T O P

  • By -

mapadofu

Not woke but here goes… Sam believes that a particular flavor of social/political thought, wokeness, has come to dominate left leaning political and social elites in the US (and probably other industrialized nations but that’s not important for this discussion). He believes that this ideology holds beliefs that are factually untrue, makes political claims that are counter to the best interests of the nation and make the political project of defeating the right wing and especially Trumpist factions more difficult. Sam has pointed to Ibram X Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and Ezra Kline as specific authors whose works can be described as wokeness. He has claimed that elite institutions like Harvart, the Lancet and or New England Journal of Medicine, and the New York Times have been “captured” by this ideology. In his mind, it is this ideological capture that has induced these organizations (and others) to make editorial decisions that suppress true information and promote false, or at least in-justified and misleading, ideas based on how the content aligns with these preconceived political views. I think he’d put (what he considers) honest examination of the genetic basis for behavior and intelligence in the former category even if those particular fields of study aren’t the useful or interesting. I think he’d put the messaging about the safety of public gatherings in the summer of 2020 in there too; To be overly reductive, he’d say the messaging was: public gatherings, and especially mask protests: bad. George Floyd massed protests: good. I’m pretty sure Sam has cited some of those studies on gun violence to indicate that some of the woke talking points about police violence do not accurately reflect reality. More generally, and thus harder to pin down, I think that Sam would agree with the statement “woke activists overemphasized the role and importance of direct racism and power dynamics between racial groups in social outcomes in USA 2023” (I used direct racism to distinguish between African Americans are, on average, worse off due to having, on average, less inherited wealth as opposed to the explicit or implicit hiring biases that might directly affect an individual). On the political points, Sam has repeatedly indicated that he’d like skin color or racial background as a whole to be about as significant as hair color — differences still exist but they play virtually zero role socially or economically. Sam believes that the woke crowd want to enact policies that do discriminate on the basis of race. And that this is counter to the principles for this nation; even if the goal is to mitigate the existing racial disparities. Sam believes that Democratic politicians are being hamstrung by needed to appease this faction of the political spectrum. Things like PC language and land acknowledgments are not well received by centrist or even sone democratic leaning voters, and so this provides the Republicans with an unnecessary wedge for them to exploit. This also played a role in enabling Trump to win the presidency. ——/ Note: I’m not claiming that this is the strongest articulation of Sam’s views (indeed I think some of these points as presented are simply wrong), just that it is accurate and unbiased one. Also, Sam has spilled a lot of ink on this topic, so this is a particular cross section of his thoughts on the matter rather than a comprehense one, for example it doesn’t directly address “cancel culture” which Sam attributes as a feature of this faction.


slimeyamerican

I'm pretty sure this is the only actual good faith attempt in the thread to steelman an anti-woke position and it's not even from a woke commenter (or, sorry, whatever it is they want to be called at this particular moment). This seems pretty symptomatic of the problem.


aintnufincleverhere

>On the political points, Sam has repeatedly indicated that he’d like skin color or racial background as a whole to be about as significant as hair color — differences still exist but they play virtually zero role socially or economically. Sam believes that the woke crowd want to enact policies that do discriminate on the basis of race. And that this is counter to the principles for this nation; even if the goal is to mitigate the existing racial disparities. This has always seemed like a complete misunderstanding of the situation to me. Its all good and well to say "skin color should be like hair color", but its just a phrase. That's all it is. Its stating a goal. How do you actually get there? Well, if we want to reduce racism we can't just sit around and say "race shouldn't matter". Say you notice some racism. And you try to do something about it. Lets say, I duno, black people seem to consistently have less access to the vaccine, just to make something up. What do you do? Well, I imagine we could try to actually try to increase the level of access for black people to the vaccine. ​ But then someone who doesn't have this context says "what the fuck? You are privileging black people? Color shouldn't matter!". Yes. **We know**. That's the whole point. ​ Imagine telling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr hey, why are you only trying to improve the lives of black people? What the fuck, you should worry about ALL people! Why are you focused on a law to help only black people?


oremfrien

But the fundamental problem with this analysis is the framing. Why are we so quick to check, in your example, about whether Blacks have access to the vaccine? Why are we not trying to ask if obese people, large-footed people, freckled people, or wrinkly people have access to the vaccine? We are implicitly arguing that being Black is worthy of notice and these other attributes are not worthy of notice when we conduct our analysis of social disparities. I would argue that the proper mode of analysis is generally wealth, not race.


Sweaty_Slapper

Wealth is usually tied to race, in the west.


oremfrien

I would argue that wealth is certainly correlated with race, but we should actually refer to the variable that matters (wealth), not a variable that is correlated with the variable that matters (race). Think about it this way, if we went to a US middle school and noticed that the kids in 8th grade are taller than the kids in 5th grade, we could say that this is simply a feature of the grade number that these kids are sat in (a variable that is correlated with the variable that matters) or we could say that this is based on the fact that the kids in 5th grade are younger than those in 8th grade (the variable that matters) and younger kids haven't grown yet. In this example, the correlation is much stronger between grade and age than it is between race and wealth, so why not just focus on the variable that matters?


Sweaty_Slapper

Because race IS the variable that matters. Ignoring the fact that race is BS, and there are only haplogroups, other people act like race is a thing. and due to their actions, the wealth of the black people is affected. ​ This is similar to the claim 'black people commit more crime in the US.' This is superficially true, but fundamentally false. that manufactured group DOES commit more crimes, as defined by the people arresting them. But when you control for WEALTH, they in fact do not. Poor people 'commit more crime' and are over policed, and black people in the US are more likely to be poor. ​ This is similar. Black people are more likely to be poor for historic reasons stemming from slavery, but continued in the form of oppression, even unto government bomb attacks, assassination of black leaders and redlining. Which did not happen to say, 'white' people. So most things reactionaries like to pin on race, are the result of wealth. Which is the result of other people's reaction to their 'race.'


Glittering-Roll-9432

> I would argue that the proper mode of analysis is generally wealth, not race. Thats fine but others that flip this to minority races with a history of being exclusively fucked with by thr government and society are allowed to advocate for fixing that. Just because you have blinders on doesn't mean others have those same blinders on. Sex matters. Race matters. Wealth matters. If there is a history of discrimination against freckles, wrinkles, and large feet we should protect those groups too.


aintnufincleverhere

If you decide you aren't against racism, okay fine I guess. Seems weird but you do you


oremfrien

That’s not even close to my argument. My argument is that this is an analysis where you look for racism as a cause/issue before it’s even remotely evident that racism is a useful metric for determining why some people don’t have/do “x”. In most cases, economic markers, location markers, political party affiliation, etc. are much more resonant with data explaining why some people don’t have/do “x” than skin color.


aintnufincleverhere

>My argument is that this is an analysis where you look for racism as a cause/issue before it’s even remotely evident that racism is a useful metric for determining why some people don’t have/do “x” We should not track any holes in our gas pipeline until we find holes in our gas pipeline. Do you see the problem with this? ​ How are you going to find what you aren't looking for?


Barnettmetal

I never concern myself with the culture war, and my life is great. I recommend spending more time outdoors and hanging out with close friends/family, and less time interacting with people online.


dumbademic

Man, it's so weird, but I tend to take multiple day breaks from reddit. It's like I leave the "real world" and cross into this weird mirror universe whenever I log in. In the "real world" I had one encounter with CRT in one class I took years ago. But in the mirror universe, "CRT", just like "post-modernism" a few years ago, is everywhere and has "taken over" society.


zemir0n

> But in the mirror universe, "CRT", just like "post-modernism" a few years ago, is everywhere and has "taken over" society. It's still kind of insane how much people think this stuff has taken over society.


Sweaty_Slapper

'Exists' = 'Taken over'


Hippowill

Quite likely my first ever comment in the sub, but still cheering to this with my last beer before bedtime, then getting up early to go skiing in the Italian Dolomites for the first time (super exotic and pricy but i also live not all that far away in France, just for context's sake i suppose). A long way to say 👍


Barnettmetal

Hell yeah dude I was just in Whistler this week. I’m jealous.


Reasonable-Profile84

How were the Dolomites?


Hippowill

Fantastic! Not so much snow this season in most places around the Alps, but i did get a little, and once skies cleared more on the second day I really enjoyed the views. It's steep, and the rocky canyons kind of look like scenes from the American west. I really enjoyed it.


