Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier Boy
(Post 11246442)
I think you're proving the point more than disproving it really -- yes, the word has been sarcastically hijacked by people-of-a-certain-leaning and is fired off as a flippant insult in certain circumstances, by those certain people. The suggestion that that fully sums up what's meant when people say it completely lacks any nuance and is just inaccurate. We know what your Piers Morgans and Andrew Tates mean when they say it, but that's not automatically what it means in all cicumstances. There is a mindset that I can quickly summarise as "woke" and people who I regularly converse with would know what I mean; what you could call "tribal" or "retaliatory" wokeism, I suppose. It follows almost identical social structures as the "opposing side" and that's where I can see what people mean by it all being the same.
To sum it up as VERY briefly as I can - it's social justice without individual rationalisation. If someone can raise a social justice point and explain it in terms that make it clear that THEY understand what they're saying and the reasoning behind it, that is not "woke". If someone stating the exact same point or concept clearly does NOT have an individual unserstanding of what they're parroting, and are simply copy/pasting rhetoric from other people "who think like they do" - that's what I'd call "being woke" personally. Holding a stance of moral superiority but being unable to intellectually justify it without resorting to using other people's words - i.e. being on the "right side" because one has been told "this is the right side, say it with me!" and not because of... well... thinking using their brain.
It actually has little if anything to do with who is right or wrong.
And (of course) the exact same thing prevails on the other side too... people pompously sneering out Jordan peterson rhetoric when they have, clearly, literally no idea what they're talking about.
A strange thing to admit two sentences after trying to offer a definitive and insistant meaning of the word? You said it's been "redefined to mean" but then in this quoted part it seems that you're well aware that this isn't true, it hasn't been redefined, as words are rarely redefined; they gain additional definitions. What you describe as the "redefinition" of the word above is 100% certainly the way that some people choose to weaponise the word but that doesn't make it the only or de facto accepted definition of the word.
Of course the same issue prevails here that's weighed heavily on this forum for years; a dogged denial that the same FUNCTIONAL issues exist in the "mass social discussion" for both the left & right. A tedious, predictable back-and-forth of NPC's with little to zero reasoning and frankly zero intent or interest in providing any reasoning ... because they have none. They have a shuffledeck of other people's opinions.
|
Firstly, good to see you back and I hope you're ok. You got a little crazily obsessed and unhinged towards the end there, so I hope the break has done you good. That's not being a smart arse or to try and put you down/sneak diss, it happens to all of us, so I hope you take it in the genuine way in which I meant it, and that you have a good 23.
So, the first thing that sticks out is the acknowledgement of what I'm referring when I describe the propagandistic explanation for woke/wokeism. So then on the other side of that, please point out the journalists, the newspapers, the tv personalities, or anyone other than your circle of friends that knows exactly what you're on about, and use the word in the nuanced way you suggest.
That's without the telepathy required to know whether or not someone understands the cause they claim to be progressing, is yet another hoop that needs to be jumped through to conform to your definition. It's seems to be more of what you think it should be, than a generally accepted view.
The very first line in that post is
Quote:
It's not about the definition of a word, it's about the propagandistic use of a word to tell people what to think about a political philosophy.
|
The rest of that paragraph is basically you tying yourself in knots, so lets go back. On the previous page, I explained that "stay woke" was initially a black description of being aware of their own history. Do you agree with that? Obviously there are other nuances at play, but as a general descriptor? So then, again, is that the way woke/wokeism is used today? Is it's use in media and on tv, and even on this forum, the pejorative, propagandistic one, or the original one?
The last paragraph is more of a rant that i'm not sure makes a lot of sense to me.
To explain again, my view on wokeism is that it is a primarily right wing culture war. There is no need for the dance and telepathy.
The world is has been screwed by the right wing status quo - capitalist/conservatives. The wealth inequality is growing exponentially, people are dying waiting for ambulances, so there is a definite need to keep left wing idea out of the mainstream because they would appeal.
If you ask a non leftist on the street, about leftist politics, what do you think would be the first one or two things they would say to describe what leftism is?
Do you think woke would come up before holiday pay. maternity/paternity pay, safe working environments, fairer tax system, investing in communities, social programs?
I think we both know that telepathy isn't required to answer that honestly.
I'm not even mad. The right are absolutely killing it at the moment (literally and figuratively) and they've done a great job with this culture war, so that even the leader of the opposition regularly has to attack them from the right.
