It’s a broad label for anything they don’t like (LGBTQ+, feminism, DEI, etc.), but doesn’t “woke” mean you are awake? Would that imply that things that are not “woke” or are “anti-woke” are “asleep”?
Then they go on about conspiracies (“climate change is not real”, “deep state”, “5G is harmful”, “vaccines cause autism”, the list goes on unfortunately…) where they’re claiming that you need to “wake up to the truth”. Surely they don’t consider “woke” to be “the truth”, so shouldn’t they call it something like “asleep”, “sleepy”, “snoozy”, or similar?
I needed to use a lot of quotation marks there…
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s from the 30s, actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
Implies waking up to the systemic violence and oppression and beginning to do something about it.
Then it began being used as a bad thing because people were understanding systemic harm and those in power did not like it.
Overuse the word, make it mean nothing, remove its power, push the people back into oppression.
same happened with anarchism. I bet someone will come reply to me, saying that anarchism is actually bad because it means “chaos” and “no laws”, yada yada.
Im willing to bet that everybody who doesn’t like anarchism, doesn’t know what anarchism is.
What is anarchism?
No rules, just right.
And who decides what is right? I’m not being antagonistic on purpose, but anarchy believes in the good of people much more than we have any reason to believe.
I was quoting burger king, I’m sorry I don’t think that anarchism is compatible with the violent tendencies inherent in human nature.
Haha oh sorry, we don’t have burger king in Western Australia, didn’t recognise it! (It’s called Hungry Jacks or HJ’s here)
Overuse the word, make it mean nothing, remove its power, push the people back into oppression.
Conservatives have really been leaning on this tactic a ton lately.
Unfortunately, it seems to work every time.
It’s from African-American English, from the 1930s! And it’s always had more or less the same meaning – originally “being awake to (aware of) racial discrimination”, but now it’s obviously grown to cover discrimination and inequalities in general.
Would that imply that things that are not “woke” or are “anti-woke” are “asleep”?
Yep! 👍 But don’t forget, these people are also against Antifa, i.e. “anti anti-fascist”. They don’t care how bad the labels sound, as long as they’re making people’s lives miserable.
i.e. “anti anti-fascist”
You mean anti-fascist, not the double negative? That might be an important typo. 🙂
No typo. OP is saying that “these people” are anti-antiFascists.
No that’s quite accurate, they are against antifa. For example, Fox News hates antifa. They regularly call them a terrorist organization, use them as a pejorative or a bogeyman to dismiss protests or opinions. One could reasonably conclude they are very anti-antifa, making them anti-anti-fascist. This is indeed a double negative, which can be confusing and even misleading. If you seek to clarify the situation by removing the “anti-anti-” double negative, what does that make them?
… that’s correct, “fascist”.
Does that clarify things at all? Yes, I think it does. Interesting.
Personally I don’t see how they keep up with all those different contradictions. It’s very confusing.
I like to remind myself of the quote about anti-Semites (which applies more broadly to fascists in general, and more broadly still to some on the political right): they don’t believe what they are saying because words and truth aren’t important them. As long as the right people are being protected and the wrong people are being hurt, that’s all that’s important.
Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
From Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew (emphasis mine) https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/anti-semite-and-jew.pdf
AFAIK “woke” started being used by woke people as something good.
Then the right stole the term to turn it into something insulting.
Have you heard the term virtue-signaling?
Selfish people want to paint people better than them as bad, so they try to adjust the narrative to suggest that those better people are actually faking it. The term virtue-signaling suggests that these virtuous acts are actually just for appearances, and insincere.
The term woke has a similar implication. It’s like “this person is trying very hard to appear to be virtuous, and in doing so, they’re going too far, and doing more harm than good.”
That’s my intellectual take on it, anyway. Plebs just adopt the term without understanding the implied meaning. “Other team == woke == bad” is all 95% of them think.
Buried in your argument is the assumption that people accused of virtue signalling are actually being virtuous. In many cases they’re actually just doing harm in order to appeal to their own tribe. This is virtue signalling and there’s nothing virtuous about it.
People who walk around calling everything woke are virtue-signalling to their right wing tribe, for example. It’s classic social bullying.
Only douchecanoes use the term unironically, so it follows the person they are criticising is likely doing something morally right.
