6 ms·

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 are

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.
- gampleman 5y ago
  I think this is a fascinating take. It certainly explains the predominance of woke dialogue especially on the left, which in the Anglo Saxon sphere probably suffers with a greater oversupply of elites. However, that would be sufficient if it was just talk but there seems to be plenty of walk there as well.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Why thank you! By 'walk' I assume you mean there seems to be a genuine desire to upend the existing institutions? It certainly seems that way, and I would guess that's more of a feature than a bug. Getting ahead of revolutionary sentiment and co opting the parts it finds acceptable is after all something any successful ruling class needs to be good at.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  This is pretty interesting but I don't think the evidence is very strong. Being the leader of the Canadian Green Party is not "elite". Green parties around the world are going through these upheavals only because they allowed and encouraged this wokeism, that's what they want and that's what they get. Whereas look at the actual positions of political power. Biden/Harris -- they're both horrific in many wokeness metrics. Rich old privileged straight white, war monger, sexual assault allegations, top cop whose record on imprisoning black people is problematic, descendant of slave owner, and of course staunch supporters of Israel just to name a few (I'm not saying these are fair or valid criticisms but it's all prime woke ammunition). Yet somehow it doesn't affect them. For all the dueling and competition among the elites (or at least their political representatives) you're imagining, very little wokeism was used against them as far as I could see. They also required very little verbal intelligence, compassion, or tolerance. What they had is an elite and their corporations who consolidated around them and protect them, don't ask the wrong questions and don't bring out the woke attack dogs. The opposite of dueling and infighting. And in your last paragraph you're acting like the systems are set up by (or at least is able to be changed by) and for the benefit of people who are not the rich elites. The evidence points to the opposite. It is clearly a tool to divide the underclass and insulate the ruling class.
tomp 5y ago
throwawaylinux 5y ago
> I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” Forgive me if you were being genuine, but frequently when I see the word used on the internet, I see replies from people who seem utterly bewildered and claim that they really want to know what the word means. But it's trivial to find out what this or any other word or slang word means with a simple internet search, so it doesn't really seem like they care to learn what it means but rather they are trying to make a statement or trying to use cheap rhetoric to cast aspersion on the post being replied to without actually addressing it in any coherent way. Then when definitions are proffered, they are often not met with gratitude and understanding but with argumentation -- suddenly they do know what it means. EDIT: Ah I misread your post you indeed were not asking sincerely, you were actually feigning ignorance as I thought. Worse, you're misrepresenting what the word means and baselessly attacking the parent poster as a bigot, and you have refused to walk that back or provide any evidence for these insults. This is a good example of behavior that is described as wokeism. > they’re complaining about things that I think are good. That's not what woke means though, it's clearly about hypocrisy and insincerity and performative pointless acts or gestures. Did you not read the definition I gave you, or were you being insincere when you asked about the meaning of the word in the first place? Also, the parent poster did not seem to be complaining about any of the things you are talking about here, if you are making that claim that they are bigoted it's very serious I hope you have some good reason to do so. I would go so far as to say it's totally against the site rules so you need to clarify.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > That's not what woke means though, it's clearly about hypocrisy and insincerity and performative pointless acts or gestures. Did you not read the definition I gave you, or were you being insincere when you asked about the meaning of the word in the first place? You seem to be the one asserting that the word has only one true meaning. That is absolutely false. The word originated with one meaning and has been co-opted by other groups including onew that have used word in ironic or sarcastic ways that have twisted that meaning. It is thus perfectly legitimate to ask people, especially those who you think are using the ironic meaning, what they mean when they use the word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
sharikous 5y ago
In few paragraphs you managed to convert a rational conversation to a moral argument and, worse than that, a personal attack. I am not the GP but this sort of "this is good"/"you are a bad person" litany is exactly what is off-putting to many people. I won't even comment on "The real reason I asked was to get people on here to reveal what kind of progress they are against."... And as for entertainment strong moral undertones are enemies of fun.
- WayCoolJr 5y ago
- TheNorthman 5y ago
  I don't understand the dichotomy between rational conversations and moral arguments. "Oh no, morality!" is such a ridiculous-but-common escape-hatch whenever you're having a debate about something that is even a tiny bit difficult. Nothing is 100% objective-truth. Recognize this, and get over it.
gnmla 5y ago
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > In the 1990s there were loads of superstar Black actors. I think if you look at overall black representation among actors, you will see it was very low. If you look for some in your memory, you will find them of course. Even now, almost everything is led by a white person. Even in animation, almost everyone is white. Or look at sci-fi movies, where there are often as many or more alien species as non-white humans. > The woke with their CRT and racial segregation policies (telling children that race really matters a lot) have ruined everything. What is being told the children by whom? What does CRT say? If you dispute that race has a large (though certainly undesireable) impact on life, you are living in a sci-fi fantasy. > ruined everything I think it has, or threatens to, burst many bubbles, which 'ruins' many fantasies. Just talk to people with actual experience of it, such as black people, and you will find out just how isolated we have been from reality. Most white people don't do that because they don't have many black people in their personal network, which should be a signal.
  - cbaly 5y ago
    - cloverich 5y ago
      > completely defined by their racial group I don't know much about CRT but when I google high ranking results[1], the very first tenet is literally the opposite of your claim: Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. [1]: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
  - grog454 5y ago
