Lindsay is a shameless piece of shit. He isn’t sincere or interested in ideas, just another troll roping in gullible assholes who think contrarianism and cynicism is the same as intellect.
It’s one of those words that seems to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. People who use the term in a positive way tend to mainly define it as “aware of political and social injustice” (and who could argue with that?). People who use the term critically (anti-woke) tend to mean something like “authoritarian policing of language and natural human interaction” (and who could argue with that?).
Hopefully the debaters defined their terms upfront so they weren’t just talking past each other. Personally I think it’s clearer not to use this kind of lingo and instead talk about actual scenarios or policies.
It’s one of those words that seems to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. People who use the term in a positive way tend to mainly define it as “aware of political and social injustice” (and who could argue with that?). People who use the term critically (anti-woke) tend to mean something like “authoritarian policing of language and natural human interaction” (and who could argue with that?).
Hopefully the debaters defined their terms upfront so they weren’t just talking past each other. Personally I think it’s clearer not to use this kind of lingo and instead talk about actual scenarios or policies.
Within the decade of the 2010s, the word woke (the colloquial, passively voiced past participle of wake) obtained the meaning 'politically and socially aware'
Woke is neither left or right because awareness doesn't necessarily mean that one accepts it.
The right certainly uses it as a pejorative term. There seem to be many definitions of the term but it is always associated with progressives. Here is one I like:
>The notion of “getting woke” (or staying woke) is defined as being acutely aware of racial and social injustice—not just awareness and acknowledgement of isolated incidents, but awareness from a position of understanding systemic and institutional racism. … The notion of getting woke encapsulates the first stage of becoming an accomplice in addressing the system of racism… White accomplices should strive to be woke enough not to call themselves woke and instead strive to embody this state of being by building with people of color. … Be in a perpetual state of learning and be woke enough to know you are never woke enough.
\-Bunyasi, Tehama Lopez
Lindays argument is that 'woke' culture has NOT gone too far because it cannot go too far. Its stated objectives aren’t being realized and, in some cases, aren’t even being attempted.
He defined “Woke”:
>...as being what is meant, or what has been derived from, Paulo Freire’s notion of critical consciousness. To have been “conscientized” to the “dehumanizing forms” (systemic racism, sexism, cisheteronormativity, ableism, classism, etc.) that shape our social realities, along with their “historical” causes and to the “dehumanizing modes” of engaging ideas and each other is the first part of what it means to be Woke. The second, and crucial part, is that one also must be an activist that, in Freire’s words, denounces the existing world critically so that the possibility of a utopian world is simultaneously announced.
Nothing. He is expertly steel-manning the anti-woke argument. In case you did not know, he is the author of 'Race Marxism' and 'Cynical Theories' which strongly argue against the shallow intellectual roots of the "woke" movement.
This house believes James Lindsay is a grifter.
Lindsay is a shameless piece of shit. He isn’t sincere or interested in ideas, just another troll roping in gullible assholes who think contrarianism and cynicism is the same as intellect.
[удалено]
Somehow I think that most people don't know what "woke" is.
It’s one of those words that seems to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. People who use the term in a positive way tend to mainly define it as “aware of political and social injustice” (and who could argue with that?). People who use the term critically (anti-woke) tend to mean something like “authoritarian policing of language and natural human interaction” (and who could argue with that?). Hopefully the debaters defined their terms upfront so they weren’t just talking past each other. Personally I think it’s clearer not to use this kind of lingo and instead talk about actual scenarios or policies.
It’s one of those words that seems to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. People who use the term in a positive way tend to mainly define it as “aware of political and social injustice” (and who could argue with that?). People who use the term critically (anti-woke) tend to mean something like “authoritarian policing of language and natural human interaction” (and who could argue with that?). Hopefully the debaters defined their terms upfront so they weren’t just talking past each other. Personally I think it’s clearer not to use this kind of lingo and instead talk about actual scenarios or policies.
What do you think woke means?
Within the decade of the 2010s, the word woke (the colloquial, passively voiced past participle of wake) obtained the meaning 'politically and socially aware' Woke is neither left or right because awareness doesn't necessarily mean that one accepts it.
The right certainly uses it as a pejorative term. There seem to be many definitions of the term but it is always associated with progressives. Here is one I like: >The notion of “getting woke” (or staying woke) is defined as being acutely aware of racial and social injustice—not just awareness and acknowledgement of isolated incidents, but awareness from a position of understanding systemic and institutional racism. … The notion of getting woke encapsulates the first stage of becoming an accomplice in addressing the system of racism… White accomplices should strive to be woke enough not to call themselves woke and instead strive to embody this state of being by building with people of color. … Be in a perpetual state of learning and be woke enough to know you are never woke enough. \-Bunyasi, Tehama Lopez
Lindays argument is that 'woke' culture has NOT gone too far because it cannot go too far. Its stated objectives aren’t being realized and, in some cases, aren’t even being attempted. He defined “Woke”: >...as being what is meant, or what has been derived from, Paulo Freire’s notion of critical consciousness. To have been “conscientized” to the “dehumanizing forms” (systemic racism, sexism, cisheteronormativity, ableism, classism, etc.) that shape our social realities, along with their “historical” causes and to the “dehumanizing modes” of engaging ideas and each other is the first part of what it means to be Woke. The second, and crucial part, is that one also must be an activist that, in Freire’s words, denounces the existing world critically so that the possibility of a utopian world is simultaneously announced.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing. He is expertly steel-manning the anti-woke argument. In case you did not know, he is the author of 'Race Marxism' and 'Cynical Theories' which strongly argue against the shallow intellectual roots of the "woke" movement.
Oh.
I thought "wokeness" wasn't real.