Why the GOP is obsessed with "woke" — but can't define it
A Salon article written by Amanda Marcotte asks a most pertinent question, how do conservatives reply?
How do you define it?
https://www.salon.com/2023/03/16/why-th … define-it/"You are bad, evil, wrong and not willing to give me more than you have."
Interestingly, your link provides no real definition, either, merely saying that years ago it had to do with "social injustice". Unfortunately, that term has morphed into not much more than the paragraph above.OK, It just seems that the term "woke" has a considerably broader meaning than your answer would imply.
Who wants to be on the opposite of social justice, that incorporates bigotry, intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, book burning mind control, or an excuse for every possible grievance conservatives and Rightwingers chew their cuds over, not saying it out in the open because they would be castigated for it?
Did the conservatives not say that "woke" factory was the reason the SVC went "belly up"?
How about this:
woke adjective
1 of 2
(1)
ˈwōke
: action variants or biases derived from utopian ideals divorced from societal realities
(2)
ˈwōkən
: holding an ideological bias not supported by societal realities
GAAll right, that is a definition. Is this why Republicans insist on burning books?
Over how long of a time did I have to listen to that explanation?
-------
Current Social realities may not be the standards that we should all be content to wrap ourselves up in comfort. That is an excuse to see no need to change the status quo. The term "utopian" is over the top and can also be seen as an excuse.
Whose social realities?
What social realities?'What social realities' are the realities of a society of humans as it 'is', not as what it can be, should be, or will be, but what it is, at whatever level that 'is' is, when the 'whose' realities attempt to supplant it.
The 'whose' realities are those of every group with a voice loud enough to get attention. Yours, mine, theirs. From abortion to xenophobia (hey, a little literary flourish(?)), Red fringe to Blue fringe.
Utopian seemed to work. It was intended to infer 'over the top' and it looks like it did. Nor was it an excuse. As it was used, it also carried the inference of degrees, i.e. the best, the goal. Thus relating an inference of 'degrees' to the bias and variances.
A simple comparison with results to compare: In the 1960s a Black man could not have been accepted as a presidential candidate. Progressing by increments (call them ten-year steps just for the point of being steps), 50 years later, 5 steps forward, each step made because changing this kind of reality takes steps, not leaps, and we have a Black president.
"Woke' demands are for the reality of what society may be 50 years from now (or 20, 30, 40, pick a number) to be adopted as the 'real' real reality of what is now. Human nature doesn't change by leaps, especially human nature within a society. It changes by steps. Woke demands leaps. Conservatives require steps.
How's that definition work for you?
*History says Conservatives are right.
GAI am listening and trying to dissect this point you are making with an open mind.
Human society as it is? 100 years ago, I could have been found hanging from a tree, extra legal with no recourse possible from friends or family.
"Strange Fruit" as described by Billie Holliday. If I complained about that would I have been considered as "woke"?
Was that the "social reality" that Me and Mine were expected to live with? Would you be as gracious if your group were in our place? Change did eventually come at the point of a bayonet and the bang of a gavel, but how much domestic terrorism were we to be patient for and for how long?
Well, that "is" is not good enough. What it was and what it is is unacceptable, so anti-woke is the attempt to suppress the dissent and our natural tendency to agitate constantly for improved conditions and circumstances as we have spent centuries doing. I reserve the right to resist what conservatives define as Anti-woke and continue to agitate as much and as often as necessary. Anti-Woke tries to silence that, and we cannot allow for that, as it will remain a source of contention regarding race relations in this country.
Why did "your" tribe not have to face terrorism in their own country? Of course they, conservatives, advocate patience as they were not anxious to change a stutus quo that benefitted them, while disadvantaging others.
If it were you and and your group fortunes on the line would you have been so patient in the wait for meaningful change, I doubt it.
Anti-woke demands from my standpoint are insistence that we don't revert to social justice and race relation positions held 50 years ago. Which is where too much conservative type thinking is leading, otherwise why the furor to burn books? We are not going to be silent about the past and the perpetrators of wrong doing, so we have to dispense with what conservatives call anti- "woke".
--------
No, from the perspective of white folks and their understanding of history, the incremental (it will come to you in time) approach was the correct outcome but woe be it to you were not white..........
Woke demands leaps, but waiting on. conservatism is the same as the viscosity of molasses on a winter day......You are reading, but you are not comprehending. Your response amounts to defensive rationalizations (and whining) to justify why you support 'woke.'
The "whose realities" I talked about weren't described as right or wrong, or good or bad. The thought about progress coming in steps instead of leaps was also a point of reality, not one of what is right or wrong or what should be.
Your response seems to make the point about the false reality of "woke." Steps aren't good enough for you, you demand leaps — to make things right —by your way of thinking.
Going back to the analogy, you most likely would have felt the same way in 1960 (symbolically) as you do today: the Civil Rights act was a good change, but it wasn't the leap of change that would have allowed a black man to be accepted as a presidential candidate in 1960, right?
