Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 22 2023 01:42 plasmidghost wrote: Every so often I think about coming into here to clear up some horrendous misunderstandings of trans people and anti-trans activists but it ultimately seems pointless and a waste of time. Last week, actual neo-Nazis marched against drag queens in Ohio. On the other side of the globe in Australia, more neo-Nazis marched against trans people. These are who the anti-trans crowd is aligned with.
Ouch... I really don't see what is so offensive about trans people. They are quite few, and each one has a different story, just leave them alone! I don't mind calling them he or she as they wish, just don't get mad if I mess it up.
I have to say I am scared about the direction of parts of the WOKE movement as well, being obsessed with finding racism and sexism absolutely everywhere, not even caring about who they are trying to "protect". The revisions of Roald Dahl were pretty stupid, but what about banning the traditional title "Ballet Master" because it is... too sexual?🤨 Liberal, this is not.
It is always dangerous when extremists get to define the debate. In the Spanish civil war, when you had to choose between racism and communism😖
Language changes over time. What's more extreme updating some terms or advocating for the erasure of a group of people?
Academia has been "taken over" by the left beacuse the right has always been anti intellectual and portrayed any form of higher learning as being leftist from the start. That means anyone with a right wing ideology self selects out of ever going into things like the humanities and therefore there are never conservatives in the room when "critical race theory" as a higher level humanities class is proposed.
No child left behind was a conservative push to take funding away from exceptional child funding and further damage public learning in America. The constant push against public schools by the right is a way to privatize schools to allow for even lower standard religious schools and rural for-profit schools. This is 100% different than trying to do something about the objectionably worse schools for poor people vs better schools for rich kids. Your Zip code shouldn't be the largest decider on your success in life. Punishing poor people was the goal with NCLB.
The right is attacking trans people beacuse they are a very small minority and are the next in line to be attacked. We already got through gay people being human beings and now the new target is the next letter in the LGBTQ+ chain.
I feel like using the white supremacists or neo-Nazis or whatever as the boogeyman and then saying, "Why are you on the same side as them?" to be a fallacy.
It's the same as being in favor of free speech while pedophiles are also in favor of free speech and then being accused of supporting the same things pedos do. The ACLU has supported Pedo rights and neo-Nazi rights and trans rights. Should we lump trans people in with neo-Nazis and ask why they're on the same side as neo-Nazis? It's a total fallacy.
People can be right on an issue and while also supporting the same thing that some very wrong people support.
On March 22 2023 01:42 plasmidghost wrote: Every so often I think about coming into here to clear up some horrendous misunderstandings of trans people and anti-trans activists but it ultimately seems pointless and a waste of time. Last week, actual neo-Nazis marched against drag queens in Ohio. On the other side of the globe in Australia, more neo-Nazis marched against trans people. These are who the anti-trans crowd is aligned with.
I legitimately don't see where people in this thread are posting horrendous misunderstandings about trans people or anti-trans activists? Like I think pretty much every regular is on board with trans people existing and being tolerant towards them and using the preferred pronouns?
The people who are against that, are indeed the more fascist/nazi crowd, but we really don't have many of those posters? The only 'anti trans' sentiments I see shared here are 'males who transition to female in many cases shouldn't be allowed to compete in professional sports', but this opinion is not one primarily held by nazis, it's a very mainstream opinion, even by leftists.
Now I totally get that we/I might sometimes use the wrong terminology and that there's a bunch of stuff we're ignorant of. But this should be regarded as ignorance, not malice. For all the fuzz, I don't even have a single trans acquaintance- and I've spent plenty of time in more alternative groups. And even being so few in number, my impression is that you're still not a homogeneous group, but that there's a wide spectrum of how people feel about their gender identity.
Anyway, I would actually genuinely appreciate being corrected if I post something that us wrong to the point of being offensive, you can rest assured it is not intentional, and I think mostly everyone here is on the same page I am.
On March 22 2023 03:39 RenSC2 wrote: I feel like using the white supremacists or neo-Nazis or whatever as the boogeyman and then saying, "Why are you on the same side as them?" to be a fallacy.
It's the same as being in favor of free speech while pedophiles are also in favor of free speech and then being accused of supporting the same things pedos do. The ACLU has supported Pedo rights and neo-Nazi rights and trans rights. Should we lump trans people in with neo-Nazis and ask why they're on the same side as neo-Nazis? It's a total fallacy.
