• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is "woke" in 2024

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
First off, I think it’s important to understand that almost all categorization schemes are imperfect. I’m not a fan of identity politics (IP), but IP all too prevalent in society these days, and I admit that when I call someone “woke”, I’m guilty of using IP. So all of the following ideas are approximations and I’m sure imperfect. But I think demanding perfection in this context falls into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

==

There is at least one political spectrum that runs from the far left, to the moderate left, to the centrists, to the moderate right, to the far right. I would say that there are sets of ideas or beliefs commonly associated with each of these positions on the spectrum. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that for each stop on the spectrum we could enumerate 20 beliefs, most commonly associated with that stop.

Most people will not fall cleanly into a single stop on the spectrum. An individual might align with 15 of the 20 moderate left beliefs, but also believe a few far left ideas and a few conservative ideas. The same can be said of other domains. For example, we know that there is at least one religious spectrum that ranges from hard atheist to religious fundamentalism, with many stops in between.

In other words labels such as “far right” or “woke” or “hard atheist” or “religious fundamentalist” are almost always approximations of an individual, and every individual will believe some things that are inconsistent with whatever label we ascribe to them.

==



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:

1 - Free speech is less important than protecting people from being offended.
2 - Protecting personal liberties is less important than protecting people from being offended.
3 - The world’s people and societies should be viewed from an “oppressed vs. oppressor” perspective.
4 - White people have privilege, and are racist by default.
5 - White cultures are more colonist and imperialist than non-white cultures.
6 - An individual’s “lived experience” should have as much or more weight in public policy than broad statistical facts.
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.
8 - Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors.
9 - The DEI perspective and DEI initiatives must not be criticized.
10 - Diversity (in DEI), is based on race, gender, and sexuality more than on diversity of ideas.
11 - Inclusion (in DEI), is based on race, gender, sexuality, and conformity to woke beliefs, non-conformists are excluded.
12 - Equality (in DEI) means equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities.
13 - The concerns of the most oppressed are more important than the concerns of the less oppressed.
14 - Cultural appropriation is a significant problem in society.
15- People’s immutable identity characteristics are more important than their behaviors.
16 - The only cultures that can be criticized are western cultures.
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
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:

1 - Free speech is less important than protecting people from being offended.
2 - Protecting personal liberties is less important than protecting people from being offended.
3 - The world’s people and societies should be viewed from an “oppressed vs. oppressor” perspective.
4 - White people have privilege, and are racist by default.
5 - White cultures are more colonist and imperialist than non-white cultures.
6 - An individual’s “lived experience” should have as much or more weight in public policy than broad statistical facts.
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.
8 - Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors.
9 - The DEI perspective and DEI initiatives must not be criticized.
10 - Diversity (in DEI), is based on race, gender, and sexuality more than on diversity of ideas.
11 - Inclusion (in DEI), is based on race, gender, sexuality, and conformity to woke beliefs, non-conformists are excluded.
12 - Equality (in DEI) means equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities.
13 - The concerns of the most oppressed are more important than the concerns of the less oppressed.
14 - Cultural appropriation is a significant problem in society.
15- People’s immutable identity characteristics are more important than their behaviors.
16 - The only cultures that can be criticized are western cultures.

Number agreed with....zero

Who ever composed this list has no idea what they are talking about
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
First off, I think it’s important to understand that almost all categorization schemes are imperfect. I’m not a fan of identity politics (IP), but IP all too prevalent in society these days, and I admit that when I call someone “woke”, I’m guilty of using IP.

Many of your posts come across to me as engulfed in identity politics, from fixating on people's gender identities (and often dismissing those) and asserting that "Western culture" or the West has "moral expertise" that others don't have to defending the bombing of Muslim civilians, while overgeneralizing about them and their supposed beliefs or saying that "not all cultures are morally equivalent" in the same context (as if that had any bearing on the justifiability of violence against civilians), or arguing that they're not civilians in the first place and arguing that people should be banned from immigration to Western countries based on mere affiliation with a specific religion.

Just getting this out of the way because inconsistency in the very first paragraph doesn't seem a promising sign of what's to come in the rest of the post.

So all of the following ideas are approximations and I’m sure imperfect. But I think demanding perfection in this context falls into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

==

There is at least one political spectrum that runs from the far left, to the moderate left, to the centrists, to the moderate right, to the far right. I would say that there are sets of ideas or beliefs commonly associated with each of these positions on the spectrum. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that for each stop on the spectrum we could enumerate 20 beliefs, most commonly associated with that stop.

