Is Woke a religion?

[Brickjectivity]

The rise of Woke, cultural marxism, is it a religion?

The term began spreading when the marxists co-opted the BLM movement to suck some juice out of it and attempt to fascinate the population. At first nobody would offer a definition, and individuals were just supposed to figure out that it meant something about awareness of something related to black (people's) needs. It could mean anything from acknowledging racism to politeness to accepting that whites had privilege over blacks. This was very marxist in flavor, but it also was like the word 'Nerd' used to be. You'd ask what it meant, and the speakers would enjoy your ignorance of the term. That also happened here on RF by the way. It was a trollish term to begin with that was then adopted by right trolls.

Today everybody is offering different definitions, but what happened was that the BLM movement was betrayed. Woke came out of that betrayal as an intentionally divisive term. Unfortunately trolls on the right picked it up and made it into their Yankee Doodle song. It indeed became a term for them that encompassed absolutely every progressive item from gay rights to social welfare: whenever it pleased the right trolls to use it. Most people found it confusing for years or irrelevant until around 2014 or so.

In cased nobody noticed I try to avoid this term. Search my posts. Its a useless word that confuses things and divides people, and media loves it. Everybody else is annoyed.

Around that (2014) time DEI began to emerge more obviously in politics and to push for enforced extended and refitted pronouns on a political level, particularly in Canada and the UK. Corporations also began to do so. This did not sit well with many. Comedians and others began to object to forced speech and 'Cancel culture'; and the two terms became synonyms on the right. It was just one of many objections the right had but a talking point nonetheless. People on the right had varied objections, so the term 'Woke' became a bucket that addressed them without getting specific. It became useful to the right media. In particular when a person says 'Woke' its actually non-commital being as it is not specific and requires context. Its the perfection of gaslighting.

Now lets drop it.

 

[icehorse]

There's the original woke.

And then there's the straw man woke, an imaginary beast created by right wing media, for ratings mostly, to have something to be mad about, for more ratings. The caveat being tens of millions of clueless actually believe the beast exists. They can't factually identify it, without first exposing why there is an actual woke to begin with.

And then there's how critical social justice, i.e. "woke" really does have a lot of power these days, has had most of its original pursuits sullied, and is now often quite authoritarian in nature.

These days there are ideas that one cannot criticize without being described as "hateful" or "phobic". Those slurs usually come from the "woke" (who also it turns out are usually too cowardly to honestly name their affiliation).

 

[icehorse]

The term began spreading when the marxists co-opted the BLM movement to suck some juice out of it and attempt to fascinate the population. At first nobody would offer a definition, and individuals were just supposed to figure out that it meant something about awareness of something related to black (people's) needs. It could mean anything from acknowledging racism to politeness to accepting that whites had privilege over blacks. This was very marxist in flavor, but it also was like the word 'Nerd' used to be. You'd ask what it meant, and the speakers would enjoy your ignorance of the term. That also happened here on RF by the way. It was a trollish term to begin with that was then adopted by right trolls.

Today everybody is offering different definitions, but what happened was that the BLM movement was betrayed. Woke came out of that betrayal as an intentionally divisive term. Unfortunately trolls on the right picked it up and made it into their Yankee Doodle song. It indeed became a term for them that encompassed absolutely every progressive item from gay rights to social welfare: whenever it pleased the right trolls to use it. Most people found it confusing for years or irrelevant until around 2014 or so.

In cased nobody noticed I try to avoid this term. Search my posts. Its a useless word that confuses things and divides people, and media loves it. Everybody else is annoyed.

Around that (2014) time DEI began to emerge more obviously in politics and to push for enforced extended and refitted pronouns on a political level, particularly in Canada and the UK. Corporations also began to do so. This did not sit well with many. Comedians and others began to object to forced speech and 'Cancel culture'; and the two terms became synonyms on the right. It was just one of many objections the right had but a talking point nonetheless. People on the right had varied objections, so the term 'Woke' became a bucket that addressed them without getting specific. It became useful to the right media. In particular when a person says 'Woke' its actually non-commital being as it is not specific and requires context. Its the perfection of gaslighting.