If so, do you imagine that reality would have been accepted by a predominately white society—a great leap of societal change? Of course not, right? But you did get there by taking steps, right?
I'm not saying the 'leap' wasn't the right desire, or that it wasn't a just desire, I am saying it wasn't a possible reality in 1960. History documents the truth of that statement.
Do you imagine that if only the 1960's movement was more strident, more woke, and more demanding, a black candidate would have been accepted in the 1960s? I would argue that in the 1960s, woke would have set back the cause for racial equality (your reality) instead of pushing it a step forward.
"Woke" hurts the people who adopt it. Instead of 'convincing' folks that your change is a good and right thing, your demand for a 'leap' of change hardens their resistance to change. Does that logic seem a fair and historically-supported description of race relations progress? The same logic applies across the board, whether it is race relations or societal sex norms.
The entire point isn't about the right or wrong of conservatism it is about the reality of a society of humans. Your 'wokeness' is demanding that the reality of the youth (the reality of the day) leap into the adult reality of what should be. The fact that that isn't the way humans progress is ignored because you demand that progress should be faster.
Your 'woke' isn't helping to convince folks to change faster, it's hurting the 'woke' cause by hardening folks' resistance to their argument.
GADeleted
And you are making excuses are you not?
You never answered in your adherence to Manifest destinies and Woke, would you be as accommodating to incrementalism if you and your folks were on the receiving end of those ideas? It is always convenient to take a clinical approach when it does not apply to you.
Of course I cannot expect nor have the right to insist that people be accepting of something in your amology of civil rights concessions and a black president. But, can I ask not to be lynched without being considered "Woke?
"Woke" is also an excuse that allow the intransigent to continue in his or her intransigence to change.
Woke is still an expression of underlying bigotry and racial resentment that you encapsulate into "steps" that YoU never had to wait for. It is a be where you want to be word expressing the gamut of all rightwing resentment and frustration. It is that "Je ne sais quoi" the Rightwinger falls back on all too frequently. So, by that definition, I give it no credibility. All that considering that You and your folks created these problems and issues in the first place and now like to shroud it in terms like "human nature"?
As the underdog, I am always going to disagree with your assessment here. To each, his or her own, I suppose. But, I do appreciate your imput.
But our definitions are different for woke, I see it as a form of stubborn entrenchment and backlash from a rabid right, and you see it as asking for utopia.
But, i will resist that those that want to curtail my Right to express my opinion, in speech and in print, muzzling it by calling it "woke", call it what it is.
It is a coverup word, an excuse word for reneging on what progress we have made.Oh well. Does your disagreement with my 'clinical' assessment include disagreeing with the historical record of the analogy?
As for your 'manifest destinies' stuff, the point I am making would not change, no matter what perspective (or end of the stick) I (and mine) hold.
It seems you don't dispute the truth of the point, you just see it as clinical. If so, it seems hard to separate that agreement from the one that the extremism of 'woke' harms progress rather than speeds it up.
GANow we are talking about woke meaning too fast, what is not too fast for those that are burning books and intimidating those with contrary ideas not supporting of the "system"? Listening to right wingers, Woke means to resent progress and move backward at warp speed.
The right wore out "liberal" in an attempt to give it negative connotations. So, they invented "woke". It is almost worn out now too.
Without reading Salon, I will answer the question... as I see it.
Woke is the belief that children should be exposed to sexual content, like books that inform them how to orally please another (IE - in elementary schools “It’s Perfectly Normal” was available in school libraries. The book had detailed graphic sexual content.)
Woke is believing children who cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot work... can make decisions on what sex they are and should receive medical treatment to help them make that transition.
Woke is believing it is OK for men who think they are women, to not only be accepted in society by everyone else as a woman, but be able to compete in sports as a woman, share bathrooms and lockers with women, etc.
Woke is believing multi-offending criminals should not go to jail for repeated sexual assaults on children, woke is believing society should change its wording and not use hurtful labels like pedophile, sex-offender, child-molester for those individuals that act on their desires to have sex with pre-pubescent children.
Woke is believing that someone should have to accept a transgendered person as a customer, whether that is baking them a cake or giving them a bikini wax, whether they find that person offensive or not... its the LGBTQP's right to go anywhere they want and get whatever they want, regardless of whether someone else finds them offensive or repulsive.
I could go on and on... but why bother.Your imput is appreciated.
Woke is a weasel word.
Being against the availability of pornography for minors has nothing to do with being woke. And that has always been prohibited long before the idea of "woke". Society has an obligation to protect minors and that predates "woke"
There was a time not so terribly long ago when I could not get a sandwich at a lunch counter, was I being unreasonably "woke" to have made a fuss over it? Is there such a thing as equal rights at public accomodations, or is that "woke" too?Yes, the term Woke referred to something different decades ago.
That was a different cause.
Today it means things like accepting what I detailed. Fourty years ago, I would have supported you.
