It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism. — Jeremy Murray

Gotta admit, there are people who misjudge, and therefore abuse, the Kirk situation from both sides.

But the vast majority of people on the right see it as only tragic. But tragic for all sides. Bad for the country, and bad for liberty and peace, and for life itself. (The frickin guy bled from his neck to death for using a microphone at school.) Many on the left get the picture too. But not enough it seems.

This Kirk thing will be around for a while. This is like an MLK. The left doesn’t understand how browbeaten conservatives have been, because they are the last people to admit it.

Kirk is going to represent a new vocalization of conservative values, and a sort of last straw.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be labeled fascist, racist, sexist Hitler wannabes. Since President Nixon and the 1960s really.

I think the media will all be forced to show another side of conservatives and republicans. The media no longer can contain a more realistic image of the average conservative, hidden behind the caricature the progressive left wants to portray.

Kirk just doesn’t look like a racist sexist, person, and because the left won’t look at him, they are the only ones who can’t see that.

The irony is, it’s like the right has become woke - awoken to the need to deny being a racist, and repudiate the harmful folly of DEI, and speak the truth of proven traditions.

There are terrible things in the past, but those are all the left sees. And they make up new terrible things and boogiemen and want to talk about them as well - and all republicans always go in the same bucks the rest of th terrible things they only want to look at. At once, morally superior as they burn down everyone who is not monolithically with them.

No longer will that be the only conversation. Kimmel and Colbert, and many other screaming wokeists just don’t function like they used to.

If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no “blue wave” (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.

Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. Maybe someday…

The hand on the scale is wavering.

But the schools will have to turn around a bit, and that will be tough as that is really where leftism/ wokeism seems most comfortable, and apparently, bold and militant.

BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread. — Jeremy Murray

I didn’t think anyone was even following, so thanks for noticing the feeble effort. You are making a lot of sense to me as well.

government thing — jorndoe

Maybe, but I was talking about your average progressive Democrat. Not the government. (At least not currently.)

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave — Trump

Sounds like a tough meeting for the top brass. I’m sure our military leaders can handle tough confrontations, don’t you think? That meeting inspired and emboldened, as much as it drew any petty outrage or fear, and as much as it annoyed the media-leftist-democrat (woke) complex. More good than harm done there, if you ask me.

“Outsider” is an odd term to use. — praxis

Why is that? There are many outsiders to leftist progressives. Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. (The right also uses identity politics - it’s a shitty tactic just as well. The right could screw up this moment easily with their own othering, but I’m still trying to talk about the woke left.)

Unintentionally (with no self awareness) progressives are the kings of othering and dehumanizing and shouting down the outsider (fascist! Racist! sexist rapist, Hitler, Nazi, hater, gestapo, republican, white man, deplorable, redneck (rural-flyover country) etc…). And outside the buckets, the left makes outsiders on a case by case basis too. Plenty of progressives and democrats in the 1980s were pro life, but not any more. If you think you are left but think abortion is killing a person, are you welcome to the Democrat party? Or if you think men and women are just different, you can’t be woke or left or progressive anymore. Today we no longer know if feminists are woke enough, because they seem to conflict with trans and general cutting edge sexist analysis.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own.
— Fire Ologist

I can understand different opinions. It’s not that difficult. — praxis

That is the closest you’ve come to just saying you are a progressive. I appreciate the openness.

You are right. What I said above was imprecise. I should say this instead: On many issues relating to political power, culture and human interaction, Progressives can’t fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions.

From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. — Fire Ologist

Nice! I was a camp counsellor one summer in Schwenksville, PA. Spent a few days in Philly afterwards. Great city. Possible World Series opponents, you and I.

All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. — Fire Ologist

I think the 'mob' you are referring to here are essentially moral relativists, a trend beginning in the 60s and continuing today. Parents that teach their kids that there are no universal moral values, but also don't take them to church or provide them with alternatives beyond general cultural norms for being 'good'.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history.

