zlacker

> we're flagging pg now?

I assume it's because the term "woke" will almost always derail a thread.

>>bloope+(OP)
well, people who use it to self-identify often use it in terms of being aware, a positive attribution, and I assume people who use it to identify others use it in terms of being judgmental, a negative attribution. So yeah, it's a highly charged term.

>>jimkle+p2
I have never seen anyone in a social network self-identifying as "woke".

I have seen it countless times being thrown as a vague, shapeless accusatory things that can go from people being overboard in their language policing to opposing real, actual fascism.

>>Daishi+0s
Precisely. One commenter above got close to the point but then completely missed it: they suggested that people get into “wokeism” with good intentions, such as wanting to reduce things like sexual harassment. Then, they ponder whether there is a way to reduce sexual harassment without becoming “woke.” They fail to realize that you don’t simply declare yourself “woke.” It is a label others assign to you once you decide you are no longer going to tolerate things like sexual harassment.

>>Daishi+0s
Same with SJWs. Lots of people wore that label until their actions caused it to become negative, at which point everyone who proudly wore it pretended to never have ever heard of it before their ideological enemies started using it. No doubt some new label will replace woke, be worn proudly, get tarnished by the people who wear that label, and once again they'll try fleeing from the associations they created.

>>Mounta+vw
False, people with an axe to grind decided to accuse everything they don't like of being woke or SJW the same way that Americans scream "communism" at everything they don't like.

It's the lowest form of public discourse, spewed by ignoramuses who have nothing of value to contribute to conversations.