disagree with your definition. I haven't fallen for the trendy brainwashing which is woke. But what you are saying is that as long as I keep my opinions to myself, that is ok and I am "woke"? No; woke is a state of mind. What you describe is simply common decency and manners.

So I don't consider myself to be woke, but I do respect other people's feelings and opinions. Therefore I DO keep my opinions on certain matters (which are flung in our faces on a daily basis) to myself. Live and let live, it used to be called. If only "they" would do likewise..... Kathy Burke, take note.

No one will consider you to be woke so don't worry about that .
Listen to Kathy , she is correct.

 

[Andy in Germany]

No one will consider you to be woke so don't worry about that .
Listen to Kathy , she is correct.

As I said before:

Making a statement that implies everyone who disagrees is "racist" or "against equality" isn't helpful, especially if the original term is ill-defined.

Historically, demonising the opposition tends to have negative consequences. If there's a case to support an ideology, we need to make the case for supporting it, rather than demand people follow or be called names.

 

[FishFright]

As I said before:

Historically supporting or allowing the opposition to spread their terrible beliefs leads to much worse outcomes.

So do we protest and call them out or stand aside wringing our hands ?

 

[Drago]

No one will consider you to be woke so don't worry about that .
Listen to Kathy , she is correct.

Except she isn't. The manner of her defence negates the actual meaning of the message.

It's possible to be nice to people and do good things without being nasty about it to those with whom you disagree.

Welcome to freedom. Now do as I say or we'll shoot you is a nasty sentiment, and considering yourself woke doesnt make the message any more palatable.

Just be nice to those with which you disagree. As Mandela eventually discovered, setting the example is the most effective method of bring people round to your point of view. Childish nastiness pushes them away.

 

[FishFright]

Except she isn't. The manner of her defence negates the actual meaning of the message.

Putting it on a mug ?

 

[Andy in Germany]

Historically supporting or allowing the opposition to spread their terrible beliefs leads to much worse outcomes.

Yes, it does.

So do we protest and call them out or stand aside wringing our hands ?

Demonising anyone who doesn't agree with very specific ideas is a third option, which achieves the worst of both worlds: it alienates people who would otherwise be neutral, while giving the people who espouse opposite views an easy example to use against you.

As I said before, I share many values with you and probably @glasgowcyclist and others on this thread, and I work with many of the people that "woke" activists claim to want to help, but I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the underlying ideology behind "woke" thought.

I am also disturbed by the way that when even remotely challenged, many supporters of the ideology respond with ad hominem statements very similar to those quoted from Kathy Burke.

If an ideology has the ingredients for making a better world, then the best way to show this is to demonstrate, and as @Drago said; lead by example.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Except she isn't. The manner of her defence negates the actual meaning of the message.

It's worse than that; it gives the impression there's no solid argument supporting her ideas.