4 ms·
You're right. It's really lazy to use the term at this point as there isn't a shared meaning assigned to it. It's mostly used as a pejorative by the right at th
by UncleOxidant 2y ago
You're right. It's really lazy to use the term at this point as there isn't a shared meaning assigned to it. It's mostly used as a pejorative by the right at this point, but it's original meaning was very different and indicated a positive attribute. Whenever I'm in a conversation with someone who uses the word, I stop them and ask them to define what they're talking about. Usually they end up with something vague that boils down to "stuff I don't like".
- causal 2y agoI liked PG's attempts to define the perjorative form of "wokeness". I was disappointed that the rest of the essay didn't serve the discourse much. What I was really hoping for was focused analysis on how to make social media more useful to the earnest helpers instead of the "loud prigs". That would have made for an interesting discussion here.
- UncleOxidant 2y agoThe problem is that he thinks he solves the problem by bringing 'prig' into the conversation and in reality he just paints a broad swath of people with a broad brush. A lot of folks who are in the "earnest helpers" category are also categorized by the right as "woke". That's the problem with the word right now, it can go all over the place. "Prig" is in the eye of the beholder. What about when the "prigs" were right? I'm sure the Quakers were seen as "prigs" by the southern slaveholders/traders. The Quakers were early to the abolition party and their opposition to slavery was based on religious zeal which made them seem like "prigs" to the people in the South who's whole society and economy was built on slavery. But we now consider the Quakers were right and the slaveholders wrong. MLK was viewed as a "prig" by many southern whites for interfering in their racism. But MLK was right.
- causal 2y agoI agree. The essay seems to assume there are clean lines separating the "good ones" from the "bad ones". It's very reductionist.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- skywhopper 2y agoStep one is to stop the handwringing over who’s “woke”. Paul is committing every sin he claims the “woke” people are doing by obsessing over what words other people are saying instead of trying to solve actual problems.
- gitfan86 2y agoYou are dismissing the issue by implying it is a right wing thing. Obama is using the term and criticising people who do it in this clip. I in no way consider him to be right wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM
- lazyeye 2y agoNot too mention Bill Maher who is also firmly on the left.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aprilthird2021 2y agoFirmly? Come on
- josephg 2y agoYeah. If the left (and the democratic party more generally) throws out all the "anti-woke" people, there won't be many people left. You'd lose Obama, Bill Maher, Joe Rogan (yes really.), Stephen Fry, Bernie Sanders, and on and on it goes. I hate puritanical finger wagging. I think most people feel the same way. That has nothing to do with my political opinions on other topics, like abortion, gun control and so on. I think the left in the US makes a massive strategic error by claiming that everyone who doesn't like "woke" is right wing. The right wing is delighted to have all of those voters.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoHe is absolutely not. He’s a science denier and routinely has anti vaxxers on without pushing back on their ideas
- toasterlovin 2y agoYou’re never gonna believe this but the hippie granola left were the original antivaxxers. The first places where you started hearing about measles outbreaks in the US were all affluent left leaning communities with a strong granola contingent, like Santa Monica, California.
- zahlman 2y agoJust because "you know it when you see it" doesn't mean you don't understand it or don't have something coherent in mind.