Systems oppress, standpoint epistemology helps overcome historical bias, shared social justice endeavours are empowering ... these are sort of default beliefs today.

So for someone outside of these 'marginalized' groups, the correct stance becomes sort of a collective willingness to outsource moral claims to outsider voices, increasingly represented by privileged technocrats, which are then shared back to, and validated by, a group consensus or vibe.

Charitably, this is a moral belief system, and it could theoretically be valid, but it seems that it is failing a stress test in the social media age. This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse.

Of course, this mainstream 'mob' doesn't come to these conclusions alone - the true believers serve as the priestly caste, in many ways. It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example.

And both groups would be irrelevant if our global elites, across the political spectrum, weren't largely neoliberal technocrats, happy to outsource morality to HR departments, thus hedging their bets in case they get sued for discrimination, an idea I learned from Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters.

I used to teach a Christopher Hedges essay on 'turning a blind eye'. It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity.

I got much of my thinking here from dissonance theory, as outlined in "Mistakes Were Made, (but Not by Me)", Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's classic.

It seems to me obvious that woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. That's some tremendous cognitive dissonance.

I just can't understand not recognizing the weight of Pascal's wager here.

This is the left’s biggest problem - it’s become mob rule at its worst. — Fire Ologist

Even if people find my thinking here conspiratorial nonsense, pragmatically it feels urgent for the left to address the worst excesses of woke mob rule. The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. But like you Fire, I agree that some people are left with no alternative but to plug their noses and vote for a party or leader they do not respect. I asked my tenant a hypothetical the other day - who would you choose between Trudeau and Trump?

I couldn't vote for either, morally. I identify as a conscientious objector and have voted only once since the pandemic. And as a Canadian, I have more options to chose from. I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology.

You can't do that if I renounce the experiment entirely.

Fire, have you seen the 'perfect rhetorical fortress' concept?

And do you read Jonathan Turley?

Sorry for the length of the post!

If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no “blue wave” (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.

Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. — Fire Ologist

Trump Tells Generals the Military Will Be Used to Fight ‘Enemy Within’

Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. — Fire Ologist

You mean 'oppressor and oppressed', not othering, right? Remember, the first wokeist was Karl Marx. :lol:

Progressives can’t fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions. — Fire Ologist

Jesus, pull the hook out of your mouth. Numerous studies reveal that Americans are not nearly as politically divided as political rhetoric — such as Trump’s — might suggest.

Historically, there are plenty of schools whose goals were more social control than human empowerment, but I still value the project. I fear education has becoming overwhelmingly woke, which to me is divisive, a state I find most problematic given that these are children, who are required by law to subject themselves to what, at times, is nothing more than indoctrination. — Jeremy Murray

My grandmother began as a public school teacher and was forced to retire when was 65. Then she turned to private schools. One small private school interfered with her classroom discipline, and she quit. She demanded authority in her classroom, and there were enough small private schools for her to find a school that respected her as a teacher. Since her time, I have seen doctors and dentists belittled for spending too much time with patients. These educated and professional people were treated as assembly line workers.

What I am speaking of here is a matter of authority. Who has the authority to dictate what happens in the workspace of educated professionals or business owners?

Yes, we have social injustices, but is distroy individual liberty and power the best way to handle this fact of life?

Here is a reading of a book that explains the evil consuming us now. Brave New World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FDwfNE6YE

My grandmother began as a public school teacher and was forced to retire when was 65. Then she turned to private schools. One small private school interfered with her classroom discipline, and she quit. She demanded authority in her classroom, and there were enough small private schools for her to find a school that respected her as a teacher. — Athena

Hi Athena. Great story about grandma. Education is in my family too - my maternal grandmother opened a nursery school in basement. One of the first women in her community to 'work'.

She raised my mom, who floated around teaching the younger grade levels until finding a home in kindergarten. When mom passed, she had families showing up at the funeral - from kindergarten! She had became something of a figure at the school, and loads of kids had cousins or siblings that ended up with her. I fear that identity - community teacher - is in decline as neoliberals seem to prefer teachers be interchangeable.

