41 ms·

For all the feigning of ignorance, 'woke' is well entrenched in in mainstream language now. It would definitely have made it to one of those "word of the year"

For all the feigning of ignorance, 'woke' is well entrenched in in mainstream language now. It would definitely have made it to one of those "word of the year" things within the past few years if it wasn't for wokeism. Urban dictionary can help you out if you really don't know https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke Pretending to be bravely battling fascism and tyranny on behalf of the oppressed while censoring for theocratic and communist dictatorships is Hollywood's bread and butter. Not just Hollywood for that matter, a lot of multinational corporations in other industries too.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 5y ago
> For all the feigning of ignorance, 'woke' is well entrenched in in mainstream language now. I can't speak for the other person, but the term is so loaded that it's lost meaning, and it seems important to define your meaning if we are going to talk about it. I agree that it's a bit disingenous to just ask for a definition rather than say, 'that term is so loaded; what do you mean by it?'
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It hasn't lost meaning at all, it's just that some people don't like the meaning so they misrepresent it or pretend not to know what it is. It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. That's the meaning. There's also an older one which has mostly been displaced as far as I'm aware, but if it's still used it also has a pretty well defined meaning. In context, at least in this context, it was not ambiguous which meaning was being used.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. A bizarre claim only made by people who attack progressives.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      What is the bizzare claim?
- jdkee 5y ago
  The loaded (freighted) content of the word "woke" is exactly why it has the weight it does in conversation. Similar to a curse word.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” they’re complaining about things that I think are good. Giving black actors roles in areas normally dominated by white actors? That’s awesome! But whenever this happens loads of people online will claim that is “wokeism”. Representation for gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people in media? Wow that’s great! Many complain this is “wokeism”. Recognizing that trans women are women and trans men are men? 100% that’s the bare minimum and I am happy to see it. “Wokeism” The real reason I asked was to get people on here to reveal what kind of progress they are against. Of course there is sometimes an element of hypocrisy suggested in the “wokeism” complaint. But there’s always hypocrites. Sometimes accusations of hypocrisy are used as a smoke screen to simply complain about there being gay people on the television.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  I've been thinking about this and it happens I do have an answer. Wokeism is in part an ideology and a set of political goals, but it is also a means of competition. It is the foundation for a system of verbal duelling that determines who gets the limited number of spots at the top of our hierarchy. Like the Edwardian's preoccupation with gossip and scandal or the Aztec's ritual sacrifice of losing ullamaliztli players, it's a means for an overproduced elite to thin its ranks. An excellent example of Wokeness-as-duelling is the story of Annamie Paul, a Canadian politician. Annamie Paul was a woman and lawyer from a dark-skinned Jewish family - this will become important later - who won leadership of the Canadian Green Party. From a Woke standpoint that was the desired outcome, a black woman can become leader of a political party, aren't we wonderful. But winning a position of power and wielding it well are two different things, and Annamie Paul faced a leadership challenge over her position on Israel-Palestine. It was quite mainstream for a western country, but not for Canadian Green party voters. As the back-and-forth turned acrimonious, she alleged her critics were motivated by racism. Public support for the Green party, which had been making slow advances over the preceding years, collapsed spectacularly in the next election. It's not hard to see, with the benefit of standing outside the fray, what Annamie Paul's mistake was. A Jewish woman, asked about the situation of the Palestinian people, can only acknowledge her privilege, and if she wishes to make no concessions she must pay the political price of not using her privilege to benefit the less fortunate. She could not, in that context, allege racism because in the context of that particular debate, she was of the privileged race - technically religion, but in that context the distinction wasn't important. The rules of Woke competition are by design self-contradictory, but they are still taken seriously, and everyone