Critical race theory

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe that "woke" education really is needed to ensure people don't turn out like this.

woke education is a great way to produce more adults with knowledge that doesn't track to doing useful things.

using "privilege" for everything or even a majority is less "unacceptable" and more along the lines of just the wrong term. if your basic assertion is that a particular group of people have bias against them, the state of "not biased against" is the alleged norm. norms are not "privilege". privilege implies *special* rights. by definition, something most people have isn't special.

in contrast, woke appears to have meaning people react to, even if they deny that meaning. unfortunately, a significant chunk of that meaning seems to be based on things that are factually inaccurate.

 

[Hygro]

No wonder every ******* disaster hits America , there are too many Golden boys per capita , and something in the shadows wants it's revange !!!!

This is a reference to the cave but I don't know what it means. But it's actually kind of a sick sentence.

 

[Hygro]

TOO MANY WOKE PEOPLE

 

[Henri Christophe]

TOO MANY WOKE PEOPLE

what is a woke people?

 

[sophie]

what is a woke people?

Found them

 

[RobAnybody]

'Privilege' is an unacceptable term, but 'wokeism' is?

Perhaps neither should be used. If the goal is to truly create dialogue that is, instead of to dismiss - & that applies equally to both words.

I feel like in reading along people get insulted by being called "woke" AND people get insulted by being called "privileged". And then people check out & start arguing semantics, instead of figuring out where they actually agree.

 

[Hygro]

That is discrimination against those that are awake ! Oh the irony !

It usually is...

 

[Synobun]

Perhaps neither should be used. If the goal is to truly create dialogue that is, instead of to dismiss - & that applies equally to both words.

I feel like in reading along people get insulted by being called "woke" AND people get insulted by being called "privileged". And then people check out & start arguing semantics, instead of figuring out where they actually agree.

I am not sure the people who use the term "privileged" are at fault for misunderstandings when the people whining about the term go out of their way to misrepresent what privilege is, even after being educated moments before. It is a matter of ideology. The terminology doesn't matter. Use the terms they suggest and there will be a shifted goalpost afterward. The intent is to bog down dialogue with nitpicking and strawmanning. There is no "crossing the aisle" when the other side has no intention of operating in good faith.

The number of people who whine about the term "woke" is minuscule in comparison. In fact, "woke" is a boogeyman term used by the same people who decry the use of "privilege." The thread here in OT about wokeism was largely made up of leftists going "I don't really care" and right-wingers suggesting it was the fall of society as we know it. Meanwhile any discussion about privilege results in the same usual suspects swinging in on a rope and declaring proudly the same argument they used last time, which was thoroughly debunked and corrected, and then adopting a sense of righteous resistance when challenged yet again.

 

[Lexicus]

Perhaps neither should be used. If the goal is to truly create dialogue that is, instead of to dismiss - & that applies equally to both words.

I feel like in reading along people get insulted by being called "woke" AND people get insulted by being called "privileged". And then people check out & start arguing semantics, instead of figuring out where they actually agree.

Treating these as equivalent fails the smell test

 

[RobAnybody]

I am not sure the people who use the term "privileged" are at fault for misunderstandings when the people whining about the term go out of their way to misrepresent what privilege is...

*sigh* then carry on using it & having the same exact conversations you've been having while accomplishing nothing

 

[Lexicus]

*sigh* then carry on using it & having the same exact conversations you've been having while accomplishing nothing

It's almost like the issue isn't a failure by the "woke" to convince the "privileged" by superior appeals to rationality, but rather that the material interest of the "privileged" in continuing to enjoy their "privilege" will tend to pull harder than rationality

 

[RobAnybody]

yeah, it's totally that - that'll show 'em!

EDIT: sorry - I apologize for being snarky - but who are you going to convince to understand your position by such a post? I'm just questioning whether the intent is to actually convince, or to simply demonize? If it's the latter, then carry on.

 

[Lexicus]

yeah, it's totally that - that'll show 'em!

