[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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.

Woke has been redefined to mean - against things that a different group thinks that everyone should feel.


To be fair to the right, it's been completely effective so that pretty much everything these days is woke, as It's being used as a pejorative to describe those who oppose the status quo.

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.

We both know that asking a number of different people what woke means would illicit numerous different explanations, depending on political/social leanings, which disagrees with your "everyone is right" point.

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.