Who has the authority to dictate what happens in the workspace of educated professionals or business owners?

Yes, we have social injustices, but is distroy individual liberty and power the best way to handle this fact of life? — Athena

I fault neoliberalism - but more plainly, the fear of lawsuits seems the driving force of 'determining authority'. Teachers here only have the authority they are able to create for themselves - it is impossible in Ontario to count on admin to support them, in all but the most extreme cases.

Wouldn't it make sense to build schools around the best teachers - like your grandmother and my mom?

I used to be diametrically opposed to charter schools, private schools, etc. Given I fear that public education in Canada has been ideologically captured, I now wish we had more choice for students and teachers both.

Brave New World — Athena

Neil Postman wrote back in the 80s that our dystopia would be Brave New World not 1984. I agree with both you and him!

Sorry for the length of the post! — Jeremy Murray

Me too! :razz:

Possible World Series opponents, — Jeremy Murray

Toronto? Yes indeed! Hope so for both of us!
And Schwenksville - that’s crazy! Been there myself. That’s the home of the annual Philly Folk Festival, for 60 plus years now.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - underneath it all when being honest - most adults are just people, and do share a few basic values.
But also, looking only surface deep at each other (which wokeism promotes with its focus on race and physical identity), people easily become reluctant to notice what we share in common. We all give in to fear and ignorance and tribalism too easily, and it becomes too hard to offer humility and respect (and the left chastises any show of respect for the other side). So any shared values we might identify never get a chance to help us come together.

Systems oppress, — Jeremy Murray

Yes - this is ingrained. And although systems do limit us, oppress is the wrong word. So it is irrational to reify the insight that “systems oppress” as wokeism does. For people who think simply that systems oppress, what is not admitted or dealt with is this: when systems are toppled, new systems emerge, so we can’t just say “systems, like oppression, are always bad, and must never take hold”. We need to make good systems, not no systems. There will always be systems and hierarchies, and the powerful and the weak. Period. We need to grapple with that, not imagine it doesn’t exist and shoot for toppling all systematizers. We are all adherence to system. Period. So let’s get to work on a good one, not blindly topple all of them.

This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. And I agree. The “vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough.” One man’s good vibe is another man’s vague confusion. This is the problem with consensus based conclusions generally. Reliance on a consensus to ground authority doesn’t work as soon leadership conflicts with itself ans our leaders live to do, and also as soon as the populous is split 50/50, which it is. There is no moral authority. Too often, no one even wants to identify a consensus. They just want to shout louder and see if the loudest one wins the day. And consensus changes with the wind, as it has for female athletes and gay people, thanks to the new trans consensus.

It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example. — Jeremy Murray

I agree. DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesn’t just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. Trump and his ilk are beneath reasonableness and worthy of contempt as evil doers. But as far as the positive proclamations of woke, that is now postmodern and amorphous, amenable only to posturing, confusion (often intentional confusion) and moral conflict. Total mess when the left runs things.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters. — Jeremy Murray

Don’t you think that describes the vast, vast majority of leftists? They are so certain a man like Kirk gets killed annd they are so certain they can celebrate it, and vilify any/all who show any sympathy for the dead man. It takes some kind of certainty to act they way. Celebrating victimization is supposed to be the type of oppressive behavior the left hates and seeks to redress. But they can’t see Charlie was a victim at all, despite the blood and the murder on a sunny day at a stimulus school for kids. They utterly blow the moral argument all of the time, utterly contradict any moral authority they think they have, and then, with zero self-reflection, they confidently act like the oppressors they are supposed to be resisting. Like affirmative action - it should be sour medicine at best, but instead, it is reverse racism to be celebrated for some reason.