EDIT: sorry - I apologize for being snarky - but who are you going to convince to understand your position by such a post? I'm just questioning whether the intent is to actually convince, or to simply demonize? If it's the latter, then carry on.

The path lies in showing the majority of people that their material interest lies in solidarity against the rich and the bosses rather than in racial, gender, or other types of exclusion and discrimination.

To some extent, yes, I am saying that some people aren't able to be convinced. This is a bitter pill for centrists to swallow but it is nonetheless true.

 

[Synobun]

*sigh* then carry on using it & having the same exact conversations you've been having while accomplishing nothing

I don't use it in my personal conversations and don't even like the term. But again, this is demonstration of people not engaging in good faith on the subject. You singled out a portion of the very first sentence and then went off on your "we'll see who cancels who, woke moralists" tangent. Your "there has to be a better way" is thinly veiled support for a particular side of this.

 

[RobAnybody]

The path lies in showing the majority of people that their material interest lies in solidarity against the rich and the bosses rather than in racial, gender, or other types of exclusion and discrimination.

To some extent, yes, I am saying that some people aren't able to be convinced. This is a bitter pill for centrists to swallow but it is nonetheless true.

I agree with you. But this "you're Woke" vs. "you're Privileged" argument serves no purpose. And paints with too broad a brush(es). I agree that some people can't be convinced. But some can.

And either side just falling back on short-hand labels accomplishes nothing - neither side. Those that can be convinced or persuaded, once called a label, don't listen anymore. I've witnessed it. So all I'm saying is... maybe refrain from it? Ignore those who obviously can't be reasoned with, sure (I do it) but maybe refrain from tossing the label at either side when a dialogue can be had but you have some disagreements.

I've seen you called "Woke!" And then you stop listening to the person who called you that (which I'm not criticizing - you are justified in that). But just know that when you call someone "Prejudiced!" - they have the same reaction, & stop listening to your well-reasoned posts. I've seen it so often, & am dismayed by it - people are SO close to agreeing or coming to a mutual understanding, but then [label] gets tossed out & it all falls apart.

It's a great example of how discourse goes wrong, when people I view while reading along as a lurker mostly (except for the last few pages of course ), are *almost there* - they *almost understand each other* - but then one side or the other falls back on [label], & it all falls apart & goes back to sniping.

 

[RobAnybody]

I don't use it in my personal conversations and don't even like the term. But again, this is demonstration of people not engaging in good faith on the subject. You singled out a portion of the very first sentence and then went off on your "we'll see who cancels who, woke moralists" tangent. Your "there has to be a better way" is thinly veiled support for a particular side of this.

Then I communicated my "message" poorly & I apologize. It was not meant to be viewed that way - see my above reply to @Lexicus & I hope that helps clarify. I just see so many folks on here [] <--this close to understanding each other but then it all falls apart.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree with you. But this "you're Woke" vs. "you're Privileged" argument serves no purpose. And paints with too broad a brush(es). I agree that some people can't be convinced. But some can.

And either side just falling back on short-hand labels accomplishes nothing - neither side. Those that can be convinced or persuaded, once called a label, don't listen anymore. I've witnessed it. So all I'm saying is... maybe refrain from it? Ignore those who obviously can't be reasoned with, sure (I do it) but maybe refrain from tossing the label at either side when a dialogue can be had but you have some disagreements.

I've seen you called "Woke!" And then you stop listening to the person who called you that (which I'm not criticizing - you are justified in that). But just know that when you call someone "Prejudiced!" - they have the same reaction, & stop listening to your well-reasoned posts. I've seen it so often, & am dismayed by it - people are SO close to agreeing or coming to a mutual understanding, but then [label] gets tossed out & it all falls apart.

It's a great example of how discourse goes wrong, when people I view while reading along as a lurker mostly (except for the last few pages of course ), are *almost there* - they *almost understand each other* - but then one side or the other falls back on [label], & it all falls apart & goes back to sniping.

First of all, I don't stop listening to people when they insult me. I actually appreciate when people insult me cleverly, it's funny (@Naskra recently had a banger in the Trump thread for example).

Anyway, I do agree that there are communication problems in general and that I've been guilty of bad or counterproductive communication on many occasions. And complicating the issue is that many people concerned with issues of privilege and prejudice do not agree with the idea I laid out above, in the sense that they are explicitly opposed to economic class as the organizing principle for politics, and many do believe that white people, or cis men, constitute a class of privileged people with such a material interest in continuing oppression that they are effectively not reachable by any kind of discursive appeal at all.

BUT, I really do think that the sort of unspoken implication of the point you're making here - that we could all just get along through better communication - is not accurate. This is not to say that all input in the form of "you could improve your communication in this conversation by doing x" must be rejected, because we can all always do better, but like, yeah, I think material interest divides people and not just rhetoric or abstract partisanship, and there are issues that simply can't be solved by debate and discussion.

 

[RobAnybody]

BUT, I really do think that the sort of unspoken implication of the point you're making here - that we could all just get along through better communication - is not accurate. This is not to say that all input in the form of "you could improve your communication in this conversation by doing x" must be rejected, because we can all always do better, but like, yeah, I think material interest divides people and not just rhetoric or abstract partisanship, and there are issues that simply can't be solved by debate and discussion.

Bolding mine. While I take your larger point - I tried to just limit my point in prior posts to just not using "woke" or "privilege" so much (I did diverge & should've kept it consistent to just those words). Those words are where I see *in this thread* communication break down, when a concept appears to be *so* close to being agreed upon, or at least an understanding reached.

 

[Angst]

Woke is a problem term because it doesn't really mean anything. It's not particularly insulting, it's just imprecise and the users of the term tend not to actually be acquainted with what "woke" believe, how they talk, etc. "Woke" people are also disparate and often fundamentally disagree with each other. I could be considered "woke", but at the same time, "woke" acquaintances I have are not uncommon to think my beliefs are unacceptable. "Woke" is ambigiously leftist and somewhat progressive, and it's usually invoked in practice thinking of the "woke" as some common force. I mean, in broad strokes, progressive leftists do things - draw some border around people at some time, and they produce X barrells of wheat as a group - but it's way too chaotic and internally contradictory for the term to be useful imo.

Privileged... I'm going to make broad strokes here since I'm not well acquainted with the literature (I have read the literature, but I'm a musicologist, and I focused on aesthetics), and other dirty leftists can correct me. Because I'm largely butchering it. If I'm unhelpful, let me know.

"Privileged" is more of a cluster of demographics that can inform beliefs. Priviliged doesn't mean you think the same thing as other privileged, but it means that you belong to certain groups that aren't as vulnerable as others. While you may not believe privilege to be relevant, it delineates groups descriptively.

My point is that the two words are not refering to similar things, the two words work differently. Even if both are exonyms (yes, woke has become an exonym largely today, even if it started in AAVE). Privilege as a grouping is similar to me using the word "Danes", for example; this as a cluster of demographics refers to Danish citizens and people of Danish ethnicity. Danes are described as a group, and may have beliefs informed by what they are. It's descriptive. You're not evil for being privileged. While of course you're evil for being Danish. It's not a moral brand, although people that think it relevant usually want the structures gone. Not the people.

Compared to Dane, of course, privileged means different things depending on the area and time in history. It's more complex than citizenship. But this doesn't mean it's not delineated.

Woke is not demographically descriptive. It's instead like - if it's not outright - saying post-Marxists and feminist liberals are the same. They're not. And the number of groups referred to can't really be meaningfully done at delineation. It also implies common belief and infers political action. And in regards to which action, the "woke" ask, "which of them again"?

Like both sex positive feminists and anti-pornographic feminists fall under "woke" at random intervals. It's nonsense.

 

[Hygro]

To actually live in the times, where people hate each other based on when they are awake - it's amazinig ! It's too much even for me .... ahahahahahahah

Your posts were a lot more sober a week ago.