What is "woke" in 2024

[Spice]

Hey @PureX -

To be clear, I think the ideas on that list are for the most part rubbish.

But if you've been glancing at the conversations in this thread you might have seen that I've repeatedly mentioned two best selling authors who champion these ideas: Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. There are other popular people who also champion these ideas, but I think the two I've listed are more than sufficient to demonstrate that - in fact - millions of people believe these ideas.

So your repeated claims of "no one thinks this" seem contrary to really solid evidence to the contrary.

I believe the difference here is that your two authors represent academia, whereas PureX speaks for the common man.

 

[Augustus]

I guess you can think of that as like a primary belief barrier, that all sides could actually use, in defending anything. Maybe.. hopefully that isn't biting off more than I can chew. Really what you are expressing there is sort of a cover letter of self-concern, that all, or most views could potentially preface themselves with. It's saying that yes, the person expressing the view probably does believe in it

And that as well as believing in it, people tend to frame their own ideological beliefs in positive terms as we all think our own beliefs are perfectly reasonable.

 

[icehorse]

You are assuming that people only buy books that they "believe in". This is quite false. In fact, I'd bet that many of those sales were to people that think 'woke-ism' is the big bad boogerman, and they're reading them to wallow in their outrage and indignation. But mostly I suspect people are buying them because they are just curious since the 'right' is making such a big stink about it. That may well be why they were written to begin with. The money motive generally trumps all the others.

People buying a few books is not "really solid evidence to the contrary".

Sigh...

Again, I'm using these two authors only as an example. A subset. There are many more. And again - sigh - both of these authors ALSO do successful speaking tours. Sure, some people might go to a talk to be outraged, but a large percentage of people go to talks because they're fans.

It's pretty simple, sound math to just take these two authors, factor out those who don't agree but buy anyway, and add in other authors / speakers of their ilk and arrive at the conclusion that lots of people believe the ideas in the list in the OP.

You seem to be taking on a task that's generally considered to be almost un-provable. That is to say a thing does not exist

 

[icehorse]

I believe the difference here is that your two authors represent academia, whereas PureX speaks for the common man.

The "comman man" is buying these books and going to these talks.

 

[icehorse]

Ok @PureX and @Spice and @crossfire and...

I just did a 15 second search on Amazon and found that one of Kendi's books has over 28,000 reviews with an average 4.5 star rating.

If you think an author is full of malarky, you tend not to give the author 4 and 5 star reviews, correct?

 

[icehorse]

Then why are you so intent on defending it?

What parts DON'T you think are rubbish?

I don't think the observation about white privilege is rubbish, for example.

Nor the observation about cultural misappropriation.

In no way am I defending this list, ffs. I think woke-ism is having a huge negative impact on society.

But the overall summary of this thread has been my opponents all claiming that people don't believe the ideas on this list, and my most repeated counter argument is that these two authors (who are a fraction of woke's famous advocates), demonstrate that millions of people believe the ideas in this list.

This thread is largely another example of the "it's not happening" argument that's become so tiresome on RF.

 

[PureX]

Sigh...

Again, I'm using these two authors only as an example. A subset. There are many more. And again - sigh - both of these authors ALSO do successful speaking tours. Sure, some people might go to a talk to be outraged, but a large percentage of people go to talks because they're fans.

It's pretty simple, sound math to just take these two authors, factor out those who don't agree but buy anyway, and add in other authors / speakers of their ilk and arrive at the conclusion that lots of people believe the ideas in the list in the OP.

You seem to be taking on a task that's generally considered to be almost un-provable. That is to say a thing does not exist

I really just don't believe your assertion that most of the people that go to these guy's talks are "fans". Secondly, I do not believe the assertion that ANY of this represents a significant number of people. The whole subject is being used as a 'dog whistle' for a whole range of race-based and class based bigotry by a small group of people that stand to benefit greatly from it. And that ARE benefiting greatly from it. Namely; the politicians and the media blowhards that are all working on behalf of their very wealthy corporate benefactors.

 

[PureX]

The "comman man" is buying these books and going to these talks.

The "common man" has no idea who those people are.

 

[Spice]

The "comman man" is buying these books and going to these talks.

But not necessarily agreeing with what is presented. Drawn to, attracted by, curious of, does not mean buying into the position. Think of how many people go to exhibitions or rallies, even churches, and give it a go without swallowing it whole.

