"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Kaitzilla]

You repackage my words to your liking. I repeat, woke is an impediment to understanding.

If everyone has a lot of equality and the environment is very comfortable, that sounds like a pretty good religion even if they spout technobabble.

We live under the shadow of capital markets and nobody understands how they work either.

 

[Naskra]

If everyone has a lot of equality and the environment is very comfortable,

Exactly - incoherent eco-egalitarianism.

 

[Arwon]

Some day I hope to live in an era where the dumbest people on the internet don't turn a procession of bits of AAVE slang into bogeymen and slurs.

 

[amadeus]

I'm not acquainted with the problem's history. Popular ideologies are reasonably new historically, and most of the history I've read has been about misappropriating other movements additively, ie enlarging your political space and influence by using ideology wrong and therefore being inclusive to people that aren't actually agreeing with you on base tenets. EDIT: Nazis did both of course. National socialists and "cultural Marxism". But I don't know about other movements. But the awareness of this particular history is why the left often (and often rightfully) gets spooked when the right starts grouping them all into the same straw basket.

I would say it grew with representative government; John Adams called Thomas Jefferson a “weak,” “libertine,” “atheist” and Jefferson retorted Adams was a “crook” and a “tyrant.” I mean when you had the divine right of kings, who cared what the peasantry thought? We can stretch this back further if we look at religion: the Pope doesn’t like you? Heretic! Excommunicated! God told me you stink!

 

[El_Machinae]

I watch and read a lot of right wing media to keep up. It's definitely pinpointed to academia too.

We deal with something similar to what I perceived as 'woke' in the Green Party here. A reasonable ratio of them were quite bonkers and loudly espoused 'green' ideas that didn't reflect due consideration of the policy we were trying to discover and definitely weren't useful when it came to evangelicalism. And, they'd latch onto various weird things, seemingly willy nilly. Now, not being an expert in those 'other things', I'd not know if they were actually representing the actual academia. But, knowing what I know in the field I knew, I could assume they were just as weird there.

Like I said, I am more familiar with 'woke' being a dismissal rather than a summary. Like all dismissals, it was ignoring the good while definitely trying to silence the dumb. So, I guess the accuracy of that usage is dependent on who it's being used against. Usually my concern with 'wokeism' is that it's picking the wrong battles, which will be frustrating if it feels like it's causing harm while trying to help. So, saying "wokeism is a problem" would be a tautology, but one oriented in a way to communicate the perpetrator and type of problem.

I'm not sure what dismissive insult should replace it, if it's too inaccurate. Keep in mind, I'm terrifically fond of the word libtard because of its beauty in communicating and because it was invented while I was paying attention. Like, if I wanted to say the sentence "I identify as right wing, I assume you're what I call 'left-wing', and not only do I wish to call you dumb, but also offend you by mocking what I perceive to be your values", I could say the whole thing.

OR, I could just Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra with "libtard"

 

[João III]

Short version - litmus test. If someone says "political correctness" or "wokeism" they are not acquainted with any sort of the literature they're criticizing. Noone in the literature identifies themselves as such, and they're often diametrically opposed to each other. They're only identified as such when talked about between right wingers who, by the way, also have their speech reflected by virtue of not having read a damn article of the positions they don't like.

Is this supposed to just be limited to critics of wokeism?

 

[Angst]

Is this supposed to just be limited to critics of wokeism?

The OP outlines and targets the right's specific use of a number of subjects that are absolutely bonkers. Thread further noted that it's not unique to the right.

But personal opinion. These terms are what I know best because bluntly, the journalistic sphere has a pretty harsh divide in quality between right- and left wing pundits. This does not mean the right doesn't have proper ideas, there's some truly good literature there, I'm just permanently baffled at the quality of the prime drivers of the discourse. Wokeness doesn't mean anything as used, it's a rhetorical function to dismiss. All while, yes, major left-wing pundits actually read their stuff. Symptomatic of this is the Peterson vs Zizek farce.

 

[João III]

The OP outlines and targets the right's specific use of a number of subjects that are absolutely bonkers. Thread further noted that it's not unique to the right.

Ah okay, I was going to say this phenomenon is perhaps similarly seen with religion or ethnicity. Like how people erroneously lump together Evangelicals and Catholics or, more infamously, Salafist jihadis with all Muslims

But personal opinion. These terms are what I know best because bluntly, the journalistic sphere has a pretty harsh divide in quality between right- and left wing pundits. This does not mean the right doesn't have proper ideas, there's some truly good literature there, I'm just permanently baffled at the quality of the prime drivers of the discourse.

I'm personally not impressed with most political pundits in general, but I get what you're saying and I think agree, particularly with the bolded. It's not like there aren't good historical examples of right wing literature, it's just that proponents choose to... ignore it all? Like you said, it's very baffling

 

[Narz]

Douche isn't really an ideology.

The problem is just that the terminology is highly inaccurate. My favourite stupid conglomerate is Jordan Peterson's "postmodern neomarxism" which exists in some regard but is exceptionally limited as to followers in the real world. Postmodernists fundamentally are antimodernist while Marxists are at their core proponents of modernism. This is why these exonyms that circulate within the right are so bad. Right pundits aren't aware of what they're criticizing so they group disparate and conflicting ideologies together. That they then mislabel it constantly is bad because it's showcasing how absolutely off the criticisms are, and how little they've actually read what they're angry at. That's why I said it's a good litmus test as to who's aware of what the vague left actually believes; if you read the literature you will actually criticize what people want to be happening. This is the state of affairs and why the litmus test works.

The thing is that it works. By lumping the wackiest nonsense on the left in with basic stables of actual left-wing ideology like universal healthcare, affordable college, treating climate change like the threat it is, etc. they win. You can say it's lazy and wrong but it works and unfortunately I think it will continue to work (i.e. : us democrats will lose ground in 2022).

You can criticize the right for doing it but I think it makes more sense to narrow the focus of the left onto the issues that actually matter because why would the right stop?

It's like if you are unfairly treated at work but you really need that job. You can complain about coworkers or management or just realize they're gonna attack you and rise to the occasion and go above and beyond.

Or maybe a better analogy is a fight. If your opponent is fighting dirty you can get beat up and say "it's cause the other guy threw sand in my eyes and kicked me in the nuts" but it's better to just win the fight.

All the energy against Trump and the best we got was Biden & Harris. Pretty sad stuff. Let's take the log from our own eye and maybe inspire some people.

Maybe you don't want roads built in your backyard, but maybe yell at your city planner over it rather than the local baker. That's what I'm getting at.

Those who divide w online rhetoric don't care about roads being built. They don't live in the same world as us. They think it's funny when people yell @ the baker. Right or left they're in their yachts & flying first class.

Your own example of what virtue signaling is, contrary to how it's used, is also a good example of this weird environment.

What are you referring to here?

 

[Angst]

Ah okay, I was going to say this phenomenon is perhaps similarly seen with religion or ethnicity. Like how people erroneously lump together Evangelicals and Catholics or, more infamously, Salafist jihadis with all Muslims

I'm personally not impressed with most political pundits in general, but I get what you're saying and I think agree, particularly with the bolded. It's not like there aren't good historical examples of right wing literature, it's just that proponents choose to... ignore it all? Like you said, it's very baffling

I'm glad you agree. It's actually saddening, because while I'm a dirty leftist, I seriously hold that the right has some good literature and some proper thoughts. Hell, even Burke, who I despise, had some good points.

The thing is that it works. By lumping the wackiest nonsense on the left in with basic stables of actual left-wing ideology like universal healthcare, affordable college, treating climate change like the threat it is, etc. they win. You can say it's lazy and wrong but it works and unfortunately I think it will continue to work (i.e. : us democrats will lose ground in 2022).

You can criticize the right for doing it but I think it makes more sense to narrow the focus of the left onto the issues that actually matter because why would the right stop?

It's like if you are unfairly treated at work but you really need that job. You can complain about coworkers or management or just realize they're gonna attack you and rise to the occasion and go above and beyond.

Or maybe a better analogy is a fight. If your opponent is fighting dirty you can get beat up and say "it's cause the other guy threw sand in my eyes and kicked me in the nuts" but it's better to just win the fight.

All the energy against Trump and the best we got was Biden & Harris. Pretty sad stuff. Let's take the log from our own eye and maybe inspire some people.


Those who divide w online rhetoric don't care about roads being built. They don't live in the same world as us. They think it's funny when people yell @ the baker. Right or left they're in their yachts & flying first class.

Don't get me wrong, I get that it works. It's why I noted it's a function. I just don't think it's, well, helpful to anyone. It's pure rhetoric and it works, but it doesn't reflect reality. This is bad. Whether I can actually change that, I don't know (meaning: I can't), but I can try and personally tell people to ignore pundits that use the terminology, since it's very, very rare they actually have a clue about the things they talk about. That's at least my position on it. The moment someone says SJW unironically, it's time to stop listening to that person. Even right wingers I discuss these things with IRL understand this quickly, at least for the duration of the talk. Most people understand that it's fruitless to hate something for what it isn't. You can hate it, but do it for what it is.

Also, again, it's not like I'm a teacher or a propagator. I'm not particularly smart for pointing out that hating things for what they aren't isn't helping anyone.

What are you referring to here?

You noted that virtue signalling is a common thing but is overall associated with the left, since people aren't using the terminology as it actually is. I just wanted to say that's exactly how I understand it. It's a regular phenomenon, it's just less visible in the status quo.

