What is "woke" in 2024

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope because the word itself in the African American Vernacular lexicon only meant aware or conscious.

Not the bastardization we see in its modern usage.

Origin Of The Word WOKE, And Why It’s Now Controversial

In recent years, the term "woke" has become a ubiquitous part of the cultural and political lexicon, often evoking strong reactions and sparking heated

scientificorigin.com

Are you trying to twist it's original meaning?

Why do you never read stuff? From your own source?
The word “woke” first appeared in the lexicon of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as a straightforward term meaning “awake” or “conscious.” However, as with many words in AAVE, “woke” carried additional connotations beyond its literal meaning. In the early 20th century, “woke” began to be used metaphorically to describe a heightened awareness of social and political issues, particularly those related to race and inequality.

 

[Argentbear]

Hey Luis,

From a logical perspective, all I can tell from your posts is that you disagree. You've given no evidence nor have you provided any logic. It seems to me that this forum should be about debating ideas and using logic and evidence and such. Your pronouncements don't carry any water at all with me

that describes your claims about what woke people beleive

 

[Kathryn]

No, there isn't. It's even my observation that it's good for people to live among diverse populations so you don't get an ocean of bigots like the massively white and protestant MidWest.
And what does "how the military enforces it" even mean?

I don't know how else you would like for me to put it. How the military enforces DEI initiatives, maybe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know how else you would like for me to put it. How the military enforces DEI initiatives, maybe?

So, you say there is a such as too much diversity, and you base this on how you think the military does things?
And how do you get there can be too much diversity? I've only been able to think of are hypothetical situations that are just not going to happen in real life (such as a work environment where no one speaks the same language).

 

[Kathryn]

So, you say there is a such as too much diversity, and you base this on how you think the military does things?
And how do you get there can be too much diversity? I've only been able to think of are hypothetical situations that are just not going to happen in real life (such as a work environment where no one speaks the same language).

Alrighty then.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Alrighty then.

That didn't answer my questions.

 

[Kathryn]

That didn't answer my questions.

I know. I didn't mean to answer your questions.

 

[icehorse]

Those are two people. Even if you've represented them properly (I don't know), you're still 999,998 people short of a single million and way, way short of "millions."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hey Luis,

From a logical perspective, all I can tell from your posts is that you disagree. You've given no evidence nor have you provided any logic. It seems to me that this forum should be about debating ideas and using logic and evidence and such. Your pronouncements don't carry any water at all with me

Okay, here is a debate technique. Grant a point. I grant you that X amount of people hold the potions as per woke as listed by you.
Now what is next as with logic and evidence from that? Remember evidence as - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (Definition from Oxford Languages).
There are woke people, therefore with logic and evidence ... You do the rest as you want logic and evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hey Luis,

From a logical perspective, all I can tell from your posts is that you disagree. You've given no evidence nor have you provided any logic. It seems to me that this forum should be about debating ideas and using logic and evidence and such. Your pronouncements don't carry any water at all with me

And yet you repeatedly use the logical fallacy of ad populum/bandwagon argument. You have no grounds for telling another they are not using logic.

 

[icehorse]

It seems like something that DEI should actually discourage, but from what the writer of the article is saying, it's not.

I haven't responded much to the DEI items on the list, but I'm going to attach (as I have in previous threads), a DEI document from California's community colleges. Again, this is just one example of how DEI has devolved, many others can be found. In particular, I would direct everyone to read the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of this document. In this case, D E I is not about those lofty goals, it's about - literally - dismantling western education:

 

[icehorse]

And yet you repeatedly use the logical fallacy of ad populum/bandwagon argument. You have no grounds for telling another they are not using logic.

That's not what I'm doing, as I've explained several times.

Go ahead and walk thru, step by step, how you think I'm committing that fallacy. It strikes me that what's happening here is that you're strawmanning my position. And it might well be that you're doing it unintentionally

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

The word woke, while initially a constructive term of self-identity, has been made into a derogatory term said by the far right (that term isn't sufficient to describe the spectrum to the right of moderate right, but it's the one you offered in your OP) about others in opposition to egalitarianism and other forms of progressivism.

As soon as one uses it, he (or she) identifies himself as being in opposition to and willing to demean those efforts, so he's not just identifying a group he don't approve of, but also, he puts himself in a group that the people he criticizes with the word disapprove of.

I'm not sure that applies to you. Many of your opinions seem empathetic and tolerant, but the list coming up next suggests that you are of that mind:

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.

