Cloud_Strife
Deity
Who is doing that, exactly?
"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
- Status
Who is doing that, exactly?
I mean, yeah. That's kinda the point. It's exactly why I asked you if you were objecting because you personally felt targeted by association. The only way to get at more nuance is to accept that these things happen for a reason, and then discuss the reasons. The reasons may be more justified, or they may be less so.
Assuming this is a thing that could happen for a second, "moral blackmail" doesn't really exist on a forum where the same people go around the same circles in the same threads ad infinitum. Especially the "not accepting any differing opinion" bit. That's - again - not something you can uniquely level at the posters you are. We're all resistant to change, it's the reasons for that resistance that matter.
Me personally? I don't see "shrieking wokists" trying to blackmail people "just asking questions" into silence. In pretty much any thread. Because it's rarely "just asking questions". Because we've all done these topics to death. Repeatedly (see: Senethro's post a few posts back). And I haven't even been here as long as some of you folks. The answers have repeatedly been given. At some point, it's simply logical to assume people don't want to accept these answers. Which makes the questions suspect from the point of being asked.
"just asking questions" only works insofar as those people are receptive to the answers. Generally, the answers are questioned, dissected and generally-undermined. And sure, we all have a habit of doing that at least from time to time. That's not the point. The point is the framing of "insults vs. questions", which to me simply isn't accurate. Which, again, is why I asked you if you felt personally targeted by association. Because I certainly do every time someone dumps a huge paragraph about how "wokists" are an apparent scourge upon humanity
It affects how we approach discussions; it biases us. In that specific case, it indicates I'm not going to get very far past that person's bias about "woke" behaviour, because I'll just be seen as a part of that group (which GenMarshall handily proved explicitly by literally using the phrase "you folk").The additional problem of "just asking questions" is that it has collateral damage. If a few people are stirring the pot, anybody else who may be being genuine are going to have work harder to prove their genuine interest and openness to being educated (on the answers to the questions; which is why they're asked in the first place - right?). This is unavoidable. Instead of blaming people for inflicting collateral damage (which is what you're doing), you should work to see where the pot is being stirred, and by who. This is what I do a lot (trying to post needlessly less, though this thread's kinda a lost cause there - and simply report more).
So you can see it as simply "insults vs. questions" if you want. But that's not going to solve any problems in discussions here.
Narz
keeping it real
If you want to improve society improve your own behavior and aim to alter power structures as best you can.
Going after Joe in the office for microaggressions ain't improving anything. Go make an actual difference
Same could be said about literally anybody going on about their own personal bugbears, including the people railing against "wokery" in the first place. Best of luck!
Narz
keeping it real
I agree
It's most people, maybe even me right this moment.
Much easier to criticize others on your level than improve yourself or go after those above you.
Senethro
Overlord
From this sentence we cannot know if Joe is a chronic sexual harasser, or if he is clicking the wrong likes on facebook. But broadly, if Joe's big enough to talk, hes big enough to listen.
Rg339
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2022
- Messages
- 308
This obviously goes both ways. The one speaking to Joe, if big enough to talk, has to be big enough to listen.
In the end, the people will decide whether or not the shark has been jumped regarding whether X statement so-and-so made is an -ism.
Frankly, it looks to me that it has. Those who would claim “X statement is prejudiced” usually have the backing of influential social institutions, yet, the lengths of any threads regarding their chosen social causes are very long. There’s no consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached with the backing of the social powerhouses who run the offices, the argument being made lacks persuasive power.
Senethro
Overlord
Lacks persuasive power sufficient to overcome opposing forces, maybe.
Rg339
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2022
- Messages
- 308
Fair. It’s not easy, even with elite support, to overturn norms, many of which have arguably existed for thousands of years.
I refer you back to the question I posed earlier of utility and practicality. What’s the easier sell? Overturning norms that are deeply entrenched within the culture, or economic reforms that put more money in the average persons pocket?
