Woke is white arrogance

[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?

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.

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The "woke" never do.

For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

Here's an annecdote. I have one ftm transgendered friend who I've known through his transition. Not a close friend. But we regularly meet at random parties and hang out. Whenever I'm drunk I continually call him she. I know that hurts his feelings. But I'm drunk. I don't do it on purpose. I got to know him as a woman. He's always going to be a woman in my mind. To think of him as a him I need to make an active effort. Which is completely out the window (and my brain) as soon as I drink.

He's never corrected me on it. I don't know why. I know how it affects him simply based on his body language when I get it wrong.

The reason I think he has never corrected me is because he's not a sociopath. Me getting it wrong (when I drink) doesn't make me an asshole. He keeps being my friend. So he clearly is willing to see past it.

And in spite of knowing several transgendered (and transvestite) people I never think of trans men as men, and trans women as women. It doesn't matter how much makeup they're using. I always need to make an active effort not to get it wrong. Making an active effort in going against my basic linguistic programming is hard work for my brain. Especially at parties, when there's so much going on around me.

Demanding that anybody ever gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO. It's political correctness gone mad. And don't get me started on all the queer identities. IE CIS-people wanting to get in on the transgendered specialness action so they invent a plethora of ridiculous identities that they demand others respect. I don't have a problem with people experimenting with identity. As far as I'm concerned, that's what being young is all about. What's rediculous is the degree wokes demand that we respect it and use their chosen pronouns. That is dumb IMHO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Still the same definition. Just different aspects of that same definition.

 

[Arctish]

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Still the same definition. Just different aspects of that same definition.

In your last post you said:

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.

Then you contradicted yourself by saying:

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.

So the awareness and concern are irrelevant. They are not what makes someone 'woke'. Therefore, in your view, definition 1 doesn't belong on that list because it doesn't define the term.

That leaves

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

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Which means only arrogant white people seeking status via expounding on the topic of social justice, and correcting people when they mislabel others, are 'woke'.

 

[untermensche]

Anecdote after worthless anecdote.

Sane people understand this latest insanity called "woke" is more meaningless posturing and politics from the right that has no ideas to help anyone but the most rich and is opposed to any idea that might actually help someone.

We compare anecdotes from the right with the widespread insanity on the right over the last election, treason at the Capitol, and a deadly pandemic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In your last post you said:

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.

Then you contradicted yourself by saying:

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.

So the awareness and concern are irrelevant. They are not what makes someone 'woke'. Therefore, in your view, definition 1 doesn't belong on that list because it doesn't define the term.

That leaves

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

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Which means only arrogant white people seeking status via expounding on the topic of social justice, and correcting people when they mislabel others, are 'woke'.

I don't think I contradicted myself. You can't remove being "aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice". That's an integral part of the definition IMHO. If you leave that out you might as well be describing a neo-nazi. I think you need all of the bullets.

It's possible to bring attention to an important social issue without doing anything meaningful to fix it. Wokes are going through motions (I'm sure they sincerely believe will work). But it's just an ego inflating act.

I'm sure Christians sending thoughts and prayers sincerely think they're helping others. But we all know it's just something they say to feel good about themselves while doing nothing. I think woke psychology works in a similar way.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.
You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom

Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Imagine that, Fox News sensationally misrepresented a story, and Derec, who is totally not a conservative, took that misrepresentation even further so he could own us libs good.

Really, I would expect nothing else at this point.

 

[TomC]

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

Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

I was on the board of the local NAACP around twenty years ago. I don't remember it being used.

I probably first heard it from PJ. He was what I initially understood as a "social justice warrior". A black guy, very active socially, and not just on race issues. Affordable child care, voter registration, he was a staunch supporter of the Gay/Straight Alliance from the very beginning. He and I argued about all kinds of stuff, and he's also why I wound up on the NAACP.

I considered him Woke in the positive sense. The concept has been around a while, way before Ferguson. But I don't think it was much used until about then. It honestly seemed to me that a bunch of posers took it over. People who don't do much but talk. But, boy, when they get a chance to demonstrate their Wokeness by being mean to someone "ignorant and bad", like Zoid, they are thrilled to demonstrate their smug self righteousness.
Tom

 

[TomC]

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.
You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom

Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.

It's kind of a hoot, reading a Wokester complain about other people "throwing aspersions all over the place".
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

Here's an annecdote.

Anecdote? Here is one, you already said you were amenable to correction.

 

[KeepTalking]

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

I never said you need correcting. I only said that you likely will be gently corrected if you make a mistake like that regarding someone you just met.

Here's an annecdote. I have one ftm transgendered friend who I've known through his transition. Not a close friend. But we regularly meet at random parties and hang out. Whenever I'm drunk I continually call him she. I know that hurts his feelings. But I'm drunk. I don't do it on purpose. I got to know him as a woman. He's always going to be a woman in my mind. To think of him as a him I need to make an active effort. Which is completely out the window (and my brain) as soon as I drink.