Most people will not fall cleanly into a single stop on the spectrum. An individual might align with 15 of the 20 moderate left beliefs, but also believe a few far left ideas and a few conservative ideas. The same can be said of other domains. For example, we know that there is at least one religious spectrum that ranges from hard atheist to religious fundamentalism, with many stops in between.

In other words labels such as “far right” or “woke” or “hard atheist” or “religious fundamentalist” are almost always approximations of an individual, and every individual will believe some things that are inconsistent with whatever label we ascribe to them.

==



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.

Almost every single one of those is either an exaggerated version of mainstream beliefs or a framing that the majority of people on the left don't align with. For the most part, you're not describing even remotely mainstream leftist positions; you're giving a Gish gallop of extreme positions.

Far-left / woke beliefs:

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

You claim that RF has many "woke" people, yet the above is a fringe position whether here or elsewhere. I can't think of even two or three members who support the above. I don't support it either.

But yes, it would indeed be an extreme and unreasonable position to have, which is why I don't subscribe to it.

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

Same as above.

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

Some countries and societies can generally be classified as oppressed, such as North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. Some countries can generally be classified as extensively engaging in oppression against other countries, such as China, Russia, and the US. I see nothing "far left" about acknowledging this.

Note that I used the words "countries" and "societies" when describing being oppressed but only "countries" when describing those carrying out oppression. This is because I don't believe entire societies can be said to be oppressing others, but governments can be, and in many contexts, speaking of countries is often understood as referring to those in power, not to the general population as a whole. For example, if I say, "Russia is murdering Ukrainians" or, "The US imposes its hegemony on many developing countries," I'm talking about government policies.

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

White people have privilege in what context or country? A white person who has citizenship of a powerful Western country absolutely has advantages relative to most other people in many contexts, such as when dealing with corrupt law enforcement in many third-world countries, having access to visa-free travel, having extensive protection afforded by their country's embassy and government, being perceived more favorably in many countries, etc.

At the same time, I don't use the word "privilege," for various reasons. I also know that in many other contexts, white people don't have any more or less privilege than other people.

As for the "racist by default" part, I don't believe anyone is racist by default, and again, that strikes me as a fringe position.

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

I would replace "white" with "Western" above, in which case I think the statement would largely be accurate when applied to the last few centuries but inaccurate if applied to history in general. Colonialism, imperialism, enslavement, etc., have been practiced by many different cultures throughout history; they seem to me more a product of flawed human nature than any specific culture.

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

This is a false dilemma: statistics about groups sometimes rely, at least partially, on their reporting or observations about their own situations. Nonetheless, I would say that both are important to consider, although of course statistical trends should usually have more weight than individual anecdotes.

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.

Some forms of systemic abuse overlap, and this is neither a new nor radical idea. For instance, Middle Eastern people have been dehumanized by some American media outlets over the last two decades, and Muslims more so. Middle Eastern Muslims have been dehumanized the most in media outlets like Fox News, which has paved the way for acceptance of or indifference to various abuses against them.

Not all abuses are intersectional, though, and I don't see the point in having an "oppression hierarchy." I hear that latter term from extreme ideologues who claim to rail against it more often than I hear it from anyone who actually claims to believe in such a thing.

And no, I don't believe that criticism of the ideas or activism of groups deemed more (or less) oppressed is racist or anything-phobic by default. It can be, but each instance of criticism has to be assessed on its own merits, not brushed aside by default.

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

How many people believe this? This is yet another example of a fringe position that is worded in a way that even the majority of far-left ideologues would probably reject.

No one is fully objective—quite literally no one, due to human nature and inherent cognitive biases—although some can get closer than others due to practicing critical thinking, intellectual and emotional discipline, logical principles, etc. I view these as essential and healthy things to learn, not as tools of any oppressors.

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

I haven't seen anyone say this whether here or elsewhere. It looks like a straight-up misrepresentation/straw man, and needless to say, I don't believe that the "DEI perspective and DEI initiatives" must not be criticized. I believe criticism and discussion are essential components of sound policymaking and decision-making in general.

On a related note, I don't know that there's such a thing as the "DEI perspective," since there are many different views on how to best implement DEI policies and what their details should be. I think that trying to reduce them to some monolith or a uniform perspective is way off base.

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

It is sometimes the case that diversity of ideas across a range of different backgrounds is greater than the diversity of ideas across similar backgrounds but different worldviews. As a result, I don't see a conflict between the two things you listed: diversity of ideas often—but certainly not always—follows from diversity of race, gender, sexuality, etc., partially due to the different experiences.

