Woke is white arrogance

[TomC]

LOL. And you can't see how this isn't pure poison? You are never going to make the world a better place spewing that much hate

I have no hate. I just think your name is farty mcfartface because I can't figure out the correct terminology for your actual name. I'm not the problem. Quit hating on me.

aa

And here we have another illustration of what Woke means to me.
Tom

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

LOL. And you can't see how this isn't pure poison? You are never going to make the world a better place spewing that much hate

I have no hate. I just think your name is farty mcfartface because I can't figure out the correct terminology for your actual name. I'm not the problem. Quit hating on me.

aa

And here we have another illustration of what Woke means to me.
Tom

Dude, stop jamming up the fax machine with your 1990s sentimentality. "All these 'woke' whippersnappers with their pants below their underwear!!"

aa

 

[laughing dog]

If I were you, I'd be insulted to be confused with me. On the other hand, I was honored to be confused with you.

I think one thing I have learned from this thread is that there is quite a bit of white arrogance floating around that has nothing to do with being "Woke".

It appears I mistook both of you for KeepTalking.

I am honored. I doubt Keep Talking is.

You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom

Perhaps you need to nap more.

 

[Arctish]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

 

[untermensche]

You will find that "woke" is just the latest term from the insane right that means nothing more than "I don't like policies that help people and the people who promote those policies".

It is more insanity from the lockstep right to pretend they have real criticisms of policies from the left.

 

[Derec]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

Whatever this guy is.

Pennsylvania professor teaches White people committing suicide can be an 'ethical' act

He is also interested in "the castration of whiteness."

 

[Derec]

You will find that "woke" is just the latest term from the insane right

It's actually a term from the insane left. It was started by people like this Jezebel writer in the aftermath of Ferguson insurrection.
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

 

[untermensche]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

Whatever this guy is.

Pennsylvania professor teaches White people committing suicide can be an 'ethical' act

He is also interested in "the castration of whiteness."

Anecdotal and meaningless.

Here we have a real widespread problem:

Poll: Two-thirds of Republicans still think the 2020 election was rigged

https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html

 

[Derec]

The general consensus on TFT appears to be that the NFL owners are willing to take a big financial hit to support racism.
I doubt that's true.

That's also assuming that not hiring Kaep because of his extremist leftist political positions is "supporting racism". If NFL let go a white 1/4-back who was an extreme rightist, people on here would be applauding. The only difference is that Nike would be dropping him too, instead of letting him dictate what products they make, like they did with Kaep.

 

[Arctish]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

Whatever this guy is.

Pennsylvania professor teaches White people committing suicide can be an 'ethical' act

He is also interested in "the castration of whiteness."

I think that's just an example of definition 1.

 

[untermensche]

You will find that "woke" is just the latest term from the insane right

It's actually a term from the insane left. It was started by people like this Jezebel writer in the aftermath of Ferguson insurrection.
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

That is a use of the term.

I am talking about the present madness from the angry uneducated sheep on the right over the term.

The left has helpful policy like the Green New Deal.

The right has madness and more madness. They are totally under the control of corporate power playing them like puppets.

 

[Derec]

Anecdotal and meaningless.

No, it is not. It is an example of wokeism in academia. By the way, Duquesne University is standing behind this self-hating racist piece of shit.

Here we have a real widespread problem:

What does that have to do with wokeism? There is more than enough discussion on that in the Presidential subforum!

Besides,
Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’

 

[Derec]

I am talking about the present madness from the angry uneducated sheep on the right over the term.

What about the miseducated woke sheeple on the left?

 

[Derec]

I think that's just an example of definition 1.

No it is not. It is self-hatred, a very dominant trait among the white male wokesters.

 

[untermensche]

Anecdotal and meaningless.

No, it is not. It is an example of wokeism in academia. By the way, Duquesne University is standing behind this self-hating racist piece of shit.

Here we have a real widespread problem:

What does that have to do with wokeism? There is more than enough discussion on that in the Presidential subforum!

Besides,
Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’

It is anecdotal and meaningless.

It takes an education to understand.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about the present madness from the angry uneducated sheep on the right over the term.

What about the miseducated woke sheeple on the left?

You mean the scattered and rare individuals?

Meaningless.

Unless you are a lost sheep on the right.

 

[Derec]

Regardless of its merits, Kaepernick's method of protest was poorly chosen. He made it too easy to confuse his message. It upset people even sympathetic to his cause. I can appreciate just wanting to keep any politics out of sports, I was annoyed when Tebow knelt too. If CK did something outside the game instead, he probably would have gotten more support and could have played longer.

