Does anyone on this forum consider themself as being " woke "

[Colonel_Klinck]

The same thing was true of, for example, people in high medieval western Europe who persecuted Jews. They considered that to be just and righteous and making the world a better place. In modern terms, those people were woke. "Woke" is merely a new way of describing people who agree with whatever irrational prejudices are fashionable in any given time or place. True believers in irrational prejudice and discrimination usually think it will make the world a better place. They might be completely genuine in believing that, for example, killing all Tutsi would make Rwanda a better place. Or in believing that expelling Jews from England would make England a better place. There's almost 1000 years between those two off the top of my head examples - there's nothing new about the idea. The target group identities change. The amount of extremism that's mainstream in the ideology changes. The amount of honesty in the ideology changes. But the ideology remains the same.

Sorry are you comparing "woke" to people who committed genocide? That is a reach even for you.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

they do indeed, i think the usage is similar- anyone who knows [thing] and abides by the tenets of [thing] is woke compared to people who don't agree with/understand [thing]

kind of funny how the same phrase is being used, wonder if the "woke" of pc culture realize they're tarring themselves with the same brush as CT nuts by adopting that term?

confused.com

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Sorry are you comparing "woke" to people who committed genocide? That is a reach even for you.

So, Hitler wasn’t an evil **** after all, he was just an early adopter of “wokeness”?

 

[adolf hamster]

confused.com

Replace [thing] with flat earth, social justice or covid 19 isnt real and it reads the same.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

No, like all extremists, they just annoy everyone both in the sensible middle as well as the alternate extreme end..

It's probably because everyone 'moderate' is just trying to get on and live a normal 'decent' life, yet we are faced daily with the fall out of the idiotic Woke brigade, the news is full of people getting cancelled, with all the violent activism, with being constantly told we need to be ashamed of our 'identity', etc, etc.. Or how the entire world is 'systemically' xxx'ist.. I can't sign up to lots of organisations without extra 'gender' questions that never existed before and have to actively put effort in to thinking about what pronouns I should be called by.. etc, etc, etc.. it's like death by a thousand cuts..

I could go in to some of the HR disasters that have occurred lately in our company but I'm sure they should be kept private, however it's not a glowing indictment of how successful the woke movement have become..

But the right is just as guilty as the left for trying to get people "cancelled". This has been happening for decades. all that has changed is social media has given voice to those that never had one so its allowed it to explode on both sides. Its going to take some time to adjust to social media which is probably been the biggest change to society in modern history. When society changes quickly, it always seems to come with growing pains. Both sides are using this to their advantage, both sides are as guilty as the other.

I have to ask why does a question on gender bother you? You just tick male or female and move on. I don't get why this subject upsets people so much. I'm not sure its even an issue in the UK, though I could be wrong. It seems its yet another issue that has been a problem in the US with people being sacked for changing their identity or Trump banning them from the armed services which is more to do with the religious right in politics than anything else. Somehow that has spread around the western world in countries where it isn't an issue. Transgender sport I agree is an issue that needs to be looked at, clearly someone born a man is going to have an advantage over someone born a women and so it is ridiculous. That is a small thing in the bigger picture though. Other than that I couldn't care less what someone wants to call themselves or be called. If someone wants to identify as a block of cheese it costs me nothing. Fill you boots I say, whatever makes you happy.

As for why is this on the news? I haven't watched it in months. All the UK TV news is terrible imo. I follow some journalists on twitter and go to articles I find interesting from there. I'd recommend avoiding the TV news, it makes for a happier life.

 

[IceBear]

I consider myself Wookie

 

[Irish_Tom]

Postmodernists were BTFO by Sokal in the 90s, main reason the likes of Derrida escaped was simply:

Sure. I mean, the recent Grievance Studies affair was pretty much a modern-day retelling of Sokal's hoax.

I'm not defending CSJ in any way, just pointing out that what CSJ has become is antithetical to what the original Postmodernists like Foucalt and Derrida were advancing. They rejected grand narratives and CSJ is fundamentally based on grand narratives.

In Cynical Theories (a good book by the way), James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose suggest (more than once) that 'Postmodernists promote anti-science and anti-medicine views', but if you have to discount the likes of Derrida and Foucault because they didn't promote an anti-science viewpoint, you have to ask how you are defining Postmodernism and who you are including under that umbrella.

It's also somewhat ironic that some of those who rail against identity politics are happy to use such broad brushstrokes when labelling 'Postmodernists'. Don't get me started on the phrase Postmodern Neo-Marxist…

I guess what I'm saying is #NotAllPostmodernists

 

[dowie]

but if you have to discount the likes of Derrida and Foucault because they didn't promote an anti-science viewpoint, you have to ask how you are defining Postmodernism and who you are including under that umbrella.

Not quite, more the "(or indeed attention to)". Had they done so then they'd have (likely) been in that book...

It's also somewhat ironic that some of those who rail against identity politics are happy to use such broad brushstrokes when labelling 'Postmodernists'. Don't get me started on the phrase Postmodern Neo-Marxist…

Not particularly, we're not talking about some immutable quality like being white or black or male or female etc...

Do you not see the distinction?

Grouping based on an arbitrary characteristic you were born with vs political or philosophical positions you hold.

Not all fascists? Not all Islamists?