    >Even now, almost everything is led by a white person. Even in animation, almost everyone is white. Or look at sci-fi movies, where there are often as many or more alien species as non-white humans. If not "almost everything [was] led by a white person" it would be an under or over representation of multiple races, at least if it is supposed to be a "representation" of the western world*. You can google "us race demographics" and it will conveniently bring up a table showing 76.3% white and 13.4% black. I think some people forget that a motely crew of exactly one of every race is someone's utopian ideal with no basis in reality. And it's not hard to extend that idea to any arbitrary subset of humans in almost any context. *The entire world isn't any "better": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world Edit: googled "actor demographics": There are over 19,730 Actors currently employed in the United States. 32.1% of all Actors are women, while 63.9% are men. The average age of an employed Actor is 37 years old. The most common ethnicity of Actors is White (59.5%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.6%) and Black or African American (13.9%). If someone's personal experience with actor demographics doesn't reflect that, its most likely because what they typically watch doesn't reflect it and not because of a systemic imbalance.
jlawson 5y ago
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > blatant discrimination against men and white people in hiring and admissions If you look at who is hired and admitted, that discrimination isn't accomplishing much! Also, discrimination is about power; in its significant meaning, it requires power. If the owner of a tiny restuarant discriminates against you because you are a white male person, it is obnoxious but that is all the damage; you are safe, just go someplace else. If the government or the powerful majority discriminates against you, brutalizing you, arresting you, denying you work, etc. then it is very serious and damages your life and safety. What changes - occasionally, in some places - is that white people and males no longer benefit from an affirmative action program that favors them - a ridiculous situation for the most powerful group in society. Look at sports as a simple example: Until the late 1940s, Major League Baseball only employed white players - it was a massive affirmative action program for white guys, who would not otherwise get the jobs. There was a great uproar, including among players, when they lost just a little of the privilege (the first year, in all of baseball, there were 1-2 non-white players. It took decades before the white guy affirmative action program disappeared.)
  - jlawson 5y ago
    I am looking at who is hired and admitted. Whites are underrepresented at these institutions, like Harvard and Google. Being discriminated against in hiring by the government and most major academic and media organizations is being discriminated against by power. We're not talking about mom and pop shops, obviously.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  - marvin 5y ago
    Calling someone a "whiny bitch" is a personal attack that's completely unrelated to the discission. If you have to do that, can you do it in a different forum please?
4ggr0 5y ago
For me the biggest red flags are when people start talking about wokeism, is when you ask them about it they then continue to elaborate that they mean "communism", "lgbt-agendas" etc. 99% of people who complain about that kind of wokeism sound like alt-righters to me, or at least like people who parrot what the alt-right says without being aware of it.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  That's not what woke means though. You don't let trolls dictate what you understand of any other words, do you? Woke in this context means insincere and/or hypocritical support of liberal causes, as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Both UD and Wikipedia also list other meanings of the word. I mean, sure, for all I know the common use where you are really is exactly what you’re saying, but one thing I’ve never noticed (caveat: easy to miss when it’s text and no faces) is a member of a minority saying “stop being woke, you don’t get us at all” (everything after the coma, yes, but never calling that “woke”). Given how big the anglosphere is (and the fluid nature of language), I don’t don’t that this use has happened at least once by someone in a position to actually use it appropriately, but I mainly see one majority person saying something and another majority person saying the first guy is woke without any apparent involvement from whichever minority is the topic. Or, indeed, the “that’s just woke” accuser insisting that the token minority person who agrees with the first person that $thing is bad is wrong and needs to shut up. Of course, I also accept that what I see on news shows is basically entertainment these days, so I don’t trust even that experience much either. > You don't let trolls dictate what you understand of any other words, do you? Well, the derogatory use appears to have been created by those I would call trolls, but as for other words? Heathen, do-gooder, bleeding heart, papist, yokel, redneck, fag, nerd, socialist… trolls have [re]defined words as insults throughout history.
  - 4ggr0 5y ago
    > as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions. Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" The Wikipedia definition you quote funnily enough is the one I described, "Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically, implying that 'wokeness' is an insincere form of performative activism." So you're confusing me quite a bit, first you tell me I shouldn't let trolls dictate what words mean, only for then doing exactly that yourself, citing the definition trolls and opponents use. And another thing - Urban Dictionary can certainly be used to get to know what online slang, memes mean. Using it as an official definition for a word is a bit wrong though, seeing as how UD is more about tongue-in-cheek joke definitions. So in the end, I frankly don't really know what you want to tell me, not meaning this in a rude way.
implements 5y ago
> Recognizing that trans women are women and trans men are men? 100% that’s the bare minimum and I am happy to see it. If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Is it medically, scientifically or philosophically true to assert TWAW, or is it a well-intentioned social fiction? Like you, I believe there’s much to be commended in “woke” (including the full acceptance of people who wish to live as if they were the other sex, or of no sex) but I think the mechanism (identity politics, intersectionality) and the philosophy (postmodernist) are unhelpful and irrational.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) Are they? And is that the definition of gender? submissive?! It's hard to think of someone I know now, who identifies as female, who fits your definition. And if true, what does some historical discrimination have to do with someone's personal belief of themselves? If I think I'm non-binary, does the historical reason for discrimination against women change me somehow? And who are you or I to tell someone else what their identity is? That just seems bizarre to me. > postmodernist Ironically, most people criticizing post-moderinism are using it as the mechanism of their critique - which is especially post-modernist!
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  > then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Accepting trans people is about separating gender and sex, not fusing them.

