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. monkey+kU1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 21:28:31
>>haswel+Yr1
I see the problem you identify with people's behaviour and agree with the noisiness of people you refer to as group two - people who aren’t thinking deeply about what they are saying have a lot of freedom to shoot their mouth off. To be very clear, I see your comment as a sincere attempt to articulate and respond to a problem, most discussion of woke isn’t. While I do want to offer just one olive branch to people upset about woke, that yes - annoying people really are annoying, self-righteous twits truly are unbearable - but when I see someone frothing at the mouth because someone spoke about selfishness, hypocrisy or cruelty in way they didn’t like, I’m generally left with the impression that there is no way to confront those topics in a way that would satisfy them. There are idiots everywhere – even the smartest of us are part-time idiots, stupidity is just the background noise we have to talk over, rabbiting on about woke usually seems to part strategic tantrum to avoid real discussion and part real tantrum.

I think I’m looking for a way to distil the ideas you’ve expressed into a response I can use when someone complains about woke : `that sounds quite annoying, but let’s discuss the idea not the idiot`

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. bluefi+m92[view] [source] 2025-01-13 22:46:47
>>monkey+kU1
> when I see someone frothing at the mouth because someone spoke about selfishness, hypocrisy or cruelty in way they didn’t like, I’m generally left with the impression that there is no way to confront those topics in a way that would satisfy them

I think you may be right here, but I think it's also worth looking into just why this causes people to go into a mouth frothing rage.

What I see is that a lot of "woke" starts with the assumption that the audience is bad, then tries to work backwards to prove it

Of course discussions about selfishness, hypocrisy and cruelty are going to infuriate people when you start from the assumption that the people you are talking to are the ones who are selfish cruel hypocrites

Next time you see someone make a comment about "straight cis white men" (or any demographic, but this one comes up a lot), replace it with "selfish cruel hypocrites", that probably would give you a good idea why that demographic reacts poorly to the message

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. worthl+RN2[view] [source] 2025-01-14 03:12:10
>>bluefi+m92
Now imagine that is what you mostly hear "straight cis white men" are "selfish cruel hypocrites" over and over again.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ZeroGr+Qq3[view] [source] 2025-01-14 09:48:47
>>worthl+RN2
Where are you hearing this over and over again?

Are you seeking this out or consuming algorithmic media that sends it to you to make you mad and get you hooked?

I'm in that demographic and do not recognize this at all. From my perspective this sounds paranoid bordering on mental illness.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. tekkni+Rg5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 19:33:54
>>ZeroGr+Qq3
Notice how you tried to force your opinion by insinuating that the person feeling this way is mentally ill? A large chunk of the comments in this thread are saying that’s part of the problem.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. worthl+Z2j[view] [source] 2025-01-19 09:42:02
>>tekkni+Rg5
This tactic is so common that its no longer effective. It is water off a ducks back.

I think that a lot of people see their own flaws in others, they assume that everyone else has the same perspective or is damaged.

There is little point to putting thought into a responses because of how twisted their view is.

Others can try, I work on more productive things.

[go to top]