I am not sure, english is not my mother tongue so I might have written something in a non-understandable way, if there's something that I might have written better let me know if you want. As for wokes -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
So "wokes" are people who are 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination'.
> newspaper should not report things that are happening but are wrong for wokes, they should only report things that they like, even if what they don't like happened and makes news
So what have "wokes" got to do with anything? They are just people who aren't racist, right?
Again, maybe I have misunderstood.
And, perhaps to clarify further, do you consider yourself woke, or anti-woke?
They take "being a good person" so far that they make life hard for others instead.
The root of their beliefs is good: All people are worthy of respect and shouldn't be judged based on things out of their control.
But the lengths they go for that is just too much. They often refuse to even consider that there may be other factors that need to be taken into account as well and shout down everything that doesn't align with their view.
That makes it hard to fight against them. They've set themselves up to be seen as always being in the right, but because they refuse to have nuance, they often aren't.
What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims.
"Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood"
"I see, proceed with your evidence"
"Meh, go find it for yourself."
or I mean I know what do you want, but don't know how long do you want me to reply to you, or others, like I am very patient in conversations, but I feel like don quixote and as a non native speaker I feel like you're misunderstanding what I say, genuinely or not, I guess someone here thinks not, but I think I am done, its been a few hours, you've been told things, you've been given links, and now I think it's time for you to go to explore the world by yourself... fly free
And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly.
Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions".
You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples.
Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy:
https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...
Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example.
I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly.
Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed.
Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group.
Is this the best example you have?
This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group.
I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right?
I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far.
If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink.
It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison.
The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s.
No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria.
You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"?
So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!
This is textbook example of a "whataboutism" argument. I point out one group of people who have done something wrong, and you point out another group of people who have (arguably) also done something wrong, as if it is some kind of justification. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You asked for a concrete example where "woke" causes some damage, I provided one and asked "is this example sufficient for you?" You responded with a novel about unrelated things without answering my question. Let me ask again: is this example sufficient for you? Do you accept that this is an example that demonstrates that - in addition to whatever positive things woke causes in society - woke also causes some negative things in society?
> Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group.
I agree a control group submitting nonsense papers of right-wing propaganda would have been necessary to prove that these woke-activism nonsense papers were published because of political activism (as opposed to not reading papers). That said, I strongly suspect that the papers were read, because these are not predatory journals that publish anything you submit. Furthermore, when you look at the papers which ARE being published, it's obvious that they tow the party line with regards to political messaging.
> papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs ... If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob ...
This is another bit of misdirection from you. You're pretending as if I'm bothered by the existence of prank papers. No, as you perfectly well know, the prank papers are not what "keeps me up at night", it's the underlying phenomena the prank papers exposed: that certain fields of science have been entirely subverted by woke political activists. The problem is - as you well know - that these fields are no longer producing science, they are producing political propaganda camouflaged as science. This is what the Grievance studies affairs demonstrated.
Also note that you are doing a whataboutism defense here as well, when you start talking about entirely unrelated things like Trump and January 6th. You're not scoring any points here.
> It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison.
It's not hard to find these examples. If you actually were interested, you could find these examples yourselves in a few minutes of Googling. But you're merely pretending to be interested. Here's one case where I provided an example of a fields of science being subverted for woke political activism, and you dismiss it as "pretty weak sauce". Why would I go out of my way to provide more examples for you? You're just going to dismiss every other example just like this. You're not interested in any facts that are counter to your world view. You're merely pretending to be interested.
> You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"? So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!
I'm not interested in attemps to redefine a political movement in a dictionary sense. A movement can have a perfectly nice-sounding dictionary definition while at the same time it can cause harm in society. That doesn't imply any kind of logical contradiction.
Oh, it's realy not - you presented an experiment (Grievance studies affair) as an example of "how wokes are corrupting science in order to advance their political agenda".
But what you cite is a terrible, deeply flawed experiment which proves no such thing.
So in answer to your question if it wasn't obvious; no, it's not sufficient.
"I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice.