That said, in most contexts, I think diversity in thought should be maximized above all else.

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

Another starkly fringe position and framing. Do you really think you're accurately representing the beliefs you claim to criticize? For all of your pleas about "steelmanning" other positions, this list largely reads like a Gish gallop of straw men.

No, I don't believe people should be excluded from benefits of DEI initiatives if they don't conform to "woke beliefs." Policing thought like that is impractical, excessive, and authoritarian.

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

Most DEI initiatives I have ever seen or read about focus on equality of opportunities. I disagree that equality of outcomes should be the goal, as that usually wouldn't reward excellence or talent.

(Continued in the next post due to the character limit.)
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
(Continued.)

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

That seems to me highly contextual. What situation are you talking about? For example, in the '60s, I think the concerns of racially segregated African Americans would have been much more important to listen to than the concerns of others who were slightly discomforted (but not directly threatened) by riots and protests.

Also, if a government had to choose between making luxury goods more affordable or taxing them in order to fund programs for the "oppressed" (not the term I would use here, hence the quotes; I'm only using it in keeping with your wording), like food stamps and free health care, I think the latter would definitely be more important.

On the other hand, I think that in the vast majority of situations, it is perfectly possible—at least for those who can actually enact change, like government officials—to listen to different concerns from different people, and there's no reason to ignore concerns from "less oppressed" people.

14 - Cultural appropriation is a significant problem in society.

Finally a position that is not worded in an exaggerated manner or by focusing on the fringe. No, I don't believe cultural appropriation is a "significant problem in society," and I have found the vast majority of claimed cases of "cultural appropriation" to be examples of unnecessary and empty outrage.

I think some liberals and leftists take the concept too far and apply it where it doesn't remotely fit.

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

I don't know what "more important" means here. This seems vague without a backdrop to consider the question against. I believe that behaviors obviously affect other people more than anything else, though.

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

No, but I would also add a caveat that many people's "criticism of culture" practically ends up, whether intentionally or unintentionally, being a stand-in for outright racism, demonization of other people, and unnuanced cultural supremacism. Douglas Murray's and Sam Harris' rhetoric that sometimes includes categorizing (whether explicitly or implicitly) entire cultures as "uncivilized," a "moral wasteland," etc., seems to me to fall within that category, and it is especially reprehensible when it enables or supports violence, warmongering, or other forms of abuse against people who supposedly or actually belong to the culture in question.

That and sometimes such criticism is weaponized for self-serving ends, as was the case when many public figures and media outlets in the US and some other countries repeatedly painted Islam and Muslims with broad brushes during the "War on Terror." A lot of what has been claimed to be concern for "human rights," "democracy," "liberty," etc., only ended up being a facade for enabling another form of unconscionable violence and destruction.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
17. Impudent and shameless doublestandardism

Example of this impudent doublestandardism

Asia for Asians only = holy and good
Africa for Africans only = holy and good
Europe for Europeans only = racism, racism, racism.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Many of your posts come across to me as engulfed in identity politics, from fixating on people's gender identities (and often dismissing those) and asserting that "Western culture" or the West has "moral expertise" that others don't have to defending the bombing of Muslim civilians, while overgeneralizing about them and their supposed beliefs or saying that "not all cultures are morally equivalent" in the same context (as if that had any bearing on the justifiability of violence against civilians), or arguing that they're not civilians in the first place and arguing that people should be banned from immigration to Western countries based on mere affiliation with a specific religion.

Just getting this out of the way because inconsistency in the very first paragraph doesn't seem a promising sign of what's to come in the rest of the post.

First off, a sincere thanks for your (mostly) thoughtful reply.

But I have to take exception to your opening paragraph. I think this is a collection of strawman arguments, but I don't want to get bogged down in that in this thread. (I'd be happy to take it up elsewhere.)

Almost every single one of those is either an exaggerated version of mainstream beliefs or a framing that the majority of people on the left don't align with. For the most part, you're not describing even remotely mainstream leftist positions; you're giving a Gish gallop of extreme positions.
I think you're agreeing with me here? I specifically mentioned that I am NOT talking about the moderate left, correct?
You claim that RF has many "woke" people, yet the above is a fringe position whether here or elsewhere. I can't think of even two or three members who support the above. I don't support it either.

Again, as I explicitly explained in the OP, being "woke" is NOT binary, there are degrees of wokeness. I would agree that probably no one on RF has made posts that rely on all the points on my list. But many posters have made posts that rely on SOME of the points on my list.