People can be right on an issue and while also supporting the same thing that some very wrong people support.
But its not just that Republicans happen to be on the same side as neo-Nazi's. They are actively courting them.
On March 22 2023 01:42 plasmidghost wrote: Every so often I think about coming into here to clear up some horrendous misunderstandings of trans people and anti-trans activists but it ultimately seems pointless and a waste of time. Last week, actual neo-Nazis marched against drag queens in Ohio. On the other side of the globe in Australia, more neo-Nazis marched against trans people. These are who the anti-trans crowd is aligned with.
I legitimately don't see where people in this thread are posting horrendous misunderstandings about trans people or anti-trans activists? Like I think pretty much every regular is on board with trans people existing and being tolerant towards them and using the preferred pronouns?
The people who are against that, are indeed the more fascist/nazi crowd, but we really don't have many of those posters? The only 'anti trans' sentiments I see shared here are 'males who transition to female in many cases shouldn't be allowed to compete in professional sports', but this opinion is not one primarily held by nazis, it's a very mainstream opinion, even by leftists.
Now I totally get that we/I might sometimes use the wrong terminology and that there's a bunch of stuff we're ignorant of. But this should be regarded as ignorance, not malice. For all the fuzz, I don't even have a single trans acquaintance- and I've spent plenty of time in more alternative groups. And even being so few in number, my impression is that you're still not a homogeneous group, but that there's a wide spectrum of how people feel about their gender identity.
Anyway, I would actually genuinely appreciate being corrected if I post something that us wrong to the point of being offensive, you can rest assured it is not intentional, and I think mostly everyone here is on the same page I am.
We don't have anyone outright saying trans people shouldn't exist in this thread, but we do have people openly saying that DeSantis is "on the side of common sense" and that they support him using all the levers of the state apparatus to enact an agenda that includes, among other things, banning any form of gender-affirming care and spreading lies about said care constituting mutilation or abuse. Another example is how people talk about using the right pronouns to refer to them, like there's some kind of limit on how we address and respect trans people on a basic level. If I were in plasmidghost's shoes I still wouldn't feel terribly welcomed or understood by some people here.
Imagine if you have a family member who's perfectly nice in 1 on 1 interactions, as long as you don't bring up who you are with them. They're nice, but you know they don't really understand or accept you for who you are, and you know they turned around and voted for Trump or DeSantis. It doesn't really matter if they're nice on that surface level.
While it sounds like a fire alarm to some, most people understand it as "dog whistling". Seemingly (to the uninitiated) innocuous statements/positions that act as euphemisms for a much more problematic worldview.
On March 22 2023 03:39 RenSC2 wrote: I feel like using the white supremacists or neo-Nazis or whatever as the boogeyman and then saying, "Why are you on the same side as them?" to be a fallacy.
It's the same as being in favor of free speech while pedophiles are also in favor of free speech and then being accused of supporting the same things pedos do. The ACLU has supported Pedo rights and neo-Nazi rights and trans rights. Should we lump trans people in with neo-Nazis and ask why they're on the same side as neo-Nazis? It's a total fallacy.
People can be right on an issue and while also supporting the same thing that some very wrong people support.
But its not just that Republicans happen to be on the same side as neo-Nazi's. They are actively courting them.
Yes, there is a big difference between happening to be on the same side on some issues as undesirables versus actively courting those people. Republicans do way too much courting of people with a lot of bad opinions and I don't support the current crop of Republicans at all.
Anyway, I would actually genuinely appreciate being corrected if I post something that us wrong to the point of being offensive, you can rest assured it is not intentional, and I think mostly everyone here is on the same page I am.
It's not something you said but something most of us probably have at some point. "giving a voice to the voiceless"
Besides framing it as a gift (saviorism), it also frames it as if the problem is/was oppressed people not having voices rather than others refusing to listen to them and/or suppress them (by way of marginalization, incarceration, assassination, etc).
On March 20 2023 14:58 ChristianS wrote: @Intro: Don’t wanna go too long on this, but some points:
-Doesn’t really matter what his brand is in Florida, we’re talking about him running for president. Nationally his identity is pretty much entirely defined by “war on woke” stuff, I don’t care if Floridians like his policy on Everglades protection or Miami beach ordinances or w/e.