could see that she had violated them. So she lost the position she had attained, and given the hit to her reputation will need more effort and luck than she spent to get it if she is to attain another as lofty. Now, what is wrong with any of that? In my opinion, nothing. For Annamie Paul I can only say 'live by the sword, die by the sword', if she'd been able to demonstrate genuine compassion for Palestine she could have walked out of that trap as easily as she walked in. As for the broader effect on society, Woke competition actually selects for the qualities I'd want in my elite. Verbal intelligence, compassion, and tolerating paradox are all good qualities for an elite class to possess. Further, while it's easy for a hypocrite to use it to attain higher rank, it's very hard to retain said rank unless one genuinely displays the virtues Wokeness demands. But, and of course there's a but, it is a system that produces winners and losers, and the losers get to have a say. In particular, straight white men are shut out of a lot of targeted benefits and mutual aide societies others have access to, while being discouraged from forming our own. It takes the arrogance of a rich white man to look at a system like Woke competition and say, "I can win that". So of course, poor white men don't think it's a game worth playing, and when they denounce the structure of the game, any rich white man - or rich white woman for that matter - who tries to argue against them finds themselves in the same position as Annamie Paul, punching down in public. That, of course, makes it worthwhile for people winning the game to use said PWM as a vector to demonstrate their own compassion and attack their competition. This only changes when the rules of the game adjust to be more reflective of the actual difference between rich and poor. Woke competition does allow for a change of the rules, but it's currently not clear whether such an adjustment would require an overhaul or a tweak. People who think it would require an overhaul often allege that a key goal of woke competition is to fracture the poor along intersectional lines to prevent them making common cause against the rich. If true, that's of course an unforgivable transgression that may require replacing Woke Competition with something else entirely. Those of us who think it might require only a tweak think that this is an artefact of the unconscious privilege of the rich, which they will remedy with all haste once it is brought to their attention.
tauntz 5y ago
As a non-native English speaker not living in the US, I've heard the word (or rather, read) multiple times but I honestly have never bothered to research what it actually means but I think I've kinda gotten the context around it(?) I've seen it being tossed around on Reddit when there's post about US politics/US social issues and it always looked to me like a generic insult thrown at somebody who doesn't like the more conservative "side" of the US political spectrum. I basically got the impression that it's a shorthand for "You think your opinion and views are modern and hip but I don't share the same view on the world and you are stupid due to that". Reading now Urban dictionary, I see that I was.. kinda on the right track? US is really weird :)
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  "Woke" as a political term was originally used to describe someone with political views focused on what they saw as the historical and modern forms of societal oppression: subjugation of women and sexism, racism and forms of societal bias against minorities, homophobia and anti-LGBT views found in mainstream society. To be "woke" was to be someone who was aware of the ways in which American society was and still is unjust to these various minority groups. Over time, as some of this progressive-minded population became more extreme/absurd, the term came to represent that absurdity and became more of an epithet. Students protesting because they believed the proprietor of a shop on campus was racist when he physically stopped some students attempting to shoplift, because they were black. A rich black female college student who entered a cafeteria was asked to leave, and became the center of a large movement (with ACLU support) outraged at being targeted for eating while black, resulting in the staff members being fired. Members of the ACLU supporting a campaign to censor a book for trans-related wrongthink. These sorts of excesses began to be associated with the term, so now, while it can be used both ways, is more commonly associated with the loud, militant, and extremist portions of the progressive movement, and is generally used as a derogatory term.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I don't see what urban dictionary entries lead you to believe you are on the right track, but the top voted 2-3 do not. Those are what it means: hypocrisy and insincerity about progressive causes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wolverine876 5y ago

