What is "woke" in 2024

[Father Heathen]

It can be informative to spend a little time skimming Amazon's best seller lists - it can help a person be more attached to reality

Are you serious?

 

[icehorse]

Explain why you don't know this very basic, 101, into to philosophy and logic stuff but try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable of them? Seriously, one of the first things you learn in such a path is invalid and illogical arguments. Argumentum ad populum is one these very basic things freshman year philosophy students learn about, and it's something anyone who pays attention realizes, such as the over abundance of very common fallacies that are widely believed, like that we only use 10% of our brain. That fallacy is very widely believed, very popular in common discourse, but it has no basis at all in reality. "Luke, I am your father" is frustratingly popular, but watch the movie; that is NOT what was said. There's even a term for it, the Mendela Effect, where a fantasy that didn't happen becomes the popular "how it happened" in society at large.
Or we can go back to sacrificing virgins because that one was super popular amongst the various peoples. Or how about we collect the heads of those who were killed in war? That was a very popular and believed to be necessary practice among the Celts and Samurai. And there's blood letting, a practice that lived for many, many centuries until we learned the popular treatment is wrong and probably even killed some people being treated with it.

Your stick just doesn't apply in this case.

Do you understand that I don't agree with these two authors?

Now this thread is about what people believe - full stop. So far so good?

The success of these two authors demonstrates that hundreds of thousands of people believe in the list in the OP. Are you saying that these hundreds of thousands of people do not represent a significant part of today's reality?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

FWIW,

Huh?

Kendi and DiAngelo are advocates for the ideas in the OP list.

The fact that they have such broad audiences means that these views are not "detached from reality", they are in fact quite common.

Yeah, actually the largest chunk of any self help section is not based on reality and nothing than "this is what I think worked for me." The Left Behind book series was hugely popular, but it's based on a relatively modern and very shakey interpretation of the Bible. The same goes for YEC, which is very popular among American Evangelicals but also very wrong. Doesn't matter how many books Ken Ham and those like him sell, it's still wrong. Or Jordan Petterson. His 12 Rules is very popular, but things like "stand up straight" and "communicate clearly" are basic things we're supposed to learn as kids, but his frequent comparing us to lobsters is not at all based in reality. We don't even have similar nervous systems and thus cannot go through a change in our social-hierarchical status like a lobster does. Frequently we even tend to self destruct with squandering a sudden acquisition of massive wealth or turn to drugs when we've been kicked down. Lobsters apparently go through a process where their central nervous system melts down and reforms itself to adjust to the new status. We just aren't comparable in such a way.

As for correctness, I don't think they're correct.

The point is just because something is popular does not mean it is correct. In fact, we frequently believe the wrong thing until we are shown the more correct facts. Pluto? We used to believe that was a planet just like the other eight. Then we learned, no, it's actually more like these several other objects in the Kuiper Belt we have come to call dwarf planets.

 

[icehorse]

No. There is no informal "team" so I'm not a member. Maybe quit trying to shoehorn people into your identity politics by assigning them identities of your choosing. I know you like being oppositional, why not just revel in it? You set the stage for it over and over again here with your identity politicking.

You might be an unintentional member of this ad hoc team, but you ARE on it

As for identity politics, that's not what I'm doing. IP generally applies when people are referring to immutable characteristics, not ideas. I'm talking about what people believe, not what color their skin is

 

[icehorse]

Are you serious?

Yes am I. Why would being aware of best selling non fiction not be a useful way to understand today's reality?

People who buy books are expressing their beliefs. Best sellers overwhelmingly become best sellers because people like the book.

 

[Father Heathen]

Woke now is just a sales pitch

It's a culture war boogeyman that people on right use to scare themselves and each other.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.)

I stand by what I said and believe I would be able to support every one of my assertions with direct quotes (if you gave me permission to quote some of your previous posts, as I wouldn't quote them without that, per the forum rules) if we decided to take this up elsewhere.

I think you're agreeing with me here? I specifically mentioned that I am NOT talking about the moderate left, correct?

My point is that you have called people "woke" even when they didn't espouse any of the positions you listed, which means that either you were calling them that based on metrics other than your list in the OP or you were attributing positions to them that they didn't hold.

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.

I think this is a case in point of what I described above. You assume that some posts by other posters "rely on SOME of the points" on the list, yet they didn't support those positions and didn't express views matching the wording of what you listed. So, as far as I can see, you're basically trying to tell others what they're basing their beliefs on even though they have expressed beliefs that contradict most or all of the positions on the list.

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),

"Most oppressed" where, compared to whom, and in what context? I'm not going down that rabbit hole in this thread, but I have rarely seen anyone refer to trans people as the "most oppressed" group in the scope of the US, let alone in a larger scope like, say, when including most of the world.

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.)

