Berzerker
Deity
Wokism - respect other people you racist bigot
it doesn't take Nostradamas to see that wokism aint leading down the road to tolerance
Groups are mocked for their most annoying vanguard
The hypocrite is complicit
"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
- Status
Wokism - respect other people you racist bigot
it doesn't take Nostradamas to see that wokism aint leading down the road to tolerance
Groups are mocked for their most annoying vanguard
The hypocrite is complicit
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
They might get dirty in their soul?
Senethro
Overlord
There were some levels of irony in that one liner, apologies.
Even if a person is employed in the inhumane treatment of animals, I'd still prefer to know their income rather than their occupation as when guessing if they eat less inhumane meat than average.
butchers are a bit spenno tho
They are the cheapest place I can get meat.
I have never been called normal
Assuming this is remotely accurate, and not a stellar example of what the OP was talking about, it's only contradictory if you believe that people should be respected for being bigoted and / or racist. Do you?
Akka
Moody old mage.
No, it can (and does) simply point the very common habits of "pro-woke" people to claim they are tolerants and yet immediately label as "bigot", "racist", "sexist" and so on anyone who disagrees with them.
I mean, let's not play dumb, this has been constantly pointed, and several times in this thread alone. It's not like you have an actual real and honest reason to misunderstand :-/
Senethro
Overlord
This is half a thought. Maybe you'd care to expand it, as you've at least taken the effort to begin.
If the situation is as you describe, why is that bad (not that you are even explicitly suggesting such, but there are a lot of negative associated words in your post)? And if so, what would be a better situation, and how would we get there?
I don't conflate peoples' positions with other peoples' positions, generally. Your argument is not Berzerker's, and vice versa, regardless of any overlap (trust me on this one).
To take yours explicitly, to claim tolerance of people generally is not the same as accepting everyone all the time for everything that they are. That would mean accepting people who are demonstrably racist, despite them being . . . well, racist. The "paradox of tolerance" is a well-established concept in "woke" circles. So while you may perceive it as contradictory, it's actually because you don't understand the position of the person you're making a rather shallow caricature of. And you are. By generalising this behaviour as being applied to "anyone who disagrees with them" - which is demonstrably false by conversations with me alone, nevermind anyone else, you're making a caricature of the other "side" in this relatively two-sided debate.
Pejorative labels may not help discussion, and without touching on it too much, are literally a reason why we have moderation on this forum (and indeed basically any other one in existence). But that doesn't mean the label is inherently inaccurate (or accurate). You're attempting to claim that these labels are a) deployed even when inaccurate and b) by people who are allegedly tolerant of others. Without specifically evidencing either claim. Notably, you disagreeing with an assertion somebody in the thread is making doesn't make it inaccurate, right? It just means you disagree with it, for whatever reason(s).
But again, as I've pointed out throughout the thread, people are more than happy to use "woke" in a pejorative context and apply it to in-thread posters. So where's the "tolerance" there? Or are people who use "woke" in such a way therefore categorised as intolerant people? That doesn't seem like something people would agree with? Like, it flat out doesn't. People want to be able to use the word "woke" and still be considered decent, tolerant people who just dislike "excesses" or whatever their boundaries for tolerance are.
To summarise because I'm rambling a bit, it's pretty simple. You not understanding that "tolerance" doesn't mean "acceptance of everyone, including murderers, rapists, literal Neo-Nazis, etc" doesn't mean that said tolerance is in fact hypocritical. What it means is you don't agree with the labels being used, and you're attempting to turn this into an argument to hypocrisy instead of debating the usage of the labels. That's where this is getting confused, I think.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Fair enough, even if I feel this point was raised often enough to not be confusing.
First, I'd like to commend you on the use of a summary, it certainly helps to answer the meat of the subject without going for a sliced post
Second, I perfectly understand the tolerance paradox (I even said at some point that my main philosophical problem is keeping open-mindedness without falling into moral relativism). Here you're rather here illustrating the problem shown back in the very OP, the biased delusion about people disagreeing with woke ideology mainly doing so from ignorance.