I just finished binge reading the entire Harry Potter series to finally see what all the hoopla was about. Yes, I bought the books. No, I will not read them again. And no, I do not recommend them to any one outside of the age range of 20 to 40. So the fact that I've listened enough to be persuaded to invest time and money into the phenomena dies not make me a believer or fan.

 

[PureX]

In no way am I defending this list, ffs. I think woke-ism is having a huge negative impact on society.

But you keep refusing to tell us what you think it is. Why? You say you don't agree with the list, yet you say it's having this huge effect.

WHAT is having this huge effect? WHAT is the huge effect that it's having?

 

[icehorse]

Slander, verbal abuse, violent rhetoric, hate are designed to offend. And in many cases shouldn't be considered "Free speech". Genuine free speech must be vigilantly protected.

There are limits to free speech. Slander, libel, and threats of imminent violence are examples of such limits, and I think they are appropriate. But "hate speech" must be protected speech because it's so massively subjective.

I have never heard of anyone that I think is smart enough to decide what "hate speech" I shouldn't be allowed to hear. I want to understand the enemies of society. I do not think you can make them go away by censoring them.

Nonsense, for the longest time no one gave a damn about certain other Americans personal liberties. For me, personal liberties, civil or constitutional rights are the very center of the fight ahead.

Hey! On this point we're agreed!

But again, to reiterate. I THINK THE LIST ON THE OP IS RUBBISH.

I'm not defending the list, I'm quite critical of the list. But the point is to define what "woke" means in 2024. The list in the OP is a way to partially understand what woke is, by listing things that the woke tend to believe.

==

Without going point by point, I think we're largely agreed on your analysis of the list.

But I think a key point of contention is that I think you're dead wrong if you think "no one believes this". Much of this thread has involved discussing the evidence that millions of people DO BELIEVE the ideas on the list.

I think that's a huge problem.

 

[Spice]

Ok @PureX and @Spice and @crossfire and...

I just did a 15 second search on Amazon and found that one of Kendi's books has over 28,000 reviews with an average 4.5 star rating.

If you think an author is full of malarky, you tend not to give the author 4 and 5 star reviews, correct?

I just responded with an example of Harry Potter that I gave a rating of 4 stars, and yet I'm not a fan. The writing and creativity was suburb. The storyline was disagreeable to me and disturbing.

 

[icehorse]

But you keep refusing to tell us what you think it is. Why? You say you don't agree with the list, yet you say it's having this huge effect.

WHAT is having this huge effect? WHAT is the huge effect that it's having?

That's a great topic for other threads. This thread has a more limited goal.

 

[icehorse]

I just responded with an example of Harry Potter that I gave a rating of 4 stars, and yet I'm not a fan. The writing and creativity was suburb. The storyline was disagreeable to me and disturbing.

How common do you think your actions were? Maybe 10% of readers are as thoughtful as you? 20%??

 

[PureX]

There are limits to free speech. Slander, libel, and threats of imminent violence are examples of such limits, and I think they are appropriate. But "hate speech" must be protected speech because it's so massively subjective.

So the obvious question is how to we clearly define the line between these, so we can prosecute one and not the other?

I have never heard of anyone that I think is smart enough to decide what "hate speech" I shouldn't be allowed to hear. I want to understand the enemies of society. I do not think you can make them go away by censoring them.

I agree. And I don't think there are a lot of people that think we can eliminate hate by stopping people from expressing it verbally. But again, exactly when does "hate speech" become slander, threat, and incitement to do real harm to others?

I'm not defending the list, I'm quite critical of the list. But the point is to define what "woke" means in 2024. The list in the OP is a way to partially understand what woke is, by listing things that the woke tend to believe.

So ... DEFINE IT, then!

But I think a key point of contention is that I think you're dead wrong if you think "no one believes this". Much of this thread has involved discussing the evidence that millions of people DO BELIEVE the ideas on the list.

OK, I stand corrected ... MOSTLY NO ONE BELIEVES THIS.

 

[Viker]

In no way am I defending this list, ffs. I think woke-ism is having a huge negative impact on society.

But the overall summary of this thread has been my opponents all claiming that people don't believe the ideas on this list, and my most repeated counter argument is that these two authors (who are a fraction of woke's famous advocates), demonstrate that millions of people believe the ideas in this list.