-You’re saying I “mischaracterized the education bill” but all I said was teachers are being told they might lose their job if they tell students their gay. And that’s… true? Oh, and I referenced “book bans,” which is also true? You’re explicitly saying “banning objectionable images is reasonable,” which seems to mean “he’s banning books and I like that.” Okay, good for you, why is that a mischaracterization though?
-“Undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate” is a perfect example of what I’m talking about! A bunch of academic fields got dominated by liberals. That wasn’t a government policy, it was just how the scholars tended to land. But! If you don’t like the scholars winding up liberal, you could seize government power and try to use it to “undo left-wing dominance of the professoriate,” i.e. punish liberal academics and reward conservative ones, and if you’re someone with a lot of resentment toward the liberal mainstream of the professoriate, that might appeal to you. Now copy and paste that to every corner of society, from Ivermectin to the green M&M, and you’ve got a pretty good picture of “anti-wokeness.”
On March 20 2023 13:45 BlackJack wrote:
On March 20 2023 06:50 ChristianS wrote: I mean if putting colleges through political purges led by guys like Chris Rufo is “the opposite of crazy,” I don’t want to be sane.
Fundamentally DeSantis’ central political identity is the “war on woke” which, generally, means things are happening culturally that conservatives don’t like, and while the “problem” isn’t a government policy, there’s still room to punish it with government power. Disney is too “woke” so you implement tax changes explicitly to punish them. Teachers are too “woke” so you implement changes such that if they admit they’re gay to students they could lose their job. Doctors are too “woke” so state-level policy forbids trans healthcare even for adults.
If people are exercising their freedoms in ways you don’t like, so you want to seize government power to punish them, there’s a decent chance you’re an authoritarian. In DeSantis’s case, book bans, cult of personality, and a press office explicitly geared toward personally punishing dissenters certainly make the word seem apt. Compared to Trump he’s definitely more likely to send CPS after parents of trans kids. On the other hand, Trump’s probably more likely to attempt violent overthrow of the government, so ya know, pick your poison. But “more sane version of Trump” just completely misunderstands the guy’s movement. He’s more systematic, the quirks are different, but the guy is more extreme than Trump in some pretty meaningful ways.
I pretty much agree. It’s easy for DeSantis to lean into the anti-woke stuff because I’m sure he realizes it’s a massively winning issue. Taking the side of common sense against the side of idiocy is bound to be the popular move.
Not surprised you feel that way. How do you square that with the last election? Seemed pretty clear that Republicans went really hard on anti-wokeness, they underperformed, and voters said it was partly because pronouns and trans athletes just aren’t salient issues. They don’t care very much about it and they think it’s weird you do. (Edit: “You” as in Republicans campaigning on those issues, not you Blackjack specifically. Not actually sure how much trans issues actually matter to you specifically)
If photo shoots in front of a wall of gas ranges is “common sense” to you, I think “common sense” was poorly named.
I don't think holding off the "red wave" from a batshit political party of bible thumpers and election deniers is as big of a win as you think it is. I would think that for most people women losing their rights to an abortion is a more salient issue than whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I don't think this disproves that anti-woke is a winning issue for Republicans.
“Batshit party of Bible thumpers” is a bit lazy. Obviously if the anti-woke party does poorly in an election you’ll be inclined to blame it on any other factor but their anti-wokeness because you still want to say anti-wokeness is popular. Abortion is certainly more salient, and obviously it’s hard to assess the effect of any one variable on an election. You could, I suppose, read the result as “Republicans underperformed because their immensely popular anti-woke platform was only enough to stem the tide of the anti-Dobbs wave.” That said, I do think it was pretty clear that voters found Republicans’ culture war platform uninteresting.
But let me back up a moment, because I think we’re using some pretty coarse shorthand terminology that elides kind of a lot of meaningful distinctions. “Woke” is pretty obviously poorly defined, which is frustrating because it means “anti-woke” includes both completely idiotic positions like “The libs took away the sexy green M&M” along with much more sane stuff (or, at least, stuff that I would probably even agree with).
