What is "Woke"?

[nanana]

I wouldn’t say I’m conservative but definitely less liberal than I used to be. The aspects of the current version of woke that don’t appeal to me are the unfocused victimhood of it. I’d distinguish that from focused victimhood. If an actual person hits me for example, I’m actually a victim of that persons violence. If there’s merely a premise that I look like someone or are otherwise part of a class of people that might have victimized someone or a distant relative, then that drifts toward collective punishment and creates a toxic culture that encourages people to assume the worst in each other. It gets tiresome to talk about all the things you can’t control, and there’s something insidious about this creeping prejudice. I think It is great to “fight” for justice but even better to lift everyone up to discover their own power to create their own heaven. I often find the current version of woke to be more about taking something from another class of people rather than a mentality of abundance. HOWEVER, like everything else, this version of woke is probably at least partially a parody of how liberals actually think and emphasizes the worst and most objectionable qualities of their intentions like most issues that get hollowed out by incessant partisanship. Still, I have been around enough liberals who just launch into tirades about people for whom they have no genuine curiosity that “woke” has become a mostly unpleasant exercise in stereotyping and having thought be shut down and narrowed. I look forward to a day in which individuals are more valued and listening and exchanging unique original thought without triggers is more cultivated. 

[nanana]

29 minutes ago, nanana said:

Still, I have been around enough liberals who just launch into tirades about people for whom they have no genuine curiosity that “woke” has become a mostly unpleasant exercise in stereotyping and having thought be shut down and narrowed.

To be clear, it is the inability to hear without being triggered that comes across as mental illness, NOT the lovely woke idea that all of Gods children are miracles. 

[viking8x6]

2 hours ago, nanana said:

If there’s merely a premise that I look like someone or are otherwise part of a class of people that might have victimized someone or a distant relative, then that drifts toward collective punishment and creates a toxic culture that encourages people to assume the worst in each other.

I agree with this. Rhetoric or policies that wander into this territory are a form of liberal extremism that causes more problems than it counters, no matter if the intent is to benefit.

Quote

I often find the current version of woke to be more about taking something from another class of people rather than a mentality of abundance.

Disagree here, unless we're talking about "taking something" from a class of people who got that something by systematic exploitation of another class of people (aka taxing the plutocrats). It's well and good to operate from a mentality of abundance, but when that abundance is arrogated by a few people to the detriment of others, it seem legitimate to me to advocate some kind of corrective action.

[KERVORKIANjack]

11 hours ago, NEDenver said:

That’s not happening.  You’re being triggered by someone’s bad fanfic.

"Triggered" isn't that word offensive to victims of gun crime?

(as well as anyone with an IQ above Antarctic temperatures)

[nanana]

12 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

It's well and good to operate from a mentality of abundance, but when that abundance is arrogated by a few people to the detriment of others, it seem legitimate to me to advocate some kind of corrective action.

Hi Viking8x6,

I don’t take issue with your point about injustice and  whether “taking” is justified. My point was that a mentality of abundance doesn’t come from wealth, but instead creates wealth. It comes from an ability to value what others do not value. “Taking” may be “justified” but doesn’t add to the wealth of the planet, just moves it around. I distrust the motivation to fight over a limited resource and trust a motivation to conceive of new value and expand the pie.  Poor leaders just redistribute. Great leaders show people their own power to self-generate. I think NEDenver’s point about whether the word “triggered” is offensive is a perfect illustration of the differing starting points of the current evolution of woke versus non-woke. A woke take on the world would start with whether a statement was “offensive” or not. A non-woke take would start with whether a word was a good expression of an empirical experience. Since I have witnessed people being triggered, including myself, I see a value in capturing and expressing the truth. For me, this is another challenge I have with the woke mindset. It starts with the premise that other people should think your fantasies  are more important than their truth.  I’m willing to coexist with your fantasies, but I’m not willing to have my truth obliterated.  The seeming desire to obliterate empirical experience makes me think that a woke approach   will insulate me from the reality and diversity of thought required to hone  the quality of argumentation beyond ad hominem snark, which thickens this thread.  I’m sure the guys chiming in here are great guys who wouldn’t need to tear down others to come into their own glory, the kinds who would even deign to help anyone with a subarctic IQ find their greatness 🙂.  

[topblkmale]

 

[tallslenderguy]

On 2/12/2024 at 8:13 AM, viking8x6 said:

Hey guys, I'm hearing a lot from people who are pro-"woke". That's not so much what I'm interested in with this topic. Why? Because what I want to know is what's objectionable about "woke" (to the people who consider it so). That's something that cannot be heard inside the liberal "echo chamber".

So y'all conservative guys, I ask you again - what does "woke" mean to you, and why is it something you reject?

Just now seeing this thread, so a bit late to the convo.  i'm not MAGA, but was in the conservative camp for a big part of my life, so i think i can give perspective?

One of the biggest objections i think that group has to "woke" is they associate it with stuff they deem wrong and/or immoral.  In their context, it's irrational, but also emotionally charged.  Since this is a gay site, "gay" can serve as an example.  

There is still an element of society that truly thinks/believes  that there really is no such thing as being gay. They think it's a sickness or "sin" and many equate being gay to addiction or alcoholism resulting from 'bad' choices and/or bad upbringing. They consider those who are "woke" to be deceived or deluded, at best. Or worse, they think gays are purposely choosing to be evil by simply being who and how they are.  

In a way, i think they consider themselves to be "woke" and and everyone else is asleep. They object to the notion that others with an opposing perspective would even question them.  i think a big anti woke element has religious factors. Going back to being gay, many believe that it's "God" who says being gay is wrong. There's a detachment that happens when a person attributes a believe to an all knowing being who's supposedly in charge and cannot be wrong.  These people do not consider their views to be be views or beliefs, but take a position that their beliefs are knowledge: "truth."  

"Woke"  often means seeing and accepting something or someone who violates their notion of "Truth." 

[hntnhole]

Like tallslenderguy, I completely missed this interesting thread.  

First though, THANKS, topblkmale, for sharing that most interesting link.  It's well worth listening to any number of times.  

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

One of the biggest objections i think that group has to "woke" is they associate it with stuff they deem wrong and/or immoral

Agreed.  It's not my Principal objection, but it arises out of that same mindset.  When great leaders/teachers emerge, throughout history, their original message is often coopted to serve later assumptions by those who have been fooled into believing that they're "special" to some Deity or another - which therefore assumes that folks who don't believe the same way are somehow less deserving.  That belief - often reinforced over centuries - that the "beloved" of the Deity are therefore "better" than non-believers (in that particular belief-system), which gives license to undervalue their fellow citizens, their peers.  That result becomes the antithesis of the original belief-system, and the believers cannot grasp that truth.

When any belief-system throughout history becomes an "us vs them" ideology, it's value is diminished exponentially, which is where we find ourselves currently with the "Christians" vs the rest of society.  

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

In a way, i think they consider themselves to be "woke" and and everyone else is asleep

That couldn't be more obvious.  How else could a substantial number of presumably intelligent people be so fooled into following a clearly depraved individual, emotionally crippled and devoid of a scintilla of being "awakened" to anything but himself, his own selfish interests - the very antithesis of what they proclaim to anyone who will listen?  

I think the term "woke-ism" was coined to counter the presumptive superiority of the "Christians".  If an "awakening" in a substantial number of free-thinking citizens can occur, then those who have closed their minds to the world around them, choosing instead to depend on ancient, magic-based belief system, I believe they'll be left behind (and yes, I meant it in that sense).

[PozBearWI]

@topblkmale  Thank you for exposing me to something interesting to watch.  Not to disparage porn.  But THIS engaged my brain (as does some of our conversations here - I rather like the bit of a brain jolt.).  

Otherwise here we might have beat this topic to death perhaps.  Glad for the topic - and in particular enhancing my understanding.  

 

[PozBearWI]

@hntnhole   Doc Jones added some dimension to my understanding of the evolution.  I often falling into the "is it in the dictionary" camp.  My childhood drilled that into my developing brain cell.  

This does add a layer of complexity - our propensity to evolve words as we try to express ourselves.  And it has taken time since then to evolve myself.  -- and yet -- now I am retired, and my presence in the workplace (and the dialogue which evolved there) has become somewhat an exit ramp to language currency.  It evolves in my town differently; and local dialects still do exist.  

Think I might be wrong on that?  Come on by and we'll fry out.   🙂 

 

[hntnhole]

LOL ..... one of these days, right?

[tallslenderguy]

On 8/25/2024 at 10:55 AM, topblkmale said:

 

This part: "...and words mean what people use them to mean" (5:36)  That to me underlines the importance of listening and asking the word(s) user what they mean vs running away with our own idea of a word or label. 

and as i wrote that, appreciating Viking for asking. 

[topblkmale]

2 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

@topblkmale  Thank you for exposing me to something interesting to watch.  Not to disparage porn.  But THIS engaged my brain (as does some of our conversations here - I rather like the bit of a brain jolt.).  

Otherwise here we might have beat this topic to death perhaps.  Glad for the topic - and in particular enhancing my understanding.  

 

 

@PozBearWI The same YouTuber did a good video on pronouns worth watching.

 

[stillbreedin]

a stupid right wing word to criticize just about any progressive idea/action

[SomewhereonNeptune]

46 minutes ago, stillbreedin said:

a stupid right wing word to criticize just about any progressive idea/action

I suppose the issue I see with "wokeness" is 'who decides what is or is not woke'? I suspect that it's born out of some vestige of virtue-signaling to say "this is the vogue view to which to subscribe for this moment" and anyone who doesn't is singled out for attack or made an example of in a rather "Brownshirt" manner.  Sure, life and society is a series of progressions and steps toward a destination, and rarely is it a straight path. You'll have course corrections throughout that journey -- you've veered too far left, now you've gone too far right -- that should eventually lead to a consensus of centrism.

Think of it as a pendulum. One end is controlled by a fulcrum that doesn't move all that much but viewing the other end can create a perception that things have veered way off course. Eventually, that fulcrum and pendulum will come to rest somewhere in the center alignment.

Notice the number of companies in the current economy that have backtracked from the notion of DEI being a first consideration for all hires. I think we can agree that we want diversity and inclusion in society as well as the workplace. I'll ask the irreverent question of whether going all out on DEI was a bridge too far for too many people. Someone I know is currently working for a company that is highly focused on DEI, and as a result they went all in on promoting it and made DEI hires that have been unsuccessful. Her manager constantly bludgeons her people with DEI-speak, and meanwhile the place is literally a sweatshop where employees are overworked, micromanaged, and shown how expendable they are by arbitrarily being terminated. DEI might be a wonderful thing, but without qualifications, training, support, and helping maintain a productive workforce who isn't overworked and burnt-out, the notion of DEI gets painted with the brush of the few who might have benefitted from it at the cost of a productive and well-run organization. (My friend has already given her notice to go elsewhere, she couldn't stand it). 

I'm all for inclusion. When I managed folks, I made sure that my employees were diverse but qualified and had opportunities to be successful. Maybe I'm just old but I think a lot of that is missing in the current climate. Or maybe I'm marching to my own drum and trying to do the "right thing" by people. Which strikes me as being fair, equitable and inclusive. And often diverse.