Poll: Is Woke a new religion?

[Shadow Wolf]

@Twilight Hue , @Debater Slayer , @Secret Chief , @lewisnotmiller , @exchemist , @Windwalker , @F1fan , @Father Heathen , @Left Coast , @Yerda , @Shadow Wolf , @PureX , @Evangelicalhumanist , @Stevicus , @LuisDantas

Thanks to you and others who have responded to the OP.

I'll try to summarize what FOR ME are the key ideas, definitions, and fallacies I see in this discussion. Just imo:

First off, I don't agree with anyone all the time. I do my best to separate the message from the messenger. That said, I resonate with Bill Maher when he calls himself a "classic liberal"; I believe myself to be a classic liberal.

@lewisnotmiller , I thought the Atlantic article was fantastic!!! The subtitle that "everyone is too vague" seems to be a recurring theme in this thread. I made the OP to be intentionally vague, because I was curious to see what definitions people came to the discussion with.

So now I'll put some of my own stakes in the sand. I'll try to avoid vagueness:

- I agree with @Stevicus when he basically said some folks on the left have good intentions, but bad strategies! E.g., I agree with the broad goals of DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion). But I often think that the folks pushing DEI agendas become what they're fighting against. For example, many DEI advocates seek to stifle the speech of those who disagree with their tactics. (An example link of this happening in the UK follows.)

- I use "woke" - as it's sometimes used in 2023 - to mean: extreme left thought police. (@Father Heathen - I got the inspiration for this definition from you.) Not a perfect definition, but a starting place. I'm not at all attached to the term "woke", but I do think it's important for there to be a term for people when they behave like extreme left thought police. Suggestions for a better term are welcome!

- I disagree with the idea that only folks on the right or far-right are worried about the "woke". That seems like a sort of blanket ad hominem, that makes my argument for me?

- I think that "canceling" comes in many forms, and that it's far more prevalent than is healthy. For example, in the video I link to below, a recent poll of university students in the UK indicates that 50% of students feel they need to "self-censor" themselves on many topics being dominated by the "woke". This isn't a celebrity like Dave Chappelle being canceled, this is students by the thousands. Another form of canceling is happening to moderate or conservative professors. While I might not agree with a conservative professor or student, I will darned well fight for their right to speak.

- I would argue that the whole point of university is to expose yourself to ideas that might make you uncomfortable. One of the biggest problems I have with the "woke" is the idea that a person somehow has a right to not be uncomfortable and that right is more important than the right to speak (or hear!), challenging opinions.

- Finally, as for the comparison to religion..
- the "woke" are frequently dogmatic
- the "woke" frequent use magical thinking
- the "woke" are frequently divisive and tribal

Of course these aren't the best characteristics of religion, but sadly, they're all too common.

The following video is about how extreme left thought police - the woke - in universities in the UK are undermining one of university's prime directives, free discussion and debate. It's not a perfect video by any stretch. But I think if you watch the first 10-15 minutes you'll get the gist of some important ideas and data:

And not one acknowledgement of the only "no" option including being offended by the question. That upfront suggests you don't want to learn as there should be no reasonable objectives to your question.
I don't have partisan rabies so I know it's not a religion as well as knowing what it is, what it means, and how idiots use it. Amd why would it offend me you asked? Looks to me more like "oh goody" moment to pick apart a argument were someone is obviously clueless and puking up media echo chambers.

 

[icehorse]

The Atlantic article talked about lack of clarity. I think we're seeing a lot of that in this thread, and in my opinion, your post above is no exception.

I'm trying to discuss a broad set of behaviors that have many variations. That requires some degree of abstraction. Abstraction will always be burdened with some ambiguity.

This is a clearly ideologically biased source, which would be okay if that didn't bring into question its reliability and methods of gauging opinions.

We all struggle to separate the message from the messenger. So let me ask you this, what would be an acceptable level of self-censoring in a university environment? If you don't believe the 50% number, what's your intuition about a more realistic number?

You also didn't specify whether the conservative professors got "canceled" for speaking their minds in general or only for doing so on campus. The campus of a private university is not subject to free speech laws because it is part of a private institution. A university is perfectly within its rights to fire a professor for, say, telling his students during a lecture that he believes trans people are "delusional" or that he supports conversion therapy.

I'm not talking about what's legal. Do you disagree with the idea that universities are SUPPOSED to expose students to a diverse - sometimes unsettling - range of ideas?

 

[Yerda]

- Finally, as for the comparison to religion..
- the "woke" are frequently dogmatic
- the "woke" frequent use magical thinking
- the "woke" are frequently divisive and tribal

Ok. Thanks for replying. I thoroughly disagree with pretty much the entirety of your thinking on this, but I'm always quite happy to read what you post. Maybe I'd be more concerned if there were woke people in, or affecting, my life. As it is I see it as a bit of culture war hysteria.

I would say that the features you've listed apply to many groups and aren't unique to religious organisations. Economics as a profession is dogmatic, brimming with magical thinking (including wishful thinking, just-so stories and rationialising), and is tribal as hell. I don't think this qualifies professional economics as a religion, however (even if some people refer to the academics as a priesthood). Or even better, sports fan groups fulfill these without being religions. Unless you take religion to mean anything people consider important.

 

[icehorse]

So let's please find another term for general cultural leftiness and let's not treat racial injustice as a preoccupation of the Left. It should be something we can all sign up to.

As I said or implied many times, I'm not at all attached to the term "woke". That said, there are a set of behaviors that would fall pretty cleanly under the longer phrase: extreme left thought police.

We need a term we can mostly agree to.

 

[icehorse]

"Gender theory" is merely the current scientific consensus on gender. Tying it into leftist beliefs is like saying that accepting evolution is exclusively atheistic.

Can you summarize the "gender theory" you think has become scientific consensus? That seems like a surprising claim to me...

 

[icehorse]

And not one acknowledgement of the only "no" option including being offended by the question. That upfront suggests you don't want to learn as there should be no reasonable objectives to your question.
I don't have partisan rabies so I know it's not a religion as well as knowing what it is, what it means, and how idiots use it. Amd why would it offend me you asked? Looks to me more like "oh goody" moment to pick apart a argument were someone is obviously clueless and puking up media echo chambers.

"very little" was a poll answer. I would say that to ignore any existence of dogmatism or magical thinking or tribalism from the "woke" is a form of denial.

 

[icehorse]

Ok. Thanks for replying. I thoroughly disagree with pretty much the entirety of your thinking on this, but I'm always quite happy to read what you post. Maybe I'd be more concerned if there were woke people in, or affecting, my life. As it is I see it as a bit of culture war hysteria.

I would say that the features you've listed apply to many groups and aren't unique to religious organisations. Economics as a profession is dogmatic, brimming with magical thinking (including wishful thinking, just-so stories and rationialising), and is tribal as hell. I don't think this qualifies professional economics as a religion, however (even if some people refer to the academics as a priesthood). Or even better, sports fan groups fulfill these without being religions. Unless you take religion to mean anything people consider important.

I'd say that any set of ideas that relies on dogmatism, magical thinking and/or tribalism could be compared to some of the worst aspects of religion. So if the shoe fits economists..

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can you summarize the "gender theory" you think has become scientific consensus? That seems like a surprising claim to me...

The view that gender is

1. real, so not something that is imaginary or can be simply abolished like many TERFs claim;
2. not synonymous with sex; and
3. varies greatly based on society and culture.

Gender and health

What is gender? What is sex? - CIHR

 

[Debater Slayer]

"very little" was a poll answer. I would say that to ignore any existence of dogmatism or magical thinking or tribalism from the "woke" is a form of denial.

So you assumed the answer and included it in the wording of the poll responses. This is a textbook example of a loaded question, and it certainly seems inconsistent with a thread challenging "dogmatic" and "tribalistic" thinking.

 

[icehorse]

So you assumed the answer and included it in the wording of the poll responses. This is a textbook example of a loaded question, and it certainly seems inconsistent with a thread challenging "dogmatic" and "tribalistic" thinking.

