zlacker

>>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

>>yapyap+nd1
"Woke" was originally an AAVE term, popular in the midcentury civil rights era and beyond. Literally meaning "awake [to what's happening to you and your community]," as opposed to being ignorant and asleep. Not really a statement about your own behavior so much as an acknowledgement of what other people are doing to you—it just meant you're well-informed.

Perhaps not a coincidence that reactionaries have now co-opted black slang to mean "things minorities do that I don't like."

>>spondy+jf1
Generally the reaction is not to minorities(non-white, is what I am assuming you mean) but to people from outside of a group trying to tell a group what words to use i.e. LatinX.

An aside: If someone who is white is talking to the Spanish speaking community, would they be considered a minority? If so, then the parent premise would hold true.

>>theman+Bg1
Latinx is a great example of the overreaction. Some people use this term. It was briefly catching on among groups with power, but ultimately never did. But it is spoken about like Harris was saying "latinx" in all of her campaign videos and that people are being fired for using "latino" or "latina" or even "latin."

Ultimately, I think it is important that groups are able to try things and then later determine that they weren't the best idea. Shouldn't this be ceelbrated?

>>UncleM+Cq1
It would indeed be nice if these things were introduced as “let’s try a new thing and then choose to accept or reject it later, based on results”, rather than “we have determined there is only one correct way of thinking about this topic, and if you don’t like it, you’re a Nazi”.

>>jl6+1z1
I suppose I would ask where you've seen or heard this sort of ultimatum about Latinx.

>>UncleM+DB1
Isn't it interesting that your response here is questioning and perhaps dismissive?

If a minority were sharing their perspective about whatever their lived experience was with regards to racism, would you respond this way?

I'll answer that: no, you wouldn't.

Which very quickly lifts the curtain. The movement is not about empathy or understanding. It's about empathy and understanding for people you deem worthy of receiving it.

>>dolni+bL1
> If a minority were sharing their perspective about whatever their lived experience was with regards to racism, would you respond this way?

If a small group of people told me they actually experienced flight under only human power, no mechanical assistance. Would it be right to take that claim at face value?

I'll answer that: no, it wouldn't.

If you're going to ignore plausibility entirely, then yeah I suppose all statements deserve equal consideration.

However... If it is the case that some stamens are more plausible than others maybe it's an effective heuristic to be skeptical of implausible claims.

>>btreec+0V3
The number of people making the claim is not small.

You probably just cut all the people out of your life who disagree with you.

That is the liberal way, these days.

Donald Trump, among the worst presidents the US ever had, won the 2024 election. This kind of nonsense was absolutely a factor.