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.

gampleman 5y ago
I think this is a fascinating take. It certainly explains the predominance of woke dialogue especially on the left, which in the Anglo Saxon sphere probably suffers with a greater oversupply of elites. However, that would be sufficient if it was just talk but there seems to be plenty of walk there as well.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Why thank you! By 'walk' I assume you mean there seems to be a genuine desire to upend the existing institutions? It certainly seems that way, and I would guess that's more of a feature than a bug. Getting ahead of revolutionary sentiment and co opting the parts it finds acceptable is after all something any successful ruling class needs to be good at.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
This is pretty interesting but I don't think the evidence is very strong. Being the leader of the Canadian Green Party is not "elite". Green parties around the world are going through these upheavals only because they allowed and encouraged this wokeism, that's what they want and that's what they get. Whereas look at the actual positions of political power. Biden/Harris -- they're both horrific in many wokeness metrics. Rich old privileged straight white, war monger, sexual assault allegations, top cop whose record on imprisoning black people is problematic, descendant of slave owner, and of course staunch supporters of Israel just to name a few (I'm not saying these are fair or valid criticisms but it's all prime woke ammunition). Yet somehow it doesn't affect them. For all the dueling and competition among the elites (or at least their political representatives) you're imagining, very little wokeism was used against them as far as I could see. They also required very little verbal intelligence, compassion, or tolerance. What they had is an elite and their corporations who consolidated around them and protect them, don't ask the wrong questions and don't bring out the woke attack dogs. The opposite of dueling and infighting. And in your last paragraph you're acting like the systems are set up by (or at least is able to be changed by) and for the benefit of people who are not the rich elites. The evidence points to the opposite. It is clearly a tool to divide the underclass and insulate the ruling class.

tomp 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> I asked because whenever I hear about someone complaining of “wokeism” Forgive me if you were being genuine, but frequently when I see the word used on the internet, I see replies from people who seem utterly bewildered and claim that they really want to know what the word means. But it's trivial to find out what this or any other word or slang word means with a simple internet search, so it doesn't really seem like they care to learn what it means but rather they are trying to make a statement or trying to use cheap rhetoric to cast aspersion on the post being replied to without actually addressing it in any coherent way. Then when definitions are proffered, they are often not met with gratitude and understanding but with argumentation -- suddenly they do know what it means. EDIT: Ah I misread your post you indeed were not asking sincerely, you were actually feigning ignorance as I thought. Worse, you're misrepresenting what the word means and baselessly attacking the parent poster as a bigot, and you have refused to walk that back or provide any evidence for these insults. This is a good example of behavior that is described as wokeism. > they’re complaining about things that I think are good. That's not what woke means though, it's clearly about hypocrisy and insincerity and performative pointless acts or gestures. Did you not read the definition I gave you, or were you being insincere when you asked about the meaning of the word in the first place? Also, the parent poster did not seem to be complaining about any of the things you are talking about here, if you are making that claim that they are bigoted it's very serious I hope you have some good reason to do so. I would go so far as to say it's totally against the site rules so you need to clarify.