Look, I obviously tend to be more harsh on the left than the right, because I’m conservative. (And have been brow beaten all my adult life.) But I think the conservative counter-argument to the wrongs the left have been perpetrating in the name of political correctness/wokism are much more relevant today than the more shallow fears and purported injustices the left wants to focus on. Many might not want to admit it, but the US, and really the world, is in a better place today since Trump took office. The biggest threat to the US today is the same as it has been for 20 years - Democrat policies. Conservative racism and fascism is simply put, bullshit. The left is full of too much obvious bullshit, and too many people already see it, too many have seen enough of it, and too many people are leaving the Democrat Party everyday the left does and says another stupid thing.

Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude. — Jeremy Murray

That is a problem. The left can’t tolerate true diversity. The left drops all balls they think matter, and never picks up the balls that actually do matter.

I will say, I have less fear of those who are certain. What bothers me is what such people do when their certainty is challenged. If you are certain, ok, but if someone disagrees with you, you can shut the opponent down, or you can engage and convince them of the truth you are so certain about. I just want engagement, and certainly not more shutting down and shouting down. Rational certainty is fine (and should indeed be rare). Emotionally driven certainty - makes for a terrible conversation.

It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity. — Jeremy Murray

Yes! And they have turned a blind eye towards their own self - they will not look in the mirror. The woke are now the most asleep among us. And it is a loss to all of us, and to healthy debate.

woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, but I wouldn’t say “may” - I’d just say “clearly”. How about gender, and children? How about women athletes? How about Jewish people? How about poor inner city folks? How about language - basic words are no longer supposed to have meaning. What does “woman” or “fascist” really mean anymore - when the examples they give of each are unrecognizable )or purposefully hollow)?

The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left. — Jeremy Murray

100%. Liberal thought gave us the US constitution and the modern nation-state. Liberal thought gave us more faith in science and reason. You have to have some liberal in you to be an artist, and art is vital. There is a lot more work to be done, and the creative spirit of liberalism is always going to be needed. So I fully agree here.

But the left is too greedy with power and control to risk humility and partnership with anyone who isn’t a parrot. The left would say my praise for the goods of liberalism are not enough, and so useless and shrug me off.

The left is destroying the good of liberalism, as it destroys everything it touches. In the name of sexual freedom, they promote and push chopping off body parts, and their reasoning is to “affirm gender” - so clearly irrational, or at least, chopping off adolescent body parts is valid as a debate topic. Except to a wokeist.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. — Jeremy Murray

I know you do. Which is why I appreciate your voice of reason here on the forum. And thanks for making sure I knew that - that is your good faith and honesty coming through, which I already knew (but thanks).

The media image of Maga is insane, and there are millions of idiots to choose from as examples of what is wrong with MAGA. That is a worthy analysis to undergo.

The caricature of the conservative is so deeply ingrained in western culture, it is easy to find people who appear to be just another redneck, Nazi republican. It it so clear, in the media, who the bad guys are, and they (we) are so vilified, that the constant browbeating fuels actual bad guys, the worst elements of Maga.

But if you look closer, there are tens of millions of folks like me. We are lumped in with the media boogeyman that is conservatism, and with MAGA. But most of us are slightly less ignorant, not the least bit fascist, and not interested in race or whatever adults want to do with other adults in their pants and skirts. The conservative (not MAGA) movement can think, and we see through the slogans and posturing and ridiculous ideas on both sides. (but due to the destructiveness of wokeism are focused on the left’s bad ideas). There are armies of black people, and immigrants and women who are firm, politically literate conservative thinkers. To us, MAGA is just a campaign slogan.

People just want to be proud of where they live and their country. It should be ok to want to make your country great. It shouldn’t immediate be distrusted by Americans.

Americanism and American culture (for Americans) is supposed to be a shared value. The left would never say that, and that alone is a problem. It’s not reality to think America is nearly as bad as the left says America is. It’s just not the case. Millions of immigrants understand that better than the Democrat party does.

That should give pause that the left never seems to take, even after a convicted felon who boasts about assaulting women wins election twice - that’s how wrong voters see the left and they won’t self-assess.