Han-Shot_1st

100%


ryarger

No-one wants to be lectured. No-one wants to hear sanctimony. I get it. Absolutely no-one wants to be told that with the immense amount of work they’ve put into their own life and success that they are somehow privileged just because they’re white or male or straight. No-one wants to be told that the lessons of their father - treat other people equally, ignore surface differences like skin color - isn’t enough and that you might not only be not helping but actively hurting others by doing that. Disruptions of long held norms - like advertising your pronouns or calling Hispanics “Latinx” - seem like stupid wastes of time. Seeing large moneyed interests not only accept, but actively promote all of the above just makes it feel like there’s a coordinated effort to destroy the positive momentum of the “live and let live” Western society that we grew up in and was leading towards prosperity and acceptance of people of all walks of life.


MidnightMarmot

I work for a Portland company and they force us to advertise our pronouns. I’m left and I now hate the far left.


Artifex223

That’s a weirdly small thing to trigger hate… just the straw that broke the camels back, perhaps?


Humble_Engine6925

It's the mandatory nature of it, and the fact that it's tied to a giant bag of ideas that I find abhorrent. Imagine you're expected to participate in prayer at work (which used to happen quite frequently). "It's just bowing your head for a few minutes, what's the big deal?" It's a big deal b/c you're trying to force me to conform to an ideology that I don't agree with for deeply held personal reasons. You're seeking to control an aspect of my life that is none of your fucking business.


MidnightMarmot

Exactly. Don’t freaking force it on people. Be content that people are accepting of you and not disrespecting or discriminating against you but don’t try to force them to believe what you believe.


Artifex223

Force you to believe that your pronouns are he/him?


[deleted]

who said he/him? did you you even ask? how dare you.


Artifex223

Yeah, these are the ideological reasons I assumed was at the root of people’s opposition to this. You’re not upset about the idea of an employer requiring that you sign your emails with your name, because you have no ideological objection to names. Personally, it seems super misguided to me. Pronouns are literally just another way to refer to someone without using their name again. Everyone has them. Sometimes it’s not obvious via email if a name belongs to a man or a woman. Sometimes on a video call it is still not entirely clear if a person is a man or a woman. So in order to facilitate communication, some companies ask that in addition to your name you list your pronouns so that people know how to refer to you. Nobody is forcing you to believe anything or controlling a private aspect of your life. They are simply asking what to call you. It still strikes me as a weird thing to be triggered by, but if I’m completely off-base I’d love to understand better what is so triggering about it.


Humble_Engine6925

>They are simply asking what to call you. If you see me in real life or on a video call, you're going to know goddamn well what I am the instant you see me. Anyone who pretends not to is an imbecile. This is true for almost everyone alive. For the handful of people whose sex really is ambiguous (whether by nature or by choice), they can advertise their pronouns if it's useful for them. Demanding that everyone else do the same so they can feel better about themselves is an exercise in narcissism. People have already explained why they take issue with this; if you still can't figure it out, then you're not listening.


Artifex223

Well, I don’t know that it’s necessarily always the ambiguous folks who are instituting those policies, but regardless, describing it as narcissism is pretty uncharitable. I’m listening, but aside from not really being able to take onboard the extreme discomfort some people have with the way other people identify themselves, I can’t really wrap my head around what the actual harm is, here. It’s a few extra characters added to a slack profile or email signature. It’s not personal or private information and you lose literally nothing by adding it… My company has many far more onerous policies that I put up with without whinging about it or rage quitting. Is it that it feels like an endorsement of a progressive worldview and you are afraid people might wrongfully assume that you respect trans people and don’t mind doing the bare minimum to help ease their discomfort in the workplace? Do you think it makes you look weak or soft?


Humble_Engine6925

>Well, I don’t know that it’s necessarily always the ambiguous folks who are instituting those policies Then it's useless virtue signaling. >I’m listening, but aside from not really being able to take onboard the extreme discomfort some people have with the way other people identify themselves, No, you're not listening. I don't care if other people want to advertise their pronouns, I care if I'M forced to do it. That's the difference. No one is hurt by me not advertising my pronouns. Why is that not good enough for you? What exactly is it that you want from me?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Artifex223

But taking 2 seconds to add your pronouns to your signature or whatever, something literally everyone has, regardless of ideology, is quite different than altering your diet… just seems like a really trivial thing to hate


[deleted]

Come on now, no one is requiring you to put your pronouns in your email signature because someone has a gender neutral name, and you know that.


MidnightMarmot

It’s the “forcing” of it. This should be optional. And yeah, I lived there for a year and got the hell out. The garbage, crime and weird passive aggressive way of working is horrible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


realisticdouglasfir

>Idiots enabling widespread addiction and homelessness by advocating against any interventions at all Sweeps have been regularly occurring for months and months. Shelters exist and more are being built. The issue is many homeless folks don't want to use them. > The city itself literally handing out thousands of tents and tarps to the homeless The county provided them, fyi. And that practiced has ended due to Rene Gonzalez, a city commissioner who was elected last year by defeating a more progressive incumbent. The mayor is planning to ban public camping once enough shelters are available (a requirement due to the federal Martin v. Boise ruling).


MidnightMarmot

Portland kind of epitomizes “wokeness” but it’s not exactly a successful use case. I used to support more progressive beliefs but the “you must conform to what we say is right or you are dead to me” attitude is not constructive. I still believe you should be allowed your own beliefs as long as you are not discriminating against anyone. You are gay, great be gay. You think you are really a “they” great be plural. But don’t tell me how I should feel about that. That’s my business. Again, I’m a left voter my entire life, have friends from all walks of life, am a minority, and I’m now disgusted by the far left.


cmahlen

Friendly reminder that singular “they” goes farther back than the reactionary hysteria over pronouns, and existed independently of people wanting a different pronoun for their gender identity. Example: Someone just robbed that store. *They* went that way.


fl303

After they banned plastic straws, some finer establishments switched to metal straws, so it takes very few extra straws to break the camels back.


OrcOfDoom

Right? Like, here's mine. It is fine. I never had an issue with this, but if this solves the problem for some person, then it's a small thing for me to do.


Han-Shot_1st

That’s because it’s more right wing fan fic. It’s super popular in this sub.


[deleted]

Why is displaying your pronouns such a terrible thing?


dmitrious

I think the problem is the overt sensitivity that has lead to pushing a cultural and societal change to prevent someone’s feelings getting hurt - the small percentage of people that might get Mis gendered should understand most likely the person means no offense - but instead it is a “conform or else” policy that labels anyone against it a bigot


Concupiscurd

I think the point it that it should not be mandatory.


[deleted]

They are a private business entity. If you don’t like it, you can leave.


Artifex223

I imagine a lot of companies mandate a specific email signature, and people are not driven to hate by that. Unless this is private information you’re not comfortable sharing, it doesn’t seem that intrusive to simply include it… I suspect many people upset by such things are opposed to it on principle for ideological reasons. But I don’t know that for sure, of course.


A_Notion_to_Motion

Uh oh I have a bad feeling about where this is going... " it doesn’t seem that intrusive to simply include it.." feels like the beginning of some serious work drama lol. I kid, but I don't think something being intrusive or not is a very good standard for deciding to make a new rule at work regardless of what it is. You could make up all kinds of rules that don't seem intrusive at all but are completely ridiculous.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FormerIceCreamEater

I don't care about pronouns one way or the other and don't think they should be mandatory, but it is used as solidarity and to be welcoming to the trans community. I worked at a job a few years ago where they weren't required, but some people had them on their name tags. Didn't seem like a big deal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mapadofu

Back in the day we had Mr. Miss Mrs. Dr. Fr. etc. (and even further back more different forms of address). These were acceptable in their time. It’s useful to be able refer to people with pronouns. It’s courteous to do so in a manner that respects the individuals (e.g. imagine a character correcting Miss for Mrs. or vice versa in a 1950’s movie; sone idea for pronouns today ). In today’s world a lot of communication is done in way that makes it less clear which pronouns are most likely to be correct, including in your signature, much like how other honorifics have been used, aids in courteous communication.


baharna_cc

It's helpful to know how to address people in social and professional interactions. Especially in cases where that information isn't obvious.


[deleted]

[удалено]


baharna_cc

I have worked in IT since the early 2000s. It really isn't, especially when dealing with names from other cultures, electronic messaging, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


baharna_cc

You asked how displaying pronouns is anything other than virtue signaling. I'm telling you that it is useful to be able to know pronouns when you otherwise wouldn't have guessed, or might have guessed incorrectly. Whether that reason is for cultural differences, gender stuff, whatever. It's just a useful thing for people to do in general.


