3 ms·

> what do you mean by woke? There are two parts - one which most of us would support (being against misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc) and one which most of us

> what do you mean by woke? There are two parts - one which most of us would support (being against misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc) and one which most of us would oppose (defund the police, abolish ICE, trans women in sports, DEI quotas and promoting people because of their race or gender, etc). Woke 1.0 lumped both of those buckets together and faced an appropriate backlash which resulted in Trump's reelection.

defrost 2mo ago
> Woke 1.0 lumped both of those buckets together Having watched the past years unfold from outside the US and reading papers across the media spectrum I would assert that most of the work of smearing the meaning of Woke to include supposedly advocating for litter boxes in classrooms for furries, etc was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. > and faced an appropriate backlash which was the entire purpose of relentless 24/7 Woke strawmanning.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago
  > was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. they own all media, mate. the goal of the right since Bismarck is to get the left to combine the pursuit of economic change with social change as a way of muddling the discussion and splitting the effort.
  - RestlessMind 2mo ago
    Why does left have to fall for that every time?
    - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
      propaganda works, on the left and on the right.
UncleMeat 2mo ago
It is funny how your list of unpopular policies are all things that never happened except one, which was around for decades with minimal complaint before the right decided to make it a big deal.
krapp 2mo ago
Woke 1.0 was black culture, where the term originated, as far back as the the 1930s. Woke 2.0 was when white liberals co-opted it and used it as an umbrella term for social justice in general, particularly in the context of online activism. Woke 3.0 was when the right wing co-opted the term, as they tend to do with all leftist terms, and it became simply another pejorative. This is where we are now.
- RestlessMind 2mo ago
  > when the right wing co-opted the term, as they tend to do with all leftist terms, and it became simply another pejorative Even AOC is now running away from woke 1.0 and admitted that there was a lot of craziness. That says a lot.
  - krapp 2mo ago
    Democrats betraying their principles because they want to be in the cool kids club is nothing new. They basically threw the election to Trump because appealing to right-wingers was more important to them than having the stink of "leftism" on them. Meanwhile the other side is bathing in the muck and couldn't care less. If "woke 2.0" (although actually it would be 4.0) means embracing some kind of milquetoast neoliberal centrism that seeks to maintain the status quo of respectability politics, capitalism and American exceptionalism above all else, I'll have none of it.
    - RestlessMind 2mo ago
      Point is that if wokism was so great and so popular, one of its most famous proponent who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run would not be running away from it. Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure and a lot of people have grasped that by now.
      - krapp 2mo ago
        The point is that politicians are rarely if ever sincere in their espoused beliefs, and the Democrats are a center right neoliberal party which has never been comfortable with "leftist" politics because political power in the US has always been biased towards the right. They aren't "running away" from "wokism" because it's a "miserable failure" (whatever that even means, these are just Trumpisms) but because they're seeking power over principle. People forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and a liberal and he was pals with the Clintons and congratulated Hillary Clinton when she became Secretary of State. None of these people are sincere. And the Democrats fail not because "Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure" but because they alienate their base (which is actual leftists who do support trans people and defunding the police and the like) while the other side is willing to embrace even the most activist fringe of their base because that's never a risk for the right.
Zigurd 2mo ago
Your second part is a list of fantasies that never existed in real life. So why bother listing them except to give right wing culture warriors something to hang their hat on?

defrost 2mo ago

> Woke 1.0 lumped both of those buckets together Having watched the past years unfold from outside the US and reading papers across the media spectrum I would assert that most of the work of smearing the meaning of Woke to include supposedly advocating for litter boxes in classrooms for furries, etc was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. > and faced an appropriate backlash which was the entire purpose of relentless 24/7 Woke strawmanning.

red-iron-pine 2mo ago
> was work gleefully carried out by the US conservative right wing media. they own all media, mate. the goal of the right since Bismarck is to get the left to combine the pursuit of economic change with social change as a way of muddling the discussion and splitting the effort.
- RestlessMind 2mo ago
  Why does left have to fall for that every time?
  - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
    propaganda works, on the left and on the right.

UncleMeat 2mo ago

It is funny how your list of unpopular policies are all things that never happened except one, which was around for decades with minimal complaint before the right decided to make it a big deal.

krapp 2mo ago

Woke 1.0 was black culture, where the term originated, as far back as the the 1930s. Woke 2.0 was when white liberals co-opted it and used it as an umbrella term for social justice in general, particularly in the context of online activism. Woke 3.0 was when the right wing co-opted the term, as they tend to do with all leftist terms, and it became simply another pejorative. This is where we are now.

RestlessMind 2mo ago
> when the right wing co-opted the term, as they tend to do with all leftist terms, and it became simply another pejorative Even AOC is now running away from woke 1.0 and admitted that there was a lot of craziness. That says a lot.
- krapp 2mo ago
  Democrats betraying their principles because they want to be in the cool kids club is nothing new. They basically threw the election to Trump because appealing to right-wingers was more important to them than having the stink of "leftism" on them. Meanwhile the other side is bathing in the muck and couldn't care less. If "woke 2.0" (although actually it would be 4.0) means embracing some kind of milquetoast neoliberal centrism that seeks to maintain the status quo of respectability politics, capitalism and American exceptionalism above all else, I'll have none of it.
  - RestlessMind 2mo ago
    Point is that if wokism was so great and so popular, one of its most famous proponent who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run would not be running away from it. Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure and a lot of people have grasped that by now.
    - krapp 2mo ago
      The point is that politicians are rarely if ever sincere in their espoused beliefs, and the Democrats are a center right neoliberal party which has never been comfortable with "leftist" politics because political power in the US has always been biased towards the right. They aren't "running away" from "wokism" because it's a "miserable failure" (whatever that even means, these are just Trumpisms) but because they're seeking power over principle. People forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and a liberal and he was pals with the Clintons and congratulated Hillary Clinton when she became Secretary of State. None of these people are sincere. And the Democrats fail not because "Woke 1.0 was a miserable failure" but because they alienate their base (which is actual leftists who do support trans people and defunding the police and the like) while the other side is willing to embrace even the most activist fringe of their base because that's never a risk for the right.

Zigurd 2mo ago

Your second part is a list of fantasies that never existed in real life. So why bother listing them except to give right wing culture warriors something to hang their hat on?