What is "Woke"?

[BootmanLA]

On 9/9/2024 at 1:16 AM, nanana said:

You just either made my point BootmanLA: the bigger government gets, the more it tries to legislate morality for others. The smaller it is, the less likely it is to impose conservative views and policies on liberals and vice versa. 

Bull. Small governments can be heavily tilted toward one pole or the other just as readily. And not all legislation is legislating "morality".

On 9/9/2024 at 1:16 AM, nanana said:

To riff off of your point about debt, you may want to go in debt to pay for the leveling of the Gaza Strip but I MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT. Who made someone king over me to take my life’s work and divert it to causes that I think are abominations?

I don't want Gaza leveled either, it might surprise you to know. But that's the thing: in this country, we elect people to make choices for our government, and for good or bad, successive governments on both sides have chosen to support Israel, while only sometimes expressing support for Palestinians. If I were making the decision solely for myself, we might or might not have a very different relationship with Israel. Or with a state of Palestine. If I disagree with the status quo, it's up to me to urge change. But that doesn't mean I get to "opt out" of things simply because I don't like some of the choices my government makes.

On 9/9/2024 at 1:16 AM, nanana said:

There IS NO CONSENSUS on morality so coercive taxation should cover the smallest possible sphere covering areas that engender the greatest support. 

That doesn't follow. There's actually no consensus on ANYTHING - I can guarantee you that I can find people opposed to just about every policy choice in the entirety of government - so we go with a "majority rules" system, with the exception that certain policy choices are invalid because we've written or amended our constitution to say so. If we had to limit things to "the smallest possible sphere" we couldn't get taxes appropriated to pay for declaring when or if we go on Daylight Savings Time.

On 9/9/2024 at 1:16 AM, nanana said:

on that we disagree. Inflation cooks up because Government and its monopolistic, non-capitalistic, financialistic drug-dealer the Federal Reserve invents money from scratch, which is why most Americans don’t understand anything about value or economics and don’t understand the morality of theft. 

I find both Pikety and Reich, and though you didn’t mention him, Paul Krugman, to be very flawed in their philosophical understanding and misguided in their premises and quantifications. Give me Mises and Rothbard and Hayek any day. 

That's ONE thing that can lead to inflation. So can the mere act of jacking up prices when you (or you and your fellow corporations) simply decide you can charge more for something and people will pay it because they have to. Mises and Rothbard and Hayek believed, or pretended to believe, that consumers could temper that by simply refusing to pay inflated prices and finding cheaper alternatives, but that doesn't work any more. No startup can afford to establish, say, a textiles factory in the US to make socks to compete with ones produced for pennies in southeast Asia, and couldn't sell them at a competing price if they could build the factory. And given how the GOP, in particular, has hollowed out our anti-monopoly laws to allow a handful of giant companies to dominate practically every industry, there's not much chance of that changing, either.

[BruxoCub]

Angry racist white people (and there conformist wannabes) engulfing everyone they hate into N****R and F****T with one word.

[topblkmale]

2 hours ago, BruxoCub said:

Angry racist white people (and there conformist wannabes) engulfing everyone they hate into N****R and F****T with one word.

 

Pat, I'd like a G please. 

 

[1Exhibitionist]

woke

adjective

US   /woʊk/ UK   /wəʊk/

aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality: 

She urged young black people to stay woke.

disapproving example: He said that many of these so-called woke individuals never actually engage with the marginalized groups they claim to defend.

More examples:
While you're obsessing over your diet, people are starving in the world. Get woke.

He's so woke, he suggested we go to the Women's March.

You can take a quiz to test how woke you are.

I'm a woke black girl and I'm not gonna let anyone push me around.

(Definition of woke from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus© Cambridge University Press)

[think before following links] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woke#google_vignette

Edited November 8 by 1Exhibitionist
Added Cambridge Dictionary website link

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, 1Exhibitionist said:

woke

adjective

US   /woʊk/ UK   /wəʊk/

....