I'm just pointing at the, let's say, systemic abuse of words and labels of the -phobe and -ism variety by people adhering to the woke ideology, which displays actual real intolerance when it comes to political ideas and attempts to use moral blackmail as a near-constant propaganda weapon, hidden being a pretext of not tolerating the intolerable (hence, yes, the hypocrisy).
And yet this is a claim that needs to be evidenced. As someone most would put in some kind of "woke" category, I do not see that abuse of the language is common. It certainly happens - I'm not somebody who believes that people left-of-centre are magically immune to prejudice, bias, racism, sexism, etc. It is a stereotype put upon me, and folks like me, from people who aren't. Is that fair?
Like, if you don't want to be stereotyped for your usage of "woke", but you are in turn basing this on a generalisation that doesn't even have supporting evidence (and to be fair to you, I don't think it can be evidenced. It's based on your anecdotal experience with these groups of people, the same as it is for me) . . . do you see why we therefore disagree?
It's not a "biased delusion" (and such language is, again, needlessly pointed) to say that people who use "woke" often do it from a position of ignorance on what "woke" demographics actually act like. The fact that you can identify bad-faith actors who use "woke" language doesn't mean that you can generalise the entire demographic by these bad-faith individuals. Or can you?
Akka
Moody old mage.
Would you similarly fight against stereotyping of other subgroups then ? Because I'm pretty sure this entire thread is full of such (in fact, the whole OP is basically all about stereotyping people who use "woke" and a large amount of posts are about claiming that just using the word is already a sign of being a racist right-winger).
Either we can notice trends in everyone or in no ones, but it seems there is a definite selectiveness about trends which are noticeable
Wait, weren't you telling me that such affirmations would need to be evidenced ?
Okay, what is the prevalence amount required to be able to consider it an overall trend in said subgroup ? Because, as said above, it doesn't seem that casting a stereotype on non-woke was raising such concerns earlier in the thread.
I mean, I'm repeatedly on-record as saying that words like "left", "right", "woke" and so on are incredibly shallow and reductive terms that often don't help debate at the level of nuance required for any given discussion. You know this already!
The problem seems to be that you draw an equivalence between Angst's OP and their argument as to who uses the word "woke", and "woke" itself being used as a stereotype. Why? Surely they're different things that have different contexts (despite being relatable via language use)?
For example, to me it seems non-controversial to say that using "woke" unironically is a sign of right-wing opinion (at least in terms of culture, vs. something like economics where left-to-right is used but means pretty different things at times). Because it's frequently a pejorative label. There's a reason I keep putting it in quotes, yeah? It's not something I use, generally, either online or IRL. It's not something the people I know use with any real regularity (except to deconstruct it, like Angst did in starting this thread). At the very least, not anymore.
Why is it a problem if people associate the word usage with a political leaning? Is it because it's inaccurate, or because you feel targeted by the association? I'm not trying to score points here, it's something I ask myself a lot when talking about leftist stereotypes and the like. Is the argument actually just about defining the % of wiggle room acceptable in these generalisations? Because that is the problem with generalisations. Their use only goes as far as the generalisation holding true generally. If it holds true less than most of the time, it's no longer accurate as a generalisation.
And that's the difference here. From where I'm sitting, people who use it unironically are more often than not culturally right-wing. Some aren't. And people who are genuinely "woke" do not, generally, abuse the labels in the way you're criticising. Some do. The question is: how do I convince you of that? Even if it isn't the same for you in your life - how do I convince you that I (or Angst, or whoever) are arguing from experience, and not suffering from some kind of delusion?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
is this about the usage of woke or why some left-wing politics are bad
because you seem to be arguing about the latter, while my point is the former. my point is solely about usage & accuracy, not to prove that the left should always be vindicated or whatever
Lexicus
Deity
My two cents on this is that many people prefer to see themselves as Logic Users In A Vacuum, and as such the suggestion that they have some ideology (which is inherent in the label "right-wing") is deeply triggering/unacceptable to them. They don't see themselves as having "political beliefs," merely as applying Logic to each issue as it arises.
- Status