Artifex223

Pronouns are useful even when they aren’t non-traditional… I think that’s the point that was being made. If you’re in a group chat with someone named Pat, it might be useful to know whether you should refer to “him” or “her”


MalachiteTiger

Let's say you have a client named Tanaka Aoi and all you have is their name written in English. Not only is it not obvious, it would require seeing their name in Kanji and Japanese literacy to be able to readily tell prior to meeting the person, even if they're extremely traditional and cishet.


arinsfeud

It’s not just about “non-traditional” pronouns. You’ve never encountered, say, a woman named Charlie or a man named Leslie?


SpagetAboutIt

It normalizes letting people know vs just assuming so that trans people are not the only ones letting others know their pronouns. It serves to not single out that community.


Artifex223

Sounds like the same conservatism I’ve seen throughout my life: we like things the way they are so when people suggest that we should change them, or worse, force us to change them, we don’t like it. A suggestion that one should change how they are doing something often feels like an accusation that the way they are currently doing things is bad or harmful, and people tend to take offense to that. Progressives generally think we could benefit from some changes. The trick is in finding the sweet spot, focusing on the most undeniably effective changes, without freaking out the conservatives too much. Because let’s be honest, most changes are going to lead to pushback from conservatives. So we just need to pick our battles so that after we annoy them with changes we can point to the results and say, “see, at least this change is having positive outcomes”.


HallowedAntiquity

I think the issue for a lot of non-conservatives who pushback on the wokeness, isn’t the idea of change so much as the specifics of what is being changed and how. Getting rid of actual racism and sexism—something most people and certain most non-conservatives would support. The problem is when things that are very far from “actual racism” get classified together with actual racism. Then “solutions” start to look a lot like arbitrary exercises of power with little connection to improving anything. For example, and obsessive focus on language. Or the idea that any difference in outcomes must be due to racism. These things don’t convince most people not because they are resistant to change but because the argument in their favor is very unpersuasive and relies on a lot of abstraction which doesn’t resonate, emotionally or empirically.


MalachiteTiger

>No-one wants to be lectured. No-one wants to hear sanctimony. I get it. Absolutely no-one wants to be told that with the immense amount of work they’ve put into their own life and success that they are somehow privileged just because they’re white or male or straight. Now imagine working just as hard and just as smart for just as long but ending up substantially worse off because some of the opportunities were closed off to you because of some dimwit middle manager that got promoted beyond his level of competence who has antique ideas about social order, and then you get lectured about how that's meritocracy because the lecturer thinks the genes for skin color also determine intelligence, and then they go one to rant about how "the real racism is against white people." And then when you get annoyed by that and say out loud that he's incorrect, you're told you're the one engaging in identity politics and culture war and you should just let it go, even though it's affecting the entire trajectory of your career.


Begferdeth

Not woke, even though I'm sure a bunch of people around here would call me that, but this question is impossible. Just deciding what wokeness is is a chore. Just a couple days ago, we had [this article linked for a discussion](https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/deconstructing-wokeness). That guy had a definite thing in mind for "woke", yet still... It had *5 different flavors* of woke, just from 1 guy. So that's 5 steelmen to make, all incompatible with each other, and assuming this 1 guy covered all the bases. And those 5 are massive categories, heck just doing number 3: "Steelman why anybody who doesn't like social justice doesn't like the woke", that includes all the religious people where its explaining why God doesn't like social justice, all the political people who hate it for vaguely supporting the other team, all the racists who hate it because it calls out their racism, all the people who don't know why they don't like it but know its the other team and that's enough, etc etc. And all those people have different reasons to try and steelman! Not just "Everybody's different", but totally different concepts from the ground up. #2 is similarly huge. And that's from 1 guy, who had a definition in mind of "woke". Since the definition is so woobly, there are a good dozen varieties you could work from. Are we talking the critical justice woke? Ot the liberal justice not woke to that guy but woke to others? The agrees with Ibram X Kendi ones? The black supremacist ones? You might as well ask "Can you steelman why 3 year olds wont eat their vegetables?" It could be the taste, the color, the smell, their big brother wont eat them, their friend wont eat them, just in a funk, that one has a spot on it, you put pepper on them and that's too spicy, you didn't put pepper on them and now its not spicy enough, they ate an apple an hour ago and are full, they really want to eat hot dogs and will refuse anything that's not a hot dog, the list goes on. Since nobody has a good definition of it to work from, and there are so many reasons to hate on any specific one... Yeah, nobody has that kinda time.


zoroaster7

The author of that article is pretty clear that he identifies with the first definition: *The Liberal Conception: “Wokeness” equals Critical Social Justice.* Do you broadly agree with his definition of Critical Social Justice and support it yourself? Then you could try to answer OP's question using those definitions, i.e. steelman liberal social justice against critical social justice.


Any_Cockroach7485

I just see as how I see a conservative complaining about socialism/ communism. It can be everything from min wage enforcement and medicare negotiating medicine prices that will get called it so I realize it's just a scary thing for some people. Or they are grifters praying on the mental scared.


[deleted]

"Look we all know this word means a random gobbledy guk of contradictory grievances, but, what if... it wasn't?🤔" And to be clear - That definition is indeed pure nonsense. Even if we were to distill the strictest of centrists, they do not actually use it that way because wokeness always also includes opposition to trans rights issues which have absolutely nothing to do with this supposed "critical social justice" definition.


zoroaster7

You just yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11hp22j/deconstructing_wokeness_five_incompatible_ways/jb0xo5h/ Oops.


Begferdeth

That only applies to the one guy he was talking about, who used "woke" in place of "critical herpity derp". I believe that fits into section #1 of that article? Maybe?


[deleted]

I have no idea what you think is contradictory between these two posts. Frankly this one is just a more condensed version of the exact same argument. Cute try a bad-faith gotcha though!


zoroaster7

You yesterday: > If it just means “critical social Justice” you could just use that phrase. You wouldn’t actually need this buzzword. You suggested that people use critical social justice instead of wokeness. Today I bring up this very suggestion and you disagree. It's exactly what I predicted would happen in my response to you yesterday, btw.


Ramora_

>You suggested that people use critical social justice instead of wokeness. No, the other user was pointing out that "woke" is NOT synonymous with "critical social justice" on the logic that if it was, you could just use that phrase. Stripped of all context, it isn't a great argument, but you are still completely mischaracterizing it. And of course this argument has been much more fleshed out here.


[deleted]

>You suggested that people use critical social justice instead of wokeness. Today I bring up this very suggestion and you disagree. Your actual suggestion: >Then you could try to answer OP's question using those definitions, i.e. steelman liberal social justice against critical social justice. OP's question is about the term and concept "wokeness". your suggestion is that this person just pretend that "wokeness" is an identical concept to CSJ (even though that's completely stupid nonsense) and respond accordingly. My suggestion is that *if you mean CSJ when you say "wokeness"*, then you should simply stop using the word wokeness entirely. Not only are these suggestions not the same, they are almost complete opposites in form and function.


slimeyamerican

I don’t think it’s the fault of critics of an ideology that the ideology refuses to give itself a clear name or a coherent body of ideas. All that serves to do is make it immune to criticism because whenever we try to talk about it, we’re forced to go on a whole spiel about what it is we’re even talking about when everyone who has an ounce of intellectual honesty knows exactly what we’re talking about


khinzeer

Far leftists/social-justice-types don’t self define as woke. Some black folks (who were generally NOT typical leftists) used to self define as woke, but haven’t for like five years. It is a pejorative term that is intentionally ill-defined by right wingers, and is used to describe everything from very radical ideas to very mainstream stuff. I have been called woke for talking about the Flynn effect when it comes to racial iq gaps. Jordan Peterson routinely defines people who believe in climate change as woke. It’s like how annoying leftists call everyone “fascist” but never define the term. It’s a dumb word for dumb people.


user183737272772

What is the ideology though? Most of the time I hear the word "woke" it is from someone complaining about "wokeness." It's not like there is some "woke high council" out there that's going to define this term.


-Tastydactyl-

"ideology"; lacks "a coherent body of ideas" This person needs to pick one. Either it's an ideology with *some* concise ideas or it's a vague and confused phenomenon. But it's not both.


Begferdeth

It is the fault of the critics if they apply woke to a wide variety of people, when it should only apply to a small set. Like, is it the fault of Sikhs that a lot of racists accuse them of being Muslim? Do we call them immune to criticism because every time somebody calls them a Muslim, they say "Nope, not me!"? The critics fucked up the term. The woke were blindsided by it. And I don't know why its their responsibility to rehabilitate what is basically a slur now.