Today I won't, rather than accept what Woke means today, what progressive movements push for today, you choose to correlate it with past fights and arguments.
When it comes to accepting men as women and children being exposed to sexual content and sex changes and sex with adults.
Well, I am willing to support whatever side stands against such.Different cause, different characters from the same stage play. The principle is the point, Ken. I correlate, but you compare apples with oranges. What you speak of about men as women and this gender identity stuff, Is not anything that I have embraced as it defies what is clear and evident. But, Ican serve them equally in public accommodation without embracing their lifestyles.
Forty, more like 60 years ago, would have supported me, really?60 years ago I wasn't here, so it would have been hard.
40 puts me in my early teens, I was very liberal minded back then.
That was back when pedophiles were considered evil, when guys being girls and competing with them in women's sports was unthinkable.
As GA said in another thread, one can choose to have integrity or choose to let the "wrong" thing happen.It is interesting though that being conservative would mean you have no problem with discrimination against people in public accomodations, as opposed to being liberal. Would integrity take precedence over the "wrong thing" this time?
In both cases I stand on Integrity.
I called out the lies and deceit regarding our involvement in Ukraine.
We can look back... over 9 years ago, to threads here in HubPages Forums regarding Ukraine, they are like time-capsules:
Do you support US intervention in Ukraine?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/120 … in-ukraine
And here is one from a year ago:
World War III?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ld-war-iii
In which my comments speak for themselves, I have had time to become more familiar with the situation since those comments, but they have aged fairly well all things considered.
As to where I stand on Pedophiles, sexualizing children, enabling and accepting grown men, who identify as women, competing in sports and sharing showers with real women... I have made my beliefs abundantly clear for years now.
So most schools begin teaching sexual education in fifth and sixth grade, when students are 10-12 years old. No one is prescribing that students read the book 'It's Perfectly Normal,' but students might have questions they are too embarrassed to ask a person at that age and having access to literature on their questions can be helpful. That the right construes that as 'believing that children should be exposed to sexual content' is just the latest warping of a belief structure that they do not understand.
As to children and their sexual identity, again the right misconstrues the issue by leaving out the role of the parents in the decision-making process. If the parents and their child, in consultation with doctors and therapists, decide this is in the best interests of the child, the state's involvement is intrusive.
I'm actually in agreement on the sports issue, but disagree with the bathroom issue when it comes to the transgendered community.
And refusing to serve customers based on skin color or sexual identity is just a form of bigotry. Unfortunately, private businesses have their rights to be bigots, but let's not deny that it's still bigotry, whether based on their religious or cultural beliefs."but let's not deny that it's still bigotry, whether based on their religious or cultural beliefs."
If your work needs to be based on your religious beliefs, close your business and start a not-for-profit ministry. But if you want your business to operate "in the public square" as a for-profit enterprise, then it is illegal to refuse service to the general public based on your religion or cultural beliefs. Your prejudice is not justified because it is "sincerely held." A lot of discrimination is "sincerely held".
That's not woke Ken. These are examples.
To be honest as a foreigner I struggle with the concept (The American concept)
And after reading your examples I'm none the wiser about what Woke is.
I have the feeling it's more an (re)invented word by spin doctors. Just like the empty slogan Cancel Culture.Empty slogan? It's not empty when you look at the lives destroyed from one unfortunate moment in a person's entire experience. We have a culture that believes creating a mob mentality is acceptable. Cancelling out every good thing a person has done in their lives because of one incredibly embarrassing moment. I can't help but chuckle when they eat their own, but it's still wrong . As a foreigner you may not be privy to the heinous behavior but people are basically good and this sub culture only looks for bad and ruins people's lives for fun.
You are talking about Clinton and Lewinsky? Or Trump and Stormy Daniels?
forget about this reply. It didn't make sense in this context.
Coming in cold, not having read Salon, since the last time I was in a salon....
Woke picked up where political correctness left off. P.C. became too predictable, WOKE destroyed predictable and woke people up to the cause! The cause: woke seeks to destroy every person who dares to "question with boldness" the idiotic notions of woke folk! BLM is woke, they screwed hard-working people out of their money, to the tune of millions of dollars! They took that money and they ran for the hills, but not before leaving a trail of destruction! They almost single-handedly {But for ANTIFA} worked people into crazed frenzies against Police Officers. ANTIFA is woke, they like to destroy personal property and hurt people, but I don't think they are as smart {or woke} as BLM, don't know of any money they pocketed and ran with!! Climate change is WOKE, Reparations is WOKE, the 1619 project is WOKE, Abortion on demand is WOKE, CRT is WOKE. Drag queens story time for kids is WOKE!
Anything which seeks to destroy lives and tear apart the United States of America is woke!It seems that every dissenting voice toward the "patriotic education" the Right wants to indoctrinate children into be it accurate or no, is "woke".
It is a word that covers a multitude of sins from the standpoint of the right, the only real universal definition that sticks is that the concept is just more rightwing reaction.
