What is "woke" in 2024

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Help me understand your logic here: You "know" my generalizations are false,

Yes. Your OP was a caricature, though I'm not sure you realize this.

and you are simultaneously unaware of best selling books that prove my generalizations true?

How does that work?

I have no idea how you would get from "Book X sold a lot of copies" to "a whole category of people are lying about what they believe but I, icehorse, know the truth"... so you tell me: how does that work?

 

[anna.]

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

No, I'm not. People here are disagreeing with you individually, in their own individual ways.

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

Your admitted yourself you employ identity politics. You're assigning an identity to people that you've decided on, despite what they tell you.

You've had what, three or four people now tell you they've never heard of the authors you keep trying to tell us have influenced us. Doesn't do much to bolster the OP, does it?

 

[icehorse]

Yes. Your OP was a caricature, though I'm not sure you realize this.

Sorry, you're just ignorant of what's going on in the world.

I have no idea how you would get from "Book X sold a lot of copies" to "a whole category of people are lying about what they believe but I, icehorse, know the truth"... so you tell me: how does that work?

Wait what?

When did I say anyone was lying? If anything, the conclusion that seems obvious in this thread is that everyone claiming I'm out of touch, is in fact out of touch.

For example, no one seemed to be aware of Kendi or DiAngelo (and BTW, they are just two examples of many).

So here you are, admitting your own ignorance of the topic, but claiming that my OP was a caricature. Wow, I can't wait to hear your logic there?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm getting the same vibe from @icehorse on this as I used to get from Christians freaking out about atheists: with Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, the Christians would argue that their misinterpretation of what Dawkins or Hitchens wrote was something that every atheist believed, regardless of how much the atheist tried to correct them.

Speaking for myself, while I don't think that "woke" is a label that should be self-applied, I generally agree with positions - the actual positions, not @icehorse 's slanted versions - that are often called "woke": DEIJ initiatives, the idea of intersectionality, critical race theory, etc. I also get pretty immersed in this stuff through my work, so I think I have a good idea of where things are at on the ground.

So even if @icehorse has correctly interpreted what they've said (and I've seen him misinterpret plenty of other things in the past, so my money would be against it), since I know where the real-world discourse is at, I know that what he's putting forward as a generalization of "wokeness" is just plain wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

This is shifting from the views of the author to the existence. author. Of course Ken Ham exists. That is not really a debatable fact. However, YEC is not a part of reality no matter how popular and widespread the belief is.

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.

No, you claimed the views of the author.

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

Don't shift your claims just because someone buried them without effort.

 

[icehorse]

Your admitted yourself you employ identity politics. You're assigning an identity to people that you've decided on, despite what they tell you.

You've had what, three or four people now tell you they've never heard of the authors you keep trying to tell us have influenced us. Doesn't do much to bolster the OP, does it?

Sorry for the confusion, that's not what's being debated here.

I'm talking about wokeness in general. Any posters who are taking that personally didn't understand the OP. Several times in the last few days I've been asked to define "woke". The OP was in response to those requests.

I believe you guys haven't heard of these authors. But if you haven't, you're not on solid footing to claim that woke-ness doesn't have influence in society.

 

[icehorse]

I'm getting the same vibe from @icehorse on this as I used to get from Christians freaking out about atheists: with Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, the Christians would argue that their misinterpretation of what Dawkins or Hitchens wrote was something that every atheist believed, regardless of how much the atheist tried to correct them.

Speaking for myself, while I don't think that "woke" is a label that should be self-applied, I generally agree with positions - the actual positions, not @icehorse 's slanted versions - that are often called "woke": DEIJ initiatives, the idea of intersectionality, critical race theory, etc. I also get pretty immersed in this stuff through my work, so I think I have a good idea of where things are at on the ground.

So even if @icehorse has correctly interpreted what they've said (and I've seen him misinterpret plenty of other things in the past, so my money would be against it), since I know where the real-world discourse is at, I know that what he's putting forward as a generalization of "wokeness" is just plain wrong.

Way to try to shift the goalposts. I don't think you'll fool anyone

 

[icehorse]

This is shifting from the views of the author to the existence. author. Of course Ken Ham exists. That is not really a debatable fact. However, YEC is not a part of reality no matter how popular and widespread the belief is.

Perhaps we're having some semantic confusion? I thought I said that YECers are wrong. If I didn't I'm saying it now.

But even though they are wrong, they exist and they have negative impacts on society. Their impacts on society are a part of today's reality.

Likewise, you might disagree with the list in the OP, but hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people believe that stuff, and their beliefs have many impacts on society.

No, you claimed the views of the author.

No sorry, you misunderstood. I disagree with the ideas in the OP's list and I disagree with the authors.

The point I'm arguing is whether the ideas in the OP are a part of reality. They are. Millions of people believe these ideas.

 

[Spice]

I'm getting the same vibe from @icehorse on this as I used to get from Christians freaking out about atheists: with Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, the Christians would argue that their misinterpretation of what Dawkins or Hitchens wrote was something that every atheist believed, regardless of how much the atheist tried to correct them.

Speaking for myself, while I don't think that "woke" is a label that should be self-applied, I generally agree with positions - the actual positions, not @icehorse 's slanted versions - that are often called "woke": DEIJ initiatives, the idea of intersectionality, critical race theory, etc. I also get pretty immersed in this stuff through my work, so I think I have a good idea of where things are at on the ground.

So even if @icehorse has correctly interpreted what they've said (and I've seen him misinterpret plenty of other things in the past, so my money would be against it), since I know where the real-world discourse is at, I know that what he's putting forward as a generalization of "wokeness" is just plain wrong.

"Woke" is just another word that I'll define for myself and should anybody decide to give me the label, I'll be good with it because I'm using MY definition. I've had great practice with the label "Cracker" and my general response was always "You betcha. And as salty as they come!" The original definition for Cracker was good, poor, shoeless white folk. Not what it became to be poor, white, trash and other definition morphs.

 

[anna.]

Sorry for the confusion, that's not what's being debated here.

I'm talking about wokeness in general. Any posters who are taking that personally didn't understand the OP. Several times in the last few days I've been asked to define "woke". The OP was in response to those requests.

I believe you guys haven't heard of these authors. But if you haven't, you're not on solid footing to claim that woke-ness doesn't have influence in society.

I understand the OP just fine, it's just the latest iteration in a long line of your threads connected to identity politics. You said: "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 then you dropped a hot mess of a list that's literally useless on its face and frankly looks like it was cooked up on Gateway Pundit.

 

[crossfire]

My conclusions from a common person's thoughtful perspective: "woke" means gives considerable weight to human rights issues.

The talking-points from the list in the OP are propagandist projections from those who want to violate human rights as a means by which to deflect their wishes to violate human rights away from themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point I'm arguing is whether the ideas in the OP are a part of reality. They are. Millions of people believe these ideas.

Millions of people believe the world is flat. That is not a part of reality, however, and the Earth is round.

 

[Spice]

I understand the OP just fine, it's just the latest iteration in a long line of threads connected to identity politics. You said: "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 then you dropped a hot mess of a list that's literally useless on its face and frankly looks like it was cooked up on Gateway Pundit.

In my limited southern, Bible belt, rural world, "woke" is generally used by MAGAs as indicating people they think are arrogant in matters of social and political life that they feel look down on them as misguided, ignorant fools. How that fits into the individual line by line description of the OP, I wouldn't dare guess.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Uh, huh. And monkey torture mania has swept the MAGA community.

 

[anna.]

In my limited southern, Bible belt, rural world, "woke" is generally used by MAGAs as indicating people they think are arrogant in matters of social and political life that they feel look down on them as misguided, ignorant fools. How that fits into the individual line by line description of the OP, I wouldn't dare guess.

The OP uses the term as a pejorative like MAGA does, which is, quite frankly, oddly juxtaposed to his self-identification as liberal. The only way I've seen woke used is by white MAGA or MAGA-adjacent, because since they co-opted it from its Black origins, MAGA, in their usual way, have sucked the oxygen out of the room by their overuse into the argumentum ad absurdum it has become.

 

[gotti]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

That's a great list too.

Very well stated.

 

[gotti]

Funny, I always thought that being woke meant being sensitive to injustice. Easy to remember.

I think the term has been bastardized and redefined terribly over the last 10 years.

Didn't it originate in the 1990s or something?

Anyway, it means something completely different now - it's a lightly derogative term and rightfully so.

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

That's a great list too.

Very well stated.

This forum has been criticized by conservative members as a bastion of liberals and leftists, yet none of the liberal/leftist members here agree with the list, or know anyone who does. Why do you suppose that is? I've give you a hint: It's all a bull**** strawman.

 

[gotti]

All words do, and the trendier they are the faster it happens.

These days 'woke' can mean a lot of things depending on who's using it.

It can mean anything from an enlightened stance on modern social issues, to the 21st century version of McCarthyism that it's manifesting itself as in many places in many ways these days.

This.

 

[gotti]

This forum has been criticized by conservative members as a bastion of liberals and leftists, yet none of the liberal/leftist members here agree with the list, or know anyone who does. Why do you suppose that is? I've give you a hint: It's all a bull**** strawman.

Well no - I actually gave you your answer to your bad faith rhetorical question in my original reply - "it's a lightly derogative term and rightfully so".

It's used more often than not to refer to liberals and leftists who have devolved into tribalism and are more than willing to abandon any rational, reasonable or critical thought in order to preserve their egos that are unfortunately inseparable from their political opinions.

You're actually doing an excellent job of demonstrating my point with how you're reacting to the thread right now.