Now lets drop it.

I'm not attached to the word "woke", I'd be happy to use a different term.

But there are a collection of ideas that are often promoted by the same people, and I think it would be an act of good faith if we had a term for people who mostly support that collection of ideas. A partial list of these ideas would be:

- intersectionality theory
- the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview
- gender ideology
- lived experience
- DEI
- systemic racism
- curtailing free speech in pursuit of reducing "hate"

As a lifelong liberal, I do not find these ideas to be liberal. In fact I find most of them to be more authoritarian. I support the ideas of MLK. I think free speech is absolutely not to be tampered with. I think "lived experience" is useful as a data point, but not as a basis for public policy. I trust science more than personal beliefs. I think traditional immigration is a good thing and that we should do more to provide aid in place.

 

[Magic Man]

And then there's how critical social justice, i.e. "woke" really does have a lot of power these days, has had most of its original pursuits sullied, and is now often quite authoritarian in nature.

Instead of vague buzzwords, it would be better to be precise and give examples. Otherwise this is just "wokeism is bad and authoritarian", which is obviously nonsense.

These days there are ideas that one cannot criticize without being described as "hateful" or "phobic". Those slurs usually come from the "woke" (who also it turns out are usually too cowardly to honestly name their affiliation).

Yes, thankfully people who are anti-trans, ant-LGBTQ in general, racist and misogynistic have come to face harsher criticism in recent years. And when you profess such hatred, it's rightly called hateful and phobic.

What slurs come from the "woke"? You just talked about it. When you use slurs, people rightfully call you out for being hateful and phobic.

What affiliation are "the woke" supposed to name?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not attached to the word "woke", I'd be happy to use a different term.

But there are a collection of ideas that are often promoted by the same people, and I think it would be an act of good faith if we had a term for people who mostly support that collection of ideas. A partial list of these ideas would be:

- intersectionality theory
- the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview
- gender ideology
- lived experience
- DEI
- systemic racism
- curtailing free speech in pursuit of reducing "hate"

This is a mish-mash. Mostly in America this would just refer to liberals. No "woke" needed. But there's also no such thing as "gender ideology". If you mean people who support trans people and their rights, then yes, that would fit here, but that's not "gender ideology".

DEI is another buzzword the right has latched onto, much like CRT and woke.

No one wants to curtail free speech, at least not on the left. So, go ahead and throw that one out.

The rest is basically just a matter or listening to the non-majority, understanding their experiences and putting in effort to change systems to improve their situations. It seems odd to want to pigeonhole people just for supporting the idea of fixing the systems that have been disadvantaging minorities for centuries.

As a lifelong liberal, I do not find these ideas to be liberal.

They are in America.

In fact I find most of them to be more authoritarian.

That's just your bias talking. There's absolutely nothing authoritarian about pointing out systemic racism and wanting to change it, for instance. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

I support the ideas of MLK.

Then you support all of the things you listed above (except for the last one which isn't a thing anyway). Congrats!

I think free speech is absolutely not to be tampered with.

It depends on what you mean. Free speech has had its limits forever. In America at least, you can't incite violence. The classic example is you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But then liberals or "wokeists" don't want to tamper with free speech anyway, so you agree with them.

I think "lived experience" is useful as a data point, but not as a basis for public policy.

It's not a data point. It's simply understanding people. That's all. I'd think that's the best way to determine public policy, by understanding people and their experiences. How else would you do it?

I trust science more than personal beliefs.

Just like American liberals/"wokeists". Good.

I think traditional immigration is a good thing and that we should do more to provide aid in place.

I mean, the "traditional" is unnecessary, since it's meaningless. But yeah, so again you agree with American liberals/"wokeists".

It sounds like you fit right into the "woke" crowd then.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've heard the term used to refer to people who want to support disabled access, eat vegan food, promote civil rights, campaign against excessive police violence, talk about Marxism, and even people who encourage others to learn sign language.

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know here, but I want to summarize:

Yes, it's the latest form of derogation of the humanistic movement to make everybody an equal in American society. Others include political correctness, and social warrior justice.

