[bitontheslide]

a word means what people think it means in common usage, so everyone is right as it happens

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by SantaslettertoMeghan

a word means what people think it means in common usage, so everyone is right as it happens

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.

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.

[Oliver_W]

I generally take the view that all "active participants" are the bad eggs. Being generically against the isms and phobias isn't woke, it's basically the standard.

There's a difference between blaming the arresting police officer when Fentalyn Floyd passed away when he was trying to apprehend him, and using a man's death as an excuse to spend several months rioting.

[parmnion]

So good black isnt the name of the programme hes in!

[Soldier Boy]

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.

[parmnion]

In your opinion..

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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

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.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Alf

There really isn't a need for the word "black" in your title. You only need to describe him as "good actor" You wouldn't describe Daniel day Lewis as "Good White actor"

.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The problem, is that they are both constructs coming from the exact same side. "wokeness" started off as a tongue-in-cheek approach to black people knowing their own history. "stay woke." It then became a word used to describe opposition to anything.

You think trans people should be treated with respect? You're woke.
You think masks and vaccines were a good idea? You're woke
You think a policeman kneeling on the neck of a black man and killing him isn't a good thing? Well, you've guessed it - you're woke.

No one calls themselves woke, it is only used by those wishing to diminish or restrict the freedoms of others, to dismiss opposition without explanation or justification.

The government doesn't win a court case - that's because of woke lawyers. You get the picture.

To hold up racism and anti-racism (which is also woke these days) as equally bad concepts, doesn't really make a lot of sense. If WW2 were happening today, then churchill would be woke. Don't fall for stupid, meaningless propagandistic labelling.

I agree with you that the word woke is wrongly used in a lot of those situations that you've mentioned above.

I think it's when it comes to more trivial areas of our lives does the woke mindset come into play, and speaking for myself when I'm playing a Video Game or watching a TV Show, I want to be entertained/unwind a little bit, rather than be told that I'm prejudiced in some way for not liking the product for being too woke.

And personally I don't like how Satire is dead because apparently it's "punching down" to go for certain groups, when personally I see it as that every group is open for Satirical takes, including groups that I belong to as well just to clarify that I'm not a hypocrite.

But wanting to have basic Human Rights for certain communities isn't woke, and the George Floyd incident again isn't woke if you're horrified by what happened.

Basically for me personally, I just feel a bit mentally drained by both the racists and the woke for totally different reasons.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Christmas Lights

No
woke no longer means wanting equality & respect, now when I think of woke ...I think of self entitled people demanding others to do what they say .

Wokeism is now shoving agenda's down people's throats, and if you dare question or disagree then you're 'cancelled' & a 'bad person ' .

That is also a big issue with the woke community.

They're not a very forgiving bunch.

[parmnion]

Theres a lot of pigeon holes being filed in here.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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



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.

Reading this post really reminds me of how much the Tories have ruined this country.

Edit... When you were talking about certain issues, not a personal attack on you Slim.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That is also a big issue with the woke community.

They're not a very forgiving bunch.

Yo. Do you have an example of what you're on about? Something that you've done that's stirred up the ire of "leftists", and that you haven't been forgiven for?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Reading this post really reminds me of how much the Tories have ruined this country.

Edit... When you were talking about certain issues, not a personal attack on you Slim.

Why would I think that's an attack on me? You're basically agreeing with me about how bad conservatism has been

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Yo. Do you have an example of what you're on about? Something that you've done that's stirred up the ire of "leftists", and that you haven't been forgiven for?

Not me personally.

I think it's just when I've seen the Twitter crowd get riled up about certain things that people say or do it's kind of pisses me off tbh.

Like that one time someone drew the Scooby-Doo characters on there, and then some idiot told them that "representation matters" and started making certain characters look totally different just to be more "diverse."

But tbh my biggest beef is still with the right wing publications on how they treated Caroline Flack before she died.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Why would I think that's an attack on me? You're basically agreeing with me about how bad conservatism has been

I was just worried that I had worded it badly, and made it look like an attack on you personally.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Not me personally.

I think it's just when I've seen the Twitter crowd get riled up about certain things that people say or do it's kind of pisses me off tbh.

Like that one time someone drew the Scooby-Doo characters on there, and then some idiot told them that "representation matters" and started making certain characters look totally different just to be more "diverse."

But tbh my biggest beef is still with the right wing publications on how they treated Caroline Flack before she died.

Do you see what I mean? you don't have to agree with me, but do you at least see my point?

You said wokesists were as bad as racists, I ask for an example, and you said not you, but a couple of people on twitter.

Do you see how uneven those issues are?

Not having a go or trying to belittle you, but does this at least provide an example for how overblown the "dangers of wokeism" are versus the reality of what is being done to the world?

I agree about Ms Flack - Dan Wooton was rewarded for that by being given his own right wing TV show to spew more hate, so taking that into consideration, do you still consider wokeism/bigotry as 2 sides of the same coin?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I was just worried that I had worded it badly, and made it look like an attack on you personally.

It's all good dude, I hope you have the same understanding when it comes to my post replying to you above this one. Nothing personal, just trying to make a point.

[Oliver_W]

ContraPoints has been victim to several hatemobs for various milquetoast takes in her videos, by her left wing fans. JK Rowling hasn't been forgiven for saying that sex is real. Nostalgia Chick got bullied to the point of withdrawing from the internet for comparing the then-latest product excreted by Disney (Raya something Dragon Whatever) to Avatar Last Airbender.

All three were targetted by people who are/were their fans, and left wingers.

But anyway, Twitter is a cesspit, and everyone on it sucks, to some degree but there are three examples of people I Iike, being victim to angry terminally online lefties.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Holiver_and_Ivy

ContraPoints has been victim to several hatemobs for various milquetoast takes in her videos, by her left wing fans. JK Rowling hasn't been forgiven for saying that sex is real. Nostalgia Chick got bullied to the point of withdrawing from the internet for comparing the then-latest product excreted by Disney (Raya something Dragon Whatever) to Avatar Last Airbender.

All three were targetted by people who are/were their fans, and left wingers.

But anyway, Twitter is a cesspit, and everyone on it sucks, to some degree but there are three examples of people I Iike, being victim to angry terminally online lefties.

I still don't understand why contrapoints got hate ,but I'll admit I don't watch her videos ...I've only seen one of her videos I think. But I thought she was left wing and seen as 'woke' .

And I'm glad you mentioned JK Rowling ,I was just about to do the same thing. The floods of hate especially online that she got ....was disgusting . And her own franchise of HP has basically tried erase her which is nonsensical ,when she created Harry Potter in the first place .

[LeatherTrumpet]

JK has reinvented herself as the Queen of common sense and she is a brave lady

took on and destroyed the young woke kids trying to find importance in a world (online and anon) that sees them as weak and unpopular

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Christmas Lights

I still don't understand why contrapoints got hate ,but I'll admit I don't watch her videos ...I've only seen one of her videos I think. But I thought she was left wing and seen as 'woke' .

Contra is very left wing, but too smart and introspective to really be classified as "woke".

As for why she's been cancelled? God knows. It's happened a few times now.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Holiver_and_Ivy

Contra is very left wing, but too smart and introspective to really be classified as "woke".

As for why she's been cancelled? God knows. It's happened a few times now.

It seems you only have to cough the wrong way ,and you're instantly cancelled these days. It's ridiculous .

[The Slim Reaper]

Youtube video

[LeatherTrumpet]

one of the unfunniest "comedians" alive

quite some feat