I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology. — Jeremy Murray

The vast majority of human beings have some conservative ideas and impulses. That doesn’t make everyone conservative. So any posters who think you are “a conservative” are not paying attention. I see you as more of a classic liberal. Like liberals were in the 1980s. Reagan was still called a Nazi then, but liberals had way more internal consistency (rationality) and way more respect and ability to debate back them.

Today’s left doesn’t tolerate debate with the right, and in the same breath they squander credibility as they shrink their tent, and leave reasonable people like you out.

There are a lot of people like you. The left has no tools or means to win you back because they don’t have to win arguments - they only have to indoctrinate youth and shout down opposition, and tear down institutions - that’s what victory is to them. Bad ideas masquerading as moral goodness defeating evil white Christian men.

But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad.

Cheers.

I am still looking for a way to actually connect on something (anything) with folks like @praxis and @Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS, while being so sure whatever I think IS NOT true, for some reason.

They want to take away all the cake from everyone, and eat it too.

But they must think I, a conservative who can actually find good things about Trump, I must like raping women, hurting trans people, and I must want to enslave all non-whites. That I am unreasonable, and willfully blind to facts. So I can’t really blame them for not actually treating me with any respect or honesty. They may not know it, but I wouldn’t debate with Hitler either, if that is what I thought about my opponent.

They may not want to admit, but we Westerners have a lot of good things in common with each other. We, and the culture that has been entrusted to us, is worth ironing out to include the left and the right.

The left needs to soul search and they are too prideful to do it.

How about this: MAGA wants to make things great again. Woke wants to make things great for the first time.

So let’s show guys like Trump and girls like AOC some respect and just make things great period. Together.

(But, I know, we are all too invested in fighting to take that shit seriously…). Such a shame.

folks like praxis and Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS — Fire Ologist

I don’t get the fixation on this. Is it supposed to be a gotcha like asking a Democrat what a woman is or something?

It's worse than that.
As I illustrated in my previous post, @Fire Ologist has used "woke" to mean at least a dozen different things in this thread, as well as wondering out loud about what it means.

So we're the problem for not having a clear idea of what "woke" means -- even though we're not the ones trying to rehabilitate the word / concept. But also, it's true that it's not clearly-defined. And also you can define it however you want for whatever rhetorical point you want to make in the moment.

Hope it's all clear now.

Is it supposed to be a gotcha — praxis

Absolutely not. That would require me to be speaking in bad faith. So thanks again for that assumption.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. — Fire Ologist

So, while we're at it. Don't mind me just popping in here to say hello. :smile:

What is "woke" really? :chin:

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler. — Fire Ologist

I just searched the topic and I haven’t mentioned Hitler even once, and I’m sure that I haven’t said that I don’t know what woke means.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive. — Fire Ologist

Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed by political (basically MAGA) rhetoric. That’s fine, literally millions of Americans subscribe to the anti-woke movement.

I am fully subscribed to looking at society (politics, religion, art, morality, language, etc) through the lens of power relations. I think it’s ignorant or foolish not to. I’m not a social justice warrior though, and have become even less interested in that project since participating in this topic and being influenced by Nietzschean thought.

woke" to mean at least a dozen different things — Mijin

What’s wrong with that? The thread must have two dozen viable senses of “woke” at this point.

Like anything else, crystal clear definitions are hard earned, if earned at all.

But isn’t it disingenuous to say that just because a definition is vague, the thing it seeks to define does not exist?

Whether you ever use the word “woke” or not, I don’t really understand denying “woke” fits certain things/actions/ideas. As if you haven’t heard the word more than enough time these past 6-plus years - from the universities to the media and into our politics “woke” is clearly some specific usage.

Is maga any easier to define than woke? It isn’t.

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Ok, I’ll try.

Before just dropping another definition, allow me to give you the context out of which I see “woke” has emerged.