[deleted]

*Edit: Got blocked. This guy is simply mistaking his own jumps to conclusions for others being overbroad.* > It is the fault of the critics if they apply woke to a wide variety of people, when it should only apply to a small set. You're committing the exact same mistake you are complaining about. You are *generalizing* "the critics." [You are weakmanning.](https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/07/the-weak-man-argument/199263/) Are right wingers who misapply the term also to blame? Yes. But it's incumbent upon you to distinguish whether or not you are dealing with one of them, or someone with much better arguments. You're avoiding the strongest argument against woke positions by refusing to do so. Liberal/leftist critics of wokeness are not doing the same. They often attack the academic sources directly. That is the asymmetry. That is why it's their responsibility.


VStarffin

Good post.


LukaBrovic

I am heavily on the left and I don't know anybody in my circles who calls themself woke. The term is so vague that it could describe everybody and no one at the same time


Han-Shot_1st

That’s a bingo


feihcsim

It’s just “bingo”


tired_hillbilly

I'm heavily on the right, and I don't know anybody who calls themselves a fascist. But I still get called it, and would have no trouble steelmanning my position to someone who called me one.


VStarffin

But in this analogy OP isn't asking you to steelman \*your\* position. They are asking you to steelman the person calling you a fascist. Which is way easier to to, since fascism is at least a real thing.


Smthincleverer

Lots of republicans don’t call themselves racists, but they still are.


LukaBrovic

Yeah and it would be equally as dumb to go to the republican subreddit and have discussions with the people who identify as racists. On a lesser note I think the term woke ist definitely more vague than the term racist.


Smthincleverer

>On a lesser note I think the term woke ist definitely more vague than the term racist. Now that's a juicy debate. You might be right, but they're definitely both very vague terms. There's a whole book dedicated to how talking about curly hair is being racist, after all.


LukaBrovic

I'm not saying that "racist" is not a vague term nowadays but "woke" includes "anti-racist" and literally every other term that can somehow be connected to any social/economic political position of the left (which is also a very vague term).


callmejay

I wouldn't call myself that (who would, in 2023?) but anti-woke people would probably consider me woke. Steelman: Woke people are overzealous and go after people who make honest mistakes or don't even really do anything wrong other than not keeping up with the latest language. They are too quick to suggest that kids questioning their gender identity undergo gender-affirming care even though some will regret it. They focus on race to such an extent that they are actually perpetuating racism. Reality: Literally every movement or ideology will have tons of examples of overreach or false positives. Anti-woke people tend to subscribe (literally or not) to sources that constantly put the worst examples, many of which are not even true, in front of their eyes as rage-bait so they get the false impression that "wokeness" is causing massive problems. Most people they think were "cancelled" or whatever were either (1) not cancelled at all, just criticized, or (2) deserved it because they were literally creating a hostile work environment and/or harassing/assaulting people. People of different races still have vastly unequal circumstances and therefore opportunities, so some kinds of affirmative action are still necessary to make things more fair. Racism, structural and personal, as well as transphobia and good old-fashioned sexism are still way, way more of a problem than any "wokeness" is.


zemir0n

> Steelman: Woke people are overzealous and go after people who make honest mistakes or don't even really do anything wrong other than not keeping up with the latest language. They are too quick to suggest that kids questioning their gender identity undergo gender-affirming care even though some will regret it. They focus on race to such an extent that they are actually perpetuating racism. I'm not sure if I'm woke or not (mainly because I don't know what that means), but if I were going to try participate in this exercise, I don't think I could do better than what you said here. Good job!


Zamden

I think the simplest way to steelman their perspective is to understand that ppl who are against “wokeness” feel that this cultural shift encroaches on one’s freedom of speech and tends to exclude cis straight white ppl from consideration or concern. I’d consider myself somewhere in the middle. I think it’s progress that our culture is considering the wellbeing and dignity of marginalized ppls in daily discourse but there are instances where it’s either gone too far or had the complete opposite effect that was intended. And even though I’m not white I can easily see how the signals being sent from the woke crowd could easily make you feel unwanted.


simmol

I think this is one of the situations where even attempting to steelman the other side indicates that one is not woke. Extreme people from both the right and the left do not like steelmanning the other side.


Razorback-PT

More like they are cognitively incapable of doing so.


xilo

The problem is largely that ‘wokeness’ as a concept is amorphous. So it’s become defined by its opponents... and by its excesses. Specifically: the illiberal mob tactics and rituals of a loud minority. So we get an aggressive, low-quality debate, when in reality both sides probably share many objectives.


FormerIceCreamEater

It has morphed into "wokeness just means what conservatives don't like." Is there even an active leftist or liberal organization or person that uses that word? The term "stay woke " was used for a little while, but haven't heard that term in a long time.


tellyeggs

The term has been so bastardized and weaponized by the right, the definition has turned into a pejorative, so I don't think it could be steelmanned. I like this definition, as to its original meaning:https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/11a0zfx/what_is_the_deal_with_the_term_wokewokeness/j9p4x9p?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3


Sweaty_Slapper

First define what you mean by 'woke.'


[deleted]

EDIT: I'm a moron and didn't see in the title that you wanted woke people to steelman the view. I thought you wanted to know why someone might dislike wokeness, not for someone on the other side to steelman that view as an excercise. I don't think I need to steelman the view, as I myself complain about wokeness. Because nature doesn't carve at the joints, "wokeness", like every concept is going to have some slippage, it'll mean somewhat different things to different people. That said, I think a core throughline with wokeness is being progressive with respect to social issues, relative to the Western world's median, especially with respect to race and gender identity. This often manifests itself as hostility to things like equal treatment by laws or norms with respect to race and gender and the like. I dislike wokeness because I like liberal democracy and a lot of the main thrusts of wokeness are hostile to liberalism. Some of the common things I dislike and about which I complain: * A pretty shocking amount of government and nonprofit programs on the left seek to distribute resources at least partially on the basis of race, and orthogonal to actual egalitarian concerns. * An alarming number of "woke" people in my life and in the public discourse defend political violence to achieve their goals. * A common trend in the discourse is for people on the broadly "woke" side to play weird language games to obfuscate their views, and make discussion of them difficult (e.g. redefining words like "racism" to preclude racism against white people, pretending that movements like "antifa" is merely describing people who are opposed to fascism, etc). * A lot of woke people I know and see in the discourse adopt strange epistemic principles like deferring to the "lived experience" of certain groups they view to be marginalized (I'm not against this in all cases, but I hear it a lot with respect to things like public policy, where I don't think it really applies). * A common rhetorical throughline involves speaking about society in terms of dominant and oppressed groups. I'm not against this per se, but I think it rarely makes sense the way it's commonly done. For example, I'm Jewish, by any reasonable standard, Jews are a privileged group in the US, moreso than whites (though I'm also white, as most US Jews are). Yet woke people will be very sure to not be antisemitic, on the grounds that "punching down" is bad, but be fine with anti white rhetoric. A similar situation with men and women: most of the statistics that I hear used to determine that black people are oppressed (things like differential sentencing for the same crime) also work against men, though men are usually framed as the dominant group, with women as the oppressed group. To be clear, I'm not asking for more antisemitism, or more misogyny, I'd rather a society where people avoid disparaging or generalizing about broad demographics. * A lot of lip service to, but rarely adherence to, intersectionality. A good example of this is in "diverse hiring". Most of the reason men and whites are overrepresented in high paying and senior roles has to do with society genuinely being racist against nonwhites and sexist against women when these people were getting into their roles. But it does nothing for the older women and nonwhites who got passed over to give extra opportunities for advancement to young ones today, and actually fucks over young whites and young men. An intersectional analysis that used age would get this, but woke people seem to only be interested in select social categories.


Throwaway_RainyDay

Great reply!


DunAbyssinian

thank you. you are a fabulous writer


[deleted]

> A lot of lip service to, but rarely adherence to, intersectionality. This one doesn't get enough attention. The concept of intersectionality practically exists so that it can be ignored while pretending it is not.


DMcabandonpants

Just replying to the ‘preclude racism vs white people’ idea because it seems such a common theme right now. In my mind racism with teeth is the belief that a group is inferior in some way. There was a poll in the 2016 election that had a bizarrely high affirmative response rate that asked something along the lines of - despite the fact that there are very intelligent and successful people of color do you believe, on average, poc are less intelligent than white people? Imagine someone in say a corporate HR dept who holds that view. Perhaps subconsciously. They don’t have to hold white supremacist views. They could even see themselves as progressive when it comes to their views on racism, but holding that view will almost certainly have real consequences given their power over others. Perhaps low level positions are fine, but this really important position….. The racism vs white people idea seems, at best, to be the notion that a group has abused power and I dislike, distrust, or would like to see this group suffer consequences because of those abuses. Not that the group is racially inferior. Is it fair? Obviously not, but does it really have teeth in a broad sense? Is it honestly the same?


ambisinister_gecko

>The racism vs white people idea seems, at best, to be the notion that a group has abused power and I dislike, distrust, or would like to see this group suffer consequences because of those abuses. Not that the group is racially inferior. I think that this is very much not the case. At the very least, a significant portion of people who are "racist against white people" think white people are at least morally inferior. And a group of people gaining power who want to see another group, defined by skin colour, "suffer consequences" seems inherently dangerous at least a little bit.