Whenever you see any of these, or derogatory references to CRT or DEI, you know where the get their information from and you know a little about their character for being offended that humanists want to enable people. In the past, blacks seeking equality were called uppity, women lesbians or too independent, and atheists militant.

It's all the same and for the same purpose - maintain white, male, Christian superiority and privilege. If you feel insecure or like you can't successfully compete against everybody without an advantage, then you'll be drawn to this kind of thinking, and without fail, will embrace multiple bigotries.

The rise of Woke, cultural marxism, is it a religion? Wokeism is as I see a neo- Marxist movement that started off with well-intentioned people. It has morphed into a religious cult that seeks to silence all of those that disagree as they know open dialectic debate will demolish their radical positions. . This is done using social media humiliation, violence through Antifa and BLM riots etc.

Wokeism demands equity not equality. It seeks to destroy all norms, to redefine words and gender.. and its out to destroy science in order to create a Marxist Utopia.(thus its a religion. )

Wokeism is a full attack on Western culture. . It rewrites history in order to confuse and inspire the destruction of the West. This virus is infecting every part of society from children's schools to the Government. It is everywhere and is now threatening to end freedom of speech AND thought. It has become impossible to speak out without fear of career-death and possible physical harm.
i see it as an Orwellian collectivist movement

Your writing betrays your sources: conservative indoctrination media, which among other things, objects to social and economic opportunity for all. Apparently, they've found a kindred spirit in you. Can we assume that you're also MAGA?

Wokeism is an attack on elitism, and it is as old as the Enlightenment, liberalism, and then progressivism (humanism). It's been a centuries long struggle to "liberate" the concentrated wealth, power, and privilege from the few, who are fighting against equality to "conserve" those things for themselves. Your job is to help them by uncritically and with disregard for the wellbeing of others bring messages like these to the public.

In heaven we are all equal and we live in wonderful circumstances.

And Christian, too, albeit dangerously close to a Marxist. What's all this talk about equality, comrade? Your information sources have no use for equality. And apparently neither do you.

We have those who are literally worshipping at an alter to the religion of WOKE .

I doubt it.

You degrade the meanings of three words in one short sentence: literally (try figuratively), religion (try ideology), and woke (try empathetic or socially conscious).

Weren't you complaining about redefining words?

 

[icehorse]

This is a mish-mash.

Yes indeed, as I said, it's a collection of ideas that tend to be held by a certain group of people.

Yes, thankfully people who are anti-trans, ant-LGBTQ in general, racist and misogynistic have come to face harsher criticism in recent years. And when you profess such hatred, it's rightly called hateful and phobic.

This post of yours is a great example of what I'll call "woke" until a better term is established. Being critical of trans rights activists (TRAs), is not
"anti-LGBTQ". In fact it's the TRAs who consistently promote misogynistic and homophobic agendas.

DEI is another buzzword the right has latched onto, much like CRT and woke.

DEI is a multi-billion dollar industry, get up to speed.

No one wants to curtail free speech, at least not on the left.

Some examples of attempts to curtail speech are: the ideas of "deadnaming" and "misgendering". The rise of "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation throughout the western world.

It's not a data point. It's simply understanding people. That's all. I'd think that's the best way to determine public policy, by understanding people and their experiences. How else would you do it?

Sorry, but an individual's lived experience is just a single data point. Policy ought to be determined by statistics.

There's absolutely nothing authoritarian about pointing out systemic racism and wanting to change it, for instance.

Can you give us all some examples of systemic racism?

Just like American liberals/"wokeists". Good.

Nope, I will not agree that the woke ideas I've just listed are the new "liberal". The woke are attempting to hijack the term liberal and that hjacking needs to be resisted.

I mean, the "traditional" is unnecessary, since it's meaningless. But yeah, so again you agree with American liberals/"wokeists".

Can you define the key ideas of traditional immigration?

 

[PureX]

I see WOKE as a religion, secular fundamentalism

Well, democracy is a fundamental secular ideal. Does this mean that all those that support democracy are engaged in a religious practice?