This is a cartoonish depiction of American egalitarianism which @Debater Slayer has already nicely responded to point-by-point, but I'll add a bit more here. It doesn't describe me, for example, and I consider myself what I think that you (but not I) would call far left.

• I don't care about people offending other people or criticizing empathetic liberalism. I don't respect them, but they don't bother me.
• Oppressed versus oppressor is an appropriate way to describe much of the American cultural war, which is the battle between those fighting for tolerance, equality, opportunity, and dignity for all across the board.
• "Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors"? No, indoctrination (you've absorbed quite a bit of it judging by the language you use to describe the "woke") is the right's chief tool, and bigotry, not reason, defines this reaction to progressivism

You and I have been on multiple threads together, and we both post in essay form (many use what I call chat form - brief replies in short sentences that don't make or refute arguments). You might know that I am a frequent champion of all such people that have to deal with bigotry, but

• have never mentioned DEI
• nor argued against people being offended
• nor mentioned cultural appropriation
• nor called white people racist (I'm white)
• nor argued for equal outcomes over equal opportunity.

You haven't seen me post anything that resembles any of that, and frankly, I don't recall seeing it from other RF posters. Those tropes come from rightwing indoctrination media. That's whose describing egalitarians in that language.

I don't see you as a bigot in general, but you have way more interest in transgender issues, for example, than I do. They might be compassionate in origin - a genuine concern about gender transition and age issue out of concern for the affected individual, but it seems to be more than that. I think you also had issues with transgenders using public bathrooms and playing sports.

My attitude regarding people living transgendered is about the same as it is with abortion issues. I don't care so much what people choose for themselves in either of those matters, and the sports and bathroom issues don't interest or concern me. Preoccupation with any of that by people not directly affected by it seems to be motivated something other than compassion and tolerance.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, here is a debate technique. Grant a point. I grant you that X amount of people hold the potions as per woke as listed by you.
Now what is next as with logic and evidence from that? Remember evidence as - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (Definition from Oxford Languages).
There are woke people, therefore with logic and evidence ... You do the rest as you want logic and evidence.

The ONLY point I'm making at this moment is that a lot of people believe stuff in the OP. It sounds like you've granted me that, so as far as this thread goes, we're agreed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The ONLY point I'm making at this moment is that a lot of people believe stuff in the OP. It sounds like you've granted me that, so as far as this thread goes, we're agreed

But that is empty, because nothing follows from that other than X amount hold certain beliefs. That is all. I didn't say a lot BTW. I said X amount.

If you want to use logic and evidence, do so and admit I didn't grant you that a lot of people believe so. I granted X amount.

 

[icehorse]

The word woke, while initially a constructive term of self-identity, has been made into a derogatory term said by the far right (that term isn't sufficient to describe the spectrum to the right of moderate right, but it's the one you offered in your OP) about others in opposition to egalitarianism and other forms of progressivism.

As soon as one uses it, he (or she) identifies himself as being in opposition to and willing to demean those efforts, so he's not just identifying a group he don't approve of, but also, he puts himself in a group that the people he criticizes with the word disapprove of.

I'm not sure that applies to you. Many of your opinions seem empathetic and tolerant, but the list coming up next suggests that you are of that mind:

This is a cartoonish depiction of American egalitarianism which @Debater Slayer has already nicely responded to point-by-point, but I'll add a bit more here. It doesn't describe me, for example, and I consider myself what I think that you (but not I) would call far left.

• I don't care about people offending other people or criticizing empathetic liberalism. I don't respect them, but they don't bother me.
• Oppressed versus oppressor is an appropriate way to describe much of the American cultural war, which is the battle between those fighting for tolerance, equality, opportunity, and dignity for all across the board.
• "Objectivity, critical thinking, and logic are tools of the oppressors"? No, indoctrination (you've absorbed quite a bit of it judging by the language you use to describe the "woke") is the right's chief tool, and bigotry, not reason, defines this reaction to progressivism

You and I have been on multiple threads together, and we both post in essay form (many use what I call chat form - brief replies in short sentences that don't make or refute arguments). You might know that I am a frequent champion of all such people that have to deal with bigotry, but

• have never mentioned DEI
• argued against people being offended
• nor mentioned cultural appropriation
• nor called white people racist (I'm white)
• nor argued for equal outcomes over equal opportunity.

You haven't seen me post anything that resembles any of that, and frankly, I don't recall seeing it from other RF posters. Those tropes come from rightwing indoctrination media. That's whose describing egalitarians in that language.

I don't see you as a bigot in general, but you have way more interest in transgender issues, for example, than I do. They might be compassionate in origin - a genuine concern about gender transition and age issue out of concern for the affected individual, but it seems to be more than that. I think you also had issues with transgenders using public bathrooms and playing sports.