Thanks for your imput.Patriotic education and the true, unfiltered, unaltered history of America and of the world, the concept and basics of math, the ability to spell words and use them correctly in a sentence.....over whatever it is that drag queens are selling or whatever woke educators seek to put in the minds of America's children, YES, each and every time, without hesitation.
If you wish to refer to that as "a right-wing reaction", so be it.
As I see it today after poking about 'Woke' is simply a label and nothing else. It is actually both narrow and broad with a contracting and expanding meaning. To understand perhaps peek at labeling theory. It is focused on deviance. In essence, anything that is woke is deviant with associated behaviors.
An Overview of Labeling Theory
https://www.thoughtco.com/labeling-theory-3026627
Labeling Theory of Deviance in Sociology: Definitions & Examples
https://simplypsychology.org/labeling-theory.html
Note: Most certainly leaders at the state and national levels are well aware of social theories such as Labeling Theory.There was a time, not to long ago, that when a child was born you knew immediately what gender the child is. Now under the rule of "Woke" you need to wait until the child has grown up so the child make up it's own mind and tell you.
Thanks to the immoral, decadent. gender confused, racist, hate America, lowlife, NAZI "Woke" left.Here is everything you wanted to know about Woke, but were afraid to ask. This article has the origin of the term, how it has been miss-used by the right wing and what its purpose really is..
https://www.nationalworld.com/whats-on/ … 23-3215758Sounds like a re-do of the CRT issue: the name is misapplied but the issue is real. I would say today's "woke" isn't your grandfather's 'aware of reality' 'woke, but the issues identified as 'woke' today are just as real as the ones of the 1960s. And are equally valid.
GAWhat is a "real" woke issue of current times??
Demanding acceptance that one can be any gender/sex they feel like.
GAAnd demanding they can access everything from bathrooms to sports of the other sex... they should be allowed scholarships and EO support as well.
Its also learning to be tolerant and accepting of sexualizing children and accepting that pedophilia is not a crime (Pedo Pride!), its as normal as believing that a person who feels they are a cat person (AKA Furries) should be treated as a cat person.
GA, you really are stuck in the past when it comes to understanding the "woke" progressive movement... you still think its about "gays", that is so... 20th century.Yep, we're dinosaurs, I caught your sarcasm. But your closing is the whole point: 21st-century reality says that our 'outdated' thoughts aren't wrong. 'It' isn't all about 'gays'. It is about some segments of that big issue. Since science and empirical evidence support our out-dated thinking in some of those segments, the only support for criticism of it is to prove reality is wrong. That's a tough job.
GAIs it really so tough? All that is necessary, after all, is to redefine the meaning of the word "sex" to mean a cultural/psychological attitude rather than the presence or lack of a Y chromosome.
It's far more tho, you really need to consider the 'sarcastic' comment I made that GA was responding to.
I don't want to type in examples, so take a peek at the following article.
25 Woke Examples: What Counts as Woke? by the HelpfulProfessor (Mar 10, 2023)
https://helpfulprofessor.com/woke-examples/
To me, today, it has become more of a pejorative when used by the right and has no significance other than seeking some sort of alignment. In other words, a rallying cry for the troops to march behind.
Comparatively, about ten or fifteen years back a term used a lot was 'gay'. It was used in conversations such as, "That is gay" to give criticism along with negative connotations in a social/cultural context. In other words sort of snicker. One must consider at that time period homosexuality was becoming accepted and in the limelight.
Today, Woke is the definition for anything, idea or concept that is in direct opposition to right wing, reactionary positions.
The Rightwinger prefers to use that term under a nondescript blanket to avoid expressing a direct gripe that may not be as politically palatable to the general public.
For the progressive minded, it is just another 4 letter expletive.Does your progressive mind accept that there are more than two sexes? Is rejecting that only a Rightwinger reactionary position?
GAWould I be correct in assuming that QAnon forms the basis of Republican and conservative thought in America? There are extremes on all sides that does not necessarily make that the norm.
We know what direction the Right uses to attack Woke in general terms, and it fits comfortably within their mainstream.You would not be. I know that is what you believe, as does anyone that takes what CNN spouts as facts, probably believes.
But that's like saying all Conservatives are White Supremacists, which, if I recall past posts correctly, you have eluded to as well.
Sadly, you probably pay way more attention to what Qanon is or says than most people, especially your normal average conservative."You would not be. I know that is what you believe, as does anyone that takes what CNN spouts as facts, probably believes."
------
Yes, of course, I don't believe that no more than "Woke" mainstreams the most extreme application of its definition.
Many conservatives, while saying they are not white supremacists seem more than comfortable in the beds of those who are. You are often judged by the company you keep. I don't see Democrats and progressives paling around with these guys.
I know that QANon is an extreme cult, I say that those that are ridiculous about gender issues are "extreme" as well.Well, anyone that supports woke as I have described it in this thread, supports what I learned to be either insane or illegal or both, many years ago.