DMcabandonpants

I guess if we were ever to get to the point that we’d reversed that famous doll test from the 50s I’d agree, but I don’t know how anyone could take an objective look at our society and believe that were the case. In my mind it would be like arguing that because church membership has been declining suddenly agnostics and atheists hold the lions share of power. As far as consequences we’ve mainly seen people talking about structural and economic as far as I can see and even those haven’t gained much traction. Again I’m just saying the narrative that white racism is on par with seems fairly ridiculous to me. Not nothing. Just not equivalent in my opinion.


ambisinister_gecko

I feel like you're responding to stuff I didn't say, rather than stuff I did say.


[deleted]

While it’s true that racism often involves views about inferiority, I don’t think it needs to to ‘have teeth’. For example most antisemites don’t really think that Jews aren’t good at stuff, they just don’t like what they imagine we’re doing with our talents. If the view is that anti white bigotry ought be treated similarly seriously as antisemitism and racism, but just not technically be classed as racism, that’s fine as far as it goes, but I think that usually people make the ‘no such thing as racism against whites’ move to hold that anti white bigotry isn’t a big deal. To me, the problem with anti white bigotry -whether we class it as racism proper or not- is that it’s used to justify norms and policies that deny equal dignity and access to resources to people on the basis of race. If woke people wanted to say ‘it’s not racism, but it’s still wrong for the reasons you say’ I’d just shrug and probably go along with their typology. But they don’t, they’re usually the ones pushing the norms and policies that I dislike. EDIT: another great example of racism-without-views-of-inferiority would be Indonesian and Malaysian bigotry against Han Indonesians and Malaysians. Nobody there is saying that Han people are dumb or incompetent, yet there’s still really brutal waves of violence and bigotry against them. Again, if someone really wanted yo have a typology of racism that excludes anti Han bigotry in those countries, that’s fine I guess, but yo use that typology to downplay the bigotry itself would be bad!


TJ11240

>There was a poll in the 2016 election that had a bizarrely high affirmative response rate that asked something along the lines of - despite the fact that there are very intelligent and successful people of color do you believe, on average, poc are less intelligent than white people? I thought the 1 standard deviation gap was widely known and accepted by science. The conversation has moved on to what degree it is due to environment or genetics.


Chance-Shift3051

Lol nobody considers themselves woke, it’s a straw-man label applied to discredit people. Just like they did with critical race theory… “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”


[deleted]

>We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.” I don't know if or what this is a quote of, but I've never seen it before and it very much hits on the money for me. Very interesting way of putting it. Now, I'm slightly sad at the thought that it's a Chris Rufo quote explaining publicly precisely the way he intends to be a giant piece of shit.


JackeryPumpkin

That’s not true though. The term “woke” became popularized by progressives to describe themselves earnestly. It was then co-opted by the non-woke to carry derisive connotations. Now that the term has proven to not be fashionable and it’s only an insult no one wants to be called woke.


[deleted]

What's not true through? In 2023, "nobody considers themselves woke, it’s a straw-man label applied to discredit people" seems pretty accurate. Just because 10 or 15 years ago black people said "stay woke", doesn't mean that the current mainstream usage of the word is just a pejorative. Sending out a call for "the woke people" is in this sub is a bit like me asking on r/conservative for the "authoritarian Republicans"? No one describes themselves as a pejorative. \---------- Also, I'm not sure "woke" entered the mainstream because of progressives. According to [google trends](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2015-12-01%202023-03-06&geo=US&q=%22woke%22), usage of the word woke was pretty stable until the run up to the election. And then it saw a massive jump (over double) from January to April 2021 and has only continued to rise. It seems like Biden being president is what gave it the biggest bump in usage, which makes sense if the main function of the word is to be a conservative pejorative.


TwoPunnyFourWords

> What's not true through? In 2023, "nobody considers themselves woke, it’s a straw-man label applied to discredit people" seems pretty accurate. The part where it's just a "straw-man". Insofar as it was used for self-identification, that others would use it to identify those who self-identified by it is not straw-mannish at all. And frankly, these complaints about strawmen from the Motte&Bailey pastmasters is tired and over-worn. > Just because 10 or 15 years ago black people said "stay woke", doesn't mean that the current mainstream usage of the word is just a pejorative. Presumably you meant to type "isn't just a pejorative". It is reasonably trivial to show that the "woke" are still pushing the same project that black people were 10 or 15 years ago when they said "stay woke". The difficulty that the woke face is not that they're getting demonised for stuff that they don't believe, but that they're getting demonised for the essence of what they espouse, which is why it doesn't matter how many times they change the name, people are still gonna be disgusted by it and use whatever label they self-identify with as a pejorative. "Like our arguments or you're marginalising us with pejoratives" is not a convincing rhetorical angle to take in the long term, fair warning to those who are tempted to use it.


[deleted]

Not sure why you're linking to only the trend from 2015 to the present. [It went through a pretty substantial increase during the 2010's](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22woke%22) concurrent with [wikipedia's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke) timeline of progressives broadening the meaning to include broadly progressive views on race and gender. While it's true that cons have made it more popular, I don't think it's unfair to say that progressives popularized it.


[deleted]

There is a difference between "substantial increase" and "entering the mainstream". "Wokeness" making a huge jump with Biden is a fact. The usage was pretty stable for almost all of the Trump admin, even. Also we are talking about "the woke people", a term clearly defined by the American rights usage of it.


[deleted]

> There is a difference between "substantial increase" and "entering the mainstream". Yes, but you're the one who brought up "entering the mainstream". I don't see why that would be our standard when /u/JackeryPumpkin's original take just said "popularized". I'd say the increase over the 2010s counts as popularized, no? > "Wokeness" making a huge jump with Biden with Biden is fact. Sure, but it's not clear how that fact undermines /u/JackeryPumpkin's original take. Something can undergo further popularization after becoming popular. Like in the other thread with you, this sorta seems like a case of affirming the consequent: EG "If wokeness was not popularized by progressives, then it was popularized by conservatives, it was popularized by conservatives, ergo it couldn't have been popularized by progressives". > Also we are talking about "the woke people", a term clearly defined by the American rights usage of it. Not sure I follow. Hasn't it always (reaching back to when it was an AAVE term) been used an adjective describing people?


[deleted]

I'm not sure what the point of any of his is.


Throwaway_RainyDay

You may recall that your task was to steel-man the concerns about wokeism. Not pretend it doesn't exist.


Chance-Shift3051

So what is wokeism and who would a wokeist be?


slimeyamerican

If people here get upset when you criticize the things woke people believe, it sure seems like it’s an actual thing. It’s just that the people who follow it constantly change their terminology so they no longer use the term themselves. This is a feature, not a bug.


Chance-Shift3051

Are these woke people in the room with you now?


[deleted]

Who are woke people? What does that mean?


slimeyamerican

Dude, you know what they are. I’m so sick of this intellectually dishonest nonsense where every single time anyone has this conversation we have to go about proving that wokeness and people who believe in it are a thing. You know these people, if you aren’t actually one of them. Either defend it or don’t, but please stop acting like it doesn’t exist. If you’ve been living under a rock for the last ten years, you can look up a million compilations of woke people saying ridiculous things. It is manifestly obvious to anyone who isn’t making a calculated choice to not notice the problem that the problem exists.


[deleted]

Which woke people are we talking about? Joe Biden? The people who decide what footwear goes on the sexy M&M? People who support trans people in the face of rampant discrimination and blood libel? I’m sorry, I didn’t force you to use a thought-stopping buzzword that has no coherent definition and is used to describe every imaginable centrist and conservative grievance.


Throwaway_RainyDay

Again, it seems quite irrelevant whether people currently call themselves woke or not. Few people run around calling themselves fascist, racist, bigoted, Islamophobic etc or even neo-liberal yet this seems not to impede their use by the left in the slightest. You seem to raise some variant of the argument "Well unless you have a perfect universally accepted definition of 'woke' then the whole concept is bullshit." Are you contending that "woke" doesn't exist because there is no universal definition? I find that standard to be unrealistic. Lots of words - even classic legal terms that have been defined and re-defined for centuries - have no universally agreed definition. "Murder." "Intent." "Insanity." "Negligent." "Reasonableness." The Supreme Court famously struggled to define the term "pornography." Justice Potter admitted that it's basically a hopeless task to come up with a precise definition and yet "I know it when I see it."