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woke#google_vignette

Which, of course, tells us nothing about why it's used as an epithet by the right. Unless it does (which would be my contention: that the right is simply opposed to treating people decently).

[Cubbest1987]

Simplest terms; Being "Woke" is to be pernicious about grand narratives/media/conceptual ideology/etc supplied to you.  It's being able to critically analyze information provided to understand where that information is coming from, the realities of how the information was obtained, scripted, presented and disseminated while actively being able to recontextualize it with this prospective to both see, understand and actively correct or engage it to dismantle the falsehoods inherent in them while putting forth a corrected, holistic view of the thing being spoken about/presented.

[Cubbest1987]

14 minutes ago, Cubbest1987 said:

Simplest terms; Being "Woke" is to be pernicious about grand narratives/media/conceptual ideology/etc supplied to you.  It's being able to critically analyze information provided to understand where that information is coming from, the realities of how the information was obtained, scripted, presented and disseminated while actively being able to recontextualize it with this prospective to both see, understand and actively correct or engage it to dismantle the falsehoods inherent in them while putting forth a corrected, holistic view of the thing being spoken about/presented.

To move further....

Used as an insult by the right it's just any social movement they don't like or any one that calls them on their paper thin vaneer and coat of white wash.  The right enjoys appropriating leftist terminology as we have seen since time immemorial as a way to undercut/undermine their movement.  They also enjoy easily digestable phrases and slogans, where these 2 meet is their use of Loaded Words which are meant to have multiple meanings.  To the uninformed/undecided it takes a concept they know of but don't engage with or understand and makes it a bad thing, to the initiated, it's a wink wink nudge nudge to a more sinister undercurrent being communicated.

 

When used as an insult by the left (Anarchists/LibSocs/AnComm/etc) it is meant to be a jab at someone being performative in their beliefs without grasping real concepts or contexts of the things they are espousing thus coming off childish and ignorant.

Edited Saturday at 12:35 AM by Cubbest1987

[nanana]

With all due respect to the left, which clearly demonstrated its lack of touch with the win-strategy and its inability to channel the majority voters this cycle,  it’s much more than “just any social movement they [the right] don’t like…” the reason the right doesn’t like woke is usually 1) collectively blaming groups of people for cultural or other phenomena that preceded their lifespans, e.g., something that happened more than 100 years ago; 2) failing to see the consequences to other people’s lives of immediately stopping something perceived as a social ill, e.g., driving a gas’s-powered car; 3) shifting burdens to the public coffer; 4) misattributing an action to bigotry, hatred, or some other self-absorbed interpretation rather than to natural differences among individuals; 5) collective punishment; 6) race-based assumptions about how various groups SHOULD think. Woke failed big-time this year. I hope people who don’t understand the negative aspects of woke can evolve and appreciate how un-winning a strategy it is to blame everyone else. From what I’m seeing from most Democrats post-election, they don’t seem to be generating winning insights. “The country is more fascist than we thought.” These kinds of insights are likely to keep them on  the losing path for quite awhile and alienating them from all the people they spend their time making wrong.  I would hardly count anything the left does in the way of accusations as treating people decently. But by all means keep preaching to the choir and failing to see the good qualities of people, which exist in abundance once you become less interested in labeling people and more interested in getting to know them. 

Edited Saturday at 07:25 AM by nanana
Forgot to make a point

[viking8x6]

8 hours ago, nanana said:

1) collectively blaming groups of people for cultural or other phenomena that preceded their lifespans, e.g., something that happened more than 100 years ago; 2) failing to see the consequences to other people’s lives of immediately stopping something perceived as a social ill, e.g., driving a gas’s-powered car; 3) shifting burdens to the public coffer; 4) misattributing an action to bigotry, hatred, or some other self-absorbed interpretation rather than to natural differences among individuals; 5) collective punishment; 6) race-based assumptions about how various groups SHOULD think

 Thanks for this, @nanana. It's the best explanation I've heard yet of how something that one group of people sees as "common decency and respect" comes out as something radically negative when viewed by another group. 👏