This thread is largely another example of the "it's not happening" argument that's become so tiresome on RF.

My contention is that it's not woke. It's a bunch of nonsense hard to believe anyone of any merit would espouse. I'll have to further investigate, when I have a chance, to see if those authors actually believe those things or their beliefs are perhaps being misrepresented.

I'm currently contemplating hard-line Soviet Communism. j/k

 

[Stevicus]

With all those caveats and disclaimers in place, below is a list of beliefs ascribed to the far-left / woke, in 2024. The more of them you agree with, the more “woke” you are. And again, no one is perfectly woke or perfectly far right or moderate. These are all rough approximations.

Far-left / woke beliefs:

I'll go through the list here.

1 - Free speech is less important than protecting people from being offended.

Strongly disagree. The only legitimate restrictions on free speech would be that which creates a clear and present danger. The other side of that is that free speech is guaranteed for all, so if someone wants to offend someone, they can expect a response. The only real guarantee someone has is that they won't be jailed for it, but they might be fired from their job for it - or some people might organize a boycott of their business. Or any number of other legal responses.

2 - Protecting personal liberties is less important than protecting people from being offended.

Same answer as the first, although I guess it depends on which personal liberties you're referring to. I would also wonder how, exactly, such restrictions on free speech or other personal liberties would actually "protect" people from being offended. I don't see that there's any real honest or genuine effort to "protect people from being offended" anyway. I don't think that being "woke" is actually like that.

If we equate "woke" with "being aware of injustice," then the idea would imply that the best "protection" is to be able to identify that which is unjust, even if it's something subtle and not immediately apparent.

3 - The world’s people and societies should be viewed from an “oppressed vs. oppressor” perspective.

Possibly, although being far left myself, I think the emphasis should be on economic/class oppression more than anything else. Then there's also geopolitical oppression, which is also a serious issue which the left (at least in America) doesn't pay enough attention to.

It can get a bit complicated and unwieldy, as the narrative has been formulated and propagated by those who mainly come from the "oppressor" class, yet still claiming to more enlightened, which only serves to reinforce their traditional role as oppressor. What may be perceived as "woke" in 2024 is the result of a marriage between Corporate America and the White Liberal Savior Industrial Complex.

4 - White people have privilege, and are racist by default.

The system was originally structured to be racist, and despite some minor tweaks and various cosmetic changes, it still is what it is. But it's not as bad as it used to be, and there has been some visible progress. As far as "white people" are concerned, that's a mixed bag, not a monolithic group. Perhaps the focus can be narrowed to the top 10% of the wealthiest, most privileged whites.

Over the past few decades, I've noticed that the focus has been on the lower class whites. It seems a large sub-set of being "woke" these days involves wealthy, privileged white liberals trashing and badmouthing "rednecks" and "hillbillies" from the sticks who don't have two dimes to rub together. Another example I saw was when some person was caught on video walking around downtown Seattle wearing a black Nazi uniform with a swastika armband. It appeared to be someone who likely had a few screws loose, possibly someone who was mentally ill, just walking by himself. The people making the video were apparently Antifa and were talking like they were going to call some friends to go beat up this mentally ill person. What do they think they're accomplishing by this kind of activity?

5 - White cultures are more colonist and imperialist than non-white cultures.

I think someone might have to do some parsing and defining what is meant by "white cultures" and "non-white cultures." This statement is a bit muddled.

I think what is meant here is that there have been some cultures of Western Europe which, for a variety of historical reasons, had monarchistic governments which chose to send out explorers on ships to sail the seas for economic gain. They were violent, greedy, and committed some horrific atrocities along the way.

Other cultures and governments on other continents have done similar things at various times in history, so it's a malady which has affected both "white" and "non-white" cultures.

Also, not all European cultures embarked on a colonialist path. Some governments and leaders can become greedy, ruthless, and malignant, although it's a complicated and sticky issue when attempting to ascribe such behaviors to an entire race, nationality, or culture.

If there are people who believe it's intellectually valid to judge an entire race by the actions of a few individuals, then they might consider rethinking their logic.

6 - An individual’s “lived experience” should have as much or more weight in public policy than broad statistical facts.

Not sure where this statement comes from, but there are times when real stories from real people can tell us more than a dry statistical analysis, which can often be twisted and crunched in such a way as to create a false impression. You know what they say about lies and statistics.