 

[PureX]

Wokeism is as I see a neo- Marxist movement that started off with well-intentioned people. It has morphed into a religious cult that seeks to silence all of those that disagree as they know open dialectic debate will demolish their radical positions. . This is done using social media humiliation, violence through Antifa and BLM riots etc.

Wokeism demands equity not equality. It seeks to destroy all norms, to redefine words and gender.. and its out to destroy science in order to create a Marxist Utopia.(thus its a religion. )

Wokeism is a full attack on Western culture. . It rewrites history in order to confuse and inspire the destruction of the West. This virus is infecting every part of society from children's schools to the Government. It is everywhere and is now threatening to end freedom of speech AND thought. It has become impossible to speak out without fear of career-death and possible physical harm.
i see it as an Orwellian collectivist movement

This is all a made up 'boogeyman' intended to keep you tuning in to the media advertising, and to keep you focused on this make-believe enemy while the real criminals continue to rob us all blind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

- intersectionality theory
- the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview
- gender ideology
- lived experience
- DEI
- systemic racism
- curtailing free speech in pursuit of reducing "hate"

As a lifelong liberal, I do not find these ideas to be liberal. In fact I find most of them to be more authoritarian. I support the ideas of MLK.

(Coloring mine.)

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

letter from Birmingham Jail, Alabama, 16 April 1963

The Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

letter from Birmingham Jail, Alabama, 16 April 1963

Martin Luther King

"Martin Luther King" published on by Oxford University Press.

www.oxfordreference.com

“Justice for black people will not flow into this society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory…White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society,” King wrote in an essay published in 1969 titled “A Testament of Hope.” In his 1958 book Stride Toward Freedom, he wrote, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”

What Martin Luther King Jr. Said About Systemic Racism

King often discussed how racial equality cannot be achieved without structural change.

today.tamu.edu

These are quotes from MLK, whose ideas you claim to follow. He fought systemic racism, criticized the attitudes of many white "moderates" of his time, and recognized that sometimes there are generally oppressors who subject certain groups to oppression (as many people do without assuming that every issue is about the "oppressor vs. the oppressed").

The list strikes me as full of weaponized buzzwords without much context, nuance, or openness to the fact that they cover a vast number of subjects and may be interpreted differently by different people. This is exactly why I believe that the term "woke" has essentially become a political wild card and linguistic stand-in for various people's bugbears and desire to stigmatize opposing viewpoints.

 

[icehorse]

He fought systemic racism, criticized the attitudes of many white "moderates" of his time, and recognized that sometimes there are generally oppressors who subject certain groups to oppression (as many people do without assuming that every issue is about the "oppressor vs. the oppressed").

This is a complex topic, but MLK was about judging people by their character, not their skin color.

And as far as oppressed vs. oppressor ( o vs. o), I think the reality is that this is much more a class issue than it is a skin color issue. What I think we really need to do is understand that we're all in this together fighting the oligarchy.

The list strikes me as full of weaponized buzzwords without much context, nuance, or openness to the fact that they cover a vast number of subjects and may be interpreted differently by different people. This is exactly why I believe that the term "woke" has essentially become a political wild card and linguistic stand-in for various people's bugbears and desire to stigmatize opposing viewpoints.

Of course it's complex. That's no excuse for not standing up and admitting it if you think these ideas have merit. I have many times on this forum listed exactly what ideas I support as a classic liberal. I have not once seen a poster admit that they support the ideas I listed above.

 

[LeftyLen]

Basically, woke is a right-wing political tool, a way of dismissing criticism of one's own stupidity or vulgarity.

in depth analysis?

 

[LeftyLen]

The term began spreading when the marxists co-opted the BLM movement to suck some juice out of it and attempt to fascinate the population. At first nobody would offer a definition, and individuals were just supposed to figure out that it meant something about awareness of something related to black (people's) needs. It could mean anything from acknowledging racism to politeness to accepting that whites had privilege over blacks. This was very marxist in flavor, but it also was like the word 'Nerd' used to be. You'd ask what it meant, and the speakers would enjoy your ignorance of the term. That also happened here on RF by the way. It was a trollish term to begin with that was then adopted by right trolls.