This. He is free to protest (no matter how misguided his pro-thug, anti-police cause is), but not while working and wearing his employer's uniform.

 

[Derec]

You mean the scattered and rare individuals?

They are far from scattered and rare, especially in academia and media.

 

[untermensche]

You mean the scattered and rare individuals?

They are far from scattered and rare, especially in academia and media.

You can't name one that didn't appear in your daily talking points from your masters.

 

[Arctish]

I think that's just an example of definition 1.

No it is not. It is self-hatred, a very dominant trait among the white male wokesters.

Did you read the article?

The professor said he think there is merit in the statements of philosopher who argues that " The only way then for white people to become part of Africa is to not exist as white people anymore. If the goal is to dismantle white supremacy, and white supremacy is white culture … then the goal has to be to dismantle white culture and ultimately white people themselves. The total integration into Africa by white people will also automatically then mean the death of white people as white as a concept would not exist anymore,"

The professor finds merit in the view that the concept of 'whiteness' must cease to exist in order for it to no longer be a barrier to white people's full integration in Africa. That's very much in line with the first definition .

Are you proposing that self hatred is an essential component of 'woke'?

 

[Derec]

The players were, and are still, being used as props.

Their whole purpose is to entertain the audience. That's why they are being paid millions of dollars.
There is no inherent economic value in people tossing an prolate spheroid around a pitch of astroturf. Without a paying audience, they would not even be paid minimum wage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where do you anti-wokesters get all the time for all this virtue signaling?

 

[Derec]

Did you read the article?

Yes. Does not change the fact that the professor is a self-hating racist.

The professor said he think there is merit in the statements of philosopher who argues that " The only way then for white people to become part of Africa is to not exist as white people anymore.

Why should white people, but not anybody else, have to give up their identity?
Let's try this on for size: "The only way then for black people to become part of America (or Europe) is to not exist as black people anymore."

If the goal is to dismantle white supremacy, and white supremacy is white culture

How is this not a racist statement?

… then the goal has to be to dismantle white culture and ultimately white people themselves.

An inherently racist statement. Note that they are not saying to dismantle the concept of race. No, they are singling out white people for "dismantlement". That is racist.

The professor finds merit in the view that the concept of 'whiteness' must cease to exist in order for it to no longer be a barrier to white people's full integration in Africa. There's no self hatred in that. But if you think there is, are you proposing that as a definition of 'woke'?

It is completely self-hating and racist, as is his violent language about "castration of whiteness". That you defend this shows how extreme you yourself are on race issues.

 

[Derec]

You can't name one that didn't appear in your daily talking points from your masters.

Unlike you, I do not have any masters.

 

[untermensche]

You can't name one that didn't appear in your daily talking points from your masters.

Unlike you, I do not have any masters.

You are a clueless sheep.

Crying about this big nothing "woke" when ordered by your masters.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

Whatever this guy is.

Pennsylvania professor teaches White people committing suicide can be an 'ethical' act

I read the article and that is inaccurate.

In the lecture, which was presented to Baltimore-based American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work in June, Hook quoted a South African philosophy professor, Terblanche Delport, who has written about White people committing suicide in South Africa, before further discussing the comments and arguing "there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

That does not mean that White people committing suicide can be an ethical act.

In fact, the Fox news item goes to later to report

After reading the quotes, Hook said, "I want to suggest that psychoanalytically we could even make the argument that there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

which makes it clear that Hook was not advocating what you claim.

Furthermore, Professor Hook is not interested in "the castration of whiteness". From your link

"I think that Delport took his White audience to the threshold of a type of symbolic extinction … he took them to a proposed end of whiteness," Hook said, adding that Delport "offered his White audience the opportunity to" contemplate "the castration of whiteness."

It is clear that the phrase "the castration of whiteness" is Professor Delport (who is in South Africa and who was speaking to a South African audience about South Africa).

Your entire response is a complete misrepresentation of the content of your linked article.

 

[Arctish]

Yes. Does not change the fact that the professor is a self-hating racist.



Why should white people, but not anybody else, have to give up their identity?
Let's try this on for size: "The only way then for black people to become part of America (or Europe) is to not exist as black people anymore."

If the goal is to dismantle white supremacy, and white supremacy is white culture

How is this not a racist statement?

… then the goal has to be to dismantle white culture and ultimately white people themselves.

An inherently racist statement. Note that they are not saying to dismantle the concept of race. No, they are singling out white people for "dismantlement". That is racist.