[BootmanLA]

On 11/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, nanana said:

1) collectively blaming groups of people for cultural or other phenomena that preceded their lifespans, e.g., something that happened more than 100 years ago

That probably does happen, on occasion. But it's really about pointing out that 350 years of oppression - and the cumulative effects of that oppression in terms of things like generational wealth and advancement - are real things, and a bunch of snowflakes on the right thinking "he's blaming me for that". It's reached the point where one can't honestly point out that these problems existed for centuries and they're still having effects today without those fucking snowflakes screaming that you can't blame THEM for this and how DARE you think I should have to give up ANYTHING to make up for the way things are even if part of the reason those snowflakes aren't in the same boat is their ancestors benefitted from that oppression.

On 11/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, nanana said:

2) failing to see the consequences to other people’s lives of immediately stopping something perceived as a social ill, e.g., driving a gas’s-powered car; 

Nobody I know is calling for "immediately" stopping anything of the sort. Again, that's the snowflake rightwing exaggerating a position in order to attack it. Google "strawman fallacy". All the left has to do is hint that maybe, just maybe, X or Y or Z is something we should work on reducing or phasing out, and the right immediately accuses the left of wanting to rip X or Y or Z out of their hands immediately, forever, and with no compensation whatsoever.

On 11/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, nanana said:

3) shifting burdens to the public coffer; 

Some burdens are rightfully the burden of the commons. The problem is that the right only wants the bare minimum of burden on themselves (ie through public levies) because they're perfectly comfortable ignoring people starving to death, freezing to death, dying of preventable diseases in the streets, etc. and don't want to have to pay a dime towards something that doesn't directly put at least 15 cents back into their own pockets.

On 11/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, nanana said:

4) misattributing an action to bigotry, hatred, or some other self-absorbed interpretation rather than to natural differences among individuals; 

Most bigotry IS about "natural differences among individuals". The classic example is same-sex marriage: not one straight person has to give up a single fucking thing if straight people get married. Not ONE thing. And yet they opposed it, in big numbers, for decades. That wasn't because of individualized dislike of particular individuals. It was plain old bigotry. Pretending otherwise is ignorant.

On 11/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, nanana said:

5) collective punishment;

Again, the right thinks anything designed to ameliorate bad things that happened already is "punishment" for people today. They think all taxes are punishment. They think having to obey laws is punishment. It's a self-centered attitude that is hysterically hypocritical because those same people drive on publicly-financed streets and sue people in publicly-financed courts and use publicly-financed governmental agencies to vindicate what they see as their due. 

[Cubbest1987]

On 11/9/2024 at 2:20 AM, nanana said:

With all due respect to the left, which clearly demonstrated its lack of touch with the win-strategy and its inability to channel the majority voters this cycle,  it’s much more than “just any social movement they [the right] don’t like…” the reason the right doesn’t like woke is usually 1) collectively blaming groups of people for cultural or other phenomena that preceded their lifespans, e.g., something that happened more than 100 years ago; 2) failing to see the consequences to other people’s lives of immediately stopping something perceived as a social ill, e.g., driving a gas’s-powered car; 3) shifting burdens to the public coffer; 4) misattributing an action to bigotry, hatred, or some other self-absorbed interpretation rather than to natural differences among individuals; 5) collective punishment; 6) race-based assumptions about how various groups SHOULD think. Woke failed big-time this year. I hope people who don’t understand the negative aspects of woke can evolve and appreciate how un-winning a strategy it is to blame everyone else. From what I’m seeing from most Democrats post-election, they don’t seem to be generating winning insights. “The country is more fascist than we thought.” These kinds of insights are likely to keep them on  the losing path for quite awhile and alienating them from all the people they spend their time making wrong.  I would hardly count anything the left does in the way of accusations as treating people decently. But by all means keep preaching to the choir and failing to see the good qualities of people, which exist in abundance once you become less interested in labeling people and more interested in getting to know them. 

Had you not seen where I explained how it is a script flip?  There are 2 comments, one a generalistic view, then, a separated definition. 