Today everybody is offering different definitions, but what happened was that the BLM movement was betrayed. Woke came out of that betrayal as an intentionally divisive term. Unfortunately trolls on the right picked it up and made it into their Yankee Doodle song. It indeed became a term for them that encompassed absolutely every progressive item from gay rights to social welfare: whenever it pleased the right trolls to use it. Most people found it confusing for years or irrelevant until around 2014 or so.

In cased nobody noticed I try to avoid this term. Search my posts. Its a useless word that confuses things and divides people, and media loves it. Everybody else is annoyed.

Around that (2014) time DEI began to emerge more obviously in politics and to push for enforced extended and refitted pronouns on a political level, particularly in Canada and the UK. Corporations also began to do so. This did not sit well with many. Comedians and others began to object to forced speech and 'Cancel culture'; and the two terms became synonyms on the right. It was just one of many objections the right had but a talking point nonetheless. People on the right had varied objections, so the term 'Woke' became a bucket that addressed them without getting specific. It became useful to the right media. In particular when a person says 'Woke' its actually non-commital being as it is not specific and requires context. Its the perfection of gaslighting.

Now lets drop it.

Its basically cultural marxism

 

[LeftyLen]

This is a mish-mash. Mostly in America this would just refer to liberals. No "woke" needed. But there's also no such thing as "gender ideology". If you mean people who support trans people and their rights, then yes, that would fit here, but that's not "gender ideology".

DEI is another buzzword the right has latched onto, much like CRT and woke.

No one wants to curtail free speech, at least not on the left. So, go ahead and throw that one out.

The rest is basically just a matter or listening to the non-majority, understanding their experiences and putting in effort to change systems to improve their situations. It seems odd to want to pigeonhole people just for supporting the idea of fixing the systems that have been disadvantaging minorities for centuries.

They are in America.

That's just your bias talking. There's absolutely nothing authoritarian about pointing out systemic racism and wanting to change it, for instance. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Then you support all of the things you listed above (except for the last one which isn't a thing anyway). Congrats!

It depends on what you mean. Free speech has had its limits forever. In America at least, you can't incite violence. The classic example is you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But then liberals or "wokeists" don't want to tamper with free speech anyway, so you agree with them.

It's not a data point. It's simply understanding people. That's all. I'd think that's the best way to determine public policy, by understanding people and their experiences. How else would you do it?

Just like American liberals/"wokeists". Good.

I mean, the "traditional" is unnecessary, since it's meaningless. But yeah, so again you agree with American liberals/"wokeists".

It sounds like you fit right into the "woke" crowd then.

Woke is the new twist on the old demon of totalitarianism. Freedom is fought against by the left with redefined terms. Today words are VIOLENCE or even words are defined as TERRORISM. Divergent beliefs are HATE SPEECH or expressions of PHOBIA. Books they don't like are OFFENSIVE or INSENSITIVE to targeted VICTIM identity groups-the list of which grows longer and longer, class against class(marx) now we are even told STANDARDS are "oppression" - and this is all alien to us who love LIBERTY. Have we lost the culture? Words are not violence- speech is not terrorism- disliking , disagreeing is not phobic- - loving liberty is not fascist, agreeing with God and basic biology does not render one a bigot . Placing FACTS above feelings does not nessessary render one "insensitive. "

 

[LeftyLen]

The term began spreading when the marxists co-opted the BLM movement to suck some juice out of it and attempt to fascinate the population. At first nobody would offer a definition, and individuals were just supposed to figure out that it meant something about awareness of something related to black (people's) needs. It could mean anything from acknowledging racism to politeness to accepting that whites had privilege over blacks. This was very marxist in flavor, but it also was like the word 'Nerd' used to be. You'd ask what it meant, and the speakers would enjoy your ignorance of the term. That also happened here on RF by the way. It was a trollish term to begin with that was then adopted by right trolls.

