I just love irony. But if they were Conservative values, I question whether Conservative values exist anymore here in God's Favorite Country. — Ciceronianus the White

:100:

Even if they did, they are now inextricably married to the company they keep. They had a chance to divorce, but alas, Liz Cheney was thrown under the bus and the marriage with racism and fascism was consummated. I suppose she could have rescued the values with an inappropriate objection, but she failed.

I can see her calling a press conference, or going on Faux News, walking out and saying "Donald John Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar." Then she grabs her crotch and says "I've got bigger balls than any of the little bitches that vote for him. Fuck off!" Then dropping the mic and walking away.

Or better yet, challenge Trump to a cage match. Tell him "If it weren't for the laws against it, I'd challenge you to a duel, kill you on Fifth Avenue, and no one would give a shit, you little pussy."

Those are the kind of theatrics that the new conservative loves. Pop corn and all that. But alas:

. . . absurdity and stupidity don't seem, to be a worthy goals of philosophy. — Ciceronianus the White

Apparently Wokeness originated as a Black American term encouraging people to understand the depth and pervasive nature of historical racism and oppression of Black people.

But that is not what it means now.

Wokeness now means taking offence at what anyone else says and claiming that your sense of offense is your enlightenment.

Becoming aware of the prejudice you faced or faced is not the same as taking offense on behalf of other people that you are mischaracterising.

This why the left is eating itself. It has extended its reign of taking offense to the point that anyone even in the thick of the ranks can be cancelled and ostracised for a misstep.

Ah, oh no, test said I'm totally woke, this whole time I didn't realise. — Judaka

Damn, starting to feel us non-woke folk are an endangered minority here... :monkey:

So, bad wokeness is bad and good wokeness is good. Thanks for your contribution.

But that is not what it means now. — Andrew4Handel

Because the right is so adept at what it does. See flag. See "liberal". See "American". See "patriot."

That and the fact that the left does not stand up on it's hind legs. They eat themselves instead.

Those are the kind of theatrics that the new conservative loves. — James Riley

It's a sad thing, I believe. A once legitimate (if sometimes misguided) intellectual/political tradition has been suborned and replaced with a movement the representatives of which resemble, in character, knowledge and in intellect, the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar for the most part, and the balance of which is made up of mere shills for various corporate interests which take advantage of them.

This why the left is eating itself. It has extended its reign of taking offense to the point that anyone even in the thick of the ranks can be cancelled and ostracised for a misstep. — Andrew4Handel

I consider myself broadly left wing. Do you think that I cancel and ostracise people?

I consider myself broadly left wing. Do you think that I cancel and ostracise people? — bert1

I don't know you to comment on this.

But I know what happens of mainstream forums like Twitter, Facebook. It is the Left wing people/Woke/PC cancelling people.

But I know what happens of mainstream forums like Twitter, Facebook. It is the Left wing people/Woke/PC cancelling people. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, I was just wondering who you are talking about, and that helps. No doubt you are right that it happens. How many times doesn't it happen, though? How many times is there a left wing person on one of these platforms who doesn't engage in the kind of rabid overreactions that concern you? Do you notice them? How many left wing people who don't go on these platforms are there? And do they engage in the practices you dislike? Do you think that the people you notice are a representative sample of 'the left'?

On a personal note my dad is black but I can pass as a white man. So I am deemed to have "White privilege" (By noveau racists.) Who think skin colour is everything.

The Wokeness of today is the enemy of mixed race autistic gay people like myself because it champions the opposite of diversity by seeking to categorise and vilify people based on their identity.

Do you think that the people you notice are a representative sample of 'the left'? — bert1

Based on answering questionnaires I am classed as extreme left and woke. But I know that it is people claiming to be these thing who are advocating censorship. It is not inevitable to have left wing sympathies and then to descend into woke political correctness. It is not a religion.

But the dichotomies have taken over.

Based on answering questionnaires I am classed as extreme left and woke. — Andrew4Handel

That's interesting. Do you have a link to such a questionnaire? I'd be interested to have a go myself and see what I come out as.