When I was in college a lot of my peers were spending a lot of time on Tumblr enumerating all of the facets of all things Problematic. The rhetorical positions were, at the very the least, annoying. It was a form of (in a broad sense) political argument that was completely uninterested in tolerating or discussing with dissenting views, in large part because the main purpose of it all seemed to be self-congratulation. 22 year olds were assuring themselves of their righteousness and self-worth entirely on the basis of having right-thinking opinions on whether Hank Azaria should voice Apu, or the acceptableness of giving Oscars to movies that fail the Bechdel Test. When your opinions exist entirely for self-soothing, you really aren’t looking to be challenged, even if the challenge is “well you’re 99% right, but I think on this one issue you should clarify how x should be handled.” Any challenge, however minor, is deflating. (This is, of course, an overgeneralization; any particular “woke” person might be more or less tolerant of having their views challenged, and any given critic might have been more or less reasonable to ignore.)
How harmful was it? I dunno. It could definitely tear apart friend groups in the right context. The internet has always had a tendency for a sort of drive-by judgmentalism that can be extremely unpleasant for whatever poor soul just became the Main Character of an extremely stupid drama. It could end a career, or kill off a TV show or something for no good reason. On the other hand, sometimes the “woke” people are right! Some stuff is racist; some terms or modes of discourse do carry ugly baggage once you unpack them. It’s not a fundamentally fruitless mode of thought.
The thing is, very little of this is a government policy problem. The anti-woke talk a lot about “eradicating the woke mind virus” and the like; I think it’s pretty obvious they’re usually just as uninterested in tolerating different viewpoints. What are book bans, if not an attempt to eliminate an idea without engaging with it rhetorically? It’s one thing if that’s a sexually explicit image, but if it’s a book discussing structural racism? Or the possibility of non-binary gender? If the “problem” is wokeness, i.e. that people exist with “woke” beliefs, and the “solution” is to use whatever government power necessary to eliminate those beliefs in the population, that’s quite a bit more heinous intolerance than the Tumblr kids were ever guilty of.
So to the extent “anti-woke” means “rolling your eyes when a bunch of random Twitter accounts say you can’t use the term JRPG any more or w/e,” I suspect that is, indeed, a broadly popular position. But if it means installing guys like Chris Rufo in college administrations to mandate professors aren’t allowed to use the word “racist” in class or something? I mean, if that’s a broadly popular position, then God help us.
Woke should be something like “I understand that transgendered men are not the same as biological men however I want to be kind and tolerant so I will choose to refer to them as men and use masculine pronouns.” Very reasonable. But actual woke these days is “transgendered men are literally the exact same as biological men and If you disagree you’re committing violence against trans people and it will make them commit suicide and now you’re worse than Hitler.”
Then you end up with Supreme Court justice KBJ being asked for how she would define what a woman is and she responds she doesn’t know because she’s not a biologist. This a very highly educated woman that’s going to be deciding very important issues for woman’s rights. Does anyone believe she doesn’t have some idea in her head of what a woman is? Of course nobody believes that, she just opts to give a non-answer to the question so that nobody’s toes get stepped on. When this even starts to infiltrated the highest court in the land it becomes a lot more pernicious than your peers tumblr posts.
Take the ACLU as another example. They have been around for a century and they have always operated under a “if the shoe was on the other foot” principle. Which means they will defend anyone’s rights in a blind and principled way regardless if they personally agree with what they are saying. They have defended plenty of despicable people, including the rights of pedophiles to talk about how great it is to have sex with young boys. Now even they weighing whether they should stop defending free speech that is “contrary to our values.” Also more pernicious than some Twitter hot takes.
Maybe this isn’t worth getting into, but I think the actual biology of gender might be a lot more complicated than you’re thinking. People have a simple model in their head of XY -> testosterone -> male genitalia and secondary sex characteristics, XX -> estrogen -> female genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. But actual organisms never want to conform to your model in the wild, not 100% of the time anyway. So you might actually have XX and never realize it unless you have a karyotype done for some reason, because phenotypically you were just always male and never thought to question it. That might be because there was a crossing over event with a Y chromosome, it might be because you have a congenital insensitivity to estrogen, it might be because you’re actually a chimera of two different cell lines and you’ve got different chromosomes in different parts of your body. There’s all kinds of weird stuff that can happen.
I say all this because in the simple model it’s tempting to think of “real” or “normal” males as opposed to trans males who, presumably, you’d figure are only psychologically inclined toward that identity. But biologists don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about “normal” because it doesn’t really exist; the actual biological story is pretty complicated for most people, not just for trans people. I wish I knew more about it, it’s not my area unfortunately.