But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but there is a wave of wokism now. In 2042, there will be something different, but people generally react to contemporary trends.
Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away.
And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Tell me how destroying an old man's career over a 33 years old article [1] can be labeled as an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding.
Or running a Twitter death gauntlet on a random Mexican driver [2].
These incidents embody "wokeness" to me, not a nicely sounding definition that was constructed to make the movement look better than it actually is.
You seem to put a lot of trust into nicely sounding definitions. Always look at practice: do those people practice what they preach?
Anyone can put together nicely sounding definitions and theories. In theory (= the Constitution), the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where I grew up, had solid protections of personal freedoms and human rights. In practice, it didn't. It was a totalitarian state that just didn't want to state "we rule you and we will crush any dissent" in writing.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-resignation-idUSKB...
[2] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...
> As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)
Because practially everyone I know, I would not consider "anti-woke". They are reasonable, not vindictive, anti-racist, feminist. I don't know if they would consider themselves woke, but certainly anyone who deploys woke as a pejorative would consider them woke. Woke has become the go-to term to demonise anything that you disagree with. the right wing headbangers in the UK will refer to our PM as woke. He really is not woke. At all. He literally has ministers out waging a "war on woke". It's a meaningless culture wars smoke screen to distract from the latest scandals and incompetence.
If you are a comms director and you become the story, it's generally accepted that you resign. He wasn't fired. Given that the role is now vacant again for the fourth time in three years it suggests that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Given the 737 MAX crisis I would not be at all suprised if he was looking for a way out anyway.
More sympathy for the driver. Seems like a conditional warning ("if you did do it for that reason we take a dim view - please don't do it again for any reason") would have been more than sufficient. Of course, I'm sure that you'll agree that better employment rights for US workers would help to prevent summary dismissals like this, which can happen any time for any reason.
...while Antifa is literally burning down cars and shops indiscriminately...
I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man? Stick to woke.
If you would like to propose a new term that encompases the original defintion of woke and something else then feel free - hyer-woke, or something. Why do you want to change the defintion of words?
And, are you a fascist?
You're pretending to be wholly unfamiliar with the subject of culture wars, when in reality you are very familiar with them. That's disingenuous. The other poster seemed to have endless patience with you pretending "not to understand" and "not know" things which you know and understand perfectly well.
I don't know why you can't just stand up straight and argue for the things you believe in, instead of trying to play some mind games, lying and cheating? If your cause is worthy and your arguments are good, then surely you can achieve your goals without resorting to lies?
Same as a bunch of strange crazes that have cropped up over the years; witch trials, spanish inquisition, mccarthayism, 80s satanic child-abuse.
Say something or someone is woke and it's like yelling "communist" in the 50s.
It's a fantastic distraction mechanism for anyone wishing to deploy it and I'm just staggered that seemingly intelligent people go into a Pavlov's dog response as soon as they hear it.
The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means.
Yes they have. The other poster used hundreds of words to explain it to you. You just dismiss any explanations, just as you dismiss any concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society. You ask for stuff, then people give it to you, then you close your eyes and ears and say you still haven't seen any of that stuff you asked for.
chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
In terms of concrete examples, going back over the thread so far all I can find (if I missed any please correct me):
) SDG&E driver.
) Boeing comms director.
*) Grievance studies affair
For the SDG&E driver, if he was performing some kind of white power salute in clearly marked company vehicle (and, let's be honest, nobody really knows if he did or not except him) then some kind of disciplinary action at work would be appropriate - it's pretty dispicable (unless you're a keen racist) and it brings the company into disrepute. A final written warning or something. But because we don't know if he did or not, a less severe meeting with HR, being reminded of the need not to bring any bad publicity to the company, we believe you are acting in good faith, but please don't do this knuckle cracking thing again - it looks bad.
What amazes me about it is that the labour laws are so lax that people can be summarily sacked without any due process. I understand that this is common practice in the US and happens all of the time. Seems to me that solution to this is to campaign for stronger employee rights. You can't uninvent smartphone cameras, and you can't stop people from posting things on twitter, but you can strengthen labour laws. This isn't a problem with woke, it's a problem with lax regulations.