 

[Narz]

Don't get me wrong, I get that it works. It's why I noted it's a function. I just don't think it's, well, helpful to anyone. It's pure rhetoric and it works, but it doesn't reflect reality.

I agree but when has any mass ideology (religion, patriotism, king/celebrity worship, etc) ever been in touch w reality? It's not sold to the masses w the intent to educate. People forget news is big business & more entertainment than anything. They consume their favorite brand of 'journalism' and think they're learning something when mostly they're just having their emotions appealed to like any other kind of advertisement.

I don't mean to sound totally cynical, I think there are some in power who care a little bit about society but (and this is just me speculating like anyone else) I suspect that for most they view it more as a game of civilization or simcity.

Most people understand that it's fruitless to hate something for what it isn't. You can hate it, but do it for what it is.

Buddhists would say we don't really know what anything is (self, other, society), even our own sense of ourself is mostly just a collection of stereotypes. So I agree that a low hate outlook is good.

The issue is that hate is quick, easy and energizing and to a confused, overwhelmed and downtrodden person (almost everyone) it feels at least a little empowering (and creates solidarity w others who are woke to the same ideas).

One can try to view others (and oneself) as reactivity patterns, lacking free will and even when appearing malicious simply doing the best they can like irritable rats trapped in cages they didn't create. But this is hard to do & creates perhaps a little too much distance, we're evolved to think this is all super real and raw and that it's all very serious & dramatic.

Dunno, letting media & culture play us against each other & ourselves is dumb but when people are bored they'll play dumb games.

We need some global projects to bring people together. If I let myself be optimistic for a moment perhaps climate change can be that challenge altho I suspect it will mostly create further division, suspicion and us vstheism.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't need to read the literature to understand how it's being used. It's either an insult or shorthand for annoying/virtue signaling/preachy.

 

[Lexicus]

It doesn't matter how you define yourself. Others define you. Noone self-defines as a douche either. Must one be versed in the lore of douchery before one dubs another a douche?

Ancient lore says "takes one to know one"

 

[Lexicus]

The Age of Enlightenment is winding down; wokery is a symptom of a deep change in our civilization. A new inchoate and still incoherent faith is rising. It's a kind of eco-egalatarianism. Too bad it has such god-awful prophets.

Of course: the real spirit of the Enlightenment isn't with those who continue to question and critique, it is with those who say "you know what? We've applied critical reason to enough of society; it's time to stop now."

Hell, even Burke, who I despise, had some good points.

Burke was correct empirically that societies & institutions are sort of like collections of inherited knowledge and traditions, but it's sure something for conservatives to simultaneously claim the mantle of the Enlightenment while basically declaring that you can't really apply critical reason to improve society because the traditions inherited from the past are simultaneously so powerful we can never transcend them even if we try but also so weak that they need to be defended by banning gay marxists from public schools or whatever.

Anyway I'm rambling but tell me what good points Burke had please.

 

[amadeus]

Even when you get down within a group of likeminded people, there are still divisions that pop up and inaccuracies that fly around. Ludwig von Mises once stormed out of a Mont Perelin Society meeting calling them “a bunch of socialists” for disagreeing with him on some issue of public funding for something, don’t remember what.

The same happens in left-wing groups, splinters, orthodox Marxists, anarchists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Hoxhaists (“We’re Bonkers for Bunkers!”)

 

[Akka]

I'm afraid that I'm a bit lost with the amount of verbosity and possibly cultural references that might go over my head, but from what I've gathered in the OP, it feels like it's a long-winded way of accusing those who use "woke" of being ignorants who don't know/understand the ideas covered by the moniker they use.
Or, in another way :

The moment someone says SJW unironically, it's time to stop listening to that person.

With "woke" instead of "SJW".

Did I get it right ?

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm afraid that I'm a bit lost with the amount of verbosity and possibly cultural references that might go over my head, but from what I've gathered in the OP, it feels like it's a long-winded way of accusing those who use "woke" of being ignorants who don't know/understand the ideas covered by the moniker they use.
Or, in another way :

With "woke" instead of "SJW".

Did I get it right ?

I mostly use it for short hand. People know the gist of it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

A specter is haunting the West - the specter of Wokery. Just kidding, wokery does not exist. Yet as a linguistic phenomenon (one speaks wokery, one does not do wokery) the symptoms of wokery include:

Intersectional
my pronouns
patriarchy
social construct
{alphabet} community
CRT is legal analysis
toxic somethingorother
any trans neologism
disproportionate whatever

...time does not permit.

Realky weird how the majority of these are directly related to the acceptance of people who aren't cis, white, rich, male or Christian

I wonder what that's all about eh

 

[Berzerker]

squeaky wheel

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't "woke" the political branch of "hipster"? Both are terms no one uses to refer to themselves.