Words That Mean Nothing: Our political discourse is dominated by issues that don’t exist

Succinct article that hits the nail on the head when people haphazardly use terms like "woke", "politically correct", and "cancel culture".

Meanwhile, things like poverty and inequality and death and disease and climate change and war can all be easily quantified, defined and debated in a meaningful way. When someone instead spends all their time talking about things that seem undefinable, it is probably because they find reality to be an uncomfortable topic.

I would go a step further and say that those who often do this in fact are not bothered by such uncomfortable topics

Succinct article that hits the nail on the head when people haphazardly use terms like "woke", "politically correct", and "cancel culture".

"Meanwhile, things like poverty and inequality and death and disease and climate change and war can all be easily quantified, defined and debated in a meaningful way. When someone instead spends all their time talking about things that seem undefinable, it is probably because they find reality to be an uncomfortable topic" — Maw

Yet this is the typical, standard line from woke people like Hamilton Nolan who actually cannot even see their own wokeness: How dare anybody even talk about there existing "cancel culture" when there is the corona-pandemic, climate change, wars and conflicts, poverty, INJUSTICE!

And it's great that you did pick a perfect stereotypical example like Hamilton Nolan, Maw. Because let's just take look what Hamilton Nolan writes.

So Hamilton Nolan also writes in that article you refer to:

What does ​“cancel culture” mean? Does it mean ​“Being fired from your job for being racist or sexist?” Does it mean ​“Being criticized in public for saying racist or sexist things?” Does it mean ​“Things that used to be seen as okay for white people to say now are seen as not okay and I am upset about that because I like to say those things?” It is easy to see how at one end of the spectrum of definitions, ​“cancel culture” is an extremely narrow, niche problem without any major impact on the general public — and at the other extreme, it is a pernicious force that might come for anyone. If I were making an honest attempt to offer the definition of this term as it is most often used, it would be: ​“People suffering consequences for things they said, with an overwhelming emphasis on the most goofy or misguided examples that we can find.” By this definition, ​“cancel culture” is just a rebranding of the ordinary human foibles that accompany the slowly evolving standards of society. Engaging in any debate at all about ​“cancel culture” without a meticulous definition of terms is to fall into a trap before you have even begun.

Hmm... how about the definition being closer to the cancel culture that Hamilton Nolan personally advocates? The one he explains in an another article:

The current occupants of the White House will leave, and all of their assorted enablers will disperse back into the world like fungus spores floating on the wind, all hoping for a cozy spot to flourish anew. It is our job, as a society, to deny them that. To deny them acceptance, peace, and the unearned sheen of respectability. To always, always, remember what they did.

Stephen Miller should never be able to dine peacefully in a nice restaurant as long as there is one family still experiencing the pain of his border policies. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump should not be able to go to fancy New York society events so long as Americans are still feeling the effects of the Trump administration’s class war. Steven Mnuchin should not be able to have a nice day taking in a ballgame, Betsy DeVos should not be able to enjoy a quiet cruise on her yacht, Mitch McConnell should not be able to have a fun outing to the Kentucky Derby. All of these people should be the subject of ridicule, derision and insults when they venture out in public. All of them should experience civil disobedience designed to prevent them from living calm and luxurious lives while millions of other people suffer in myriad ways because of what they have done.

See article: Remember What They Did - Do not allow the enablers of the Trump administration to rejoin polite society, ever.

I guess that above is a perfect example of cancel culture and just why it's called cancel culture. But of course, there are more important issues, yet sometimes lesser issues can be discussed too. :nerd:

(The awarded labour columnist Hamilton Nolan...)

guess that above is a perfect example of cancel culture and just why it's called cancel culture. — ssu

Cancel culture is an ancient, time-tested, conservative value, used in tribal communities in lieu of physical or verbal punishment. It's called "ostracization." It is also called "consequences." Conservatives like to talk about consequences, they just don't like to suffer them. They act like snowflakes when they have to suffer consequences. When we moved to larger communities, beyond the simple tribal affair, a new moniker was ginned up: "Cancel culture."