The professor finds merit in the view that the concept of 'whiteness' must cease to exist in order for it to no longer be a barrier to white people's full integration in Africa. There's no self hatred in that. But if you think there is, are you proposing that as a definition of 'woke'?

It is completely self-hating and racist, as is his violent language about "castration of whiteness". That you defend this shows how extreme you yourself are on race issues.

You're getting off track. I'm collecting definitions of 'woke'.

Do you believe that self hatred is an essential component of being 'woke'? If so, then please say so plainly.

Also, do you think this something that only happens to white people or do you think non-whites who hate themselves are also 'woke'? Is violent language an essential component or just one possible indication of 'wokeness' ?

What is the definition you're using?

 

[untermensche]

I read the article and that is inaccurate.

In the lecture, which was presented to Baltimore-based American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work in June, Hook quoted a South African philosophy professor, Terblanche Delport, who has written about White people committing suicide in South Africa, before further discussing the comments and arguing "there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

That does not mean that White people committing suicide can be an ethical act.

In fact, the Fox news item goes to later to report

After reading the quotes, Hook said, "I want to suggest that psychoanalytically we could even make the argument that there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

which makes it clear that Hook was not advocating what you claim.

Furthermore, Professor Hook is not interested in "the castration of whiteness". From your link

"I think that Delport took his White audience to the threshold of a type of symbolic extinction … he took them to a proposed end of whiteness," Hook said, adding that Delport "offered his White audience the opportunity to" contemplate "the castration of whiteness."

It is clear that the phrase "the castration of whiteness" is Professor Delport (who is in South Africa and who was speaking to a South African audience about South Africa).

Your entire response is a complete misrepresentation of the content of your linked article.

You will find when you actually look at the facts there is absolutely nothing to this latest insanity from the lockstep herd on the right called "woke".

 

[Derec]

I honestly wonder when people like TomC will realize that they are the minority. the NFL will do just fine because the Majority of their white fan base doesn't have an issue with social justice.

More un-woke people of all races need to stop watching the NFL until things change. You call it "social justice", but there is nothing "just" or even "social" about the NFL glorifying an armed thug like Draesjon Reed.





This is not just about Kaep.

 

[Derec]

Do you believe that self hatred is an essential component of being 'woke'? If so, then please say so plainly.

Perhaps not essential, but still a very common trait among white wokesters.

Also, do you think this something that only happens to white people or do you think non-whites who hate themselves are also 'woke'?

Woke non-whites are usually supremacists for their race.

Is violent language an essential component or just one possible indication of 'wokeness' ?

It is not essential, but it is not rare either.

 

[untermensche]

Anecdote after anecdote.

Food for the sheep.

 

[Derec]

I read the article and that is inaccurate.

It is not.

In the lecture, which was presented to Baltimore-based American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work in June, Hook quoted a South African philosophy professor, Terblanche Delport, who has written about White people committing suicide in South Africa, before further discussing the comments and arguing "there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

That does not mean that White people committing suicide can be an ethical act.

That is very much word mincing. So you are saying Hook is defending another woke racist (also a university professor, btw), but that does not mean he is supporting what this other racist (Delport) is saying?
Delport is saying that white people should kill themselves, and Hook is defending him. To say that Hook is not supporting what Delport is saying requires a lot of word mincing.

Both are self-hating racists.

Furthermore, Professor Hook is not interested in "the castration of whiteness". From your link

"I think that Delport took his White audience to the threshold of a type of symbolic extinction … he took them to a proposed end of whiteness," Hook said, adding that Delport "offered his White audience the opportunity to" contemplate "the castration of whiteness."

It is clear that the phrase "the castration of whiteness" is Professor Delport (who is in South Africa and who was speaking to a South African audience about South Africa).

How is this not offered as a support of Delport's twisted ideas?

Your entire response is a complete misrepresentation of the content of your linked article.

Hook is certainly being supportive of Delport's ideas, and is in no way critical of them. If he was criticizing these ideas, it would be another thing, but he is quoting them approvingly.

 

[Derec]

Well, not Derec's or your BLM but the social justice the real BLM is calling for.

What does supporting armed thugs like Dreasjon Reed have to do with "social justice"?

 

[untermensche]

Anecdotes to attack principles.

The tactic of the dishonest lockstep right.

 

[Derec]

I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

Not too big orange one, but only if you play in snow. Otherwise it's usually white.
Oh, you mean handegg. Then it's the brown pointy one ...