> For all the feigning of ignorance, 'woke' is well entrenched in in mainstream language now. I can't speak for the other person, but the term is so loaded that it's lost meaning, and it seems important to define your meaning if we are going to talk about it. I agree that it's a bit disingenous to just ask for a definition rather than say, 'that term is so loaded; what do you mean by it?'

throwawaylinux 5y ago
It hasn't lost meaning at all, it's just that some people don't like the meaning so they misrepresent it or pretend not to know what it is. It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. That's the meaning. There's also an older one which has mostly been displaced as far as I'm aware, but if it's still used it also has a pretty well defined meaning. In context, at least in this context, it was not ambiguous which meaning was being used.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > It basically means hypocrisy and/or insincerity toward popular progressive causes. A bizarre claim only made by people who attack progressives.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    What is the bizzare claim?
jdkee 5y ago
The loaded (freighted) content of the word "woke" is exactly why it has the weight it does in conversation. Similar to a curse word.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” they’re complaining about things that I think are good. Giving black actors roles in areas normally dominated by white actors? That’s awesome! But whenever this happens loads of people online will claim that is “wokeism”. Representation for gay, lesbian, queer, and trans people in media? Wow that’s great! Many complain this is “wokeism”. Recognizing that trans women are women and trans men are men? 100% that’s the bare minimum and I am happy to see it. “Wokeism” The real reason I asked was to get people on here to reveal what kind of progress they are against. Of course there is sometimes an element of hypocrisy suggested in the “wokeism” complaint. But there’s always hypocrites. Sometimes accusations of hypocrisy are used as a smoke screen to simply complain about there being gay people on the television.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
I've been thinking about this and it happens I do have an answer. Wokeism is in part an ideology and a set of political goals, but it is also a means of competition. It is the foundation for a system of verbal duelling that determines who gets the limited number of spots at the top of our hierarchy. Like the Edwardian's preoccupation with gossip and scandal or the Aztec's ritual sacrifice of losing ullamaliztli players, it's a means for an overproduced elite to thin its ranks. An excellent example of Wokeness-as-duelling is the story of Annamie Paul, a Canadian politician. Annamie Paul was a woman and lawyer from a dark-skinned Jewish family - this will become important later - who won leadership of the Canadian Green Party. From a Woke standpoint that was the desired outcome, a black woman can become leader of a political party, aren't we wonderful. But winning a position of power and wielding it well are two different things, and Annamie Paul faced a leadership challenge over her position on Israel-Palestine. It was quite mainstream for a western country, but not for Canadian Green party voters. As the back-and-forth turned acrimonious, she alleged her critics were motivated by racism. Public support for the Green party, which had been making slow advances over the preceding years, collapsed spectacularly in the next election. It's not hard to see, with the benefit of standing outside the fray, what Annamie Paul's mistake was. A Jewish woman, asked about the situation of the Palestinian people, can only acknowledge her privilege, and if she wishes to make no concessions she must pay the political price of not using her privilege to benefit the less fortunate. She could not, in that context, allege racism because in the context of that particular debate, she was of the privileged race - technically religion, but in that context the distinction wasn't important. The rules of Woke competition are by design self-contradictory, but they are still taken seriously, and everyone could see that she had violated them. So she lost the position she had attained, and given the hit to her reputation will need more effort and luck than she spent to get it if she is to attain another as lofty. Now, what is wrong with any of that? In my opinion, nothing. For Annamie Paul I can only say 'live by the sword, die by the sword', if she'd been able to demonstrate genuine compassion for Palestine she could have walked out of that trap as easily as she walked in. As for the broader effect on society, Woke competition actually selects for the qualities I'd want in my elite. Verbal intelligence, compassion, and tolerating paradox are all good qualities for an elite class to possess. Further, while it's easy for a hypocrite to use it to attain higher rank, it's very hard to retain said rank unless one genuinely displays the virtues Wokeness demands. But, and of course there's a but, it is a system that produces winners and losers, and the losers get to have a say. In particular, straight white men are shut out of a lot of targeted benefits and mutual aide societies others have access to, while being discouraged from forming our own. It takes the arrogance of a rich white man to look at a system like Woke competition and say, "I can win that". So of course, poor white men don't think it's a game worth playing, and when they denounce the structure of the game, any rich white man - or rich white woman for that matter - who tries to argue against them finds themselves in the same position as Annamie Paul, punching down in public. That, of course, makes it worthwhile for people winning the game to use said PWM as a vector to demonstrate their own compassion and attack their competition. This only changes when the rules of the game adjust to be more reflective of the actual difference between rich and poor. Woke competition does allow for a change of the rules, but it's currently not clear whether such an adjustment would require an overhaul or a tweak. People who think it would require an overhaul often allege that a key goal of woke competition is to fracture the poor along intersectional lines to prevent them making common cause against the rich. If true, that's of course an unforgivable transgression that may require replacing Woke Competition with something else entirely. Those of us who think it might require only a tweak think that this is an artefact of the unconscious privilege of the rich, which they will remedy with all haste once it is brought to their attention.

tauntz 5y ago

As a non-native English speaker not living in the US, I've heard the word (or rather, read) multiple times but I honestly have never bothered to research what it actually means but I think I've kinda gotten the context around it(?) I've seen it being tossed around on Reddit when there's post about US politics/US social issues and it always looked to me like a generic insult thrown at somebody who doesn't like the more conservative "side" of the US political spectrum. I basically got the impression that it's a shorthand for "You think your opinion and views are modern and hip but I don't share the same view on the world and you are stupid due to that". Reading now Urban dictionary, I see that I was.. kinda on the right track? US is really weird :)

bart_spoon 5y ago
"Woke" as a political term was originally used to describe someone with political views focused on what they saw as the historical and modern forms of societal oppression: subjugation of women and sexism, racism and forms of societal bias against minorities, homophobia and anti-LGBT views found in mainstream society. To be "woke" was to be someone who was aware of the ways in which American society was and still is unjust to these various minority groups. Over time, as some of this progressive-minded population became more extreme/absurd, the term came to represent that absurdity and became more of an epithet. Students protesting because they believed the proprietor of a shop on campus was racist when he physically stopped some students attempting to shoplift, because they were black. A rich black female college student who entered a cafeteria was asked to leave, and became the center of a large movement (with ACLU support) outraged at being targeted for eating while black, resulting in the staff members being fired. Members of the ACLU supporting a campaign to censor a book for trans-related wrongthink. These sorts of excesses began to be associated with the term, so now, while it can be used both ways, is more commonly associated with the loud, militant, and extremist portions of the progressive movement, and is generally used as a derogatory term.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
I don't see what urban dictionary entries lead you to believe you are on the right track, but the top voted 2-3 do not. Those are what it means: hypocrisy and insincerity about progressive causes.