It doesn't matter that Biden is now pushing EOs out that make guys being in girls lockers legal or makes it legal to push sex change procedures on kids.
It's wrong.
It's insane.
Nothing will change my mind on it, I have no desire to accept insanity as normal.
Some people can, often many people go right along with it, history is full of examples, salem witch-hunts, concentration camps... Throughout history, people accept insane and evil things as normal.
America's history is full of it, we found a balance, a better, more equal, more beneficial to all, existence for a few decades... 70s - to - 2000s.
We are losing our way, a long way down the wrong path, the signs are there... We start wars in nation after nation leaving ravaged wastelands in our wake (Iraq, Syria, Libya etc.) ... within as well, with 70 different accepted sexes, and men competing against women as women, and sexualizing children.
America is just finding it's way there through a different avenue then outright violence and totalitarianism... but the road we are on is leading us to a very bad destination.How exactly is it legal to "push" a sex change???? If I want to grab my neighbor and force him to become a woman I'm able to do that??? How? Who pays and what doctors do this?? Is this a teacher only program or a just kids program? Are there other procedures I can force on others?? Please inform.
Your Qanon reference implies that you are saying the 'Leftwingers' that argue there are more than two sexes don't represent the norm of the Progressive body, but Qanon does represent the norm of the conservative body. Is that right?
Do you think the "general public," that you say won't like to hear the uncamouflaged 'conservative gripes.' find the 'open' claims of unlimited sexes (hidden by the camouflage of calling it a 'Gay" issue) more politically palatable?
You seem to want to argue the influence of the sides on the whole instead of the substance of the issue's questions. That would be a fair argument because the extremes are driving the norms, but a consideration of the issue(s) should come first because it will add or subtract from the support of either side's claim. Right?
GA"Your Qanon reference implies that you are saying the 'Leftwingers' that argue there are more than two sexes don't represent the norm of the Progressive body, but Qanon does represent the norm of the conservative body. Is that right?"
---------
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that neither QANon nor our most extreme Left interpreters regarding the gender stuff is in the mainstream.
"gripes.' find the 'open' claims of unlimited sexes (hidden by the camouflage of calling it a 'Gay" issue) more politically palatable?"
I don't see that this larger issue as being shrouded by just the term "gay".
Ok, so I believe that stating that there are more than two biological genders is incorrect and any policy that fails to take that into account is in error. I simply say that people who say otherwise my be among the extreme that goes beyond the political reality. I would not say that "woke" is the appropriate word. I would not define it as Woke when certain people want to say that 2+2=5.I understand your 'Qanon' clarification. It said what I thought I said, essentially we're on the same page. And on more than just that point.
I also don't think the current transgender tangent is the entirety of the 'whole' issue. Maybe. Assuming your 'larger' issue refers to that tangent and not what I see as the larger issue. Which is a rational adjustment in societal norms.
However, I see your criticism of 'woke'. as it is being used, as missing the point. You want to criticize and demonize the carrier of the message instead of the message.
It doesn't matter if 'woke' is a misapplied, misunderstood, or even an abused label, it works as an instantly recognized (by both sides) context for the message 'woke' is carrying. So what if it's being used wrong, and so what if it's being used pejoratively, you instantly know the context of what's coming.
What would be your first response to provide an example of a Rightwinger 'woke' claim that is as ungrounded as claiming 2+2=5?
As a side note, a conversation in the government spending thread offers a firm Progressive+ rationalization that the transgender issue is a part of the larger Gay issue. Feelings on one segment must address all segments. In that instance, a claim of homophobia in one arena tainted the consideration of all arenas.
GAOops, the 'other' conversation that was noted was not in the government spending thread, it was in: Catholic School Student Suspended For Protesting Trans Bathroom Policy one.
GAI will have a look at your comment in the other thread. Gay or homosexual has been with us time immemorial.
I separated the gay from the concepts of transgender and interchangeable bathroom stuff. But, that is just my opinion.
Thanks peoplepoweer73 for the article about this word's origin. May I never be "unwoke" again..
You are welcome Kathleen. Woke is really about having the compassion and empathy to put yourself in the place of others and feel what they are feeling. I think most conservatives don't have the capacity to do that.
Nature never does anything in a straight line. If it did we would all look alike and think alike. That's why there are so many colors of human beings. All the plants and trees would all look alike as well. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
Woke for conservatives is all about LGBTQ communities, race, and liberals. Conservatives see those people as different. Therefore, they are woke and the enemy because they are not like them.
Our son is gay. He is a captain for Atlas Air Cargo and flies 747-400's transporting cargo all over the world. I couldn't be prouder of him and his partner. I have two nieces who are gay; one works for AT&T as a lineman as the other works in construction. I couldn't be prouder of them as well.
Conservative and religious people think they can pray away the gay. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know for sure these people were born that way. It is not a choice that they can change.. I would like to see proof of what the GOP calls sexualizing children.