 

[Derec]

Anecdotes to attack principles.

What principle? If you claim lofty principles, but honor armed thugs shot by police in self-defense just to appease some woke rioters, then your principles are not worth a damn.

 

[untermensche]

Anecdotes to attack principles.

What principle? If you claim lofty principles, but honor armed thugs shot by police in self-defense just to appease some woke rioters, then your principles are not worth a damn.

Principles like justice.

No anecdote will show the injustice of the US legal system is not a problem.

We have a society filled with white racists with power that don't care about the rights of minorities.

We have an entire party that is insane.

Filled with people who would rather take horse pills than a vaccine that has been proven to be effective.

 

[laughing dog]

That is very much word mincing. So you are saying Hook is defending another woke racist (also a university professor, btw), but that does not mean he is supporting what this other racist (Delport) is saying?
Delport is saying that white people should kill themselves, and Hook is defending him. To say that Hook is not supporting what Delport is saying requires a lot of word mincing.

You conveniently omitted part of my response with the link from your article
that reports

After reading the quotes, Hook said, "I want to suggest that psychoanalytically we could even make the argument that there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."

Which clearly indicates that your claim that Hook is teaching that White people committing suicide can be an ethical act is false.

Both are self-hating racists.

It is possible they are. Of course, it is quite possible they are not. Nothing in the report remotely indicates either is a self-hating racist.

How is this not offered as a support of Delport's twisted ideas?

You confuse explanation of _____ with support for _____.

Hook is certainly being supportive of Delport's ideas, and is in no way critical of them. If he was criticizing these ideas, it would be another thing, but he is quoting them approvingly.

We have no idea because you cited a Fox News report which does not report the entire lecture. The notion that a lack of criticism means necessary support is illogical.

 

[Arctish]

Perhaps not essential, but still a very common trait among white wokesters.


Woke non-whites are usually supremacists for their race.

Is violent language an essential component or just one possible indication of 'wokeness' ?

It is not essential, but it is not rare either.

DrZoidberg says that 'woke' is white arrogance. He made that the thread title. It sounds like you think he's completely wrong. Do you?

What definition of 'woke' are you using?

 

[Derec]

I don't know about ID software,

It's these guys.

other than the fiasco with Wii and Apple's facial recognition systems not being able to see black people. Which is just plain laziness on the part of the developers who didn't bother to test their systems on anyone who was dark skinned.

True. Any problems could be fixed with training the software. However, I suspect that for the woke activists the problem is not one of accuracy but rather that blacks are overrepresented among street level criminals, and therefore disproportionally many blacks would be caught using this software.

Hiring processes don't favor blacks. Yes, in some cases, affirmative action may assist some minorities...

These two sentences are contradictory. Many companies and pretty much all government agencies use so-called "affirmative action" in hiring.

but in order for that to happen they have to make it through the resume screening process first.

You mean they have to meet some minimum requirements before given preferential treatment. Well, I hope so! Would you rather they be given preferential treatment even if they do not meet minimum criteria for being hired?

And that process still tends to disfavor minorities and women.

How so?

College admissions, yes, somewhat.

Not somewhat, but by a lot. Racial preferences are common in universities and professional schools. I do not know about you, but I want my physicians to be well-qualified and not have lower standards because of the color of their skin. But exactly this is happening in medical school admissions.

It varies by college, but to the extent that some colleges define target demographic distributions, it could be a factor.

Some claim not to do it, but then use subjective assessment to shape the demographic profile of the incoming class. Like what Harvard is doing with "personality traits" where they consistently score Asians low.

 

[untermensche]

You won't find any rationality from the right.

It is nothing but sweeping generalizations based on rare anecdotes.

 

[Derec]

There's not much that can be done about it. In the famous words of Mae West, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

That is an insult to sex workers. A lot of them are very cultured. More than most amateurs for sure.

That's Dorothy Parker, not Mae West.
Since penis size seems to have come up in this thread, let me quote a west line inquiring about the possibility of a "woke" penis:
"Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

 

[Derec]

You didn't read it.

I read several of the essays when they first came out. What can I say, I am a glutton for puishment.
They are really as extreme as advertised. Kaep is an extremist nut, and so are the other contributors. He wants to free cop-killer Wesley Cook (alias Mumia Abu Jamal) when in reality we should have fried Mumia.
Speaking of cop-killers, Kaep's collection of essays has an interview with another cop killer and Black Panther/BLA terrorist Russell Shoats, who is described as "an activist, writer, founding member of the Black Unity Council, former member of the Black Panther Party, and soldier in the Black Liberation Army". This gives you an idea of the level of extremism in the series Abolition for the People.