This is loaded: the notion that "trans activists routinely get away with horrific misogyny" is a claim that needs evidence. How many trans activists get away with such? How representative are they of trans activism in general? For someone to excuse something, they need to acknowledge it as happening in the first place. Otherwise they would be denying rather than excusing it.

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

My thoughts on both are that they're not remotely influential enough to drive society-wide change or beliefs. If you're asking about my own views, they also have zero relevance to my life, worldview, and the concerns that actually affect my daily life.

==

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.

I'm not saying anything is not happening just because I haven't seen it; I'm saying your list focuses on extremely fringe positions and then, in some debates, you claim that other people are "woke" or that they support "woke ideology" even though your list doesn't describe their positions even remotely accurately.

Sure, when someone with harmful fringe views is in a position where they can influence far-reaching change or harm others, I find that concerning. So far, though, you haven't given any current examples of people who hold such a position and have any of the views on your list.

- 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.

Once again trying to tell others what their arguments rely on despite their expressing beliefs that directly contradict those "woke principles."

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

I would be curious to know what "objective measures" you have in mind here. Unless there's some objective standard that dictates morality to humans independently of our judgments and preferences, then I don't see what is "objective" about adopting certain moral axioms over others, even if I agree with said axioms.

I DO NOT want to live in a theocracy, Islamic or otherwise.

Neither do I.

And the truth is that a significant percentage of Muslims DO want to spread theocracy (i.e. Islamists).

That's another claim that requires significant evidence to back up, especially since you're talking about a "significant percentage" of about two billion people.

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.

See above. It is this sort of overconfident, blasé attitude toward making sweeping generalizations about Muslims in particular, without proper evidence, that I referred to in my previous post. It's not exactly hard to see where that sort of defective logic could lead:

"A significant percentage of Muslims want to spread theocracy (i.e., they're Islamists)."

"That country being bombed is Muslim. A significant percentage of them are Islamists."

"I don't think an Islamist should be called a 'civilian'."

This is how I have seen the dehumanizing rhetoric go both in some posts on RF and elsewhere. It is downright abominable in how damaging it can be.

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

I have said as much as I wanted to say here. I'm not inclined to put in more time or energy into this given how a lot of the previous threads merely went in circles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why make it personal?

I reflected the tone of the OP.

Why are you so certain you're not the one detached from reality?

Because I know that the generalizations in your OP are false. It reads like it was written by someone who's never actually met a woke person and is relying on fourth-hand accounts.

I will give you the same example I've given to several other posters who have failed to respond:

If I'm detached from reality explain the massive influence that Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have had?

I have no idea who these people are, so I'm not in a position to explain their "massive influence" (or even to confirm what their influence has been).

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes am I. Why would being aware of best selling non fiction not be a useful way to understand today's reality?

People who buy books are expressing their beliefs. Best sellers overwhelmingly become best sellers because people like the book.

That monkey torture network guy must've been successful considering the scale of the operation. Should we then assume that monkey torture is an intrigal part of MAGA?

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, actually the largest chunk of any self help section is not based on reality and nothing than "this is what I think worked for me." The Left Behind book series was hugely popular, but it's based on a relatively modern and very shakey interpretation of the Bible. The same goes for YEC, which is very popular among American Evangelicals but also very wrong. Doesn't matter how many books Ken Ham and those like him sell, it's still wrong.

Ok, this is a starting point! We can agree that YEC and Ken Ham are wrong.

But the fact that they have best sellers means that they ARE a part of today's reality. I think we would agree that in these cases a lot of people are wrong. Correct? But part of our reality is that these people exist, like it or not. It is NOT detached from reality to say that Ken Ham has lots of fans.

The point is just because something is popular does not mean it is correct. In fact, we frequently believe the wrong thing until we are shown the more correct facts. Pluto? We used to believe that was a planet just like the other eight. Then we learned, no, it's actually more like these several other objects in the Kuiper Belt we have come to call dwarf planets.

Yes, yes, yes, we're agreed.

But I'm not talking about correct here. I'm NOT claiming that just because a lot of people agree with my list, they are right. I think they are wrong.

My point is that the fact that there are a lot of them means that they ARE a part of today's reality.

 

[Spice]

No I did not cull it from Amazon comments ffs.

Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly: Your "team" is arguing that I'm detached from reality, and you're also arguing that books that sell hundreds of thousands of copies aren't a good metric of reality?

Help me understand your math

Books that sell hundreds of thousands of copies only point to "fandom." This is well known by anyone with the slightest devotion to literature.

And when you take the formula over to non-fiction, well lets not forget Donald J. Trump has been credited with the authorship of 22 books. Though his ghost writer Tony "Schwartz has noted that, during the year and a half that they worked together on The Art of the Deal, he never saw a single book in Trump's office or apartment."

 

[icehorse]

I reflected the tone of the OP.

Because I know that the generalizations in your OP are false. It reads like it was written by someone who's never actually met a woke person and is relying on fourth-hand accounts.