Cancel culture is a good thing. Everyone agrees, including conservatives who use it all the time. They just hate it when the shoe is on the other foot. In essence, if individual members of society think you are someone or something who should not be entitled to their company, they turn their back on you and walk away. They will also encourage others to do the same. But you are still left alone, free to be an asshole if that is what you like.

So, if you are a filthy POS like Trump, you might be able to find a safe space where you can continue to thrive, compound your beliefs in a confirmation-bias echo chamber and, if enough people like you, then you can find a following there. In that case, you've essentially started your own tribe. Which is fine. If you have enough support you might be able to replace the society, the spot light, the business, you so desire. You will no longer be relegated to simply looking through the knot holes in the fence, watching, with jealousy, the other other kids playing ball together. But unless and until you quit hurting about the fact that no one wants to play with you, and no one but losers like you, then you will always be a loser.

Ostracization, consequences, cancel culture are all the same thing and they are what is referred to as "social engineering." It's how people make other people social, tolerable, permissible to have around. Look around at the company you keep, if any. If you love and respect those people, great. But if you look down up them as useful idiots who you would not hang out with in your leisure time then, well, you can either try to change your ways, or you can be an asshole that goes nowhere. That's cool too.

After all, imagine what could be done, besides a simple, voluntary, peaceful, non-physical, non-verbal punishment. That could be so much worse. So, why little bitches whine about "Cancel Culture", I'll never understand. I mean, if they don't like or respect those people who are cancelling them, then what's the big deal? No one should mind being cancelled by a culture for which they have no respect or desire to be a part of.

The term ‘woke’ originally referred to the idea of broader awareness in thinking that is inclusive of alternative and minority perspectives.

The term is affected, though, by one’s relative position to the idea. If this thinking appears to include awareness of one’s perspective or experience where others don’t, then such ‘wokeness’ has a positive valence. If it appears to challenge one’s attitude as ignorant or inconsiderate, then this ‘wokeness’ has a negative valence.

The term has since been applied more narrowly in reference to evidence only of those particular sympathies effecting change - championed by those actively seeking change, and perceived as a threat by those uncomfortable with the changes sought.

So those who employ a broader awareness in thinking without aggressively attacking the attitudes of others are now (understandably) distancing themselves from the term ‘woke’.

There is an assumption (particularly in US culture) that the landscape here is binary: that ‘woke’ refers to those opposing ‘non-woke’, or vice versa. This grossly oversimplified landscape appeals to those who prefer to speak or act without spending too much time, effort or attention self-consciously thinking. Cancel culture is an effort to simplify our interactions, to save ourselves the effort and attention required to include alternative perspectives or experiences in our thinking when they’re ‘obviously’ ignorant. But it’s a hypocritical approach that renders one side of the binary just as ignorant as the other - and is not what it means to be ‘woke’ in the original sense of the word.

The fact is that most of us are ‘woke’ (broadly and inclusively aware) in some aspects, but not all. It’s a work in progress, and we don’t always have the patience for a broader awareness in thinking all the time.

What is also often overlooked here is the other aspect of affect: arousal. Discomfort with potential change has to do with the time, effort and attention required to adjust our thinking in relation to what we have available. Those who resist changes in thinking are not necessarily opposing them, but aren’t ready to commit sufficient time, effort or attention to the change. How they justify this is often interpreted as opposition, but I think it’s far more complex than a binary such as ‘woke/non-woke’ allows.

The term is affected, though, by one’s relative position to the idea. — Possibility

I think that is pretty much correct, the extent to which the term is affected by one's political persuasions is absurd. Just like many political terms, they are vehicles to galvanise people politically. This approach has a Nazi-style feel to it, where groups are continually demonised for political purposes. "Wokeism" can be a monster that needs to be slain if that's what motivates people to get involved politically to vote for or give money to the other side. The news media profit from such political outrage and so they're perfectly happy to add fuel to the fire. This goes both ways, it's just the state of political discourse at the moment.