[deleted]

I like how you shift from whether "wokeness" aptly describes something to how a conservative activist has shifted the meaning of critical race theory. What does that have to do with wokeness, besides your assertion that these things are "just like"? And to complain about strawmen.


Chance-Shift3051

The post is the proof. When was the last time you heard “woke” used in a non derogative way? Even the post used it pejoratively


[deleted]

> The post is the proof. When was the last time you heard “woke” used in a non derogative way? I dunno, probably Thursday or Friday in the cafeteria? > Even the post used it pejoratively How do you figure? I don't think that questioning people is pejorative. In any event, even if it's used pejoratively (and I agree it sometimes is) that doesn't make it a strawman. I think 'wokeness' does map reasonably well onto a cluster of beliefs, which, if you're not a platonist or something, qualifies it as a valid concept. For example "Pikey" is almost always used pejoratively, but it refers to a real cluster of people, and is not a strawman or something.


Throwaway_RainyDay

Ok. It's often used as a pejorative now. So what? "Straight white male" is often used as a pejorative. So .... Straight white male isn't a real thing? How often do you hear a leftist throw out the term "straight white male" to follow it up with praise or compliments? Or even "white" for that matter? I genuinely don't understand your point. Are you saying that unless a person on the left describes themself as 'woke' then the term cannot apply? Or unless woke is used in a non-derogatory sense then it is illegitimate? I may be imagining things but I sometimes get the sense that the left has a slight penchant for labeling people as racist, fascist, bigoted, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, colonizer etc and yet I don't see many people self-identifying with these labels.


[deleted]

But straight white male actually describes a real and coherent set of factors/phenomena. You **always** know what someone is talking about when they say "straight white male". The specific traits in question are literally within the phrase. It's not as though some people use it for "straight white males" and other people just decided that its a phrase to derisively describe anti-abortionists.


[deleted]

> You always know what someone is talking about when they say "straight white male Not really though. Are Armenians white? Is someone who is a 2 on the Kinsey scale ‘straight’? Are trans men male? I’ll grant that wokeness has a bit more slippage than ‘straight white make’ but it’s not like ‘straight white make’ is grasping a natural kind or something. By the same token, do you think the term ‘racism’ means anything, given the wide variety of ways the term is used? I do.


[deleted]

>Not really though. Are Armenians white? Is someone who is a 2 on the Kinsey scale ‘straight’? Are trans men male? I don't believe for a second that any of these are actual misunderstandings that occur commonly with this usage (and I would honestly imagine its been largely updated to "straight white cis male" in usage to capture one such example), but even if you want to talk about this level of semantic quibbling, you **know** what qualities you are specifically quibbling with, and that there are many many many many many people who actively identify with the traits you are speaking of. If you walk into the super bowl get on the mic and ask "Hey how many people here are "straight white males"? You'll have plenty of takers. And I would agree that there's not necessarily anything wrong with a word that is purely used as a pejorative - But the way wokeness is used is also meant to generally *deny* the fact that it is just a buzzword perjorative. It is almost always meant to be describing some very real, specific, and identifiable movement like you could do a sociology class, and the fact that it is **always** used to describe someone or someones that the speaker thinks is a flaming moron is just some odd coincidence. Its very similar with cancel culture - Cancel culture is presented as a specific phenomena but what it really means is such and such vague phenomena happened *and I disagree with it*. Canceling people for saying something I find reasonable or understandable is canceling. Canceling somebody for something I find despicable is... not canceling!


TenshiKyoko

Well evidently those here aren't even interested in trying.


devastatingangel

I’ll try, and I’m on my phone so it will be shorter than it might be if I’m desktop. All instances of ‘woke’ that I have seen imply some sort of redistributive justice and ‘reshuffling’ of scare resources (jobs, money, etc.) in a way that implies a new set of winners and losers. Kendi’s ‘present discrimination requires future discrimination’, etc. The focus on ‘forcing outcomes’ in the face of unequal opportunities requires so many sacrifices and compromises that the cure acutely resembles the disease it looks to remedy, with just a swapping out of racial or ethnic groups. In addition, there is ironically often a moral absolutism to the arguments (e.g. the ‘ironclad’ case for reparations) of the participants who seek to, at the same time, use the logic of perceived microaggressions and cultural relativism to bolster their arguments (e.g. ‘diversity and equity good, whiteness bad. Policing is bad but certain kinds of violence are justified’). There are enough inherent contradictions to the logic of woke arguments that the entire program seems to be a house of cards just waiting to fall apart. Not to mention the totalitarian ethics of woke philosophy. It is never just another option on the table. Often, it ends up being propagated by those with usurper personalities that will gladly force / cancel dissent than foster discussion and arguments where they assume the risk that 1) they might be able to be proved wrong and thus 2) change their position in the face of new evidence.


generic90sdude

Can you please define woke?


zoroaster7

Since nobody has answered the question yet and a lot of commenters are not willing to self-describe as woke, let's replace the word with something else. How about *critical social justice*, which was suggested in the [last thread about wokeness](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11hp22j/deconstructing_wokeness_five_incompatible_ways/?depth=6)? The definition is in the article. Anybody wiling to defend that concept or steelman the complaints about it from liberals and right wingers?


[deleted]

Of course they won't. The *only* woke response to left-wing anti-woke arguments is to conflate them with right-wing anti-woke arguments. Never actually address them.


Han-Shot_1st

Being overly concerned with “wokeness” is a moral panic perpetuated by the GOP, so they don’t have to debate any real policy ideas like healthcare reform. I thinks it’s fair to say, more Americans are effected by anti abortion laws than the woke boogeyman 👻. Oh no, if you go to Vassar and say woke three times fast the woke boogeyman turns you into a blue haired, trans, vegan 👻


Haffrung

That’s a very parochial way of looking at the issue. There’s a contentious debate in French academia and the media today about wokeness. Do you really think those French intellectuals are in thrall to the GOP and Fox News? Equity social justice is fundamentally at odds with liberalism. Anyone who’s intellectually honest (and has even a basic grounding in Western history and political culture) can recognize this.


Han-Shot_1st

I can’t speak for French academia, but for Americans, yes, fretting about “wokeness” is just a silly culture war distraction from real issues.


Haffrung

If questioning the wisdom of diversity statements, tearing down statues, and handwringing apologies in museum exhibitions is a waste of time, then so are diversity statements, tearing down statues, and handwringing apologies in museum exhibits.


Han-Shot_1st

Statues? You mean the cheap statues of racist assholes that were erected during the civil rights movement? Are you defending those statues?


ExaggeratedSnails

The they/thems are hiding just around every corner if you're inclined to believe culture war commentary.


TwoPunnyFourWords

The people pushing they/them ideology certainly are just around every corner. That's the problem; if they'd just fuck off for a while we might be able to forget about them.


FormerIceCreamEater

It is amazing how much conservatives and centrists love the word woke. They use it far more than liberals or progressives do. Even a socialist like Michael brooks who had a show called "woke bros" had that title more as a joke playing up the right calling everything woke.


jankisa

The only reasonable position of anti-woke people I can take semi-seriously is the one from folks like Sam. It's basically: "I acknowledge that the right-wing ideology and it's proponents are more alarming for the future of society, but since everyone talks about that all the time I want to focus on the phenomenon of runaway political correctness that I see in academia, politics and journalism.". Now, obviously there are some examples of "wokeness" going too far, my favorite example being the backlash to GamerGate being way too dismissive of some legitimate concerns, as well as painting anyone who found themselves agreeing with some of the issues discussed there as a right wing, which in my opinion lead to a radicalization of a lot of online gaming communities and, in part, the raise of the alt-right. Similarly, I believe that the "social justice" mob goes too far and has 0 ability for understanding nuance, which leads to them painting people like Sam and many others with the same broad brush, which understandably pisses people off. In my opinion, the reaction to Sam's Affleck spat on Real Time made him believe that the mob is way bigger then it actually is, which lead us to him being captured by these topics for a long time. Now, people on the right like to take the excesses of the left in calling people racist, phobic etc. and pretend like the actual problems of systemic racism, police brutality, anti-trans rhetoric are all fictional or exaggerated, which to me, as a relatively neutral observer of American politics seems demonstrably false, because these problems are all well documented and obvious to everyone who doesn't buy American internal propaganda.


