So you didn’t even try to define it. You should ask yourself why you don’t think a definition of your position is necessary. Why would you not simply say something about what woke is, what it does, what it positively means and points to?

Like this:

“Woke” refers to being aware of social injustice, but also the hidden causes of such injustice; and it means to search deeper into how injustice has been systemically built into our institutions (like the police and justice system, capitalism, patriarchy, conservatism, Christianity). Being awake or enlightened, but to the ways our traditions have let us down.

Instead you said:

the best candidate for a job might not be the white, male, able-bodied guy who looks like all the others and we should try to cast as wide a net as possible.

Thousands of companies have implemented such policies successfully. — Mijin

That was the closet to a positive, substantive promotion of wokeness given.

And I agree, race or sex has nothing to do with the best candidate for a job. (But doesn’t it depend on the what the job is, at least sometimes? Are there no jobs where a certain race or sex might be preferable? I just want us to acknowledge that possibility, so we don’t appear unreasonable or to have zero common sense - or do you honestly think there are absolutely no jobs on earth that aren’t best handled by one sex or one race over the other(s)?)

But I also agree, until the 1980’s, and for some still today, many people just refused to see the fact that women and all races can be just as good at many jobs as anyone else, and to just be happy for this fact. I agree much progress has been made towards this good, equitable goal since the 1980s.

Racism is irrational. Sexism is ignorant.

So what could possibly be wrong with the progress wokeism has promoted since the 1980s?

So you skipped 1, gave a small bit for 2. I’ve tried to show you how I am on the same page with you about certain progress. But now let’s try to answer 3 (which you skipped as well as it called for a critique of woke).

What has been harmed by all of this progress? Anything?
Is there anything illogical or incoherent or contradictory going on as this progress is being made, because if there is, don’t you think things may come crashing down as the inconsistencies rot any progress from within?

Is the only critique of woke to come from the unwoke?

If you don’t want to go there yet, can you tell me anything else besides “best candidate for a job might not be white” that has been good because of woke activism? What else is woke, and good medicine?

Is the only critique of woke to come from the unwoke? — Fire Ologist

Is the only critique of anti-woke to come from the woke?

Is the only critique of anti-woke to come from the woke? — praxis

No, and you keep proving my point by dodging.

I’m anti-wokeness. But I also think resisting certain diversity/equity/inclusion initiatives was and remains ignorant and irrational and morally wrong. So, once again, the ball is in your court to make some sort of point.

I agree, race or sex has nothing to do with the best candidate for a job — Fire Ologist

I also agree, until the 1980’s, and for some still today, many people just refused to see the fact that women and all races can be just as good at many jobs as anyone else, and to just be happy for this fact. I agree much progress has been made towards this good, equitable goal since the 1980s.

Racism is irrational. Sexism is ignorant — Fire Ologist

Can you find any fault with DEI, wokeness, anti-conservatism? Anything at all good come from tradition and white father figures??

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative?

EDIT (added snobbery)

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/snobbery/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative?

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative? — jorndoe

Before DEI, most people that rose to their station did so by hard work. But only white men got to play that game. So the issue before DEI wasn’t that all of these incompetent nepotism babies were running everything. The issue was that no one considered anyone besides white men when looking for replacement people.

So “selecting people by merit” versus selecting them by “tradition/confirmity” seems like a false dichotomy. The world pre-DEI wasn’t a monarchy. (If we were having this debate in the year 1804, you might have a point, but then no one would listen to you at all unless you were a white man.)

You need to define “conservatism” now f you want to make some point about how it’s bad. It’s not conservative to overlook merit for the sake of tradition/conformity - it’s ignorant and prejudiced. It’s a type of injustice conservative people do; but then, do you think woke people never choose fellow woke people over some republican who might actually be more competent? So you missed your mark.

Why not just define what is good about woke?

