3 ms·

I think you have to be completely in another universe to think that's all anyone means by that. Are you really so delusional about your own superiority that you

I think you have to be completely in another universe to think that's all anyone means by that. Are you really so delusional about your own superiority that you think "anti-woke" just means anti those things? It's 2026 and there has been almost 10 years of woke excess. I don't think me explaining is going to do anything for you or to knock you off your high horse.

voidUpdate 28d ago
That's why I'm asking you what your definition of woke is, so that I can understand what it is about new doctor who that you don't like
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
rcxdude 28d ago
That's pretty much the definition that the term started with (arguably it was a bit more general in some sense: just along the lines of 'politically aware and engaged'). It seems to have morphed, but I find that when it's used pejoratively there's not one fixed definition beyond 'I don't like it'.
- philipallstar 28d ago
  > That's pretty much the definition that the term started with No, it started as being aware of issues black Americans were facing. Then it got co-opted and contorted by the far left in America into all sorts of crazy issues.
  - joshtynjala 28d ago
    It got co-opted and contorted by the right in America. The right intentionally pretended that "woke" was an umbrella term for "all sorts of crazy issues" that it never was. The more "crazy issues" that they could add onto the pile the better, in order to make the word useless to the left. If anyone on the left continued to use "woke" intending its original meaning, those listening would associate their own thoughts about the extra unrelated issues, muddying the speaker's message.
    - philipallstar 28d ago
      It's good that the left has got to the point where they're disavowing woke[0], although they're only doing it to not plummet further into the depths of unpopularity, but to say it was never co-opted by the radical left in the first place is so breathtakingly untrue even they haven't done that. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-restitution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-res...
      - DonHopkins 28d ago
        [dead]

voidUpdate 28d ago

That's why I'm asking you what your definition of woke is, so that I can understand what it is about new doctor who that you don't like

deleted 28d ago
[deleted]

rcxdude 28d ago

That's pretty much the definition that the term started with (arguably it was a bit more general in some sense: just along the lines of 'politically aware and engaged'). It seems to have morphed, but I find that when it's used pejoratively there's not one fixed definition beyond 'I don't like it'.

philipallstar 28d ago
> That's pretty much the definition that the term started with No, it started as being aware of issues black Americans were facing. Then it got co-opted and contorted by the far left in America into all sorts of crazy issues.
- joshtynjala 28d ago
  It got co-opted and contorted by the right in America. The right intentionally pretended that "woke" was an umbrella term for "all sorts of crazy issues" that it never was. The more "crazy issues" that they could add onto the pile the better, in order to make the word useless to the left. If anyone on the left continued to use "woke" intending its original meaning, those listening would associate their own thoughts about the extra unrelated issues, muddying the speaker's message.
  - philipallstar 28d ago
    It's good that the left has got to the point where they're disavowing woke[0], although they're only doing it to not plummet further into the depths of unpopularity, but to say it was never co-opted by the radical left in the first place is so breathtakingly untrue even they haven't done that. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-restitution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-res...
    - DonHopkins 28d ago
      [dead]