I'm glad to be able to report to you Credence that the Biden Administration has it well covered:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/equity/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/gpc/
There you go, the official White House explanation of Woke.
The as-yet unofficial meaning, well, I covered it in earlier posts.Ken: And your point is Biden's agenda is bad and therefore, by your definition, it is the official White House definition of woke.
No where in Biden's agenda, does it mention woke. Therefore, you are assigning woke to something that you think is bad by your own perception.
A liberal could read the same thing and think it is a good thing and that it is also woke. Do you get my point? It's like porn, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it or beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The official definition of woke has already been described, but you and others are not willing to accept that so you convert it into something negative that can be defined by conservatives, in which everybody has their own pejorative definition of what is.
Fill in the blanks please, but make sure it is against Biden and the Democratic Party.Uhhmmm... wha?
I'm assigning woke to bad things, but bad things aren't woke, so fill in the blanks because no where does Biden's agenda say woke?Ken: I know you can figure out what I said. Just get out of your woke mentality. Everybody in conservative circles has their own definition of what woke is. They treat it as if there is a form that says Please fill in the blanks as to what you think woke is. We buy you books and what do you do? You bring them home and tear the pages out.
Well Ken, the response provided by PeoplePower pretty much expresses my opinion on the matter.
Good, then you can elaborate on its meaning then.
Ken: Here is everything that you wanted to know about Woke but were afraid to ask.
https://www.nationalworld.com/whats-on/ … 23-3215758According to your link, the dictionary definition is “Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” (Mirriam-Webster).
This sounds reasonable...with the addition of a few words. Can we make that definition “Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice) as defined by left wing liberals of the United States.”?
Those important facts and issues of the right (illegal immigration, males given access to female changing rooms, males competing in female sports, 2nd amendment violations, religious rights etc.) are not considered "woke"; if anything they are generally the antithesis of being "woke".Before 2014, the call to “stay woke” was, for many people, unheard of. The idea behind it was common within Black communities at that point . The notion that staying “woke” and alert to the deceptions of other people was a basic survival tactic. But in 2014, following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, “stay woke” suddenly became the cautionary watchword of activists on the streets, used in a chilling and specific context: keeping watch for police brutality and unjust police tactics.
On the right, “woke” like its cousin “canceled” bespeaks “political correctness” gone awry, and the term itself is usually used sarcastically.
A co-opted term most certainly."Those important facts and issues of the right (illegal immigration, males given access to female changing rooms, males competing in female sports, 2nd amendment violations, religious rights etc.) are not considered "woke"; if anything they are generally the antithesis of being "woke".
-------
You would not give it a title of Woke only because it is the stuff that your sides advocates, maybe we should create a word of our own to describe that?
I see woke as inclusivity. I find its opposite to be bigotry.
So, inclusivity is an undesirable state of affairs?
That has to be a cause for concern.
"If you can't explain it and people don't understand it... it may not be the winning message you think it is."
I just watched this random video only because of this thread. The part of the voters is very telling.
https://youtu.be/aMrfUxwS7pMA key point of the article from a "trolling" Georgia congresswoman, not exactly the brightest star in the night sky. We all know who she is.
She is the mouthpiece of conservatives, saying out loud what most of them believe anyway, black=woke.
------
"For instance, imagine you're a trollish Republican congresswoman from Georgia, and you want to commiserate with your followers about how aggravated you are that they let Black people perform songs at the Super Bowl. In your grandparents' era, this would be expressed by muttering racial slurs to your friends over chicken wings during halftime. Now, however, that gets you called "racist." So instead you just tweet that every performance not from a white guy was "woke."
I think you can compare that dilemma to the left not being able to define what a woman is. It's any of myriad ideologies void of a rational argument.
Not really when all she was saying is that there are differences between sex and gender. The right seems to acknowledge the first and denies the existence of the second in the same way they deny gay people equal rights.
So the left and the right go way too far in their beliefs. One side, delusional, the other unkind.
Woke is, at the risk of rhyming, a joke, albeit an insidious one. It’s hard for a person or politician to stand up and say, “I’m not comfortable with people who are transgender or queer or gay or lesbian, and I don’t want to better understand Black people's historical experience in America.”
But it’s easy for them to stand up and say, “I HATE WOKE!” It’s easy to push back against a meaningless word, and it gets the message across to others just fine.
The rest of us are smart enough to see through the charade.
Woke? Yes I'm awake and aware. I'm not sleeping through this political babbling.So, so 20th century mindset, you clearly have no concept of woke in the 2020s.
The term has been hi jacked to pretty much dog whistle to racists and stoke fear in those who don't know any better. It's a term that means shoving gays back in the closet, taking away a woman's right over her body and whitewashing history to take out the uncomfortable parts of racism and aggression/suppression of blacks /native Americans. The anti woke agenda is flimsy nonsense. It's really a straightforward assault on policies to address systemic racism, including even the teaching of Black history. Yeah, Rosa Parks was a lady who was asked to give up her bus seat and wouldn't. How on earth do you leave race and the effects of racial policies of the time out of teaching this history?? Ridiculous.