Partly for the reasons above, I extremely don’t buy your KBJ example as “wokeness.” The only reason the question is being asked is because of culture war anti-woke nonsense, and the reason it works as a gotcha is because any attempt to answer it fully will involve distinctions and nuance that the question asker can write off as a dodge anyway. Legally defining “woman” will be difficult and contextual! In SCOTUS hearings it’s long-established precedent that you sidestep anyone trying to force you to give a controversial answer on a hot button issue. Partly because it’s good politics, partly because it’s not really appropriate to spout off on issues before the court before you’ve heard the oral arguments, etc. Anyway, after that hearing reporters asked several Republicans who were bloviating about it the same question, and they couldn’t give a good answer either!
The ACLU has definitely gotten a lot less pro-free speech over the years, I don’t dispute that. And I won’t dispute that people on the internet will get pretty dramatic if you imply any skepticism about a trans person’s identity (they also get pretty dramatic if you express an opinion about good animal care, or the right way to write a bit of code, but maybe this is a bit different). I’m open to being convinced that the excesses of “wokeness” have clear policy implications, although your KBJ or ACLU examples certainly don’t persuade me.
Like, to what extent is the problem captured by “some people have bad opinions and are pretty obnoxious about it”? Because the only answers I have to that are a) ignore them, b) try to convince them they’re wrong, or c) try to convince other people not to listen to them. Is “wokeness” qualitatively different?
If you want clear policy examples of wokeness ruining things just look at some of our once great cities. A blind eye getting turned to the crime of shoplifting is definitely wokeist ideology. The theory being that big corporations have billions in profits and shoplifting is a crime of poverty that isn't going to effect a WalMart or Walgreens. Then you end up with Walgreens closing down stores and politicians begging for them to not close because now seniors in the area will be in a pharmacy desert of sorts. The consequences of our own stupidity, whoops.
The DA of San Francisco was soundly defeated in a recall election after vowing not to go after small crimes of poverty and being extremely lenient on crime. Unilaterally deciding to not do your job and prosecute crimes because you want judicial reform is definitely woke-ist ideology in my book.
Or look at the SF school board, who had 3 members recalled because they were too busy trying to rename every school instead of getting kids back in the classroom during the pandemic. Apparently having a school named after Abraham Lincoln is more problematic than kids not being able to attend class. Here is one of my favorite news stories on the SF school board:
A gay dad volunteers for one of eight open slots on a parent committee that advises the school board. All of the 10 current members are straight moms. Three are white. Three are Latina. Two are Black. One is Tongan. They all want the dad to join them.
The seven school board members talk for two hours about whether the dad brings enough diversity. Yes, he’d be the only man. And the only LGBTQ representative. But he’d be the fourth white person in a district where 15% of students are white.
The gay dad never utters a single word. The board members do not ask the dad a single question before declining to approve him for the committee. They say they’ll consider allowing him to volunteer if he comes back with a slate of more diverse candidates, ideally including an Arab parent, a Native American parent, a Vietnamese parent and a Chinese parent who doesn’t speak English.
This is a level of parody that you wouldn't even believe on South Park and these are the people that are tasked with overseeing the education of children. How is this not absurd?
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot just lost her re-election. I think these are the types of elections you should be looking at as the referendum on woke-dom as opposed to the 2022 mid-terms.
Have you been to Portland lately? I was there last year and what an absolute shithole. I was walking around downtown and it was like a dystopian wasteland. So many abandoned and boarded up shops. I don't think anyone would argue that Portland is not the most "woke" city in America and it's turning into the biggest shitshow in America. Not a coincidence, imo.
There are thousands of examples. If you look at any 1 or 2 in isolation it doesn't look like much of anything. It's hard to quantify so it's easy write off.
Can we please get a definition of what "wokeism" is? Pointing to examples and saying "this is wokeism" isn't a definition and makes it very convenient to decide what is and isn't wokeism at will. Define something concrete. Otherwise, wokeism is just "things I don't like".
On March 22 2023 06:02 BlueBird. wrote: ... I live in Portland, OR lol, the idea that it is some hellish landscape that no one can inhabit or work in is ridiculous.
Don't you know? Only "wokeist" shitholes have boarded up shops in downtown!
On March 22 2023 06:05 StasisField wrote: Can we please get a definition of what "wokeism" is? Pointing to examples and saying "this is wokeism" isn't a definition and makes it very convenient to decide what is and isn't wokeism at will. Define something concrete. Otherwise, wokeism is just "things I don't like".