That's not to say either side of the "woke" debate don't have substantial and fairly articulated disagreements but that terms like "woke" are characterised and defined in politically and culturally useful ways to discredit the opposition and portray the other side in a better light. It's impossible to define these terms in a neutral way anymore, you'll be jumped by every side, or what should be a neutral description ends up being characterised as partisan.

So those who employ a broader awareness in thinking without aggressively attacking the attitudes of others are now (understandably) distancing themselves from the term ‘woke’. — Possibility

I define the political dispute as being about how we interpret discrimination, oppression, prejudice, equity and what should be done about a variety of social issues related to these interpretations. There's also a dispute in approach, to be "woke" I would characterise as being highly intolerant (of intolerance) as they define it. It can be quite aggressive, both in how it's done and how ambitious it can be.

The fact is that most of us are ‘woke’ (broadly and inclusively aware) in some aspects, but not all. It’s a work in progress, and we don’t always have the patience for a broader awareness in thinking all the time. — Possibility

The issue is that all sides of the current political discourse condemn stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and so on but they do so in a way that is abhorrent to others. Disagreements on definitions, pervasiveness, priorities, solutions etc, constitute the larger political disagreement. We will have to see how things develop, I think others are too comfortable with their predictions, we don't have the tools to predict exactly how things will end up.

So, if you are a filthy POS like Trump, you might be able to find a safe space where you can continue to thrive, compound your beliefs in a confirmation-bias echo chamber and, if enough people like you, then you can find a following there. — James Riley

Speaking of... As far as I know, "cancel culture" and "wokeness" are primarily concerns of the somewhat unhinged right-wing US media that idolised Trump, a man who fired, attacked, and tried to rise the people against any person or institution that dared disagree with him (except Fauci). They worshipped cancel culture as it was practised by the most important person in the country while bemoaning it if ever it were seen as in service of somewhat more considerate ideal than Trump could ever think of. It doesn't seem like a legitimate issue (admittedly from safely far away in the UK).

Sounds like you are on the verge of tears because a columnist suggested that soulless multi-millionaire political figures should face consequences for deleterious policies in the form of social ostracism. Still unclear how being ridiculed in public is an instance of cancel culture.

Also pretty weird to write his name out 6 times, not sure what that's about

Cancel culture might have been around before, but the internet has given it the ability to amplify its signal and spread out of control.

Take for example the Jeopardy! incident, which showed an audience of highly educated leftists going into almost Q Anon level rabbit hole over "secret Nazi hand gestures."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/business/media/jeopardy-hand-gesture-maga-conspiracy.html

Defining "Wokeness," is a project in itself. However, one negative aspect of the Culture Wars on American intellectual life that ties in is the argument that "if people feel they are being oppressed/mistreated, then whoever is responsible for that feeling has a duty to act to alleviate that feeling."

This is simply nonsense. A group feeling threatened or offended should not be, in and of itself, evidence that such feelings are warranted.

Before the first Q posts and the conspiracy that Democrats were child abducting Moloch worshipers, liberals went down a similar rabbit hole. Black and brown girls were going missing in DC since Trump was elected. Trump and his ilk, powerful white racists, were abducting girls and no one was doing anything to stop them.

Was there a surge in abductions? No. Activists on social media had started reposting a Twitter feed of missing persons alerts. They continued to plaster the internet with pictures of run away girls who had long returned home, implying that there was a surge in abductions, and that it was tied to the new crowd in Washington. It was based on nothing. I recall the New York Times covering it with "well, abductions do happen some places, and are bad, so the feelings are warranted," which is completely beside the point. The point is that it was a fake conspiracy crisis.