He's never corrected me on it. I don't know why. I know how it affects him simply based on his body language when I get it wrong.

The reason I think he has never corrected me is because he's not a sociopath. Me getting it wrong (when I drink) doesn't make me an asshole. He keeps being my friend. So he clearly is willing to see past it.

And this is very clearly not an example of what I was talking about. You were not doing it deliberately with an intent to offend. Your friend likely knows that. You also note that you can see that it hurts thier feelings when you do so, therefor, it is also possible that they see the realization that you hurt their feelings when you did so, and that unspoken understanding between friends is all that is necessary to make it no big deal.

And in spite of knowing several transgendered (and transvestite) people I never think of trans men as men, and trans women as women. It doesn't matter how much makeup they're using. I always need to make an active effort not to get it wrong. Making an active effort in going against my basic linguistic programming is hard work for my brain. Especially at parties, when there's so much going on around me.

Do you think that your inebriation at a party should make you immune from criticism if you appear to be deliberately offending other party goers?

Demanding that anybody ever gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO.

That seems like a very non-specific demand, I will take it that you actually meant "Demanding that everyone always gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO."

I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

It's political correctness gone mad. And don't get me started on all the queer identities. IE CIS-people wanting to get in on the transgendered specialness action so they invent a plethora of ridiculous identities that they demand others respect. I don't have a problem with people experimenting with identity. As far as I'm concerned, that's what being young is all about. What's rediculous is the degree wokes demand that we respect it and use their chosen pronouns. That is dumb IMHO.

I only see those people asking others not to be deliberately offensive in their use of pronouns. On the other hand, I do think it is a good idea to try to be respectful of others unless and until they give you reason not to. I do not think that a simple ask to use the proper noun they prefer, the pronoun they prefer, or a gender neutral pronoun really gives one that reason.

 

[TomC]

I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

I was on the board of the local NAACP around twenty years ago. I don't remember it being used.

I probably first heard it from PJ. He was what I initially understood as a "social justice warrior". A black guy, very active socially, and not just on race issues. Affordable child care, voter registration, he was a staunch supporter of the Gay/Straight Alliance from the very beginning. He and I argued about all kinds of stuff, and he's also why I wound up on the NAACP.

I considered him Woke in the positive sense. The concept has been around a while, way before Ferguson. But I don't think it was much used until about then. It honestly seemed to me that a bunch of posers took it over. People who don't do much but talk. But, boy, when they get a chance to demonstrate their Wokeness by being mean to someone "ignorant and bad", like Zoid, they are thrilled to demonstrate their smug self righteousness.
Tom

Perhaps it was not in wide use in your area. I can assure you that where I live, I have been exposed to it for decades.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware',[12] especially in a political or cultural sense.[6]​ The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley, describing the appropriation of African American slang by white beatniks.

 

[KeepTalking]

Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.

It's kind of a hoot, reading a Wokester complain about other people "throwing aspersions all over the place".
Tom

"Wokester"? Where? I do not consider myself "woke", although I consider "woke" a compliment.

I was the third person in this thread you decided to call out as being something of a bad person (paraphrasing) in this thread. I have done no such thing, at least not intentionally. I did make a post that may have been construed that way, but when it was pointed out to me via another channel, I quickly apologized and tried to make my original intent clear.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom

Without evidence, there is no reason for anyone to accept your claim of fact.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom

This board has a quote function for a reason. Any post that has not been deleted by the mods can certainly be quoted. If there is an issue where the original quote requires moderation, the mods will edit the subsequent quote as well.

Also, if it is only the most pointed, then feel free to provide a less pointed one. Whatever you feel qualifies works for me, it doesn't even have to be limited to TFT, feel free to provide examples from elsewhere.

 

[jab]

I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist

"My" solution? I've never said any of the nonsense you spew about "Woke" people, nor have I ever described myself with that term.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.

Make up your mind

false dichotomy. And somewhat arrogant.

 

[jab]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

As far as sources for his philosophical views, he also doesn't need that. He is a Lacanian. But he's done enough work, and introduced enough unique thought now, to stand on his own.

Wokes often try to dismiss him on moral grounds. But it's obvious (to me) that it's intellectual laziness. Following Zizeks trains of thought requires actual effort and usage of brainpower. Kneejerk reactions and feelings is much easier. So wokes often go with that. But there's no thinking going on. If you want to dismiss him, you'll have to actually make an effort. Sorry about that.

Sounds just like Trump and his "jokes".
BTW Zizek is a supporter and fan of that long deceased Freudian con and fraud Lacan--so yeah, i want to dismiss him.