Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on the word “Woke” and its meaning, use, and misuse.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- What does the word mean to you?
- Is it applied correctly or incorrectly?
- Is it even applicable any longer?
- Do you feel that Conservative media misapplies it, and is “everything I don’t like is woke” an appropriate sentiment or simply uncharitable?
You must log in or register to comment.
This is only tangential to the conversation but I always find it interesting that in US history, Abraham Lincoln’s campaign was pushing hard on the idea of ‘staying awake.’
Huh! I had no idea this was a thing. Thanks for bringing it up!
The Wide Awakes were a youth organization and later a paramilitary organization cultivated by the Republican Party during the 1860 presidential election in the United States. Using popular social events, an ethos of competitive fraternity, and even promotional comic books, the organization introduced many to political participation and proclaimed itself as the newfound voice of younger voters. The structured militant Wide Awakes appealed to a generation which had been profoundly shaken by the partisan instability in the 1850s, and offered young northerners a much-needed political identity.
It’s odd. I’ve seen much in left-wing communities stating that the right-wing can’t define “woke” and that it simply means “I don’t like X thing therefore it’s woke.”
The meaning has been pretty plain to me, but it meant different things depending on what side of the political spectrum you’re on.
The Left-Wing definition seems to be: “Awareness of negative things that one group in power does to other groups who have less power. Right-wingers are also stupid if they use this word as they totally don’t get this.”
The Right-Wing definition seems to be: “A largely preformative outrage from the left-wing focused on discussing issues that they complain about to make themselves feel better about doing nothing. It is now a slur for ineffectual and whiny.”
I feel that both definitions coexist and do not rule each other out, however I won’t deny that I’ve seen it misused.
I don’t feel I see the North American left use the word any longer as it has basically become a pejorative against them.
Woke started out as conspiracy theorists seeing through the lies.
I don’t feel I see the North American left use the word any longer as it has basically become a pejorative against them.
Interesting. I don’t feel that I have any inherent dislike of the work (especially knowing it’s origins), but I can see how it would muddy a conversation, especially when it’s an easy reverse dog whistle, usually meaning the the person who used it will refuse to think critically.
Now that I think about it, any situation where using the word “woke” or a similar sentiment of “awake” or “aware” would be appropriate usually requires some amount of nuance or is about a particular topic, so I’d usually just dive into the nuance. Saying I’m aware of something is less useful than being aware and sharing that awareness.
For example, instead of just saying “I try to be aware of the situation” or “I try to be woke”, I might say: “I’m aware of rising housing costs, growing political extremism, corporate ignirance of climate change, and systemic racism and sexism, and I’m unsure of how such-and-such project might help with any of those, or if it might make them worse.”
Such a simple and non-specific term might lend itself to perjoritive thinking, a simple way to lable people without having to think about their positions. I know many conservatives already use it as a thought stopping technique, demonizing the term so they can discard whatever argument is before them without thinking about it. This is kinda why I try to avoid labels in general.
I wonder how much use there is in using the term anyway? There’s describing a change in thinking across time, like The Enlightenment, but if someone calls themselves an “Enlightened Thinker”, it sounds like a red flag eh?
Woke basically means being aware of inequality, and speaking up about it. Yws, ut had a specific meaning that was more nuanced, but at this point the general use is abiut awareness and speaking ip.
It is extrmely important to spread awareness to increase the chances of society improving for minorities and other groups that are disproportionately harmed by society. To enact that change people need to be aware it exists, and repetition helps for ideas to sink in so speaking up frequently is important.
Conservatives mainly demonize it as a concept, but also use the term to dismiss people raising concerns as whining about things that are in the past even though they are not. So it is less that they are using the term to mean something else, but denying the fact that systemic racism and other discrimination still exists. Same with how they demonize DEI, by acting like acknowledging and addressing inequality is a bad thing.
Currently “woke” is a pejorative chiefly used by the political right to smear any opinion they disagree with. It has replaced “commie” or “pinko” or other such terms in the modern age. It is, in effect, the right wing equivalent of the left calling any opinion they disagree with “fascist”.
It had other meanings in the past, but currently it is just duckspeak (as per Orwell) used to indicate disagreement and tribal affiliation.
Conservatives hate “woke” for the same reason that everyone hates ethical vegans. They take the very existence of “woke”/vegans to be an insult to their morality. They need to degrade the entire concept because they feel judged as morally inferior. You could be minding your own business, trying to improve your own little corner of the world, but if they catch wind of what you are doing, their shame will cause them to interpret it as a personal attack, despite having nothing to do with them.
I don’t know if I agree with that for either the vegans or woke folk.
Let me try to explain - if you are verbally harassed by religious folk of a religion that you don’t believe in who have an issue with something you don’t see as a problem (say you mixed fibres in a sweater like a real heathen), who is at fault? You for upsetting them, or them for having an issue that you do not?
What if they just keep bothering you and saying how morally reprehensible you are every chance they get? If you’re like most people (including people who aren’t vegan or claim to be non-woke), you’d say “Don’t put your moral judgments on me.” I feel that very much applies in all of those situations.
It’s the same reason most non-religious people don’t like people protesting abortion clinics. A personal belief and some indignation does not mean the world should change to suit someone’s sensibilities.
I am referring to this somewhat researched phenomenon:
Yes. Which I agree with and feeds into what I said.
If someone is passing (or is perceived to be passing) a moral judgement because of what they feel is right, and someone else doesn’t feel they deserve that scorn, there’s no doubt that those judged react negatively. This is true no matter the sides involved.
The examples I gave don’t disregard this in any way. Are you able to articulate why they might?
Also, speaking as a mod, we don’t downvote people we disagree with here, only people who don’t add to the discussion or who go on the attack.
A personal belief and some indignation is what got abortion legal.
Yes but one example does not (or should not) a rule make. There’s good statistical analysis and plenty of reason to back up that particular ruling so it’s not simply a belief, but good science on outcomes. So once again using your example, we have science and logic versus belief that the science is immoral.
In other cases like the facetious example I gave in my previous post, if it is valid to make a rule from nothing but belief, then it is just as valid to repeal that rule because of nothing but belief.
I am absolutely pro-choice by the way, but simply pointing out the flaw in the logic of the other poster.
A term that means nothing and everything all at once.
