4 ms·
What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing? I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man?
by feurio 5y ago
What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing?
I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man? Stick to woke.
If you would like to propose a new term that encompases the original defintion of woke and something else then feel free - hyer-woke, or something. Why do you want to change the defintion of words?
And, are you a fascist?
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago> What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing? You're pretending to be wholly unfamiliar with the subject of culture wars, when in reality you are very familiar with them. That's disingenuous. The other poster seemed to have endless patience with you pretending "not to understand" and "not know" things which you know and understand perfectly well. I don't know why you can't just stand up straight and argue for the things you believe in, instead of trying to play some mind games, lying and cheating? If your cause is worthy and your arguments are good, then surely you can achieve your goals without resorting to lies?
- feurio 5y agoI really am genuinely trying to understand how woke has become the bogeyman du nos jour. It's become a hysteria - say something is woke and you ascribe some mythical attributes to it that cause people to fall into paroxisms. Same as a bunch of strange crazes that have cropped up over the years; witch trials, spanish inquisition, mccarthayism, 80s satanic child-abuse. Say something or someone is woke and it's like yelling "communist" in the 50s. It's a fantastic distraction mechanism for anyone wishing to deploy it and I'm just staggered that seemingly intelligent people go into a Pavlov's dog response as soon as they hear it. The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago> The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means. Yes they have. The other poster used hundreds of words to explain it to you. You just dismiss any explanations, just as you dismiss any concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society. You ask for stuff, then people give it to you, then you close your eyes and ears and say you still haven't seen any of that stuff you asked for.
- feurio 5y agoWith respect, I haven't asked for an essay, just an update to the definition. Simply amend the following line from Merriam Webster: chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice) In terms of concrete examples, going back over the thread so far all I can find (if I missed any please correct me): ) SDG&E driver. ) Boeing comms director. *) Grievance studies affair For the SDG&E driver, if he was performing some kind of white power salute in clearly marked company vehicle (and, let's be honest, nobody really knows if he did or not except him) then some kind of disciplinary action at work would be appropriate - it's pretty dispicable (unless you're a keen racist) and it brings the company into disrepute. A final written warning or something. But because we don't know if he did or not, a less severe meeting with HR, being reminded of the need not to bring any bad publicity to the company, we believe you are acting in good faith, but please don't do this knuckle cracking thing again - it looks bad. What amazes me about it is that the labour laws are so lax that people can be summarily sacked without any due process. I understand that this is common practice in the US and happens all of the time. Seems to me that solution to this is to campaign for stronger employee rights. You can't uninvent smartphone cameras, and you can't stop people from posting things on twitter, but you can strengthen labour laws. This isn't a problem with woke, it's a problem with lax regulations. As for the comms director, he resigned. That's just what comms directors do if they become the story. He wasn't sacked. If behind the scenes he was forced to resign then see previous point about labour laws and he should take them to an employment tribunal. I find the Grievance studies thing hilarious. Clearly it is a wonderful hoax, and calls into question the quality of the review process at the journals and maybe the utility of social science (I've alwayss been a bit sceptical of calling it science, tbh). But seeing as it was a hoax and not really not a controlled experiment you can't really take away many conlcusions from it. How anyone can read a title like "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" or "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use" without pissing themselves laughing is beyond me. I would certainly resign if I'd have waved that through without going back to the submitter and saying WTF is this. If these are your "concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society", I just don't see it. An example of how lax labour laws are a bad thing, certainly. An example of calling (some) social sciences a science being a bit silly, yes. But just look at the people crying woke all of the time, the likes of Fox and talk radio. The same people who want lax labour laws. The same people who undermine the science about vaccinations and have lead to tens (possibly hundreds?) of thousands of uneccessary deaths of people who would have survived had they got vaccinated. That is very real and raw destruction of human lives and society.