So you didn’t even try to define it. You should ask yourself why you don’t think a definition of your position is necessary. — Fire Ologist

My position though, is that the people complaining about "woke" are largely talking about a boogieman and a bunch of myths. My position IOW is that it's bullshit.
It's not a word that I use, so why on earth would it be on me to define it?

Is there anything illogical or incoherent or contradictory going on as this progress is being made, because if there is, don’t you think things may come crashing down as the inconsistencies rot any progress from within?

Is the only critique of woke to come from the unwoke? — Fire Ologist

I just think you've got this backwards. It is a boogieman of mostly manufactured and exaggerated grievances.

And right now in the US it's "anti-woke" that is impinging on individual and institutional freedoms -- banning books, banning words, banning protests, shutting down journalism, whitewashing history etc etc

It's absolutely the wrong time to be saying "Oh they might have had a point though about this one cheesy diversity training at Yahoo".

it's "anti-woke" that is impinging on people's and institutional freedoms — Mijin

So you won’t say what is woke, but the anti-woke is a clear threat.

Institutional freedoms? Like the wonderful judicial system that, used to be hated for incarcerating too many victims of racism, but is now under threat from the president?

Institutional freedoms like the rule of law, which would include border immigration reform?

The reason woke thinkers won’t define “woke” is because it would reveal its incoherence and contradictions.

manufactured and exaggerated grieveances — Mijin

Enough to elect an idiot like Donald Trump? Twice?

You just don’t want to look directly at wokeness and criticize it.

European men are some of the smartest and best leaders in history.
Woman, generally, are smaller and physically weaker than men.
One man and one woman, married, as mother and father, typically provide the basis of a good family, and typically the best situation to raise a child.

Why should anyone cringe at hearing the above? Because it’s not woke.

So you won’t say what is woke, but the anti-woke is a clear threat. — Fire Ologist

Correct. Because while "woke" is some amorphous term at this point, there are people who self-identify as "anti-woke".

Institutional freedoms? Like the wonderful judicial system that, used to be hated for incarcerating too many victims of racism, but is now under threat from the president? — Fire Ologist

Both of these statements are correct too. I don't know what point you think you're making.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. That in the past, and less so today, the courts have favored some racial groups over others. The data on sentencing is very clear.
And MAGA is trying to weaponize the judicial system against their political enemies while pardoning their cronies. Both these things are bad.

Institutional freedoms like the rule of law, which would include border immigration reform? — Fire Ologist

The rule of law does not entail any particular immigration policy, but what it does entail is things like due process; not unidentified men kidnapping people from the streets and deporting them to Ecuador against court rulings.

The reason woke thinkers won’t define “woke” is because it would reveal its incoherence and contradictions. — Fire Ologist

I have to lol at this thread, and your ranting about woke, and you can't even define it. You're insisting on a "No, you!" attitude, when I'm not using the word. I think it's meaningless bullshit.

One man and one woman, married, as mother and father, typically provide the basis of a good family, and typically the best situation to raise a child.

Why should anyone cringe at hearing the above? Because it’s not woke. — Fire Ologist

I don't cringe, I just think it's closed-minded.
The basis of a good family is loving parents and/or guardians, and a state that can help support families where needed.

And I generally think society is best not getting involved in how people pair up or form families, except when children aren't being cared for adequately. We should always default to freedom.

and you can't even define it. — Mijin

:rofl: Who is leaning on “can’t define it” now? That was my line! I am happy to get started on a definition any time. What do you need? A definition of woke?
I did get a general sense of woke started for us:

“Woke” refers to being aware of social injustice, but also the hidden causes of such injustice; and it means to search deeper into how injustice has been systemically built into our institutions (like the police and justice system, capitalism, patriarchy, conservatism, Christianity). Being awake or enlightened, but to the ways our traditions have let us down. — Fire Ologist

What do you think? Where am I off on the wrong foot? What needs to be added?

My position IOW is that it's bullshit. — Mijin

Ok, but there are all different flavors of bullshit. I’m sure you can say something of what wokeness is that makes the anti-woke, anti-woke, and not some other flavor of bullshit artist. (And just the fact that you use the word “bullshit” makes me want to agree with you; it’s one of my favorite philosophic terms of art, but…)

You can’t clarify exactly how the anti-woke are living in fantasy grievance land a bit more? What do you think they see as they make their false grievances? You can’t imagine at all, after all the grievances you’ve heard?

How is “anti-woke” so clearly bullshit, but “woke” can mean nothing to you? Seems a bit superficial.

you've got this backwards. It is a boogieman of mostly manufactured and exaggerated grievances. — Mijin

Ok. Anti-woke people see a boogieman. Fine.

Do the anti-antiwoke (such as yourself) see any boogie men?

Isn’t a straight-white-man a sort of boogieman for the woke? What if he’s rich too? A capitalist white prep school nepo baby with some German/Italian/Irish in his veins. No reason not to pick on such a person, right? I can use them as a stand in for any theft, lie, rape, conspiracy, murder, war, and I am within bounds of respectable argumentation. All white men are the same on some level, because they are all white men. Right?

Now here is why you are wrong that the anti-woke are merely fabricating a boogieman: Will I ever get fired if I get caught saying any of that in this context? No way. How about if I said this about some other race? Do you think I could make any point talking about some non-white person without inviting utter condemnation and disgust? Think about it. Wokeness is very entrenched. The woke police are everywhere there are groups of people. One of us will always be willing to correct those who are micro-oppressing (regardless of the context…) DEI has altered our etiquette so much that we pay real lip service to utter bullshit and we don’t even notice.

This thread is called “the End of Woke”. THAT is bullshit. Woke is 100 years old in Europe (white men like Marx inspired it). It’s not going anywhere. It ain’t dead. Trump and MAGA could just as easily turn out to be a death rattle for the notion that some things are old for a good reason.

Could Trump be a boogieman (how dare I even suggest such a theory!)

What do you think? [of my definition of woke] Where am I off on the wrong foot? What needs to be added? — Fire Ologist

Yes that be the standard definition, at least before the current weaponizing.
For the last 5 years or so, it's only ever been used as a scare word on the political right -- "the woke mind virus". Famously there was the author who wrote a book on the horrors of woke, then couldn't define it in an interview.

I don't blame her-- who the f knows what it means at this point.

You can’t clarify exactly how the anti-woke are living in fantasy grievance land a bit more? — Fire Ologist

I did list off some examples. Using the pretext of fighting woke, this administration is taking away rights that Americans of all stripes used to condemn. They're banning books, banning protests, banning government institutions from using certain *words*. Whitewashing history, pulling funding from scientists making the "wrong" conclusions and now trying to get doctors to report those getting gender affirming care, in contravention of HIPAA.

This is the extent to which Americans have been duped and this has been weaponized. And posters in this thread are choosing to be on the wrong side of this.

Now, I'm aware that your question is more focused on what the specific myths are of anti-woke, rather than why I see it as so dangerous.

But the myths are as amorphous as the idea of woke itself. They are generally about mischaracterizing DEI as hiring minorities who aren't as qualified as the white people going for the same job. Mischaracterizing CRT as something taught in public school. Mischaracterizing the accurate teaching of history as telling kids to hate white people.
There's some examples.

What if he’s rich too? A capitalist white prep school nepo baby with some German/Italian/Irish in his veins. No reason not to pick on such a person, right? I can use them as a stand in for any theft, lie, rape, conspiracy, murder, war, and I am within bounds of respectable argumentation. All white men are the same on some level, because they are all white men. Right? — Fire Ologist

No, of course not. What are you talking about? That I can accuse any white person of being a rapist?
What the hell?!

How about if I said this about some other race? Do you think I could make any point talking about some non-white person without inviting utter condemnation and disgust? — Fire Ologist

Well firstly, as I just said, it's not cool to call anyone a rapist etc regardless of their race.