Today everybody is offering different definitions, but what happened was that the BLM movement was betrayed. Woke came out of that betrayal as an intentionally divisive term. Unfortunately trolls on the right picked it up and made it into their Yankee Doodle song. It indeed became a term for them that encompassed absolutely every progressive item from gay rights to social welfare: whenever it pleased the right trolls to use it. Most people found it confusing for years or irrelevant until around 2014 or so.

In cased nobody noticed I try to avoid this term. Search my posts. Its a useless word that confuses things and divides people, and media loves it. Everybody else is annoyed.

Around that (2014) time DEI began to emerge more obviously in politics and to push for enforced extended and refitted pronouns on a political level, particularly in Canada and the UK. Corporations also began to do so. This did not sit well with many. Comedians and others began to object to forced speech and 'Cancel culture'; and the two terms became synonyms on the right. It was just one of many objections the right had but a talking point nonetheless. People on the right had varied objections, so the term 'Woke' became a bucket that addressed them without getting specific. It became useful to the right media. In particular when a person says 'Woke' its actually non-commital being as it is not specific and requires context. Its the perfection of gaslighting.

Now lets drop it.

Woke is a new twist on the old demon of totalitarianism. Freedom is fought against by the left with redefined terms. Today words are VIOLENCE or even words are defined as TERRORISM. Divergent beliefs are HATE SPEECH or expressions of PHOBIA. Books they don't like are OFFENSIVE or INSENSITIVE to targeted VICTIM identity groups-the list of which grows longer and longer, class against class(marx) now we are even told STANDARDS are "oppression" - and this is all alien to us who love LIBERTY. Have we lost the culture? Words are not violence- speech is not terrorism- disliking , disagreeing is not phobic- - loving liberty is not fascist, agreeing with God and basic biology does not render one a bigot . Placing FACTS above feelings does not nessessary render one "insensitive. "

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its basically cultural marxism

I don't want to downplay the concerns of progressives. They have gripes. I don't know what 'Cultural marxism' means, however I know what 'Divide and conquer' means and also what riding a horse is or surfing a wave. See a movement and put to use for your own purposes. That's politics.

 

[rocala]

Its basically cultural marxism

Which does not exist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is a complex topic, but MLK was about judging people by their character, not their skin color.

Many liberals and leftists believe in that too, hence their opposition to racism, systemic or otherwise.

And as far as oppressed vs. oppressor ( o vs. o), I think the reality is that this is much more a class issue than it is a skin color issue. What I think we really need to do is understand that we're all in this together fighting the oligarchy.

If one assumes that an oligarchic class is causing most of society's problems, it seems to me that they're still regarding the perceived oligarchy as the "oppressors."

Of course it's complex. That's no excuse for not standing up and admitting it if you think these ideas have merit. I have many times on this forum listed exactly what ideas I support as a classic liberal. I have not once seen a poster admit that they support the ideas I listed above.

What "ideas"? You listed a bunch of terms that could be interpreted in various ways depending on the beliefs and preconceived notions of the person reading them. For instance, most liberals recognize that gender is not a strict binary but is instead a spectrum. If someone refers to such recognition as "gender ideology," their usage of the term becomes loaded from the get-go.

Ditto for most of those other terms: someone may support a specific collection of ideas and describe them using one of those terms, but because someone else associates said term with a different collection of ideas or sees the term as inherently negative, they may assume that anyone who agrees with ideas that fall under it is "woke" (in the pejorative sense) or supportive of ideas that the other person using the term may not support in the first place.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. Wokism was employed by the left wing who created special policies and classes of people to be protected and reinforced by rule of law, effectively pushing out other classes of people they did not like or want under guise of "evening the playing field" on the basis of superficial ethnic and racial characteristics alone and not a person's actual ability and capabilities.

Aw, man. Don't do that to me. Don't hide those people from me.

 

[LuisDantas]

And then there's how critical social justice, i.e. "woke" really does have a lot of power these days, has had most of its original pursuits sullied, and is now often quite authoritarian in nature.

These days there are ideas that one cannot criticize without being described as "hateful" or "phobic". Those slurs usually come from the "woke" (who also it turns out are usually too cowardly to honestly name their affiliation).

Icehorse, dear...

you are delluded. Sorry to say, but you are.