Indeed, upwards of 90% of all instances of someone saying "woke" that I've heard, and probably 100% of times someone has used the made up term "wokeism", has been a right-winger using it to lump every complaint of the week of theirs into one box. I've yet to see the term used in a good faith discussion, recent posting here included.
On the subject of dogwhistles, demonizing the shit out of the term "woke" is another one.
On March 22 2023 06:05 StasisField wrote: Can we please get a definition of what "wokeism" is? Pointing to examples and saying "this is wokeism" isn't a definition and makes it very convenient to decide what is and isn't wokeism at will. Define something concrete. Otherwise, wokeism is just "things I don't like".
Indeed, upwards of 90% of all instances of someone saying "woke" that I've heard, and probably 100% of times someone has used the made up term "wokeism", has been a right-winger using it to lump every complaint of the week of theirs into one box. I've yet to see the term used in a good faith discussion, recent posting here included.
On the subject of dogwhistles, demonizing the shit out of the term "woke" is another one.
The right has been cornered in court and forced to define "woke". Turns out, it's not all-encompassing and it's not very radical!
"Asked what 'woke' means more generally, Newman said 'it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.'"
I actually do not believe that you have no idea what is meant by woke. No more than I would accept someone saying that 'Redpill' has no meaning beyond 'People I don't like'. Certainly both are used overbroadly and in the perjorative but both were claimed and self-defined by the adherents themselves. Only the former are walking back from the title and definition and feigning ignorance that neither title nor definition ever existed. Although both can be used as a stand in for 'people I don't like' that does not erase the original or current meaning.
Definition from within (and positive of):
The notion of “getting woke” (or staying woke) is defined as being acutely aware of racial and social injustice—not just awareness and acknowledgement of isolated incidents, but awareness from a position of understanding systemic and institutional racism. … The notion of getting woke encapsulates the first stage of becoming an accomplice in addressing the system of racism… White accomplices should strive to be woke enough not to call themselves woke and instead strive to embody this state of being by building with people of color. … Be in a perpetual state of learning and be woke enough to know you are never woke enough.
...I suppose with this self-definition to be woke one must deny one is woke as one can strive to become but can never arrive. Used consistently under this definition, one would never run into a single person claiming to be woke, even if they held to the whole battery of beliefs that would constitute 'wokeism'.
Definition from without (and critical of):
In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Critical Social Justice, which sees the world only in terms of unjust power dynamics and the need to dismantle problematic systems. That is, it means having adopted Theory and the worldview it conceptualizes.
Under “wokeness,” this awakened consciousness is set particularly with regard to issues of identity, like race, sex, gender, sexuality, and others. The terminology derives from the idea of having been awakened (or, “woke up”) to an awareness of the allegedly systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other oppressive power dynamics and the true nature of privilege, domination, and marginalization in society and understanding the role in dominant discourses in producing and maintaining these structural forces. Furthermore, being woke carries the imperative to become a social activist with regard to these issues and problems, again, on the terms set by Critical Social Justice. This—especially for white people—is to include a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and (progressive) social activism in the name of Theory and Social Justice (see also, antiracism).
However, post 2010:
It has since expanded and memefied further and is now seen from the outside as being wholly synonymous with having been converted to a Social Justice critical consciousness. As such, “wokeness” often refers to both critical Social Justice doctrine and the state of having accepted it.
Being “woke” would entail being able to “see” the intersecting web of dominance and oppression that arises from the function of privilege in society and taking up efforts to challenge, disrupt, subvert, deconstruct, or overthrow the existing system in the attempt to bring those unjust intersecting power dynamics to an end (see also, Matrix of Domination).
Now, do I think you had these specific quotes and definitions in mind? No. But I think in broad strokes you knew the gist of what would appear in these definitions.
I want to pin Blackjack to a definition so I know what we're actually talking about and not just throwing everything he doesn't like under the "woke" banner. Working with the same definition is pretty integral to discussing a topic. Surely you understand that.
EDIT: And no, I'm not denying "woke" as a term ever existed (nobody on the left is). "Woke" has very much existed for several years now. But the way the right uses it has no meaning. We need words to have meaning if we're to have a conversation.
A recent poll also shows that the term "woke" is viewed positively by a majority of Americans, so labeling things as "woke" and then attacking them might actually backfire at the voting booth.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/P5wz2CT.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pO2zSqb.jpg)