A similar trend happened after Dylan Roof's massacre. People set up news reports for incidents at Black churches. Next thing you knew, media outlets were reporting on an epidemic of Black churches burning down. Later reporting would show no change in the rates at which churches caught fire and no greater likelyhood of a Black church burning versus any other. However, this revelation didn't lead to the dismissal of the issue. Charles Blow released an op-ed to the effect of "well, some people were worried about a wave of attacks on churches, and the fact that they were worried shows there is an issue, and the fear itself is evidence of oppression." In the worst cases it amounts to "I tried to get my side riled up, and they are riled up, which is evidence that I am right." The Left can add to the argument "denying I am right is denying the lived experience of marginalized groups, which is racist."

Well, of course people are scared of a wave of attacks, media outlets just spent a month telling people they were under attack and implying a cover up. The logic of "people are scared/offended, so that is evidence of wrong doing," cuts both ways. This is the argument for Trump's "Big Lie." "See, 71% of Republicans think the election was stolen, that shows there is a lack of faith in the electoral system we need to address!" It's an unsound argument.

The peak of this absurdity was when a story about a Black second grader in Philadelphia having their hair cut by White classmates became national news for a week. All sorts of racial dynamics were read into the actions of 7 year olds. Then it turned out the girl had actually cut her own hair and had used the classmates as an excuse. The media response was to still publish op-eds on the issue, seeing it as still a "teachable moment." This is to my mind, insanity. You don't need to drag a seven year old and their family into the national news over the not uncommon instance of kids cutting their own hair, not to mention making them into pawns in the culture war.

It's an epistemological nightmare. The sciences can't be trusted because they are influenced by power relations. This is a fair critique, and indeed something every field needs to take more seriously. However, the follow up, "peoples feelings on policy issues should be taken at face value," does not follow. Bias and the threats of manipulation occur in the court of public opinion, and it indeed far more susceptible to those threats than discourse in the sciences.

Cancel culture might have been around before, but the internet has given it the ability to amplify its signal and spread out of control. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The easiness and the outreach of it is crucial.

When you think that earlier one had to get something published in the opinion section of any newspaper, the process and the input that people made then is something totally different to a tweet, that may or may not come viral. The opinion pages were so limited that any paper had to be quite strict in what would get published. Tweeting and social media does have changed the landscape.

Historians are eager to not that political discourse has been many times as vile as it's today, yet things do change. Many things in the end just create noise and the actual issues get lost in it.

Take for example the Jeopardy! incident, which showed an audience of highly educated leftists going into almost Q Anon level rabbit hole over "secret Nazi hand gestures."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/business/media/jeopardy-hand-gesture-maga-conspiracy.html — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you have any examples that aren't behind a paywall?

Defining "Wokeness," is a project in itself. However, one negative aspect of the Culture Wars on American intellectual life that ties in is the argument that "if people feel they are being oppressed/mistreated, then whoever is responsible for that feeling has a duty to act to alleviate that feeling."

This is simply nonsense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Correct, but yours. Wokeness is about awareness of issues, not a schema for solving them. You say that defining it is a project, but it's not. Definitions centre around usage, not vice versa. Wokeness is used and defined as, e.g.

awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice

being aware of social movements

a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

etc. Pretty consistent, and easily Googlable :)

:100: Sometimes they do it as they complain about it and don't even see themselves doing it. Crazy.

I must be out of the loop. I do know that I often hear "the right" complaining that the "lame stream media" never reports news of the left acting like idiots. Since I don't recall hearing the stories about Nazi hand signals, black girl abductions, church burnings and etc. maybe they are right. The news doesn't make a big deal out of the left lying because, well, it's lies. Then again, maybe my own bias has me blind to these stories.

Either way, cancel culture is a good thing. The winner will tell us which way our society leans: Liberal/Radical Democratic Theory, or Fascists.

I define the political dispute as being about how we interpret discrimination, oppression, prejudice, equity and what should be done about a variety of social issues related to these interpretations. There's also a dispute in approach, to be "woke" I would characterise as being highly intolerant (of intolerance) as they define it. It can be quite aggressive, both in how it's done and how ambitious it can be. — Judaka

This comes from the difference between the meaning and definition of an idea. We define ‘woke’ not as an idea, but as a way of being - by how we perceive one’s intentions, politically, culturally or emotionally. There are many different ways to BE ‘woke’, and while it can appear intolerant and quite aggressively enacted, it can also be so subtle as to be unattributable (wu-wei). A person who might recognise themselves as ‘woke’ is referring to their awareness of social issues from an inclusive perspective, and their intention to effect change. But when we refer to another person as ‘woke’, we’re referring only to words and behaviour we can attribute to them, not to their thoughts or any other ways one can intend without being attributed with action.

