That slippery word "woke"

Post Reply New Topic

In another thread, someone compared anti-Zionism to anti-"wokeness," using the following analogy: Just as someone can be anti-Zionist without being an anti-Jewish bigot, so too someone can be anti-"woke" without being racist or anti-trans.

Problem with this analogy: The word "Zionism" has a canonical definition, whereas the word "woke" does not. There is no "wokeness manifesto," for example. So, without further elaboration, it's not at all clear what the above analogy even means.

The people who originally used "woke" in a political context never used it as the name of a specific, well-defined ideology, but rather as just a loose way of complimenting each other, e.g. BLM activists telling each other to "stay woke."

Since then the word "woke" has been largely abandoned by those folks, and has now become a general slur word used by right wingers to refer to anyone or anything even slightly to the left of themselves.

The person who recently compared anti-Zionism to anti-"wokeness" is a person who identifies as "anti-woke," but uses the word "woke" in yet a third sense of the term, to refer only to the more fanatical and illiberal sectors of the left.

Whether a person can be "anti-woke" without being racist or anti-trans depends on precisely how you define the word "woke." (It also depends on how you define "racist," another term whose meaning is disputed, although it's far less slippery than the term "woke.")

There are, alas, all too many people for whom any acknowledgement of the rights of trans people at all is intolerably "woke" (by their use of the term "woke").

Unlike the term "Zionism," there is no solid basis for arguing that any particular use of the word "woke" (or "anti-woke") is the correct usage.

Therefore, if you are a person who would like to promote nuanced political thinking, rather than the oversimplified categorical thinking that is all too often promoted by fanatics and political propagandists, I think it's best to stick with using clear, precise language and avoid identifying oneself too closely with slippery, intrinsically vague terms like "woke" or "anti-woke."

Wokeness is very clearly defined to everyone except for the woke themselves, who resist the label for tactical reasons, namely that it's harder to criticize a nameless group. We've been over this many times.

If we pretend all those people who use it non-specifically to mean anything they consider progressive don't exist.

Unfortunately they appear to be the majority of the outspoken "anti-woke" mob.

But, once we pretend that only the people who have a coherent definition similar to yours count, you'll have something that resembles a point.

It just takes a passive audience who follows along blindly for that point to resonate. Indeed, we have been over this many times.

Being "Woke" is really nothing more than being aware of one's own prejudices and striving to eliminate them, while also being aware of racist/sexist history and its effect on culture and society.  We have been over THIS many times, too.

Maybe that's what it means to boomers, but it hasn't meant that in contemporary parlance for a long time.

So, a handful of people using a word haphazardly cancels out the vast majority who know exactly what it means?



That sounds like a claim. Source?



You *might* have had a point if we hadn't been over this on this very subforum quite so many times, and if the definition given for wokeness by those who use it in this manner (a totalizing identitarian ideology focused on immutable characteristics) were less consistent, but since we have had that discussion so many times, you don't. As usual.



Not going to call me a fascist too? Don't want to burn all your best material in one go?

Last edited by Dox47 on 19 Oct 2023, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the term 'Woke' at this time of the morning in the UK (01:48 am) when I'm far too tired to do so, but it may be worth pointing out that many people on the Left, and even in parts of the Centre Right, frequently these days use the term 'Far Right' in a very cavalier and inaccurate way.

I've regularly heard it in reference to people like Nigel Farage (a British neo-Thatcherite Libertarian Conservative), to Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni and to the ruling Law and Justice Party in Poland, who are essentially Social Conservatives, not some kind of Hitlerite revival movement. Even the Daily Telegraph, the foremost right-of-centre newspaper in the UK, frequently makes these kinds of assertions.

It's a claim based on the outspokenly anti-woke people I've encountered. Ymmv.

But, since we're playing that game, where's yours? If it's just your observations, that's fair, but you should probably divulge that when you're also demanding I provide one.



Yes, we have had that discussion before and insisting you made a persuasive case before is not the same as having actually ever made a persuasive case. I realize a true believer always believes their argument should be persuasive, but outside of that bubble that's not how things work.

The core of your argument falls apart when encountering the average person who gets worked up over "woke ideology", they rarely articulate anything resembling what you claim is the majority understanding among these people. You want me to believe your words over my own eyes and ears and then get snarky when I refuse to take your words as canon.



As for the f-word, I think it's much more fair to describe you as an inconsistent cynic who would gladly enable fascists if it owns the libs, rather than actually being a fascist yourself. I'm not sure you've ever really expressed any political priorities beyond owning libs and guns, unless I've gotten your priorities reversed.

That's not my experience, the word I've heard the most in reference to Nigel Farage is C*nt

Since the term "woke" was first coined, it has been twisted and distorted by racists to mean anything from "Lefty-Liberal" to "Commie Groomer Scum".

I'll stick with the original definition.

I would buy that more if I hadn't seen you participate in quite so many threads on here where this exact question has been endlessly debated, and a coherent and consistent definition so frequently provided. It's the same in the wider political internet, everyone except elements of the left is in basic agreement as to what "woke" means, even if for a lot of the normies it's more of a "I know it when I see it" thing than a hard definition, to the point where I'm actually comfortable just making the assertion and trusting that good faith readers who want to can check for themselves.


Now your reading comprehension is failing you, as I didn't say anything about a persuasive case, I said the word had been clearly and consistently defined by those who use it here, and it is only an obstinate few who continue this game of pretending the word doesn't mean what everyone knows it does. Do you even dispute anything other than the specific word used to describe this particular form of identity based ideology? If not, why the constant games over the name?



That works both ways regarding taking people at their word, but I happen to work and socialize with an extremely woke skeptical social group that spans many different flavors of non-leftist, and while there are the occasional mouth breathers who use "woke" the way that old Boomers used "commie" (and the way your cohort uses "fascist"), they're far from the norm.

As to my general confidence in my opinions over yours, that mostly comes down to my unusual life experience, being essentially an urban liberal who can't stand other urban liberals who works in an extremely conservative coded industry gives me a very different perspective than, honestly, just about everyone. When I talk about annoying things liberals do, I'm speaking from personal experience because that's who I've lived around most of my life; when I correct people like you making unfair generalizations about conservatives, it's because I know those people through my work and social life, and they're generally pretty decent folks. Part of my exasperation here is that I grew up in ultra liberal Seattle hearing about the evils of the GOP and the Religious Right (back when that was a real thing) from folks who'd never actually met a religious conservative in person, and then when I went off to gunsmithing school with some of the most right wing people in the country, they were far from the monsters I'd spent my early years being warned about. In fact, you might call that experience my "origin story" as a guy whose actual views are pretty liberal but who can't stand liberals themselves, a quirk that was really driven home by how much nicer the conservatives were to someone who disagreed with them on pretty major stuff (abortion, immigration, etc), compared to liberals who'd cast you out for minor digressions from orthodoxy.

Basically, you sound exactly like the liberals I grew up with who hated this strawman version of conservatives they'd constructed without actually knowing any; maybe that's unfair of me to assume, so correct me if I'm wrong.



That's just your prejudices coloring things, it's much easier for you to dismiss me if you try and deny my complexity (that's been a long running theme here, people trying to pigeonhole me because they're lazy and or dumb). Don't get me wrong, my hatred of the left is a real thing and I've not ruled out having to shoot them some day, but that's reactive, I'd be happy to leave them alone if they'd pay me the same courtesy, but that seems unlikely. I'd rather not have to shoot them, sectarian combat is hell on earth as we've so vividly seen demonstrated recently, but when I see those smug jackasses cheer on that kind of brutality because of their ideology, I get the sneaking suspicion that they'd do the same to me if they could, or more likely use the state to do it for them, and so I adjust my opinions accordingly.

Do you also describe carefree cheerfulness as "gay" and then lecture people on the original meaning of the word and how you're sticking to it? Sounds exhausting.

Not since seeing that drag revue singing "Deck the Halls" in the 6th grade.

It gave a whole new meaning to the term "Gay Apparel".

Fa-la-la!

Ah yes, so you're complex and I fail to notice because of my prejudices, but somehow I'm exactly like the liberals you grew up with (which can't possibly be due to your prejudices).

Liberals were mean to me so I'm now an ex-liberal who hates liberals is a pretty common trope to play to these days. I don't doubt that it's true, but it still seems inline with my inconsistent cynic assessment. I'm not denying your potential complexity, even if you are bringing some serious I'm not like other girls energy. It's not that you lack complexity, it's that everyone else is complex too, but eventually common patterns start to emerge.

For starters, I live in the most conservative riding in my province but also a lot of my hobbies seem to be dominated by more right-leaning people. I've largely done manual labour throughout my life, which again, seems to lead to encountering a lot of people with quite reactionary views and little hesitation over sharing them.

My deep skepticism of conservatives because of being surrounded by them is more like your dislike for liberals than you realize. You can only hear so many of these guys (and women) compare your ancestors to rats in a home that you buy before it occurs to you that's genuinely how these people feel (for an example).

F-slurs this, liberals that, the woke this, sjws that and Marxists! Marxists Marxists!

After a while it's just angry buzzwords that become increasingly incoherent.

Despite me being willing to very clearly state my criticisms of the conservative movement and the attitudes many of those within it seem to (or clearly demonstrate they) hold, it doesn't mean I view them as cartoonish villains.

Decent people can still contribute to great harms, either through indifference or through believing they were acting in a good way. Conservatives don't need to be monsters to pose a threat to others rights, they just need to believe they're entitled to and that they're justified in doing so.

Day-yam, dude!  You oughta write a book on this stuff!  I would buy it.