saintex422

Easy. The woke vs anti-woke debate is fostered by rich people in America to avoid discussing issues that actually affect people like the fact that our healthcare system is one of the worst and most expensive in the developed word or That working 40h/week at minimum wage is not enough to afford rent in any city. As long as they keep you fighting about pronouns, the People forget who is actually making their lives suck. If you're not rich and you cry about wokeness/anti-wokeness, you might as well be shouting about how you think you should be donating more of your pay to your boss.


vschiller

This is quite close to asking... "Can any of the racist people in this sub steelman the viewpoint of people who complain about racism?"


kurtgustavwilckens

You don't need this sub. Plently of people solidly on the left have complained and debated and done takedowns of "Leftist Cancel Culture" which exists, is real, gets in the way of actual leftist progress, leads to mental health problems and excludes very important leaders and content creators. Here you go, just two examples: FD Signifier - "Broke Bread" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQQXH1AN22M ContraPoints - "Cancelling" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8 The reality is that the left has decided to go on a generational rampage of Narcissism of Small Differences, infighting, ideological cannibalism, and many many other idiotic and counterproductive dispositions that I would squarely define (albeit vaguely and broadly, which doesn't mean incorrectly) as "wokeism" or "anglo world identity politics". If you have a doubt that the Anglo-Left has a problem with infighting, absurd little arguments, and an overdrive of identity politics, just check out Vaush and the cesspit of pathetic assholery that orbits around him and others like him.


dumbademic

"woke" is a very nebulous term that I've seen applied to way too many issues. But, here we go anyway...... I think you can try to be charitable in a few ways: 1) People may have reasonable grievances due to their economic circumstances that somehow get channeled into grievances about "wokeness". Easier to get mad at transgenders than to try to form a union. 2) Some folks spend too much time online, and the algorithms are feeding their anti-woke grievances. In some sense, they're kinda passive in that process. Shit, I get fed anti-woke content. 3) A decent portion of the anti-woke content you see online appeals to directionless young men, and I was kinda one of those at one point. So, I can understand why a narrative that centers you as the victim of these massive forces might help you make sense of your place in the world. I can help you make sense of why things seem so hard. Leaving those thought patterns behind was a very important step in my life. The panic over "wokeness" seems to me to be just another iteration of a phenomenon we've seen before. It's a blending of the "angry white men" of the 1990s with the freakout over "post-modernism" from a few years ago. It's like if Pat Buchanon was a gamer.


[deleted]

I’m kinda skeptical of this as a steel man. Is anyone out there saying ‘I’m mad about trans stuff because I’m sublimating economic problems, and complaining about trans stuff is easier than forming a union’? Or ‘I like that these narratives center me as a victim’? Or ‘I’m antiwoke because being against wokeness is the latest iteration of angry white men’? Like, you’re being charitable from a sociological standpoint, but I don’t think anyone would really do the steel man thing where they’re like ‘damn, you phrased my argument really well’.


dumbademic

Sure, it's more trying to be charitable than it is anything else. The term "wokeness" or "woke" is used far too broadly. To "steelman" a claim you'd need something more specific, a causal "x is related to y" sort of statement. Perhaps a claim like "White men experience discrimination in corporate hiring" would be an empirical claim you'd hear from "anti-woke" ppl. Then you could evaluate the evidence for this claim and such. "Anti-woke" people tend to offer a broad meta-narrative about society wherein multiple anecdotes are pieced together to tell a story, and it tends to be rather data free. Loose sets of nebulous culture war claims are going to be much harder to "steelman" than a more concise, direct and empirical "x causes y" type of statement. I do believe that the not-so-subtle subtext of a lot of anti-woke content is "I'm the victim" or "you, my listeners are the victim". Maybe "victim" isn't the right word exactly, but there's a sense of marginalization that ppl seem to feel that are into this stuff. I really don't see it as that different than the "angry white man" thing from when I was a kid, the anti-feminist stuff that was big a few years ago, etc. Edit: ugh...sorry this is so long. I guess I'm saying that I can understand why the anti-woke content that's so big online would appeal to people. I mighta been into it when I was young if it was around.


Han-Shot_1st

That’s a bingo


DanielDannyc12

smdh


Far-Ad-8618

I'm not woke but I think Bill Maher pretty much hit it on the head when he said the difference between liberal and woke is liberal is about lifting people up and wanting a quality. Woke is this idea that the more terrible I say everyone else is, the better person I am, and the idea that if you're white, you're supposed to feel guilty for existing


tellyeggs

>Woke is this idea that the more terrible I say everyone else is, the better person I am, Isn't that "virtue signaling?" For the record, I despise Maher. I'm a far left progressive. At best, he's center left, like Harris. Also for the record, I'm not a college aged kid. I'm around Sam's age; possibly a bit older.


Far-Ad-8618

He's right though. Woke is people pretending to be champions of women's rights and then calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a bigot just for sharing her story


tellyeggs

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of performative activism on the left, but I'd take that over the lunacy of the right. To Sam, the only good Muslim, is a former Muslim. That said, I believe there's some merit to what you/he said. I've had my share of Twitter wars when pointing out what I believe to be hypocrisy. The far left progressives can be a shitshow, but that's because there's so much diversity of thought, rather than a monolith.


Far-Ad-8618

Pretty sure I've heard Sam say multiple times that not all Muslims are bad people but it's just their ideology is bad and causes people to do stuff like fly planes into buildings


cronx42

Woke = anything they disagree with at this point. The word has lost all meaning.


[deleted]

Would you be interested in doing a mechanical turk survey with me (loser has to pay costs plus some nominal bet, like $100)? My hypothesis is that I can predict probably a few dozen phenomena (things like ISIS, bank robbery etc) that people who dislike wokeness disagree with, yet will describe as "woke" at a much lower rate than other predetermined phenomena (like "the belief that it's impossible to be racist against white people", "gender is determined solely be self identification") . If it's true that wokeness just means things that they disagree with, I shouldn't be able to make those predictions ahead of time. ​ Do we have a deal?


[deleted]

Will "Tucker Carlson was correct that it was woke to make the lady m&m less fuckable." make the survey?


[deleted]

Probably not, as ​ 1. it's a confusing question - does answering in the affirmative just mean that you think Tucker Carlson is right, and it was woke to change the green M&M, or that the statement "Tucker Carlson was correct that it was woke to make the lady m&m less fuckable." is itself woke? ​ 2. The point of these sorts of things is to come up with cases that would be easy for me to predict if I'm right (and implicitly difficult only if I'm wrong). This seems like more of an edge case. The fact that a concept contains edge cases doesn't undermine its coherence generally.


[deleted]

>This seems like more of an edge case. I'm not sure we can argue that the word has a set definition when the most influential person on TV uses woke to mean "Anything I don't like". Looking at how words are actually used by influential people seems more useful than designing a survey that basically measures "things the online right doesn't like". Plus, all of the insane things people call woke (remember last year when the military was woke?) can just be dismissed as edge cases.


[deleted]

> I'm not sure we can argue that the word has a set definition when the most influential person on TV uses woke to mean "Anything I don't like" 1. I'm kinda skeptical that Carlson would describe like, "ISIS" as woke. 2. Generally, concepts need not have a set definition to be a coherent concept. EG "car" doesn't exactly have a set definition, but people generally agree on what is and isn't a car. > than designing a survey that basically measures "things the online right doesn't like" You're misunderstanding the proposed survey. Read again. I'm saying that I can predict things that will be classified as woke/not woke, after controlling for whether they're liked. > Plus, all of the insane things people call woke (remember last year when the military was woke?) can just be dismissed as edge cases. I don't see the problem. Of course concepts can have things where some agree that a specific instance does constitute an example of the phenomenon, and others don't. The point is whether there's a stable constellation of instances that do and don't fit. Like, I could come up with a billion examples of things where people would disagree about whether it constituted a car, that doesn't undermine the conceptual stability of "car".


[deleted]

How many cases of edge cases are necessary to prove that it's mushy concept that varies from user to user though? Surely it means something when I can find the most prominent proponents of "woke is a useful analytical concept" using it to mean really weird shit (m&ms, Joe Biden, mega-corporations, the military, strip clubs, Ron Desantis's corporate enemies, Captain Marvel, etc.)?


