Not the OP, but "holier than thou" is not a positive human type.
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.