 

[Elixir]

There's not much that can be done about it. In the famous words of Mae West, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

That is an insult to sex workers. A lot of them are very cultured.

We’re not talking about petri dishes here.

 

[Derec]

I personally don't care who is or is not woke and what it all means. I only care that I & anyone for that matter can live life in peace. If anyone unlawfully takes that away from us in any shape or form I expect the justice system to do its damn job.

Who is "us"? Do you identify with the likes of Michael Brown or Mario Woods or Dreasjon Reed just because of the color of their skin? These guys, who became #BLM heroes, certainly were not about letting others live in peace.
That said, when police commit a crime they should be prosecuted. That does not mean that every time a black thug is killed police are in the wrong. Or that violent rioters should be listened to when it comes to charging decisions.

When it doesn't no one should be surprised to see people like Woke-Kaepernick popping up. The dude stood up for BLM and since then it's been all over the news and picked up steam.

According to Kaep, he first became a #BLM activists over Mario Woods. A guy who was just released on parole (parole board screwed up, dude was not rehabilitated in the least!) and promptly stabbed a man, then refused to drop the knife despite police trying non-lethal means like bean bags to disarm him.
Colin Kaepernick talks about the police shooting that led him to protest during national anthem
But it seems that it was actually his Muslim girlfriend, Nessa Diab, who pushed him into it.
Did Kaepernick’s activist girlfriend inspire his support of Black Lives Matter?

Your boy is pussymatized!

That's what he set out to do and it worked. But instead of looking at the issues it became about dumbass rioters, looters & defunding the police.

That's because for one there was and is a lot of rioting, looting and calls to defund the police. For other, there isn't much meat to the issues. When there is wrongdoing by the police, they get prosecuted. But these activists want police prosecuted even when they did nothing wrong, like in the case of Mario Woods. Note, police could not just allow him to wander off, they had to stop him.

Then Mr. Floyd lost his life (amongst many others of all races) and folks just shrug and say, that's an exception and continue the focus on a bunch of asshole rioters, looters, the stupid phrase "defund the police" and now this woke crap.

You are forgetting that it is activists who rioted, looted, burned "this bitch down" (to quote Michael Brown's mother's boyfriend to launch the 2nd Ferguson insurrection) and came up with terms like "woke" and demands like "defund/abolish the police" and "abolish prisons".

Meanwhile, on the police force, their word is still gold. Fear for their life is mainly all they need to say and no charges are filed if they can avoid doing so by all means necessary.

Can you give me some examples as to where police were not indicted when you think they should have been based solely on their word? Be specific.

But whatever, the police interact hundreds of millions of times a day with people and nothing bad happens so they should be allowed to fuck up. Right?

Given millions of interactions there will be cases where they fuck up. Police are not infallible, but then again nobody is. Daunte Wright case is a good example. Wright should not have skipped bail on his gun charge and then tried to flee when he was about to be arrested, and the cop made a mistake when she pulled a gun instead of a taser.
Mistakes happen. She will probably be convicted of some crime, and she should be. Her mistake cost a young man his life. That does not change the fact that the traffic stop would not have escalated had Wright a) not had a warrant for his arrest and b) not tried to flee and had allowed himself to be arrested. His stupid decision cost himself the life.

Let's talk more about these woke folk.

That's what this thread is all about.

 

[Derec]

We’re not talking about petri dishes here.

Not what I was talking about either. But that's not derail this think further. Although the woke don't like consensual adult sex work either ...

 

[Arctish]

Derec, what is your definition of 'woke'?

Don't just link to pictures and obscure news stories. No one here can see into your mind to figure out what you think those articles show. You have to tell us what you think they show.

Do you think 'woke' is white arrogance?

Do you think it's white self hatred?

Do you think being 'woke' means giving a crap when an unarmed man is needlessly shot by the police? Do you think it means not giving a crap, or that giving a crap has no bearing on 'wokeness'?

What definition of the term are you using?

 

[Derec]

Derec, what is your definition of 'woke'?

Hard to go for a unifying definition, but I will give it a shot.
I would say the defining characteristics of "woke" are
- excessive involvement with "social justice" issues
- a twisted understanding what "social justice" which is informed by far left politics, esp. so called "liberation" and other radical ideologies of the 60s and 70s. As such, I think the woke movement is reactionary rather than progressive.
- The original use was specifically about race, and these OG racial wokesters referred back to Black Panthers, Malcolm X and other black radicals. That is a special case of my point above.