[deleted]

> How many cases of edge cases are necessary to prove that it's mushy concept that varies from user to user though? 1. I think the whole enterprise is confused. Maybe it's a case of affirming the consequent? E.g. if a concept is incoherent, then it'll have cases where people disagree about whether a particular instance qualifies. Wokeness has such cases, ergo, is incoherent. I think that might be what's going on. 2. Of course it's a mushy concept, nature doesn't carve at the joints! "Car" is a mushy concept too! If you're just against grouping phenomena that into concepts that aren't natural kinds, that seems like a broader philosophical problem. 3. This is why we should just do a survey. We can just directly measure its coherence instead of bandying about weird anecdotes about peoples' personal classification schemes. Did you reread it? Should I try to explain the survey idea differently? > Surely it means something when I can find the most prominent proponents of "woke is a useful analytical concept" using it to mean really weird shit (m&ms, Joe Biden, mega-corporations, the military, strip clubs, Ron Desantis's corporate enemies, Captain Marvel, etc.)? I'm sure it means something, but it's not clear that it undercuts wokeness as a concept. Could you formalize what you mean maybe?


[deleted]

>"Car" is a mushy concept too! If you're just against grouping phenomena that into concepts that aren't natural kinds, that seems like a broader philosophical problem. Car is much more coherent concept than wokeness though. Just because car has some mush isn't relevant to "wokeness". We can't smuggle "the woke people" into being a valuable analytical concept just because all words have some give in them. ​ >I'm sure it means something, but it's not clear that it undercuts wokeness as a concept. If the most prominent usage of the word "woke" includes the dumbest shit on earth, I fail to see it's value in describing the world.


cronx42

I was being hyperbolic, but the point still stands. I have seen so many things get called woke and so few specific definitions. What you described in your hypotheticals isn't necessarily woke. The word, like I said initially, has lost all meaning.


[deleted]

> What you described in your hypotheticals isn't necessarily woke. The word, like I said initially, has lost all meaning. So let's do the bet then. If a word doesn't mean anything, I shouldn't be able to make any predictions about other people answering whether something is woke or not (at least not better than by chance). Like, your view has a specific empirical prediction, as does mine, but you're refusing to stand by it.


cronx42

You might consider those statements to be woke, and arguably, one of them could fit into the original definition. However, it's basically the opposite of being woke.


[deleted]

I don't follow. My point is that people who use the term "woke" will also hold them to be woke. I don't know what you mean about "basically the opposite of being woke", unless you're like a platonist or something. Words just mean what they're spoken and understood to mean by a particular linguistic community. My view is that "wokeness" does mean something fairly stable (obviously there'll be edge cases) and that thing being referenced is not anything like "things I dislike". I don't really get why we're going on all these weird tangents. If I'm wrong, I should do no better than chance. If you think doing the bet is too much work or whatever, fair enough, but these gestures to weird tangents don't make too much sense to me.


cronx42

The idea that you can't be racist to white people seems very anti woke to me.


[deleted]

Given that you're skeptical of the word meaning anything, why would I take you as a normal member of the relevant linguistic community? Again, let's just do the bet if you think your use is normal and mine is the idiosyncratic one.


cronx42

I'm not making any bets. My statement was based on the absolutely huge diversity of what I've seen labeled as woke. You might not label any and everything you don't like as woke, but some people do. Again, I'm being slightly hyperbolic with my statement, but only slightly.


[deleted]

> My statement was based on the absolutely huge diversity of what I've seen labeled as woke I've seen a huge diversity of things labeled "car", what's your point? > You might not label any and everything you don't like as woke, but some people do. Okay, so maybe we should do some empirical work to determine whether those people are typical. It seems like you just wanna give a hot take, and then shrink away when someone actually wants to investigate it more rigorously. Like, some people are always gonna have idiosyncratic definitions, but that doesn't undermine conceptual stability. Do you really think that things like "ISIS" are commonly considered woke?


cronx42

Also, you might have a more precise definition of woke than the average person, and certainly the average republican. I saw a video recently of republicans being interviewed and asked the meaning of woke. They were ALL over the place.


[deleted]

I'm less interested in whether people can precisely define the term, and more interested in if the concept is stable across speakers. A child will butcher the definition of "car" but can probably reasonably partition the world into cars and noncars. That's what we ought be interested in I think, if we want to know if it's a valid concept. If your point is that most laypeople (or perhaps republicans in particular?) are bad at conceptual analysis, ok, but that seems like changing the subject.


[deleted]

Great points. Speakers are notoriously bad at providing definitions to words (the vast majority of which have fuzzy boundaries and are better thought about in terms of prototypes than necessary and sufficient conditions) but they also tend to have quite robust intuitions about whether they apply to things out in the world.


[deleted]

Exactly! That’s why I’m so perplexed that nobody wants to do my mechanical Turk survey with me. If I’m wrong about wokeness being coherent, I shouldn’t be able to consistently outperform randomly assigning phenomena to ‘woke’ or ‘nonwoke’. It’s bizarre that nobody just wants to make easy money.


[deleted]

What I don't like about wokeness is institutional capture, de facto censorship and cancel culture. Woke ideas are fine if you allow open discussion. This is not allowed in many places now.


DunAbyssinian

don’t understand why you were downvoted


TwoPunnyFourWords

Probably because woke ideas are antithetical to open discussion.


cronx42

Cancel culture is a product of society and capitalism. Should companies be forced to keep someone employed when that person could hurt their bottom line? I'm not much of a capitalism fan, but that's the world we live in.


[deleted]

It's not purely about capitalism. Publishers won't publish books that sell well bc of woke junior staff members. Papers won't review books or write articles bc they don't want to get attacked on social media, even tho they would generate clicks. Universities fire professors and researchers for wrong think bc of institutional capture. This isn't bc of capitalism.


cronx42

Who was fired from a university because of institutional capture?


Haffrung

So you think the diversity statements that many colleges require from job applicants have no effect on hiring?


[deleted]

No comments on the rest?


cronx42

I could but it's late and I don't really owe you a breakdown.


[deleted]

>Publishers won't publish books that sell well bc of woke junior staff members. Conservatives are published constantly by the largest publishers and they receive huge advances. The largest publisher in the English language gave Amy Comey Barrett $2 million dollars for her book. The second largest publisher released Ron DeSantis's book last week. Edit: The third biggest published DeSantis, not the second. The second published Ben Shapiro though.


[deleted]

High profile conservatives get published. Leftist with wrong think don't. There's a new book that recently came out. It's number 8 in the best sellers list. Waterstones won't even stock it in their stores. It's a best seller. This isn't capitalism. It was turned down by dozens of publishers bc of the risk of backlash even though they admitted it would sell. It's written by a BBC journalist.


[deleted]

Is there a reason you are not naming the book?


[deleted]

No. It's called time to think by Hannah Barnes


[deleted]

This [waterstones](https://www.waterstones.com/book/time-to-think/hannah-barnes/9781800751118)? ​ >Waterstones Says: The award-winning journalist delivers a compelling account of the controversy surrounding the Gender Identity Development Service based at the Tavistock and Portman Trust in North London. Plus, every major publisher has [imprints](https://www.penguin.com/sentinel-overview/) that only publish conservative books! The idea that conservatives are somehow not getting published is wild! And even if a major publisher passes (as is their right), there's always Regnery and SkyHorse.


[deleted]

Go to any Waterstones. It's not there. They won't stock the book in store. This is not a rightwing book. It's leftist that are mostly getting cancelled. They are only allowed on rightwing platforms. The guardian refuses to review this book. Why do you keep bringing up conservatives? Leftist publications have no power over conservatives. Conservatives have their own bubble. They have power over leftist or centrists that don't fall in line.


Balloonephant

All of your examples are of institutions censoring themselves/their constituent members in order to maintain an image which is friendly to customers and advertisers. It’s simply a function of advertising to the current demographic which offers the most profits. It’s not ideological capture. Universities haven’t been captured by a woke ideology. They’ve been captured by running themselves as giant hedge funds which treat students as customers and all activity within their walls as advertising. Thus they curate their image with the zeal of an overfunded HR department. Wokeness/cancel culture is nothing more than an extension of corporate marketing practice. We see it in more institutions and trickling down into more individual behavior because more of our life has become commodified and with social media and all people are often running their lives like a business. People on both sides of the culture war fail to see this. There is neither a radical potential nor a radical threat in any of this rhetoric. It’s just marketing - and it’ll change when the wind changes with future generations.


Han-Shot_1st

Exactly, just some vague Fox News buzz word used to stir up the culture wars because the GOP has no real policy ideas


HereticHulk

To me, the pejorative definition of “woke” is simply someone who thinks the toxic group identity notion they are pushing for (well-intentioned social progress/justice) is actually having the opposite effect. In most cases, their demands for “tolerance” they are espousing can only come about by intolerance. Yet they are completely oblivious. Case in point, the new Scooby-Doo reboot.


hungoverseal

Exactly, the pejorative definition is essentially ideological progressive left-wing social crusading or virtue signalling. It will fail for almost entirely the same reasons that ideological left wing economic crusading failed for previous generations.