shkkmo 5y ago
> That's not what woke means though, it's clearly about hypocrisy and insincerity and performative pointless acts or gestures. Did you not read the definition I gave you, or were you being insincere when you asked about the meaning of the word in the first place? You seem to be the one asserting that the word has only one true meaning. That is absolutely false. The word originated with one meaning and has been co-opted by other groups including onew that have used word in ironic or sarcastic ways that have twisted that meaning. It is thus perfectly legitimate to ask people, especially those who you think are using the ironic meaning, what they mean when they use the word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

sharikous 5y ago

In few paragraphs you managed to convert a rational conversation to a moral argument and, worse than that, a personal attack. I am not the GP but this sort of "this is good"/"you are a bad person" litany is exactly what is off-putting to many people. I won't even comment on "The real reason I asked was to get people on here to reveal what kind of progress they are against."... And as for entertainment strong moral undertones are enemies of fun.

WayCoolJr 5y ago
TheNorthman 5y ago
I don't understand the dichotomy between rational conversations and moral arguments. "Oh no, morality!" is such a ridiculous-but-common escape-hatch whenever you're having a debate about something that is even a tiny bit difficult. Nothing is 100% objective-truth. Recognize this, and get over it.

gnmla 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
> In the 1990s there were loads of superstar Black actors. I think if you look at overall black representation among actors, you will see it was very low. If you look for some in your memory, you will find them of course. Even now, almost everything is led by a white person. Even in animation, almost everyone is white. Or look at sci-fi movies, where there are often as many or more alien species as non-white humans. > The woke with their CRT and racial segregation policies (telling children that race really matters a lot) have ruined everything. What is being told the children by whom? What does CRT say? If you dispute that race has a large (though certainly undesireable) impact on life, you are living in a sci-fi fantasy. > ruined everything I think it has, or threatens to, burst many bubbles, which 'ruins' many fantasies. Just talk to people with actual experience of it, such as black people, and you will find out just how isolated we have been from reality. Most white people don't do that because they don't have many black people in their personal network, which should be a signal.
- cbaly 5y ago
  - cloverich 5y ago
    > completely defined by their racial group I don't know much about CRT but when I google high ranking results[1], the very first tenet is literally the opposite of your claim: Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. [1]: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
- grog454 5y ago
  >Even now, almost everything is led by a white person. Even in animation, almost everyone is white. Or look at sci-fi movies, where there are often as many or more alien species as non-white humans. If not "almost everything [was] led by a white person" it would be an under or over representation of multiple races, at least if it is supposed to be a "representation" of the western world*. You can google "us race demographics" and it will conveniently bring up a table showing 76.3% white and 13.4% black. I think some people forget that a motely crew of exactly one of every race is someone's utopian ideal with no basis in reality. And it's not hard to extend that idea to any arbitrary subset of humans in almost any context. *The entire world isn't any "better": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world Edit: googled "actor demographics": There are over 19,730 Actors currently employed in the United States. 32.1% of all Actors are women, while 63.9% are men. The average age of an employed Actor is 37 years old. The most common ethnicity of Actors is White (59.5%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.6%) and Black or African American (13.9%). If someone's personal experience with actor demographics doesn't reflect that, its most likely because what they typically watch doesn't reflect it and not because of a systemic imbalance.