Don't just link to pictures and obscure news stories. No one here can see into your mind to figure out what you think those articles show. You have to tell us what you think they show.

Some of the pictures were just for fun (especially Lili Von Schtupp) but the articles are important. Like the Jezebel one illustrating the early use of the term or the articles about Kaep, a prominent woke activist.

Do you think 'woke' is white arrogance?

No. While woke tend to be arrogant for sure, that attitude is far too common to be a defining characteristic. Also, many if not most woke are non-white and the term originated among black radical activists.

Do you think it's white self hatred?

Again, since many/most woke are non-white, that will not do as a definition. However, the racially woke whites are usually self-hating.

Do you think being 'woke' means giving a crap when an unarmed man is needlessly shot by the police?

No, it does not. We should all "give a crap" in that circumstance. But that's not most cases. The woke get upset iff (if and only if) a black person gets shot, and they don't care if he was armed, or attacking police, etc. That's why the woke protest on behalf of Dreasjon Reed and McHale Rose.
How Dreasjon Reed, McHale Rose are being remembered a year after they were shot by police
One shot at police with a handgun after a traffic stop and the other ambushed police and shot at them with an AK-47. So neither were "unarmed [men, who are] needlessly shot by the police".

Or take Patrick Kimmons.
Demonstrators honor man killed by Portland police in 2018, call for change
He shot two people moments before police shot him. So he wasn't "an unarmed man [who] is needlessly shot by the police" either.

Do you think it means not giving a crap, or that giving a crap has no bearing on 'wokeness'?

The latter. You don't have to be woke to "give a crap" in the circumstances you stated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

None of these are mutually exclusive. You could just put these together into just one definition. They all fit nicely to the one idea Zizek puts forward.

edit: I feel this may need to be mentioned. But you can be aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice without being woke.

In my opinion woke is a power tactic among the priviliged to use a feigned concerned for marginalised groups as a tool with which to score points and gain status among progressives. The problem with the intersectional story is that, if you are privilged, in any way, you can't help but be an oppressive patriarchal racist. So the only way for the woke priviliged to gain status is by being the wokest.

It's an amazingly cynical power tactic. Because by trying to gain status, they are actively continuing to displace minorities from positions of influence and status. Ie doing exactly that which they say they're trying not to. It's like a party where supermodels have invited a regular girl and tries to convince her that what matters for being a model is what's on the inside. And all the other supermodel girls emphatically nod in agreement.

I think woke is fundamentally the wrong way to think about how to deal with mitigating privilige. I think it's important to acknowledge that nobody is going to willingly let go of privilege, if they can help it. The only priviliges we've ever manage to break is either privliges where it's a benefit to everybody by breaking them, or with the use of force.

Men getting higher salaries than women is not a privilige men are going to let go of. White owned properties being worth more than black properties is nothing whites are willingly going to collaborate in breaking if it'll mean they'll lose money. If enough women think it's icky to share bathrooms to transgendered they won't be welcome. Whites and men dominating the public discourse is not going to stand back to give room for blacks and women. We need to acknowledge that it's a free and unequal market of ideas that we all just need to do what we need to do and get ahead in life. Those priviliged are going to use their privilige to get ahead. That's always going to happen. Nothing will change that. And vocal wokes are just proving that.

To me wokes add nothing of value. They're just pure toxicity. They promote nothing but division and a world of fake smiles. They're not working towards for what they say they're working for. It's all just disingenuous. They may be sincere. But their actions give them away.

Yes, the world is unfair. That sucks. But wokes will never make the world more fair. They're project is just one huge tremendous waste of time and energy.

 

[Arctish]

Hard to go for a unifying definition, but I will give it a shot.

That sounds like you're saying there is no actual definition. That makes the term a kind of dog whistle, doesn't it? The meaning can only be discerned by those who get the underlying message.

I would say the defining characteristics of "woke" are
- excessive involvement with "social justice" issues
- a twisted understanding what "social justice" which is informed by far left politics, esp. so called "liberation" and other radical ideologies of the 60s and 70s. As such, I think the woke movement is reactionary rather than progressive.
- The original use was specifically about race, and these OG racial wokesters referred back to Black Panthers, Malcolm X and other black radicals. That is a special case of my point above.

So someone who is involved with social justice issues but not 'excessively' so isn't woke?

Someone whose understanding of social justice issues isn't twisted but rather straightforward isn't woke either?