I'm happy to cop to the "loaded question" claim (But notice what a strong response the OP elicited?)

Not quite sure I see how it's dogmatic or tribalistic?

BTW, did you read the Atlantic article? One point I think was very important was this:

"Since 2015, we documented 563 attempts (345 from the left, 202 from the right, 16 from neither) to get scholars canceled. Two thirds (362 incidents; 64 percent) of these cancellation attempts were successful, resulting in some form of professional sanction leveled at the scholar, including over one-fifth (117 incidents; 21 percent) resulting in termination … In 2001, the idea of one tenured professor being fired for protected speech seemed impossible, yet since 2015 there have been 30."

Another point I have made explicit (but apparently I'll have to), is that we see these sorts of tactics from the right as well. I just think it's less comfortable for classical liberals to acknowledge that sometimes left can be too far left.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"very little" was a poll answer. I would say that to ignore any existence of dogmatism or magical thinking or tribalism from the "woke" is a form of denial.

Very little isn't a no.
Does it rain in California? Saying no is not correct or accurate. Very little, however, is generally how much rain we see because though it does rain it doesn't rain much at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you assumed the answer and included it in the wording of the poll responses. This is a textbook example of a loaded question, and it certainly seems inconsistent with a thread challenging "dogmatic" and "tribalistic" thinking.

Yup. I'd go a step further and apply the label of RW Tactic of discrediting anything attached to a minority, as they did with Feminism.

 

[icehorse]

Yup. I'd go a step further and apply the label of RW Tactic of discrediting anything attached to a minority, as they did with Feminism.

That's a useless comparison because EVERYONE uses tactics like that sometimes.

And again, I think you might be making my argument for me? I could interpret you to be saying that any criticism of the far left is somehow improper or dishonest?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a useless comparison because EVERYONE uses tactics like that sometimes.

And again, I think you might be making my argument for me? I could interpret you to be saying that any criticism of the far left is somehow improper or dishonest?

It is improper for such a poll to lack a plain no as an answer. It is impossible to answer your poll if your answer is just no. Or other positions. The only way to answer is to agree it is a religion to some varying degree or take offense over the question being asked.
That is a very loaded question and upfront doesn't allow for disagreement from what you believe.

 

[icehorse]

It is improper for such a poll to lack a plain no as an answer. It is impossible to answer your poll if your answer is just no. Or other positions. The only way to answer is to agree it is a religion to some varying degree or take offense over the question being asked.
That is a very loaded question and upfront doesn't allow for disagreement from what you believe.

Of course you can always just make posts without answering the poll question. In my experience most polls fail to offer me my truest choice.

 

[Stevicus]

In my experience most polls fail to offer me my truest choice.

That's why I usually add a choice for "other" or "undecided."

 

[Wandering Monk]

Woke is just another word for empathy. If you don't have empathy you are ill.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course you can always just make posts without answering the poll question. In my experience most polls fail to offer me my truest choice.

True, yes, I did, but there's still the issue your poll is loaded, limited and excessively biased.

 

[Stevicus]

Back to the thread title, I find it particularly unfortunate that a term that denoted awareness of racial injustice in racist America is being hijacked by the Right to be used as a disparaging label for anything they consider left wing. It is obvious that using it in this way also, highly conveniently and not coincidentally, disparages those who campaign for racial justice, i.e. "woke" in the original sense. We should be encouraging all members of racial minorities to be "woke" and we should all be helping to get rid of the last vestiges of racial prejudice. We all know it is still among us. So let's please find another term for general cultural leftiness and let's not treat racial injustice as a preoccupation of the Left. It should be something we can all sign up to.

I guess it would depend on how one defines the phrase "awareness of." Is there anyone in this country who isn't aware of racial prejudice and the gross injustices throughout our history? Is there anyone claiming they never heard of it or that they don't know about it?

 

[icehorse]

Woke is just another word for empathy. If you don't have empathy you are ill.

As I've indicated, I'm not attached to using the term "woke".

Do you have any ideas what we should call "extreme left thought police" behavior?