But I can shift what you're saying to something more sensible-- how come you can poke fun about white people in ways that are considered racist if you were to say about other races?

And the answer is that it's not symmetric because society is white majority, particularly among the rich and powerful. Most of us walk by statues of heroic white dudes every day, and learn about them in school. We pull money out of our pockets with white dudes on it. And chances are, we go report to a boss who is white.
This is why the line for teasing is different. No one is going to generalize something negative about whites, but people absolutely believe crazy stereotypes about minority groups.

(maybe I should have added snobbery — ok done)

the issue before DEI wasn’t that all of these incompetent nepotism babies were running everything — Fire Ologist

Well, that ...

seems like a false dichotomy — Fire Ologist

Anyway, RFK Jr's appointment to head of US Health is a clear high-profile example involving competence, one I'd hold the administration accountable for. Coming up with other examples isn't hard; I guess typical (historical) examples involve skin color, ethnicity, females, religion, political leanings, homosexuals, whatever.

You need to define “conservatism” [...] — Fire Ologist

I'm not using the words in some non-standard way, but rather suggesting an ethical stance, then trying to ask if that's more important than conservatism.

Woke is 100 years old in Europe (white men like Marx inspired it). — Fire Ologist

Like saying that I’m super old and am my great great great great grandfather.

Marx + Nietzsche + Freud + Weber
  ↓
Gramsci
  ↓
Frankfurt School (Critical Theory)
  ↓
Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze (Postmodernism)
  ↓
Butler, Crenshaw, etc. (Identity & Gender Theory)
  ↓
Wokeism / Social Justice

how come you can poke fun about white people in ways that are considered racist if you were to say about other races?

And the answer is that it's not symmetric because society is white majority, — Mijin

That means you completely agree with the facts. The facts are, when you are racist against white men, it is poking fun, but when you are racist against others, it true racism.

That, to me, is a problem. It’s inconsistent. It’s illogical. It’s impossible to fairly and equitably enforce and implement policy. It’s yielded popularism and Trumpism. It leads to ridiculous and destructive divisions among brothers and sisters. It allows for scapegoating and glossing over real problems. Worst of all, it ignores good white men and discounts their opinions that aren’t woke. The fact that “it’s not symmetric because (our) society is white majority” only means you have to look even more closely at individuals to see who is racist and who isn’t; it doesn’t mean white men can’t be victims of racism in America or Europe. That is bullshit that hurts the battle against racism.

I’m not saying racism is as big a problem for all races - not even close - I’m saying when I’ve heard woke people tell whites they can’t be victims of racism because they are in power, I call bullshit - you need to look deeper than skin tone to identify both perpetrators and victims of racism. And without more precision and accuracy, racism will simply keep perpetrating itself.

It is precisely the fact the poor black and brown people can be racist against rich white men, that makes racism immoral and illogical - all men are men regardless of race and it is men who are racist, not “white” men or “green” men.

So the larger point about all of the above:
Woke, which is good for fighting racism, is using racist policy and tactics to fight racism. Woke is incoherent, contradictory, self-defeating, in need of critique. Fighting racism is good. Identifying white majority status is necessary; but saying there is no racism against the ones in power is misunderstanding racism, ignoring facts, a lie, an agenda that has nothing to do with race, bad reasoning, all of the above…

suggesting an ethical stance — jorndoe

I agree selecting people by merit is the best way for people to select people to fulfill roles and jobs.

I am a conservative.

What is the ethical line you are drawing between conservatism and wokeism?

ethical stance, then trying to ask if that's more important than conservatism. — jorndoe

Conservatism just means protecting what works, what is already deemed good enough.

Of one is merely conservative, one will make many bad choices, but sometimes, the conservative choice is the best one.

Not sure how your ethical stance involving merit begs a wuestion about how important conservatism is. It’s not clear what is conservative and what is not about merit versus snobbery. There is no such thing as a woke snob? The woke choice will never be based on a three year old tradition?