It’s hard to get people to demonize human beings and lives and history. But it’s easy to get them to demonize a word. And if you can use that word as a placeholder for those people, for caring about those people, then it’s easy to demonize instead of saying, ‘We’re just gonna stop caring about people,’
You are really trying to erase history and trying to erase knowledge that we need to grow better as a people. The fact that you are trying to hide these experiences all for the comfort of your white fragility is troubling, harmful, and, most importantly, dangerous. And that’s literally everything that woke goes against.Coltonlarsen1975:
I couldn't have said it better. When Di Santis said: "This is where woke goes to die." That is exactly what he is talking about and his followers understand that.
The right is always coming up with derogatory words to motivate their base against the left. Woke for them has replaced commie, socialist, libiitards, et al. They have no idea what real communisms is about or living in a socialist country, but they used it as a rallying cry to gather the troops.
Woke is the same kind of rallying cry. They don't care what it really means, because they can define it any way they want as long as it is rallying against the left's values and beliefs. It makes them the insiders and the left the outsiders and the enemy. They all belong to the club that defines what they think Woke means.
It is evident in this forum as those who are right leaning all have their own version of woke as long as it is derogatory against the left's values and beliefs, it is O.K.Well my definition of woke has nothing to do with that.
Issues you belabor that, as far as I am concerned, were dealt with and decided long ago. And by decided, I mean the laws and social mores, not the fact that there are individual racists.
Woke today is about the progressive movement into sexualizing children, allowing men to call themselves women and expect society to treat them as such and normalizing pedophiles and joining them to the LGBTQP, and accepting people that say they are cats, dogs or whatever as such.
In effect, I see woke today to be equivalent with the definition of, or what constituted the labeling of, insane or illegal, a mere 30 years ago.You're reinventing the meaning of the word to suit your ideology. But your definition doesn't correspond historically to its original use and meaning. Republicans have co-opted the word with total ignorance to it's meaning. Originality has never been a Republican strong suit.
What if all you say about Republicans ignorantly coopting and misusing the word, would it change the reality of the issues that are being 'falsely' labeled?
What an opportunity . . . 'Would a rose by any other name . . .'
GAWhatever name they want to give to this group of culture war issues is meaningless to me as I don't think any of the so called issues have any validity.
"Any" is pretty expansive. Wouldn't just one legitimate issue mess up your 'any' thought?
Using recognizable 'talking points' as shorthand, I don't see nationally televised congressional hearings with high-level administration leaders not being able to define what a woman is as meaningless.
Take a breath, debating whether that was just a right-winger misrepresentation of what those leaders really weren't able to do (define a woman), isn't the point.
The point is our nation, from the brightest to the dullest, saw or heard folks in charge of our government stumbling to say what a woman is. This comes after half the nation (generalities, of course) has been in national discussions about bathrooms and genders. And people who are 'they' and 'we', not me or I.
That presentation dooms any serious national discussion. I think that is a very meaningful issue. It's not smart to dismiss that just to jump past it to get on with perceived biases and stereotypes.
Are you sure you couldn't find just one current LGBTQQIA? issue that is meaningfully on the public's mind?
GA
What woke meant in the past, is not relevant, if it's definition in social construct and communication has changed.
The word gay in the past, used to mean happy, but it's definition as people understand it today is to infer homosexual or homosexuality.
Woke today best is defined as the topics I noted, sexualized children, Furries, mainstreaming pedophilia.... it has nothing to do with racism or homosexuality, those battles were fought, and have now been mainstreamed into norms of society and our laws.Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. You've coopted a word and changed its original meaning plain and simple. How do you just redfine a term lol? but hey you do you. What else do you want to change the meaning of??? You're awfully pompous and just a heads up....NO one cares about "sexualizing" children. My God where do you even get this from??? But wage on culture warrior...
"Woke" in the 2020s is a bastardization of the word.
Blessings on your family. I wish folks would go all the way back to the 1599 Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims brought with them to the New World. The word King James changed to homosexual was originally the word for rapist. Strange since he was widely known for his homosexuality.
We are always going to separate some group that is different from the majority. It is the dark side of humanity. Hope your family prospers.SMH
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/21-sta … -your-lane
A coalition of 21 state attorneys general sent a stark warning to dozens of financial institutions and asset managers, warning them against pursuing woke environmental and social initiatives.So, now state governments are threatening another DeSantis move, interfering in how buisiness is conducted. I thought that it was the Republicans that complain about government interference in privately owned business?
I think at this point we can dismiss any of the political tenets of the now defunct Republican Party. They are a 'my way or the highway' party and will punish any who do not fall in line.
As a liberal, what is your opinion on this? Should investment managers, playing with other people's money, be allowed to satisfy their own political biases...without telling their customer what they are doing and that it could very well end up costing that customer?
Personally, I do not find that using my money to play politics with is not within our contract. Not unless I have explicitly agreed to it.I'm beginning to like responding before researching. I had to Google this ESG issue. A Fortune.com article seemed informative.
It appears the Labor Dept. announcement that started the debate was about allowing ESG to be a factor, not requiring it to be one.
Then, the neutral (Fortune's presentation seemed basically neutral) explanation of what ESG is didn't make it seem a bad thing. In the direction our society has been taking, it seems like a smart idea to consider ESG factors (as they are described in the article) because it's almost certain future company actions will be a lot more involved with ESG issues than they are now.
There is no requirement in the new announcement. This looks like a partisan political issue (for both sides) to me. I don't know enough about either the pro or con points to know more than what the concept appears to be.
GAWoke!
There is that word again.
Investment managers can "play" with your money on so many other initiatives that may not be defined as Woke but still not be in the best interests of clients. What about those? I will bet that all of the 21 states are red?Is that what "woke" means? Just another word for "politically correct", perhaps a little wider overall?
But yes, when being "woke" is a higher priority than earning money for me that manager has crossed the line. I didn't hire him to express his political bias with my money; I hired him to increase the value of my portfolio.Having policies of ignoring the desires of clients by investment bankers for possibly greedy rightwing managers objectives and goals. Being anti Woke and pro corporate may not necessarily to my advantage in earning money for my portfolio.
I think we're talking about two different things. I understood the discussion to be about some managers that will purchase based on Woke goals rather than best earning potential vs managers that put the priority on earning rather than choosing only those that fit the Woke platform.
Neither one refuses to purchase anything Woke, or not Woke, but the two have different priorities. One puts money as the top priority while the other puts the manager's personal political/social bias first over earning money (without regard or even knowing the customer's bias).That looks like a good description of the issue, but beyond the political claims of anti-woke folks, it looks like it's a non-issue without the politics.
I have the impression that it has always been common practice for investment firms to promote an investment type or strategy identify.
I must be missing some part because the 'rule' change is described as allowing it, not requiring it. Was it not allowed before? Is the discussion about ESG being additional evaluation aspects or promoted to primary ones? *shrug
GAPure assumption, but it seems to me that it is a matter of priorities. It seems more a matter of putting ESG as the priority, rather than earnings, that will or will not be permitted. Without, of course, notifying the customer; if said customer wants that then there is issue at all.
After looking around a bit it seems this issue isn't what the Republicans are framing it to be.
The rule seems to apply to employee retirement plan fiduciaries. It seems clear that ESG considerations are only allowed when they amount to substantive money issues relative to picking the safest and most profitable return for the retirement plans invested in it.
The rule and scholarly explanations say the 'new rule' body specifically says ESG evaluations cannot be weighted above hard-fact monetary considerations. They can only be secondary considerations.
It appears it is a made-up issue.
GAIf it is as you say then I would agree; it is a made-up issue. Although I would be concerned about policing those fiduciaries making ESG decisions and having to show that their decisions were actually ESG priority when opinions differ so much on what is wise when investing.
If that makes any sense; I did not word it well. I would just be concerned about decisions that were actually ESG but claimed to be return oriented, and how to prove it.
I also have to say that that is MY personal opinion of my own investments and how they might be handled. Others might care a great deal if ESG were even marginally used in their own portfolios. If a manager was big into BLM, for instance, and the customer found it evil, or the manager was very much WOKE and the customer hated even the mention of the label.
Related Discussions
- 142
What is your opinion of President Obama, the President, not the man?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
- 83
What specific Conservative position do you disagree?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and libertarians...and moderates...What specific conservative belief, policy, or ideals do you...
- 449
Right Wing? Left Wing? Are we chickens? Politics for idiots.
by kirstenblog 14 years ago
I have never understood all this right wing, left wing stuff. Can anyone explain what its all about, what are these wings and do we get dipping sauce to go with em?
- 24
Why do liberals think everyone needs to pay for everyone else.
by Clayton Hartford 11 years ago
Why do liberals think everyone needs to pay for everyone else.The left constantly berates the Right for not being willing to fund their social pet projects. Why should I be willing to pay for others willingly, when those folks just don't hard enough? Any honest thoughts as to why some feel it is...
- 130
Glenn Beck and Many of the Tea Partiers are Neo-Birchers
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
A long article in this week's "The New Yorker" by Sean Wilentz entitled "Confounding Fathers" traces the antecedents of Glenn Beck's rants and the Tea Party's hysteria to two individuals who spouted much of the nonsense now being repeated Beck and the Teatards. Unfortunately...
- 105
Why are straight people obsessed with homosexuality? Seriously...
by Carolee Samuda 8 years ago
At the risk of being bashed and stepped on here in the forums. I am curious as to why we spend our energy on discriminating and and opposing homosexuality.I am straight and I don't care if you are gay. However, many straight people seem almost obsessed with this. They make it an issue and I don;t...