4 ms·

I use it as a catch all term for people who "are into" Critical Social Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyn

I use it as a catch all term for people who "are into" Critical Social Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories).

pstuart 4y ago
It seems to be primarily as a slur now. I go by the initial Webster's definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke -- "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" By that definition I consider myself to be woke. Aware and care. Easy peasy. I've seen this game played before, and it was called "politically correct": take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement. It looks like you're doing exactly that (the word soup of your wiki link at least implies that).
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  Precisely that. While it has a clear definition, by and large anyone using the term "woke" these days is dogwhistling, and using it as a slur. The fact that accusing you of caring about society and intersectional justice is supposedly insulting to some people, is really quite remarkable. It's not insulting to be "woke," but it's certainly telling with folk like the commenter above use it as a slur.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Looks like you got downvoted too. The fact that they dance around the core concept without acknowledging that the problem exists is something that still makes me SMDH. It's one thing to be ignorant by virtue of an absence of information, but to remain willingly so in the face of obvious evidence is shameful.
- anon291 4y ago
  > take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement. This is basically what people do to the Christian religion. Find egregious preachers who buy luxury yachts and sportscars; ignore all the good work; and use the worst examples as emblematic of the whole thing. Or what happened with Islam and the terrorism stuff in the 2000s.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    I've encountered plenty of "good Christians" (and other faiths). That said, there's plenty of not so nice versions out there -- enough to matter. I'd buy you a tee shirt that said "I hate Jesus" and have you walk around some small town in Idaho and see how well that plays out for you. I mention Idaho because they're actively working to create a Christian state, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-... There's millions of Americans believe that the US should be a Christian Country, and they have guns. Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that?
    - anon291 4y ago
      > Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that? Realistically, it would depend. There are a large varieties of muslim states. Historically, some have been quite nice to live in. If by 'muslim state' and as 'God intended', they mean a good social safety net, minimal interference in religious liberty, open celebrations of non-muslim worship, but also a return to a more traditional social structure (re-emphasis on married parents, which is in the minority today; stricter rules on divorce; stricter rules on working hours; public acknowledgement that God exists; etc). I would actually think that's fine. Realistically, I don't see how it's substantially different than the civil authority today, which holds plenty of beliefs I disagree with and forces me to pay for them / go along with them. I honestly don't understand the attempt to scare Christians about Islam. While I am not a Muslim and think it's wrong-headed, the muslims are substantially closer to Christian beliefs (esp when only considering moraolity) than the majority of atheists. I don't see why that's even controversial.

I use it as a catch all term for people who "are into" Critical Social Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories).

pstuart 4y ago

It seems to be primarily as a slur now. I go by the initial Webster's definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke -- "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" By that definition I consider myself to be woke. Aware and care. Easy peasy. I've seen this game played before, and it was called "politically correct": take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement. It looks like you're doing exactly that (the word soup of your wiki link at least implies that).

0ct4via 4y ago
Precisely that. While it has a clear definition, by and large anyone using the term "woke" these days is dogwhistling, and using it as a slur. The fact that accusing you of caring about society and intersectional justice is supposedly insulting to some people, is really quite remarkable. It's not insulting to be "woke," but it's certainly telling with folk like the commenter above use it as a slur.
- pstuart 4y ago
  Looks like you got downvoted too. The fact that they dance around the core concept without acknowledging that the problem exists is something that still makes me SMDH. It's one thing to be ignorant by virtue of an absence of information, but to remain willingly so in the face of obvious evidence is shameful.
anon291 4y ago
> take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement. This is basically what people do to the Christian religion. Find egregious preachers who buy luxury yachts and sportscars; ignore all the good work; and use the worst examples as emblematic of the whole thing. Or what happened with Islam and the terrorism stuff in the 2000s.
- pstuart 4y ago
  I've encountered plenty of "good Christians" (and other faiths). That said, there's plenty of not so nice versions out there -- enough to matter. I'd buy you a tee shirt that said "I hate Jesus" and have you walk around some small town in Idaho and see how well that plays out for you. I mention Idaho because they're actively working to create a Christian state, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-idaho-theocracy-us-america https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-... There's millions of Americans believe that the US should be a Christian Country, and they have guns. Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that?
  - anon291 4y ago
    > Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that? Realistically, it would depend. There are a large varieties of muslim states. Historically, some have been quite nice to live in. If by 'muslim state' and as 'God intended', they mean a good social safety net, minimal interference in religious liberty, open celebrations of non-muslim worship, but also a return to a more traditional social structure (re-emphasis on married parents, which is in the minority today; stricter rules on divorce; stricter rules on working hours; public acknowledgement that God exists; etc). I would actually think that's fine. Realistically, I don't see how it's substantially different than the civil authority today, which holds plenty of beliefs I disagree with and forces me to pay for them / go along with them. I honestly don't understand the attempt to scare Christians about Islam. While I am not a Muslim and think it's wrong-headed, the muslims are substantially closer to Christian beliefs (esp when only considering moraolity) than the majority of atheists. I don't see why that's even controversial.