That seems to me highly contextual. What situation are you talking about? For example, in the '60s, I think the concerns of racially segregated African Americans would have been much more important to listen to than the concerns of others who were slightly discomforted (but not directly threatened) by riots and protests.

One example that leaps to mind is trans activism. We're told that trans people are the most oppressed (although good evidence is scarce as hen's teeth), and presumably that excuses the fact that trans activists routinely get away with horrific misogyny. (And again, I don't want to detour here, but I believe on this topic I have repeatedly advocated for non-zero-sum solutions. We can take this up elsewhere.)

On systemic racism: What are your thoughts about the very influential careers of folks like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo?

==

Zooming out, I will try to respond to those times when you made similar points more than once:

- The "it's not happening" answer: I see this a lot on RF (and in the world). In general I would hope that as logical people we can agree that proving that a thing does not exist is usually impossible? So whenever you say something like "I don't see this" or "I'm not aware of that", it doesn't hold a lot of water.

An important additional point here is that I would hope we can agree that extremists have an outsized ability to shift the overton window? Using your own example, it took only a handful of extremists on 9/11 to shift the world entirely.

In other words, a thing doesn't have to be mainstream to be quite influential - for better or for worse.

- The "I personally don't think that way" answer: Okay, glad to hear it. Perhaps you're less woke than I thought. But it could also be that some of the arguments you make rely on these underlying woke principles, and you're not aware of that.

That and sometimes such criticism is weaponized for self-serving ends, as was the case when many public figures and media outlets in the US and some other countries repeatedly painted Islam and Muslims with broad brushes during the "War on Terror." A lot of what has been claimed to be concern for "human rights," "democracy," "liberty," etc., only ended up being a facade for enabling another form of unconscionable violence and destruction.

And sometimes, by most any objective measure, such criticism is spot on.

I DO NOT want to live in a theocracy, Islamic or otherwise. And the truth is that a significant percentage of Muslims DO want to spread theocracy (i.e. Islamists). From a statistical perspective, if a country allows 1000 Muslim immigrants, it's a safe bet that several hundred of them bring with them the desire to convert that (almost always) secular country to a theocracy.

==

If you feel I've not responded to any of your important points, let me know and I will.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
First off, I think it’s important to understand that almost all categorization schemes are imperfect. I’m not a fan of identity politics (IP), but IP all too prevalent in society these days, and I admit that when I call someone “woke”, I’m guilty of using IP. So all of the following ideas are approximations and I’m sure imperfect. But I think demanding perfection in this context falls into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

==

There is at least one political spectrum that runs from the far left, to the moderate left, to the centrists, to the moderate right, to the far right. I would say that there are sets of ideas or beliefs commonly associated with each of these positions on the spectrum. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that for each stop on the spectrum we could enumerate 20 beliefs, most commonly associated with that stop.

Most people will not fall cleanly into a single stop on the spectrum. An individual might align with 15 of the 20 moderate left beliefs, but also believe a few far left ideas and a few conservative ideas. The same can be said of other domains. For example, we know that there is at least one religious spectrum that ranges from hard atheist to religious fundamentalism, with many stops in between.

In other words labels such as “far right” or “woke” or “hard atheist” or “religious fundamentalist” are almost always approximations of an individual, and every individual will believe some things that are inconsistent with whatever label we ascribe to them.

==



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:

1 - Free speech is less important than protecting people from being offended.
2 - Protecting personal liberties is less important than protecting people from being offended.
3 - The world’s people and societies should be viewed from an “oppressed vs. oppressor” perspective.
4 - White people have privilege, and are racist by default.
5 - White cultures are more colonist and imperialist than non-white cultures.
6 - An individual’s “lived experience” should have as much or more weight in public policy than broad statistical facts.
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.
8 - Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors.
9 - The DEI perspective and DEI initiatives must not be criticized.
10 - Diversity (in DEI), is based on race, gender, and sexuality more than on diversity of ideas.
11 - Inclusion (in DEI), is based on race, gender, sexuality, and conformity to woke beliefs, non-conformists are excluded.
12 - Equality (in DEI) means equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities.
13 - The concerns of the most oppressed are more important than the concerns of the less oppressed.
14 - Cultural appropriation is a significant problem in society.
15- People’s immutable identity characteristics are more important than their behaviors.
16 - The only cultures that can be criticized are western cultures.
17 - Anyone that Magas dislike.

To invoke "woke" is to criticize something with a term
so slippery, dynamic, modified, & loaded with derision
that there's no practical way to counter the criticism.
 
Top