Maybe selling more egalitarian norms turns out easier. I don’t have a crystal ball. But it looks like a quagmire right now, sapping energy away from things like healthcare reform. It’s putting this inertia into leftist thought that’s paralyzing momentum. It’s like a chess player with 2x as much material who’s internally debating so excessively he’s probably going to lose on time.
I refer you back to the question I posed earlier of utility and practicality. What’s the easier sell? Overturning norms that are deeply entrenched within the culture, or economic reforms that put more money in the average persons pocket?
Maybe selling more egalitarian norms turns out easier. I don’t have a crystal ball. But it looks like a quagmire right now, sapping energy away from things like healthcare reform. It’s putting this inertia into leftist thought that’s paralyzing momentum. It’s like a chess player with 2x as much material who’s internally debating so excessively he’s probably going to lose on time.
Titration and wisely assigning your strength is essential. Only slightly less essential than weilding it in the first place.
These are both simultaneously good points. I think that some of the irritation when people use 'woke' is that the support is dogmatic rather than intellectual. At the same time, identifying the dogmatic beliefs (which will flit, even) isn't going to be easy. Sometimes it's like porn, you know it when you see it. There's a counter-point to woke, but it's the same thing. Like, when I hear someone's beliefs on climate change, I can predict their stance on abortion. There's a clumping of beliefs. But, further, when one of those people is seeking to 'cancel/suppress' someone of the opposing dialogue, we can't actually predict if the vociferous person is yelling from an informed position. Which means that any specific sincere conversation has a pretty high risk of causing you to lose respect for the opponent.
Countering actual microaggressions can be valuable, because they're very much about power structures. I had a really awesome one happen to me a few years ago. I mentioned news about the local "Indigenous Reserve", and my friend said "No, it's a First Nations reserve. It's a legal entity that happens to have indigenous people in it". I was using a racial term for a legal designation. She wasn't as polite or succinct or even clear about it as that, so it took a couple of days of shower-thoughts to figure out why she got so upset. But that was it. And now I can tell others. Importantly, I can tell people who have much more political and financial clout than her. It's a zero-effort change, and makes the term clearer even, so it's a net-win.
The big problem (on the woke side) about micro-corrections of micro-aggressions is that the person doing the correcting isn't viewed as qualified to make the correction and (worse) actually isn't qualified to make the correction (they're just pushing current woke dogma). In counter-point, the other side of the problem is when the target wouldn't respect the opinion of a qualified person. The final problem happens when one side mistakes the other for the bad version.
This stuff is hard to build recognizable credentials for, which makes the over-stepping dogmatic believers a risky tool.
These are both simultaneously good points. I think that some of the irritation when people use 'woke' is that the support is dogmatic rather than intellectual. At the same time, identifying the dogmatic beliefs (which will flit, even) isn't going to be easy. Sometimes it's like porn, you know it when you see it. There's a counter-point to woke, but it's the same thing. Like, when I hear someone's beliefs on climate change, I can predict their stance on abortion. There's a clumping of beliefs. But, further, when one of those people is seeking to 'cancel/suppress' someone of the opposing dialogue, we can't actually predict if the vociferous person is yelling from an informed position. Which means that any specific sincere conversation has a pretty high risk of causing you to lose respect for the opponent.
Countering actual microaggressions can be valuable, because they're very much about power structures. I had a really awesome one happen to me a few years ago. I mentioned news about the local "Indigenous Reserve", and my friend said "No, it's a First Nations reserve. It's a legal entity that happens to have indigenous people in it". I was using a racial term for a legal designation. She wasn't as polite or succinct or even clear about it as that, so it took a couple of days of shower-thoughts to figure out why she got so upset. But that was it. And now I can tell others. Importantly, I can tell people who have much more political and financial clout than her. It's a zero-effort change, and makes the term clearer even, so it's a net-win.
The big problem (on the woke side) about micro-corrections of micro-aggressions is that the person doing the correcting isn't viewed as qualified to make the correction and (worse) actually isn't qualified to make the correction (they're just pushing current woke dogma). In counter-point, the other side of the problem is when the target wouldn't respect the opinion of a qualified person. The final problem happens when one side mistakes the other for the bad version.
This stuff is hard to build recognizable credentials for, which makes the over-stepping dogmatic believers a risky tool.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
I don't remember if I gave you a direct answer for that question, so here it is : I object because I feel it's false, and I bother answering because "woke" is a subject that seriously gets under my skin. It's not really about being targeted (or caring about it if I am). I'm more annoyed by something being "wrong" than something being "offensive" (it's up to debate if I'm right about a point being wrong, but that's a different aside).
As to accepting that throwing labels happens for a reason, and then discussing these reasons... I think that's precisely what I was speaking about when I was explaining why I think "woke" has become a negative word, and it kinda got derailed after I expressed how I perceived the action of a group of people in a thread (notice it was literally what I said : "I see it as") as an illustration.
You realize that my world isn't limited to this forum, and that my experience with "wokeness" isn't limited to it either ? I may have used examples/illustrations from the forum, but I thought it was obvious the discussion was more general.
And anyway, I simply flatly disagree with your take that "moral blackmail" attempt don't exists on a forum. That's the sole point of abusing -ism and -phobe words, to try to make people feel guilty of getting associated with something that is widely considered negative and as such change their mind. Maybe it doesn't work, but the attempt is here. And anyway, as said above, it's certainly not restricted to forums (I mean, the whole "cancel culture" principle is based on this, and I mean "cancel culture" on the widest meaning imaginable that isn't restricted to how it's seen as woke-themed recently, so I include the witch hunts of all eras that were based on the same principles).
Moral blackmail is very real, very common and not exclusive to anyone. I just pointed that I see the woke side using it a lot, even if they aren't alone in it.
Okay, I understand your point about such "questions" with quotes, but honestly I wasn't thinking about such ones when I wrote - these "questions" with quote marks were rather covered with the "disagreements" part of my point. I was more refering to the other part, that is "agreeing but not in the way that was required". A number of people just got basically schooled for agreeing but not in "the right way", which should already ring pretty serious bells and is a strong example of the "religious-like" treatment that the woke ideology gets.
That being said, this point about "questions" is also worthy of a separate answer. I understand your point (and I understand the feeling of "these questions must not be made in good faith"), but I'd like to remind you : that's true for everyone. And yet we still all ask questions to each another. I also must have explained why I have a strong dislike of the woke/SJW/whatever ideology one thousand times over, and yet I'm still answering the same questions five years later. I guess we all somehow hope that someday, we'll finally get to make the other understand our point. Or else we would simply have stopped to ask and answer questions years ago.
So basically, either we stop talking to each other, or we're going to have to accept that the mostly same questions will be asked again, and the mostly same answers will be given again. And that maybe some answer will end up making someone ponder a bit farther, or some question will make someone question something he didn't consider before. Or maybe the same thing he considered it before, but then he'll be at a different place in his life that will make him get a different answer.
Last edited:
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Honestly, I wouldn’t haven’t given it a second thought and written her off as a triggered SJW snowflake whom wants to control my speech in an authoritarian manner. As you said, she wasn’t polite, succinct, not clear about it. I’ve encountered that so many times that I wished either they shut up about it or approach it in a diplomatic and civil manner.
Or the wokeist overcorrects.
Im seeing a point where the woke and the non-woke will stop talking to each other out of frustration with the other side. Though that’s already happening with each group secure in their safe space bubble and each side pointing fingers at each other.
Last edited:
Berzerker
Deity
here's what I said:
"Wokism - respect other people you racist bigot
it doesn't take Nostradamas to see that wokism aint leading down the road to tolerance"
So the woke's intolerance is 'justified'... you made my point. Its contradictory because the woke want tolerance.
That's 99% of my point, I think.
She, being an active member of the First Nations, was actually more likely to have useful intuitions about my misuse of the words. Because she was my friend, she had my respect such that I was willing to put shower-thoughts into it. And, most importantly, she was correct. I was semantically incorrect. Not only can I help her in the future, but I am actually better off for clarifying the different concepts.
Now, obviously, it would have been 'better' if she'd been prepared to elucidate her concerns. That is something that can only happen with practice, though. Just because she noticed the problem doesn't mean that she 'has' to be able to elucidate it. We need people detecting problems just as much as we need people communicating them.
The problem is helped from both sides, if some people get better at listening and if some people get better at communicating.
Last edited:
Sorry for reducing your entire post to this, but this post is ending up long as it is. This seems especially relevant to the whole back-and-forth, and I know we've gone over it before, so I'll try and avoid too much redundancy.
If "woke" people aren't along in using a thing, then it's not uniquely something that belongs to them. It is a problem that all of us have to overcome at one time or another, and often repeatedly. You can claim that labeling things racist, or sexist, or whatever, is moral blackmail. There isn't much evidence it's successful, so we are in essence debating a kind of pressure that comes from assigning moral weight to actions. And everybody does that. You see it in the religion thread (not just from religious folk). You see it in politics threads (galore). You see it in threads in other subforums about video games. People assign moral character to others based on the kinds of video games they enjoy ("it's not my fault you like bad games", etc). It's human nature. It's a rationalisation process (however flawed it can end up being at times).
"woke" is, in fact, a great example of the same thing. It's a pejorative label. It assigns moral weight to those labelled by it. Your argument throughout has been "yes but it's accurate and that's why people use it". But that's exactly what arguing things are racist, sexist, etc. are. It's the same thing. The people making the argument believe the label is accurate. The actual disagreement is over that accuracy, but the shortcut you and others use is people "being woke". If you're fed up, it happens. This is why I talked about the cyclic question thing. Everyone gets fed up. If you judge others for their responses when fed up, but you find reasons for you own being fed up (leading to a form of lashing out) . . . that's inconsistent.
I'm nowhere near perfect, right? I blow up more often than I should. I'm dog-with-a-bone with tangents for longer than I should be. I am a constant work in progress in how I approach and disengage with arguments online (specifically, it's pretty different to how IRL discussions tend to play out). I have been inconsistent at times. But I have to recognise it, and every time it happens I need to recognise it sooner, or I keep making the same mistakes. And that's what I think you're doing when it comes to your frequent use of "woke" and related phrases. I'm not here to convince you that your life needs turning around. I just want to try and use this back and forth to explain what I think is a factor in these back-and-forths.
I accept you're talking about your experiences off of the forums. That's why I asked you back when you were calling Angst's arguments (and honestly by extension my own) "delusions" how I could get you to believe that we were talking about our actual, honest experiences. Because the way it read, it seemed that your experience was undeniable evidence of a thing, but ours was . . . not. And sure, it likely wasn't intended (or if it was, it was a mistake at the time), but that's still how it came across. That's the moral weight in writing off peoples' arguments as "delusions". It doesn't debate their merit. It just assigns them a label and moves on.
But the immediate / original context was this subforum. Specifically the LGBTQ news thread. That's what I kept coming back to, and why I kept coming back to it, personally.
I wasn't debating "criticisms directed at wokists". Let's recap the sequence of events, okay?
- I asked a question to whoever I was debating at the time (pretty sure it was Akka, but it isn't really important).
- You replied by saying "Fine, I'll bite" (the natural inference is that you are biting on something that was designed to be bitten - there's no other use for the phrase). Not that anybody asked you to, or forced your hand. It was your choice.
- You then detailed your feeling irked by been labelled a right-winger incorrectly. You misread my post to be claiming that if you criticise "woke" behaviour, you are automatically right-wing. This would be nonsense. I haven't called Lexicus right-wing once, for example. I haven't called anyone on this page right-wing either (regardless of whether they are or not, I haven't turned the argument into where I make that kind of judgement call).
- I commented on your long screed (because of your pre-existing attitude and your misreading of my post). Why? Because you talked about being maligned and feeling an "air of hostility", and here you were doing exactly the same thing to me.
- You said I should at least respect the opinion instead of characterising it as a "screed". Which is funny, because you demonstrated zero respect for me when you replied in the first place. Phrases like "fine, I'll bite" and "if you really want the honest answer" are not respectful. They come from a position of assuming antagonism. And in doing so, are antagonistic.
- You then continued to moan about me in the third-person.
- I replied with what I thought was a pretty polite post, regardless of any disagreement. My humble advice was honest. I guess you assumed it wasn't. I pointed out you had misinterpreted me and not taken the words back.
- In your next reply (among other things), you said "now you know how I feel", instead of actually, you know, recognising the mistake and taking your words back. You chose to escalate. You said you "know my kind are out to gain political points". You then attached some random nonsense about a "Cult of Woke".
No, I claimed that you are part of the problem when you propagate the problem. Pretty much by definition. Saying "now you know how I feel like" is propagating the problem. I said nothing about your response when getting attacked by "woke activists". Again with the misreading.
And if you'd read the thread, or even just my posts in it, you'd understand this is a strawman of most "woke" peoples' positions. Tolerance is not universal. I shouldn't have to tolerate someone stamping on my head. I can be a tolerant person, and still have recognisable limits.
The problem is disagreement on what limits are perceived as sensible, between people arguing in good faith. When people start looking for gotchas, there's no incentive to spend the time to actually construct an argument. Because it's going to be ignored anyway, as you're handily proving.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
As i said earlier. Conflict theory. Dialectical materialism. Critical theory. "Materialism is the basis of social relations". IN MY OPINION, this is the dogma. Despite being an interesting take on "power" (how resources are distributed), when generalized, it creates "camps" and therfore, intolerance. There is also some weird conflation between individuals and society as a whole that just doesn't make sense to me
Last edited:
Senethro
Overlord
As i said earlier. Conflict theory. Dialectical materialism. Critical theory. "Materialism is the basis of social relations". IN MY OPINION, this is the dogma. Despite being an interesting take on how "power" (how resources are distributed), when generalized, it creates "camps" and therfore, intolerance. There is also some weird conflation between individuals and society as a whole that just doesn't make sense to me
Hmmm. I can see some of this, but have one major point of disagreement. I don't think it did create the camps, rather instead they were observed. Sorry to go straight to the big example, but who created the racial "camps" in the US? Don't people who own things instead of doing things, create them every day as a new aggression?
Edit: The racial example and material examples should be considered separate. I'm not saying that one is strictly caused by the other.
Last edited:
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
The camps were created with the antithesis of ownership. I assume that if you are a proponent of materialist theory, "something new" should have evolved? I don't believe, once the ability of ownership is attained, it can't simply be stripped (and here, i am referring to an individual not to society).
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
In retrospect, perhaps I was jumping the gun on this and assumed that you were out call anyone who used the word woke as a right-winger. I'm going to admit that I'm very much on guard against being maligned. I take the statements I made back on your statements I misinterpreted (deleting and editing out the post). I'd rather do an apology post in another thread, if you don't mind as I feel as that thread is more appropriate for those kinds of things.
And here's the receipts to prove you wrong.
This, I'm going to admit, is a challenge to wrap my head into that "everything is racist/problematic" is a strawman of the wokeist's positions. I don't know but I'm going to admit that I have a bias from bad experience (as previously demonstrated on being unnecessarily on guard all the time in lefty or left-wing spaces) and assuming the worst outcome. I still need to dig for your post as, I admit, tend to be on the wordy side.
Berzerker
Deity
Who said you should tolerate getting your head stamped and does that qualify as a straw man if no one did?
- Status