As for the comms director, he resigned. That's just what comms directors do if they become the story. He wasn't sacked. If behind the scenes he was forced to resign then see previous point about labour laws and he should take them to an employment tribunal.
I find the Grievance studies thing hilarious. Clearly it is a wonderful hoax, and calls into question the quality of the review process at the journals and maybe the utility of social science (I've alwayss been a bit sceptical of calling it science, tbh). But seeing as it was a hoax and not really not a controlled experiment you can't really take away many conlcusions from it.
How anyone can read a title like "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" or "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use" without pissing themselves laughing is beyond me. I would certainly resign if I'd have waved that through without going back to the submitter and saying WTF is this.
If these are your "concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society", I just don't see it. An example of how lax labour laws are a bad thing, certainly. An example of calling (some) social sciences a science being a bit silly, yes.
But just look at the people crying woke all of the time, the likes of Fox and talk radio. The same people who want lax labour laws. The same people who undermine the science about vaccinations and have lead to tens (possibly hundreds?) of thousands of uneccessary deaths of people who would have survived had they got vaccinated. That is very real and raw destruction of human lives and society.
Fine, here's how I would define woke: a political movement focusing on issues related to racial and social justice.
Are you happy with this definition? How does this help in any way?
> But just look at the people crying woke all of the time ...
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just resort to a whataboutism argument every time somebody points out something wrong your camp has done.
> Are you happy with this definition? How does this help in any way?
Absolutely happy. It helps because now that I know that if someone says that they are anti-woke then by definition they are anti racial and social justice. Kind of what I suspected, but good to have it confirmed.
Look, I'm a middle aged, middle class, white, straight, cisgendered (whatever that means) male. It makes no difference to me. But I know that I'm not anti-woke.
> Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just resort to a whataboutism argument every time somebody points out something wrong your camp has done.
It's not whataboutery, it's just an explanation. If you don't want people to be fired from a job for specious reasons then don't don't vote for those who want lax labour laws which allow people to be fired for specious reasons (or no reason at all - which is likely far more common than anything to do with white power signs, but doesn't make the news).
If the people who don't want stronger protections for employees also happen to be the ones who are telling you that woke is the problem (definitely not the lack of rights for employees!), then maybe recalibrate your bullshit detector.
If they are also the same people who are discouraging you from getting vaccinated or maybe bleach will cure covid then run like hell - they are the real sociopaths.
If you think that woke is problem, you're being gaslit.
If you don't support Antifa, you must be a literal nazi. If you don't support BLM, you must think black lives don't matter. If you don't support woke, you must be anti racial and social justice. We already visited this logical fallacy, I'm not gonna explain again what's wrong with it.
I might not support Antifa beause of (some of) their activities. But I'm anti-fascist because I'm not fascist.
I might not support BLM (although I'd struggle to see why) - I don't support them financially, if that counts. The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater.
There is no Woke. There is only woke.
Continue to vote for the Leopards Eating Faces party, and blame "woke" when leapords eat your face. As the LEF party encourages you to.
So then perhaps you might see how someone else might not support the woke movement because of some of their activities, even if they think the goals of the movement are good?
> The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater.
Yes, and? Where are the people saying "black lives don't matter"? Are you implying that people who don't support BLM (due to their activities of literally burning down cities) are thinking that black lives don't matter? Can you see how a person might agree with the statement "black lives matter", while simultaneously opposing a political movement that's literally named "black lives matter"?
> There is no Woke. There is only woke.
I have no idea what kind of pedantic nitpickery this is, but woke is a political movement just as BLM is, regardless of how you capitalize words.
However, if you're looking for offence where none was intended ... doesn't that mean that you're woke? That's what they do, right?
Let's just ... Finish.
(And the Italian guy, I wasn't mocking - certainly not his English - I found the first message difficult to undertand what he meant, so wanted to make sure that he was referring to what I thought he was before contining. God knows his English is better than my Itaian. Or Finnish).