7 - There is an intersectional or oppression hierarchy and any criticism of the “most oppressed” people’s ideas or activism are by default “phobic” or “racist” in some way.

I have a certain mental block about terms like "intersectional." Just like statistics, language can also be twisted. I went to school in the 1970s, when people wanted to "tell it like it is," but it seems that the purveyors of esoteric jargon and doublespeak have won the day. But that doesn't mean anyone is required to get caught up in their silly word games.

8 - Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors.

Really? I hadn't heard that one before. The oppressors seemingly don't want anyone to think critically or logically. They want compliant workers and mindless consumers.

9 - The DEI perspective and DEI initiatives must not be criticized.

Nothing is above criticism. But if DEI means "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," then those are laudable goals, but not processes, in and of themselves. If there are other processes, other methods by which society can achieve the same goals, then those could be explored. Some people seem more process-oriented (the means justify the ends), while others might be more goal-oriented (the ends justify the means).

10 - Diversity (in DEI), is based on race, gender, and sexuality more than on diversity of ideas.

No, that doesn't make any sense. Unless one is assuming that people of a certain race, gender, or sexuality all think alike and all have the same ideas. That would seemingly go against the basic principles underlying DEI.

11 - Inclusion (in DEI), is based on race, gender, sexuality, and conformity to woke beliefs, non-conformists are excluded.

No, that wouldn't make any sense either. Of course, it depends on what "non-conformist" means. If there's some kind of conference or public meeting, and someone chooses to act like a jerk or make fart noises all the time, I guess they have to draw the line somewhere.

The bottom line is that we have a Constitution in this country, people have rights, and (theoretically) everyone is considered free and equal citizens within the U.S. So, given that legal reality, it appears that DEI is an attempt to carry out the general spirit of that idea. DEI is not forcing any conformity as much as it's the Constitutional law of the land.

Granted, some of its proponents could do better by restraining their propensity to act like insufferable asterisks, but politics can be like that sometimes. But setting aside all the BS and semantics, each citizen has to ask him/herself a question: Can I live in a society and work side by side with people who are different from me? Regardless of their race, gender, or sexuality. You don't have to be friends with them. You don't have to go out drinking with them or eat dinner over at their houses. By default, a "non-conformist" to DEI is only as "excluded" as much they choose to be.

Apart from that, those who find it so completely intolerable and unacceptable that they feel they want to go further, even if it means changing the Constitution or other aspects of how we are governed - that's a completely different level of non-conformity, but it's not just "DEI" or the "woke" crowd anymore when it gets to that level.

12 - Equality (in DEI) means equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities.

A better way of putting it, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

13 - The concerns of the most oppressed are more important than the concerns of the less oppressed.

Well, if one is looking at who is in the most urgent need, then I could agree with that.

14 - Cultural appropriation is a significant problem in society.

I think there are some who make a far bigger deal over cultural appropriation than is really necessary or warranted. Cultures come into contact with each other, they interact, they mix, they rub off on each other, and they adopt some of each other's ways. This is a natural process which has gone on among human cultures for thousands of years. There is no "pure" culture or "pure" race. Every rock & roll fan must know that.

15- People’s immutable identity characteristics are more important than their behaviors.

No, I disagree with this one, too.

16 - The only cultures that can be criticized are western cultures.

Who criticizes "a culture"? Reminds me of an old trope where Europeans think American beer is crappy. American culture is therefore "bad" because we make bad beer. But American culture invented rock and roll, so I guess we're good for a few things.

 

[Spice]

How common do you think your actions were? Maybe 10% of readers are as thoughtful as you? 20%??

Well from the comments on my readers group so far today, it's running about 60%. It appears to be one of those things where the louder voices are actually the smaller number of the total. Sort of like Evangelicals out of all Christians.

 

[icehorse]

OK, I stand corrected ... MOSTLY NO ONE BELIEVES THIS.

We're agreed.

I think it's a minority of people who believe these things. But we know that in general, small groups of extremists can have an outsized influence on society, and I think the woke fall into that category.

 

[icehorse]

I'll go through the list here.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

My summary of your post is that we mostly agree, and based on what you said, I don't think you're woke.

Again, I disagree with the list in the OP. I enumerated it as an attempt to define "woke" as it exists in 2024. Not how it was originally defined, but what it's devolved to.