 

 

With all due respect, I'd like to see who you are pointing to as the left in American politics, I'd love to see a single one.  Maybe you mean the center right, liberals, who, from our entirely shifted overtone window may appear as far left, but many things appear for left when you are hurtling towards and modern take on feudalism with ethno-fascist undertones.

 

 

  The right very much does tokenize the word woke, both the Republicans, Democrats, and anyone else currently holding a position of power in this country. We have not had a true leftist movement in America since anarchist gave us the weekend. There's never been a concerted leftist front because America has been so good at crushing it with a brutal speed that only capitalism could bring.  So I stand by my statement to be woke is to be pernicious about what you are consuming, what you are being told, where it is coming from and how it is presented to you.  It us being able to see beyond that frontal layer and recontextualize it based off of actual lived experiences of those it is being communicated on behalf of and towards as well as about.   About not taking what millionaires have been fed by billionaires and put in front of you in a quick succinct 30 second clip as the end I'll be all.

 

And I stand behind the fact that when a right wing group uses it (as I said before this would be any of our politicians currently in office or running for office) it is a word is used with loaded meaning to intentionally wink and nudge and undercurrent to the base and to try to parlay with those somehow undecided but also ignorant of social context/experience outside of themselves.

 

And if you think that there is a true leftist movement within the United States that has any position in power, point it out please.

 

I would love to see the libertarian socialist party, I would love to see a true workers movement that wasn't, literally, murdered by the States "running dogs".  I would like to see a single politician who has read The Conquest of Bread, or even knows what that book is, or who Peter Kropotkin is.   Maybe, just maybe, a single politician who could acknowledge the 25 times we overthrew democratically elected officials in Guatemala, or maybe installing Pinochet, or maybe what we did to Nicaragua, or I don't know any other things we touch as a country to make sure that can be no left movement that survives the ever marching death cult for capitalism in America.

 

I'd like to see a single movement that was not bastardized by the United States right appropriating leftist terminology (I'm looking at you Libertarians and Milton Friedman lovers).  Let's not forget the founder of libertarian thought, Proudhorn, was a leftist.  Let's not forget what he had  famously said "I dream of a world where I would be executed as a reactionary".  And I don't think you could align that sort of mentality with anything the American political spectrum.  The American political machinery would sure as hell find a way to appropriate it and undermine it, sound bite it, not recontextualize it but reconstruct it in whatever image it wants at that time. It's the quickest way to cut a movement down without direct violence (America's option number two; also America's option number one depending on how it polls public).

[ktopper]

On 11/10/2024 at 4:39 PM, BootmanLA said:

 ...snowflakes on the right ...

Wait, I thought the snowflakes were on the left? That's what Tim Pool told me. Now I'm confused.

[PaganzofLA]

woke = enlightenment 

 say what you will taken at its most rudimentary that is the core definition, the issue of contention of course is the post-woke problem.

[Erik62]

On 9/12/2024 at 9:42 AM, BruxoCub said:

Angry racist white people (and there conformist wannabes) engulfing everyone they hate into N****R and F****T with one word.

That is MOST CERTAINLY NOT an accurate definition of WOKE as understood in such countries as Australia, New Zealand, UK, Asia & the EU. 

[Erik62]

On 11/8/2024 at 9:33 PM, 1Exhibitionist said:

woke

adjective

US   /woʊk/ UK   /wəʊk/

aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality: 

She urged young black people to stay woke.

disapproving example: He said that many of these so-called woke individuals never actually engage with the marginalized groups they claim to defend.

More examples:
While you're obsessing over your diet, people are starving in the world. Get woke.

He's so woke, he suggested we go to the Women's March.

You can take a quiz to test how woke you are.

I'm a woke black girl and I'm not gonna let anyone push me around.

(Definition of woke from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus© Cambridge University Press)

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woke#google_vignette

This would be be a very base, rudimentary definition but it FAILS to explain fully how the term has developed & run wild in its complete hijacking & expansion of the early term of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS".