< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

What do you mean by “woke”

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6849
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
01 December 2019 15:26
 

A brief history of the word from the Times: In Defense of ‘Woke’ by Damon Young

Rarely has a colloquialism had as many mutations. When I was in college in the late 1990s, “conscious” was the term du jour . . . . “Militant” was a variant of it — conscious, but also ready to throw hands for the cause.

Woke, however, described a racial awareness and cynicism so extra that it bordered on parody; where you’re so awake that your “third eye” saw things that aren’t there. The movies “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” and “Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood” satirized this concept. Each film’s most racially conscious character was either married to a white woman or willing to trample a sista to get to one. Also, woke was used exclusively by black people to refer to other black people. It was our word, because only we were mindful enough to recognize when that pro-blackness was a performance.

As the aughts approached, the term started to lose its racial connotation, becoming instead a catchall for any sort of progressive behavior. You were woke if you recycled, or maybe just retweeted an infographic on the virtues of recycling. White people were deemed woke. Some, painfully, even took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of wokeness.

. . .

And now? Well, woke floats in the linguistic purgatory of terms coined by us [black people] that can no longer be said unironically, levitating next to “swag” and “twerk” in the “Words Ruined by White People” ether. . . .

Mostly, though, it’s used as a pejorative.

. . .

Admittedly, woke’s current iteration has been earned. It became a thing you can accessorize like a hoodie. But to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable.

To me, it’s a label for people who pursue short-sighted, feel-good (and often hypocritical) policies that you just know are going to make things worse in the long run. Probably because I only ever hear it used in that sense. But the idea that “to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable” doesn’t in and of itself seem all that ludicrous to me. Depending, of course, on how wide a net one casts with the words “damage” and “most vulnerable.”

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17887
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
01 December 2019 15:36
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 01 December 2019 03:26 PM

A brief history of the word from the Times: In Defense of ‘Woke’ by Damon Young

Rarely has a colloquialism had as many mutations. When I was in college in the late 1990s, “conscious” was the term du jour . . . . “Militant” was a variant of it — conscious, but also ready to throw hands for the cause.

Woke, however, described a racial awareness and cynicism so extra that it bordered on parody; where you’re so awake that your “third eye” saw things that aren’t there. The movies “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” and “Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood” satirized this concept. Each film’s most racially conscious character was either married to a white woman or willing to trample a sista to get to one. Also, woke was used exclusively by black people to refer to other black people. It was our word, because only we were mindful enough to recognize when that pro-blackness was a performance.

As the aughts approached, the term started to lose its racial connotation, becoming instead a catchall for any sort of progressive behavior. You were woke if you recycled, or maybe just retweeted an infographic on the virtues of recycling. White people were deemed woke. Some, painfully, even took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of wokeness.

. . .

And now? Well, woke floats in the linguistic purgatory of terms coined by us [black people] that can no longer be said unironically, levitating next to “swag” and “twerk” in the “Words Ruined by White People” ether. . . .

Mostly, though, it’s used as a pejorative.

. . .

Admittedly, woke’s current iteration has been earned. It became a thing you can accessorize like a hoodie. But to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable.

To me, it’s a label for people who pursue short-sighted, feel-good (and often hypocritical) policies that you just know are going to make things worse in the long run. Probably because I only ever hear it used in that sense. But the idea that “to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable” doesn’t in and of itself seem all that ludicrous to me. Depending, of course, on how wide a net one casts with the words “damage” and “most vulnerable.”

“to be woke, essentially, is to recognize and reject the damage power inflicts on the most vulnerable” is exactly why people who pursue short-sighted, feel-good (and often hypocritical) policies think they are heroes, they are saving us, but like all saviors they have to destroy the world to do it.

 
 
Vociferous Fuckweasel
 
Avatar
 
 
Vociferous Fuckweasel
Total Posts:  27
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
02 December 2019 13:44
 
bbearren - 01 December 2019 01:09 PM

Interesting how white males lace up their cleats and jump up and down hard on white privilege whenever it is mentioned.

C’mon, BB, there’s no need for insinuating. Just tell us what’s on your mind. Nothing can happen to you. You’re safely hidden behind the image of a bird whose eye sockets take up so much cranial capacity that even among the Aves its considered dimwitted.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 December 2019 10:07
 

“woke” seems fundamentally tied to identity politics, i.e.,

“Let’s not make any distinctions, if you’re a white guy, you’re guilty!”

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 December 2019 14:04
 

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 December 2019 14:27
 
Garret - 03 December 2019 02:04 PM

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

Who’s arguing that?

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 December 2019 15:23
 
icehorse - 03 December 2019 02:27 PM
Garret - 03 December 2019 02:04 PM

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

Who’s arguing that?

I’m not going to respond to you if you’re only going to read one sentence of my post.  I put all the words in my post together, as a single post, for a reason.  I didn’t post the one sentence that you bolded, I had more sentences, and for you to bold the one sentence as if that is the only thing I said is disingenuous of you.

Show me that you can comprehend the full post and I’ll answer a question.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 December 2019 15:44
 
Garret - 03 December 2019 03:23 PM
icehorse - 03 December 2019 02:27 PM
Garret - 03 December 2019 02:04 PM

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

Who’s arguing that?

I’m not going to respond to you if you’re only going to read one sentence of my post.  I put all the words in my post together, as a single post, for a reason.  I didn’t post the one sentence that you bolded, I had more sentences, and for you to bold the one sentence as if that is the only thing I said is disingenuous of you.

I read your whole paragraph. A couple of times. Your post was vague. You didn’t respond to a particular claim. You didn’t address a particular poster.

I’ll offer a different perspective on my issues with the phrases “white privilege” and “woke”. They both assume that they are the only answers to the problems they claim to be concerned with. I disagree - strongly. In other words, I can - AND DO - agree that racism is a problem, but I disagree that “woke” and “white privilege” are the only legitimate ways to understand or address the problem.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 December 2019 15:54
 

I honestly don’t care about the term “woke”.  It was always slang, and slang changes extremely fast, gets appropriated in ways that dilutes or dramatically alters its meaning, and is close to useless after a few years.

Please, enlighten me on how we can confront racism and intentionally leave out white privilege.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
03 December 2019 15:56
 

The terms “white privilege” and “woke” are not answers to anything.  They are descriptions of things.  Adjectives.

And, apparently, trigger words.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 December 2019 16:13
 

Garret, I’d say we start by constraining ourselves to considering only those solutions that do not require identity politics.

LJ, I disagree. Those terms attempt to enforce a particular perspective on the conversation. They attempt to frame the boundaries within which we’re supposed to operate to find solutions.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17887
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2019 16:53
 
Garret - 03 December 2019 02:04 PM

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

Bullshit!

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 December 2019 17:24
 
icehorse - 03 December 2019 04:13 PM

Garret, I’d say we start by constraining ourselves to considering only those solutions that do not require identity politics.

LJ, I disagree. Those terms attempt to enforce a particular perspective on the conversation. They attempt to frame the boundaries within which we’re supposed to operate to find solutions.

Everything is politics.  All politics is based on identity.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  623
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
03 December 2019 17:25
 
GAD - 03 December 2019 04:53 PM
Garret - 03 December 2019 02:04 PM

You can see how unproductive a conversation about a term of awareness of a problem is… when we have people who want to argue that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.  There are several people in this thread who are arguing about how useless or stupid of a term it is, and they’re the same people who in other threads deny that racism is still a thing that exists.  They’ll admit to the existence of a few bad apples, like white supremacists, but then they’ll quickly turn around and blame the existence of those white supremacists on the people who are seeking to end racism.

Bullshit!

Oh no, you said the magic word.  I’ve switch sides.  BLOOD AND SOIL!

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7746
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 December 2019 17:34
 
Garret - 03 December 2019 05:24 PM
icehorse - 03 December 2019 04:13 PM

Garret, I’d say we start by constraining ourselves to considering only those solutions that do not require identity politics.

LJ, I disagree. Those terms attempt to enforce a particular perspective on the conversation. They attempt to frame the boundaries within which we’re supposed to operate to find solutions.

Everything is politics.  All politics is based on identity.

Can we please draw a distinction between ideas and a person’s DNA?

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›