So, a person who wants to appear as ‘woke’ will focus on aggressive, loud and vocal intention to effect change that is easily attributable. It isn’t about their awareness of another’s perspective, but about another’s perspective of their awareness. And it isn’t about them effecting a solution to social issues but about appearing to be aware by highlighting the conflict.

I think this comes down to how awareness of social issues have been taught and modelled. Media and literature portrayals highlight the conflict, and people are rewarded for words or behaviour that demonstrate awareness as well as political or emotional intent towards change. This is all we have asked from them for several generations now: appearance.

‘Wokeism’ refers to valuing the quality of awareness and intent in itself. What we’re starting to realise is that there’s more to ‘doing something about social issues’ than demonstrations and raising awareness. The fact is that effecting real and positive change in relation to social issues often looks very much like selling out or doing nothing.

As an example, much of the effect Lincoln had in relation to abolition cannot be attributed to him as actions or words demonstrating his intent towards change. In many ways he appears to have been hindering the ‘cause’. Yet it’s almost impossible to imagine abolition happening at the time without his collaboration. He certainly wasn’t an embodiment of abolitionist awareness or intent, but that’s not what creates lasting change. Lincoln understood that you need to recognise (without judgement) the broad reality of how things ARE (and how things CAN change) before you can effect change.

On the other hand, can the notion of ‘wokeism’ be applied in a narrow sense to Hitler’s effect on Germany, or even Trump’s effect on the US? Highlighting the conflict demonstrated awareness of a social issue and intent towards change, but why was this not ‘woke’? Is it because the focus was on effecting a particular change, and not on the quality of awareness or intent? Is it because the change intended had value only in ignorance of how the conflict fits within a broader awareness of reality?

Wokeism is not the problem, it’s just a symptom. We conceptualise our relation to ideas into affected structures such as language, and then reify these concepts as if the emotional, political or cultural significance we attribute is inherent in its meaning. The quality of awareness and intent has variable significance according to our perspective. Valuing this quality as an appearance, isolated from either actual effective change or awareness of a broader reality, is where I think the issue lies.

I take your point, by the definition of woke you've explained, there are a wide array of interpretations and behaviours within the "woke" population and no single one of these represents the whole population. I also see your point that some may want to appear to be woke because performing this role can be beneficial, it's a practical consideration. While when doing what needs to be done. the aesthetic may be worse than when one prioritises aesthetics, therefore it isn't as impressive to on-lookers at the time. Society at large is concerned with the aesthetic rather than actual change, this is a problem we're facing currently. Is that more-or-less correct?

I do agree with what you're saying as a general criticism of virtue signalling as a kind of political or capitalistic or personal advertisement that only seeks practical compensation. This behaviour promotes cynicism about the entire movement. Media and social media impose a kind of aesthetic through things like cancel culture, even if the aesthetic is just that, meaningless words.

I think it is likely you would be misunderstood and misrepresented if you used the word "woke" or "wokeism" without first defining what you take these terms to mean. Though that's probably true of anyone who doesn't use the term as just a generic insult. But perhaps I'll start using your definitions anyway, my interpretation of the terms aren't productive, I need another term to describe minority positions within what it means to be woke. I don't know if the aggression I spoke of can be blamed entirely on virtue signalling or aesthetic compliance but that aggression in an ideal world would belong to a different term that doesn't represent something entirely different.

We conceptualise our relation to ideas into affected structures such as language, and then reify these concepts as if the emotional, political or cultural significance we attribute is inherent in its meaning — Possibility

Yes, I think you have summed up and explained this phenomenon well, good job. I will remember this.