jlawson 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
> blatant discrimination against men and white people in hiring and admissions If you look at who is hired and admitted, that discrimination isn't accomplishing much! Also, discrimination is about power; in its significant meaning, it requires power. If the owner of a tiny restuarant discriminates against you because you are a white male person, it is obnoxious but that is all the damage; you are safe, just go someplace else. If the government or the powerful majority discriminates against you, brutalizing you, arresting you, denying you work, etc. then it is very serious and damages your life and safety. What changes - occasionally, in some places - is that white people and males no longer benefit from an affirmative action program that favors them - a ridiculous situation for the most powerful group in society. Look at sports as a simple example: Until the late 1940s, Major League Baseball only employed white players - it was a massive affirmative action program for white guys, who would not otherwise get the jobs. There was a great uproar, including among players, when they lost just a little of the privilege (the first year, in all of baseball, there were 1-2 non-white players. It took decades before the white guy affirmative action program disappeared.)
- jlawson 5y ago
  I am looking at who is hired and admitted. Whites are underrepresented at these institutions, like Harvard and Google. Being discriminated against in hiring by the government and most major academic and media organizations is being discriminated against by power. We're not talking about mom and pop shops, obviously.
amcoastal 5y ago
- marvin 5y ago
  Calling someone a "whiny bitch" is a personal attack that's completely unrelated to the discission. If you have to do that, can you do it in a different forum please?

4ggr0 5y ago

For me the biggest red flags are when people start talking about wokeism, is when you ask them about it they then continue to elaborate that they mean "communism", "lgbt-agendas" etc. 99% of people who complain about that kind of wokeism sound like alt-righters to me, or at least like people who parrot what the alt-right says without being aware of it.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
That's not what woke means though. You don't let trolls dictate what you understand of any other words, do you? Woke in this context means insincere and/or hypocritical support of liberal causes, as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Both UD and Wikipedia also list other meanings of the word. I mean, sure, for all I know the common use where you are really is exactly what you’re saying, but one thing I’ve never noticed (caveat: easy to miss when it’s text and no faces) is a member of a minority saying “stop being woke, you don’t get us at all” (everything after the coma, yes, but never calling that “woke”). Given how big the anglosphere is (and the fluid nature of language), I don’t don’t that this use has happened at least once by someone in a position to actually use it appropriately, but I mainly see one majority person saying something and another majority person saying the first guy is woke without any apparent involvement from whichever minority is the topic. Or, indeed, the “that’s just woke” accuser insisting that the token minority person who agrees with the first person that $thing is bad is wrong and needs to shut up. Of course, I also accept that what I see on news shows is basically entertainment these days, so I don’t trust even that experience much either. > You don't let trolls dictate what you understand of any other words, do you? Well, the derogatory use appears to have been created by those I would call trolls, but as for other words? Heathen, do-gooder, bleeding heart, papist, yokel, redneck, fag, nerd, socialist… trolls have [re]defined words as insults throughout history.
- 4ggr0 5y ago
  > as wikipedia and urban dictionary clearly list as definitions. Wikipedia absolutely does not list it as a hypocritical or insincere thing. Wikipedia defines it as "alert to perceived racial prejudice and discrimination" The Wikipedia definition you quote funnily enough is the one I described, "Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically, implying that 'wokeness' is an insincere form of performative activism." So you're confusing me quite a bit, first you tell me I shouldn't let trolls dictate what words mean, only for then doing exactly that yourself, citing the definition trolls and opponents use. And another thing - Urban Dictionary can certainly be used to get to know what online slang, memes mean. Using it as an official definition for a word is a bit wrong though, seeing as how UD is more about tongue-in-cheek joke definitions. So in the end, I frankly don't really know what you want to tell me, not meaning this in a rude way.

implements 5y ago

> Recognizing that trans women are women and trans men are men? 100% that’s the bare minimum and I am happy to see it. If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Is it medically, scientifically or philosophically true to assert TWAW, or is it a well-intentioned social fiction? Like you, I believe there’s much to be commended in “woke” (including the full acceptance of people who wish to live as if they were the other sex, or of no sex) but I think the mechanism (identity politics, intersectionality) and the philosophy (postmodernist) are unhelpful and irrational.

wolverine876 5y ago
> If women are a group historically discriminated against by virtue of their sex (female, different physicality, different reproductive role) rather than by their gender (feminine, caring, pretty, submissive, domestic, …) Are they? And is that the definition of gender? submissive?! It's hard to think of someone I know now, who identifies as female, who fits your definition. And if true, what does some historical discrimination have to do with someone's personal belief of themselves? If I think I'm non-binary, does the historical reason for discrimination against women change me somehow? And who are you or I to tell someone else what their identity is? That just seems bizarre to me. > postmodernist Ironically, most people criticizing post-moderinism are using it as the mechanism of their critique - which is especially post-modernist!
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> then is the fusing of sex and gender truly progressive? Accepting trans people is about separating gender and sex, not fusing them.