I have no idea who these people are, so I'm not in a position to explain their "massive influence" (or even to confirm what their influence has been).

Help me understand your logic here: You "know" my generalizations are false, and you are simultaneously unaware of best selling books that prove my generalizations true?

How does that work?

 

[icehorse]

That monkey torture network guy must've been successful considering the scale of the operation. Should we then assume that monkey torture is an intrigal part of MAGA?

I don't know about the monkey torture guy? How does that relate to best selling non-fiction and speaking tours?

 

[icehorse]

Books that sell hundreds of thousands of copies only point to "fandom." This is well known by anyone with the slightest devotion to literature.

And when you take the formula over to non-fiction, well lets not forget Donald J. Trump has been credited with the authorship of 22 books. Though his ghost writer Tony "Schwartz has noted that, during the year and a half that they worked together on The Art of the Deal, he never saw a single book in Trump's office or apartment."

I suppose you could say that some non fiction books experience fandom. For the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that?

How is fandom NOT a part of reality.

And how on earth is trump's ghost writer germane to Kendi and DiAngelo?

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't know about the monkey torture guy?

Ringleader of global monkey torture network, 'The Torture King', is charged

Michael Macartney, 50, confessed to the BBC his role in an extreme monkey torture network.

www.bbc.com

How does that relate to best selling non-fiction and speaking tours?

That their success displays how they influence or reflect a political side.

 

[Jimmy]

Woke is media clickbait.

 

[icehorse]

My thoughts on both are that they're not remotely influential enough to drive society-wide change or beliefs. If you're asking about my own views, they also have zero relevance to my life, worldview, and the concerns that actually affect my daily life.

I asked you this question because several posters have said that my views are "detached from reality".

It's seems patently obvious that these two authors' success is strong evidence that hundreds of thousands of people agree with the list in the OP.

My point is that you have called people "woke" even when they didn't espouse any of the positions you listed, which means that either you were calling them that based on metrics other than your list in the OP or you were attributing positions to them that they didn't hold.

When I call someone woke it's because their argument depends on one or more the the things on the OP's list. I suspect that often the poster isn't even aware of that, but that lack of awareness doesn't make the argument any less woke.

Sure, when someone with harmful fringe views is in a position where they can influence far-reaching change or harm others, I find that concerning. So far, though, you haven't given any current examples of people who hold such a position and have any of the views on your list.

Once again I'll circle back to the two authors.

And if you hadn't heard of them, that doesn't mean they haven't had far reaching influence. No one - not even you - has an awareness of all the consequential things that are happening on the planet.

I would be curious to know what "objective measures" you have in mind here. Unless there's some objective standard that dictates morality to humans independently of our judgments and preferences, then I don't see what is "objective" about adopting certain moral axioms over others, even if I agree with said axioms.

If you want to debate moral relativism, I'd be happy to do so, but not in this thread.

That's another claim that requires significant evidence to back up, especially since you're talking about a "significant percentage" of about two billion people.

Over the years on RF I have posted links to many such world-wide polls. As I recall, a few years back Pew research did such a poll that included 40k Muslims from dozens of countries and all the regions where Muslims are common.

That's just one poll, there are others.

See above. It is this sort of overconfident, blasé attitude toward making sweeping generalizations about Muslims in particular, without proper evidence, that I referred to in my previous post. It's not exactly hard to see where that sort of defective logic could lead:

"A significant percentage of Muslims want to spread theocracy (i.e., they're Islamists)."

Sorry, this is just the nature of Islam. I've read your book, I've read biographies of your prophet (the most apologetic I could find).

Spreading theocracy is baked into the core of Islam.

 

[icehorse]

Ringleader of global monkey torture network, 'The Torture King', is charged

Michael Macartney, 50, confessed to the BBC his role in an extreme monkey torture network.

www.bbc.com

That their success displays how they influence or reflect a political side.

They influence politics AND academia AND the corporate world (for example DEI is now a TEN BIILION dollar industry), and our school systems.

 

[icehorse]

Woke is media clickbait.

It is. And sadly it is much, much more.

 

[Spice]

I suppose you could say that some non fiction books experience fandom. For the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that?

How is fandom NOT a part of reality.

And how on earth is trump's ghost writer germane to Kendi and DiAngelo?

Fandom is more about marketability much more than substance of content. Trump's ghost writer's statement points to the clear fact that you don't need an intelligent mind to have books published and make money off them. There was no indication that he "reads."

Now as for Kendi and DiAngelo, I'm an avid reader and have never heard of either of these two. However, after looking into them and their works, I can't say they're influential to reality. I can say they appear to be able to write with substantial substance. However, their audiences appear to be more on the academic spectrum. James McBride could possibly have a greater influence on the subject matter of race. Ernest J Gaines most definitely would if his works were renewed to be marketed today.