Critical race theory

[Farm Boy]

Overrated. Sobriety.

Seems like everyone outlives their desire to, on a long enough timeline. That's worthy of a little whatever.

 

[Arwon]

oke is a problem term because it doesn't really mean anything.

Oh it has a meaning, it's just that it's one of those terms which is actually defining the user of the term, not their intended referent.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can see why the conversation combines the two terms. "Woke" is used as an insult. People who use it as an insult might mistake "privileged" as an insult.

I guess it sometimes is, or at least it's tried to be used that way, but I would have to say that one of those words took off better in the popular lexicon as an insult than the other.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I can see why the conversation combines the two terms. "Woke" is used as an insult. People who use it as an insult might mistake "privileged" as an insult.

I guess it sometimes is, or at least it's tried to be used that way, but I would have to say that one of those words took off better in the popular lexicon as an insult than the other.

Privileged is easy to understand, since white people is very privileged.
But what is Woke? I'm strugling to understand that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Privileged is easy to understand, since white people is very privileged.
But what is Woke? I'm strugling to understand that.

It is two different terms. There are people who call themselves 'woke'. I'm not qualified to describe it.

And there are people who use the term 'woke' as an insult, where we mean that they are being an annoying person pushing some leftist or liberal agenda. It might not mean that they're being annoying, merely that they're pushing a leftist agenda. You have to calculate in the context whether the person using the insult is implying that they're annoying or not.

 

[Henri Christophe]

It is two different terms. There are people who call themselves 'woke'. I'm not qualified to describe it.

And there are people who use the term 'woke' as an insult, where we mean that they are being an annoying person pushing some leftist or liberal agenda. It might not mean that they're being annoying, merely that they're pushing a leftist agenda. You have to calculate in the context whether the person using the insult is implying that they're annoying or not.

my political agenda is far left side, Am I a woke?

 

[Angst]

my political agenda is far left side, Am I a woke?

on this and your previous question; woke has no delineation and is used quite arbitrarily. there is one approximating limitation. woke can mean anything as long as it's vaguely on the progressive side of identity politics. the problem is that this accounts for a VAST number of contradictory beliefs, goals and practices. again, my example where sex positive feminists and leftist antisexualization are both "woke" depending on the random instance of the word being used. all while the two movements are fundamentally opposed.

left wingers rarely call themselves woke in seriousness. it's an exonym mostly, some vague thing with a poor sense of understanding what 'inwoked' people believe, practice, and want. it's never clearly delineated who is woke exactly, but most of the time the term is used to paint a picture of horrific fervor. what that fervor actually DOES is left up to the imagination of whoever just don't like vague left progressivism. the woke people are removing sexuality in video games, and at the same time they're promoting heinous sexual promiscuity in video games. somehow.

so no. you're not woke in actuality. it's nonsense.

 

[Hygro]

left wingers rarely call themselves woke in seriousness.

Some of us do, but the context is different. a) more broadly and not remotely limited to issues of social justice and b) not in conversation with the asleep.

 

[Gorbles]

I have two kids, aged five and nearly two. By that metric, I'm always a(woke).

Am I doing it right?

 

[Hygro]

Noooooooooo

 

[aelf]

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.

Uh, you people are reacting so hard to "privilege". Who are you kidding?

 

[Farm Boy]

Sometimes when all you're trying to do is get through the day without punching the checkout card, you don't have the capacity to be lectured on your blessings. At least when church does it, it's generally not work mandated.

Is it any surprise the culture war generally bubbles up from the bottom on this one? They're also the ones it is safer to step on, if you happen to be the sort of person that likes to hear rabbits squeak.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Uh, you people are reacting so hard to "privilege". Who are you kidding?

it's yet another case where words have meaning.

having a right to self defense is no more "privilege" than your disagreeing with another poster is raping them. it's not what those respective words mean.

similarly, if someone's right to self-defense is violated, that is a serious problem. much more so than framing it as a "lack of privilege".

 

[bernie14]

That sounds like a rabid exaggeration lmao.

I agree, CRT is a rabid exaggeration

 

[aelf]

I agree, CRT is a rabid exaggeration

This is true, because there is no such thing as CRT as described there. So when you say "CRT" here, in reference to that, it can only mean the made up version that is indeed a rabid exaggeration of the real thing.

it's yet another case where words have meaning.

Uh, huh. And "wokeism" has meaning to you, amirite?

 

[JollyRoger]

it's yet another case where words have meaning.

having a right to self defense is no more "privilege" than your disagreeing with another poster is raping them. it's not what those respective words mean.

similarly, if someone's right to self-defense is violated, that is a serious problem. much more so than framing it as a "lack of privilege".

According to Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment, your so-called "right" to self-defense is a mere privilege that can be infringed upon by the state in numerous ways.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

According to Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment, your so-called "right" to self-defense is a mere privilege that can be infringed upon by the state in numerous ways.

it's not lost on me that even scotus makes the constitution a piece of paper and flagrantly ignores it sometimes. doesn't seem so keen on reliably providing due process either for instance, and they have a very different idea of what constitutes a "reasonable" search/seizure than me.

and yes, i would agree these are also serious problems.

Uh, huh. And "wokeism" has meaning to you, amirite?

as it seems to have to others as well, based on reactions to it. similar to "crt". "this isn't crt, but we're going to react to it as if it's crt anyway" should raise eyebrows.

 

[aelf]

similar to "crt". "this isn't crt, but we're going to react to it as if it's crt anyway" should raise eyebrows.

Yeah, that's not what's happening.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, that's not what's happening.

it definitely happened earlier in this thread, with a supposed "anti-crt" bill that people simultaneously reject is actually crt while reacting to it as if it's still nevertheless related to crt.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Privileged is easy to understand, since white people is very privileged.

I'm disturbed by such a broad essentialization. When you're born white and poor with cystic fibrosis in Littleville, Arkansas, you're not priviledged. When you're born black in a multi-millionaire family in Beverly Hills, you're priviledged. We aren't only the categories we're supposed to belong to, we're foremost individuals, all with our own story and our own personality, even when we face discriminations.

There's something rather dystopian in the contemporary American society. Politicians are billionnaires serving first the interests of other billionaires and stirring up identity politics, opposing poor people against one another, to grab some votes. Neither the pro-Trump guy cherishing his gun in Idaho nor the BLM activist in South Chicago have any actual chance to vote for someone really serving his interests. Everything is made by the rich for the rich. Yet that is this way because Americans accept it to be as such.

Now is it really the best way to make the country better? Before answering the question, I think it would deserve a second thought.