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. dnissl+qo1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:28:48
>>cmdli+0m1
If you tried to steelman woke, what would fall under it?
◧◩◪◨
4. rectan+Ps1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:43:07
>>dnissl+qo1
Conscious of the effects of structural racism.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jpadki+Ow1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:57:23
>>rectan+Ps1
if the movement stopped at the level of consciousness, then there wouldn't have been as much backlash. It went way beyond consciousness. You are admonished if you aren't actively anti-racist.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. amanap+kB1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 20:15:51
>>jpadki+Ow1
I guess a person could be pro-racist, neutral on racism, or anti-racist. Is there another category I'm missing?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. zahlma+D53[view] [source] 2025-01-14 05:57:35
>>amanap+kB1
>Is there another category I'm missing?

"Not racist", i.e. what was in the 90s called "colourblind".

If you describe yourself this way nowadays, and hold to and espouse those principles - not taking race into consideration when making decisions; considering people a priori to have equal moral worth regardless of race, etc. - self-identified "anti-racist" people will call you "racist". This has happened to me on many occasions. It is nonsense, of course. But sometimes they have social power. It's functionally what happened when I was banned from the Python Discourse forum, except they went a step further and claimed (utterly groundlessly) that I was accusing them of "reverse racism" (a term which I do not use, and which I view as an invention of self-identified "progressives" to strawman the views of those opposed to them) in taking other moderation actions against me.

[go to top]