zlacker

[return to "The Origins of Wokeness"]
1. yapyap+nd1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 18:44:52
>>crbela+(OP)
I think the word “woke” means very different things to some people.

As an example I think people from the American political left to somewhere(?) in the middle see it as what it has been introduced as, that being looking past the status quo and instead looking at your own values, i.e. the morality of homelessness and not having a disdain for them but empathy for them instead.

and then on the other side it feels like the people on the American political right see it as what this website describes it as “ A self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if superior to others.”

I think the divide has originated from taking unlikeable behaviour and labeling that as ‘woke’ (in bad faith of course) and some people have just bonded to that definition so much that they see it as that.

At least that’s what I’ve noticed online over the past few (bonkers) years

◧◩
2. cmdli+0m1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:19:50
>>yapyap+nd1
“Woke”, for the most part, is a boogeyman that the conservative right uses as a summary label for various political movements on the left. Basically nobody on the left talks about “woke” except for perhaps a period of six months back in 2017.

Many political groups do this: they identify some aspect of the opposition, preferably one that is easy to ridicule, and then repeat those accusations ad-nauseum. The complaints about, say, LatinX have far surpassed the number of actual proponents of it, which were a small number of people of the left. However, it still brought up again and again because it forms a useful image of what people are fighting against.

The trouble with this is that a groups idea of the “enemy” typically outlasts and often surpasses the actual enemy that idea is based off of. People on the right will write endless articles and videos about wokeness not because there actually exists a problem with wokeness but to try to gain political and social status with their political group.

◧◩◪
3. haswel+Yr1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:40:14
>>cmdli+0m1
> Basically nobody on the left talks about “woke” except for perhaps a period of six months back in 2017.

Can't really agree. Especially in the wake of the 2024 election, there's been quite a bit of discussion about wokeness on the left.

The trouble is that many people have decided that if you discuss "wokeness" and especially if you have a problem with some element of it, that means you're no longer on "the left".

Personally, I think the issue is mostly about behavior, and not specific ideas. "Let's all make an effort to move culture in a better direction" became "If you don't wholly endorse these specific changes we've decided are necessary, that makes you a bigot, you're not a true progressive, etc.".

When a lot of this was heating up during the pandemic, I encountered two very different kinds of people.

1. Those who generally agreed with efforts to improve the status quo and did what they could to help (started displaying their pronouns, tried to eliminate language that had deeply racist connotations, etc)

2. Those who would actively judge/shame/label you if you weren't 100% up to speed on every hot-button issue and hadn't fully implemented the desired changes

It's that 2nd group that tends to be the target of "anti-woke" sentiment, and that 2nd group tended to be extremely noisy.

> not because there actually exists a problem with wokeness but to try to gain political and social status with their political group

The other issue that I see repeatedly is a group of people insisting that "wokeness" doesn't exist or that there isn't a toxic form of it currently in the culture. I think acknowledging the existence of bad faith actors and "morality police" would do more for advancing the underlying ideas often labeled "woke" than trying to focus on the fakeness of the problem.

Maybe that group is made up of squeaky wheels, but their existence is used to justify the "anti-woke" sentiment that many people push.

For me, this boils down to a tactics issue where people are behaving badly and distracting from real issues - often issues those same people claim to care about.

◧◩◪◨
4. Pittle+oK1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 20:48:37
>>haswel+Yr1
> Can't really agree. Especially in the wake of the 2024 election, there's been quite a bit of discussion about wokeness on the left.

We'd have to figure out what the hell people are referring to first before there's any discussion worth a damn. As best I can tell it just means "any behavior coming from young people I don't like as a cable news viewer". Frankly, I'm at the point where if someone uses the word non-ironically I just write the speaker off as not seriously trying to communicate. Use your words! Describe specific behavior. People are just working themselves into a tizzy trying to figure out something to be mad at while also contorting themselves into knots trying to avoid discussing anything material, concrete, substantial, or tied to reality.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. cle+kO1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:03:06
>>Pittle+oK1
TFA spends the first 7-8 paragraphs defining "woke", even a dedicated callout to a concise definition:

  > An aggressively performative focus on social justice.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Pittle+GS1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:20:08
>>cle+kO1
what does "performative" mean in this context? I honestly can't tell. It would really help if pg provided an example so we could evaluate for ourselves.

Meanwhile, basically all national politics is performative bullshit. Why are we not calling both parties woke?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. cle+yT1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:24:54
>>Pittle+GS1
Well b/c of the "focus on social justice" clause. I'd definitely agree though that both parties are way too "aggressively performative".
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Pittle+VT1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:26:35
>>cle+yT1
Well, I wonder what he thinks non-performative social justice looks like. The civil rights movement was certainly performative (as is all protest) and that's basically the only narrative we were offered growing up for how to affect social change.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. cle+EV1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:33:26
>>Pittle+VT1
> Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.

I also think there's a pretty big difference between keyboard jockeying / speech policing, and putting yourself in physical danger by physically confronting racists who'd lynch you if there weren't cameras around.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. threes+qF2[view] [source] 2025-01-14 02:01:39
>>cle+EV1
So what is the point here.

That woke people should be resorting to physical violence to further their cause.

Doesn't seem productive or healthy for society.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. cle+yR2[view] [source] 2025-01-14 03:40:24
>>threes+qF2
No that's not the point.
[go to top]