My attitude regarding people living transgendered is about the same as it is with abortion issues. I don't care so much what people choose for themselves in either of those matters, and the sports and bathroom issues don't interest or concern me. Preoccupation with any of that by people not directly affected by it seems to be motivated something other than compassion and tolerance.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You bring up several different ideas here, most of which I think are off topic for this thread. But I would be happy to discuss / debate any of the ideas you just brought up in a different thread.

The origin of this thread is that it's common on RF that when I use the term "woke", posters want me to define what I mean. The OP is my attempt to do just that. A key point here is that "woke" is not an either / or characteristic of an individual. "Woke" exists on a continuum. My sense is that no one that I've encountered on RF is super-woke, i.e. no one here believes everything in the OP. But some poster's posts lead me to believe that they believe some of the things on the list.

I think "woke" is a collection of ideas - as listed in the OP. I'm not claiming my list is perfect, but it's a start. So perhaps if an individual believes in a few of the ideas on the list they are "a little woke"?

Finally, for this post, I think most of the ideas on the list started out with good intentions, but devolved. E.g., is it SOMETIMES a good idea to think in terms of oppressor vs oppressed? Sure... sometimes. But we see this idea taken to extremes, and that's when I think the term "woke" starts to apply.

 

[icehorse]

But that is empty, because nothing follows from that other than X amount hold certain beliefs. That is all. I didn't say a lot BTW. I said X amount.

If you want to use logic and evidence, do so and admit I didn't grant you that a lot of people believe so. I granted X amount.

Sure we can use "X", but I've tried to estimate X. Are you disputing my estimates? If so, why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure we can use "X", but I've tried to estimate X. Are you disputing my estimates? If so, why?

No, I am granting you that there are 2 or more woke people. And then I ask, then what? What follows from that with logic and evidence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I haven't responded much to the DEI items on the list, but I'm going to attach (as I have in previous threads), a DEI document from California's community colleges. Again, this is just one example of how DEI has devolved, many others can be found. In particular, I would direct everyone to read the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of this document. In this case, D E I is not about those lofty goals, it's about - literally - dismantling western education:

Sure it is.

The traditional educational practices listed below, and
juxtaposed with the equity principles and culturally
responsive practices provided, include traditional
western/Eurocentric ideologies and practices upon
which North American educational systems and
institutions were built. This DEI framework recognizes
and acknowledges the historic omission and hindrance
of students of color from education by law throughout
U.S. history. Even after many forms of overt racial
discrimination were outlawed, the legacy of that history
is still present in seemingly race-neutral, “universal”
values and practices. This framework acknowledges
and challenges the structures, policies, and practices
inherent in systems of higher education that maintain
inequality and hinder the education and progress of
marginalized students. A focus on equity principles
and culturally responsive policy and practices directly
counters institutionalized racism, inviting CCC educators
to actively engage in dismantling that harmful legacy.
This framework was created to help you actualize that
work.

And traditional set ups in Western education aren't really the best. Especially in Industrialized times, education models are meant to be hideously boring and grind students down to endure the monotonous grind at work.
Traditional Western education is heavily based on rote memorization. That's not the best way to actually understand and comprehend things. Certain goals like grammar were built on classism. Girls have long been ignored. And it also basically ignores everyone who's not a white, middle class or better male.
As for values, a good example is leadership. We're are all supposed to strive for leadership qualities even if we don't want to be a leader. Rugged independence as well isn't a universal even though it's something were expected to be. Individuality, we are all supposed to be unique little snowflakes and do our own thing and be ourself and have put such a hyperdrive on this that many have become confused and those screaming about individuality the most often end up looking and acting like each other. Even the myth of the American Dream is not universally shared, not even by Americans.

 

[icehorse]

No, I am granting you that there are 2 or more woke people. And then I ask, then what? What follows from that with logic and evidence?

I've been in non-fiction publishing for 20+ years. I can make good estimates of book sales based on the information provided about individual books on Amazon. Given that, I can safely say that these two authors have sold at least hundreds of thousands, and probably a few million books.

I also understand what makes a best seller, especially for new authors. After the initial marketing efforts, a book stays a best seller largely due to word of mouth. One of the books I've mentioned in this thread has about 28,000 reviews with an average of 4.5 stars. That means that most of the people who read this book liked it, or they wouldn't have given it overwhelmingly positive reviews.

At this point, the only idea I'm defending is that a lot of people believe the ideas in the OP.