Valuing this quality as an appearance, isolated from either actual effective change or awareness of a broader reality, is where I think the issue lies. — Possibility

I think you are right that this is a significant problem but there's a lot of disagreement about how these problems we're aware of should be addressed, by this definition of woke, I am woke but I disagree substantially with many others who are woke. I believe the culture war is in a large part, a result of these differing arranging of interpretations, facts, characterisations, narratives and solutions surrounding the issues that one who is woke is woke about.

Society at large is concerned with the aesthetic rather than actual change, this is a problem we're facing currently. Is that more-or-less correct? — Judaka

I’d agree with this. Most people don’t really want changes they haven’t already accepted, and most of those who push for ‘change’ aren’t really aware of what will change or how it will affect them. I think this played out with both Obama and Trump, and even with Brexit. The appearance of intention towards change is sufficient - it has all of the righteousness and none of the responsibility. And it gives us the freedom to complain about the actual road to change when we’re expected to make adjustments and sacrifices.

I think it is likely you would be misunderstood and misrepresented if you used the word "woke" or "wokeism" without first defining what you take these terms to mean. Though that's probably true of anyone who doesn't use the term as just a generic insult. But perhaps I'll start using your definitions anyway, my interpretation of the terms aren't productive, I need another term to describe minority positions within what it means to be woke. I don't know if the aggression I spoke of can be blamed entirely on virtue signalling or aesthetic compliance but that aggression in an ideal world would belong to a different term that doesn't represent something entirely different. — Judaka

I don’t like to use these terms - I tend to always place them in quotation marks - for me this indicates that its meaning is not identical to the concept. I think language consists of word/grammar/sentence structures, the quality of the idea to which it refers, and its affected context. This aggression you refer to is affected context - it’s about the position of the experiencing subject in relation to the quality of the idea, particularly their distribution of attention and effort. So yes, in an ideal use of language, the notion of aggression would not be assumed in relation to this term.

Valuing this quality as an appearance, isolated from either actual effective change or awareness of a broader reality, is where I think the issue lies.
— Possibility

I think you are right that this is a significant problem but there's a lot of disagreement about how these problems we're aware of should be addressed, by this definition of woke, I am woke but I disagree substantially with many others who are woke. I believe the culture war is in a large part, a result of these differing arranging of interpretations, facts, characterisations, narratives and solutions surrounding the issues that one who is woke is woke about. — Judaka

Sure. I don’t think it’s about agreeing with each other, though, but about intending to be aware of, connected to and collaborating with each other’s perspectives as much as possible. To BE ‘woke’ is to relate to this idea to some limited extent, and ideally, to recognise the diversity of limitations in others - including those who we might think of as ‘not woke’. Because to be ‘not woke’ is simply to lack awareness and intent, which is all of us to some extent, anyway.

It's a big country, so there is a constant crop of lefty wacko events to find, but when the other side is refusing to admit defeat in elections they lost, or claiming the other side is Moloch worshiping pedos, I feel like there is a warranted shift in focus.

There is, of course, a third option from a culture war of annihilation between radicals, some sort of boring centrist reforms along the line of Solon. I'd never thought I'd say this, but rule by neoliberal technocrats seems preferable at this point. Maybe Plato was right.

I suppose for a better, and much more widespread instance of leftist hysteria, one need only look to "Bush did 9/11," and "the Iraq War was primarily done to help US oil companies and raise Haliburton shares." These ran the gambit of the simply highly uncharitable (Move On running a full page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus "General Betray Us") to the batshit conspiratorial (the Bush Admin had primarily started the Iraq War to enrich themselves).

Whole volumes can, and have been filled with the details of the mismanagement and hubris of the Bush Administration as regards their wars. There was no need to reach out into conspiracy theories and make them cartoon villains, dispersing death to give their shares a bump in value, and yet this impulse certainly got the better of the Left wing of politics for at least half a decade, right down to opening the door on Congress challenging election outcomes.

My view is best reflected in the quote below, but it is apparently not shared by many on here:

“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson