4 ms·

Do you agree that 'woke' is a loaded word? Do you agree that by using that word in that way it signals a certain type of political/ideological viewpoint? Do y

Do you agree that 'woke' is a loaded word? Do you agree that by using that word in that way it signals a certain type of political/ideological viewpoint? Do you agree that if someone did not want to signal that viewpoint it they should know?

lynx23 3y ago
No, No, and No. Simply because I dont agree with language police, as a principle.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  You can call things 'language police' all you want, but assumptions are based on reality and experience, and pushing back when they are obviously true is silly.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    > reality ... experience ... obviously true ... silly And you seriously believe this condescending way of talking down to people is great? Your choice, your opinion. Maybe reality will catch up, maybe you will catch up with reality, time will tell.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - lynx23 3y ago
        Great, as a person with a disability, I am used to patronizing people like you. Go ahead, and get lost.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
mech987987 3y ago
There was a period of time where self-described woke people identified themselves as woke, and now there's a period of time where people that don't like woke people mock them as woke, and other people just use it as a descriptor, and it all overlaps, and also all sorts of people have a good idea of the corpus of what woke means. At the very least, it's a useful word to refer to the concept it is meant to capture. I think there's a cultural thing where once a group's use of the word is "outed" to the public the in-group doesn't like it anymore. That's how it makes me feel seeing you react like this- you're going out of your way to be on the bleeding edge of in-group linguistic fashion.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Let's try something: > Is it ok to use the word 'black' instead of African American? I wouldn't want to violate anyone's "civil rights". Does that sentence imply genuine concern for the feelings of black people? Don't be daft.
  - mech987987 3y ago
    You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures. 1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept? 2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion? 3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details? 4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions? Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive. As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.

lynx23 3y ago

No, No, and No. Simply because I dont agree with language police, as a principle.

Eisenstein 3y ago
You can call things 'language police' all you want, but assumptions are based on reality and experience, and pushing back when they are obviously true is silly.
- lynx23 3y ago
  > reality ... experience ... obviously true ... silly And you seriously believe this condescending way of talking down to people is great? Your choice, your opinion. Maybe reality will catch up, maybe you will catch up with reality, time will tell.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Great, as a person with a disability, I am used to patronizing people like you. Go ahead, and get lost.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

mech987987 3y ago

There was a period of time where self-described woke people identified themselves as woke, and now there's a period of time where people that don't like woke people mock them as woke, and other people just use it as a descriptor, and it all overlaps, and also all sorts of people have a good idea of the corpus of what woke means. At the very least, it's a useful word to refer to the concept it is meant to capture. I think there's a cultural thing where once a group's use of the word is "outed" to the public the in-group doesn't like it anymore. That's how it makes me feel seeing you react like this- you're going out of your way to be on the bleeding edge of in-group linguistic fashion.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Let's try something: > Is it ok to use the word 'black' instead of African American? I wouldn't want to violate anyone's "civil rights". Does that sentence imply genuine concern for the feelings of black people? Don't be daft.
- mech987987 3y ago
  You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures. 1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept? 2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion? 3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details? 4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions? Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive. As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.