 

[Irish_Tom]

Not quite, more the "(or indeed attention to)". Had they done so then they'd have (likely) been in that book...

No doubt they would, but they didn't, so they weren't.

Foucault and Derrida were two of the fathers of Postmodernism. If you're going to say 'Postmodernists think x' or 'Postmodernism stands for y' but have to discount the pair of them to reach your conclusion, you're on shaky ground from the outset.

I mean, throughout his career Foucault managed to change his stance on various topics quite significantly, including some of his own concepts — so even saying 'Foucalt thought x' needs to be qualified with the time period that he wrote or said x.

How very Postmodern!

Not particularly, we're not talking about some immutable quality like being white or black or male or female etc...

Do you not see the distinction?

Grouping based on an arbitrary characteristic you were born with vs political or philosophical positions you hold.

Not all fascists? Not all Islamists?

More like, not all Muslims. But yes, you're right, it's not an immutable quality.

 

[Graetzbridge]

Being Woke to me means having your heart in the right place but not having enough life experience and knowledge to actually change anything that you think is being done wrongly I suppose. The extremes will always be there with nutjobs recording themselves having childish tantrums I suppose.

I don't know what "woke" means other than I fell asleep and woke up.

 

[dowie]

Foucault and Derrida were two of the fathers of Postmodernism. If you're going to say 'Postmodernists think x' or 'Postmodernism stands for y' but have to discount the pair of them to reach your conclusion, you're on shaky ground from the outset.

But that isn't what has been said - the book criticized postmodern thought applied to a particular area that they didn't pay attention to, that's all.

 

[Irish_Tom]

But that isn't what has been said - the book criticized postmodern thought applied to a particular area that they didn't pay attention to, that's all.

I wasn't referring to Fashionable Nonsense specifically, it was a general point.

However, it has been said in Cynical Theories and it has often been said by many of the anti-woke brigade throughout the culture wars.

I'm not denying that CSJ has its roots in Postmodernism — I'm saying that those who developed CSJ took Postmodernist ideas, twisted them to fit their own agenda and the result is something that goes directly against the original tenets of Postmodernism, certainly against Foucault and Derrida.

E: clarified the final sentence.

 

[hurfdurf]

Sorry are you comparing "woke" to people who committed genocide? That is a reach even for you.

His posting along with a few others has gone massively down hill recently. I’m wondering if lockdown is affecting some people’s mental health.

Wonder is MLK and Rosa Parks etc would be considered “woke”

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

His posting along with a few others has gone massively down hill recently. I’m wondering if lockdown is affecting some people’s mental health.

Wonder is MLK and Rosa Parks etc would be considered “woke”

Absolutely they would. MLK would be considered a domestic terrorist by some, much like he was back in the 60s. I think many people forget the US had legal segregation just 55 years ago. This isn't ancient history, it still struggles with institutional racism at State level to this day.

 

[dowie]

Wonder is MLK and Rosa Parks etc would be considered “woke”

Doubtful - this is the mistake people make with wokeness/identity politics and "neo-racism" as though it is some continuation of the civil rights struggle rather than the unhelpful, illiberal mess it actually is.

Malcolm X is probably closer to what you want if you need a comparison.

 

[i-bert]

But the right is just as guilty as the left for trying to get people "cancelled". This has been happening for decades.

I'm genuinely curious, when have the right tried to deplatform and cancel people? Can you give some examples please as I keep hearing people say it but I've never noticed it until the past 5-6 years.

 

[silvagti]

Wonder is MLK and Rosa Parks etc would be considered “woke”

No, because in my experience "woke" people aren't actually campaigning for everyone to be given equal opportunity/rights and to be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.

"Woke" individuals generally want people to be given special and preferential treatment (anti-discrimination quotas, etc) based on their gender, ethnicity, etc and for those "protected" characteristics to be the primary thing people are judged and defined by.

The "Woke" individual likes to believe they're morally superior to everyone else because they feel dividing people into these groups for preferential treatment makes them appear "progressive" and "virtuous". Then when people call out their hipocrisy they can just accuse them of being racist, bigots, etc. Such is the "woke" mindset!

 

[Kreeeee]

Hard to find a thread in GD without arguments nowadays. There are still forums with lots of users where arguments never occur. Peaceful

They’re called echo chambers, where nothing of merit gets discussed because everyone is too afraid to disagree with the mob.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm thinking Laura Loomer isn't "woke"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374747345573748742

 

[dowie]

No, because in my experience "woke" people aren't actually campaigning for everyone to be given equal opportunity/rights and to be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.

"Woke" people generally want people to be given special and preferential treatment (anti-discrimination quotas, etc) based on their gender, ethnicity, etc and for those "protected" characteristics to be the primary thing people are judged and defined by.

Yup, this is fundamental, in fact they're more likely to get upset by people quoting MLK. The big thing "woke" types focus on is "equity" not "equality":

This sort of image is used as an explanation of the difference but it is rather dishonest:

Now the above seems reasonable in that there is some real underlying cause to be addressed - likewise, it is perfectly reasonable that a workplace has a wheelchair ramp etc.. or that women get maternity pay etc..

But the way "woke" people seem to use equity is by just assuming there is some cause to be addressed whenever there is any discrepancy between certain groups... any differences in outcome can be attributed to some -ism in woke world and so the equity argument is used to try and address discrepancies.