I go back to the at least the 1960’s (could go further first) and point out the anti-Vietnam War western baby-boom generation - rebellion glamorized in music and for the first time the movies and then the press, but mostly in protests against government oppression, and rich man’s oppression, and then male oppression of women and white oppression of colored.

These grievances became more pointed and sharp, as feminism started to really win the conversation - Although they failed to enact an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), women like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem represented a new place for women in political and corporate stages.

And the Civil Rights Act brought to the conversation grievances based on race, creed, and sex. Separately the Supreme Court told the states that they could not make any laws about abortion until later in the pregnancy. This becomes important later, because it cements a wedge between religion and the political left.

So having some sense of the things and happenings just mentioned above are necessary background to see “woke” emerge. The big items above are grievance (glamorized rebellion and protest), and substantive items like race (MLK, Black Panthers, Malcom), creed (abortion rights and the notion of “potential” life) and sex (highlighting equality through feminism).

Each of these items has its own contexts and much of that goes far back before the 60’s. The philosophy in the Universities was firmly post-modern, going back in all directions but mostly through Continental deconstructionists and existentialists to the enlightenment humanists…

Out this, CRT came to be in the early 1990’s (I’m sure I have the dates wrong but the dates don’t matter).

And eventually we had some slightly firm concepts like these:
- male dominated patriarchical structure of society
- white colonial geo-political hegemony
- capitalism enabling the powerful to keep their power
- systemic oppression of non-male, non-white, and just generally inequitable systemic power relations.

Based on the dominance of rich, white westerners, the oppressive systems that have been instituted must be torn down, or replaced.

The term “politically correct” is a term that was used in exactly the same way as the word “woke”. Except not all politically correct ideas were left-leaning (most were); whereas possibly all woke ideas are left-leaning.

The left clarified something more specific than just politically correct.

The “correctness” of the woke is baked right into wokeness. In this way wokeness, like political correctness, is like a soft moralizing, comfortably sounding in speeches like a sermonizing.

(None of this is necessarily bad, by the way. I haven’t gotten into anything bad about wokeness so far. Any shortcomings you might find above do not render wokeness impotent, if there are any…)

By the end of the Obama Presidency, wokeness was formally a thing.

Woke ideas addressed the above areas the right way, and such politically correct action stated to be called “woke” enough to where I first saw the word.

So we could write a book on the climate and environment out of which “woke” came to particularize something. But let’s get back to the question:

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.

Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed — praxis

Ok.

How?

This is going to be really tough for you. Prepare yourself for some blunt answers, and understand I am having to literally wipe my brow each time i need to respond to something abjectly dishonest in this post:

There are more than 2 genotypes for this gene -- it's not binary — Mijin

It is either active or inactive. There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. You're probably talking about translocation, which, if active, has happened in a male. Swyer is a female disorder and 46,xx are both male disorders of sex development. They have nothing to do with sex determination. If this isn't what you're indicating, please elaborate.

How would we know what gene someone has — Mijin

This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. "how would we know" doesn't come close to even touching the security of the sex binary. Fwiw, as noted to you with evidence previously, we are 99%, approaching 100% accurate, in aggregate, asscertaining sex from facial features alone. So neither aspect of bringing this up seems to go anywhere.

Biologists do not define sex this way as it's completely arbitrary. I know you're happy to handwave everything that people who actually study this topic say, but it's a critical point for those of us who are not guided by conservative talking points over science.Th — Mijin

This is utterly untrue. You will quote me a couple of activists who had things published in Scientific American, probably. Biologists understand that SRY determines sex. Which is why I was able to provide a paper from a biologist explaining exactly this. A few responses from ChatGPT:

"What does SRY do?

The SRY (Sex-determining Region Y) gene is found on the Y chromosome."

"What happens without SRY?

In embryos without a functional SRY gene (typically XX), ovaries develop instead of testes.

The result is a female developmental pathway."

"Final Answer:

Yes — biologists generally agree that SRY is the primary genetic determinant of male sex in humans. It acts as the initial switch that launches male sexual differentiation, though other genes and factors are also required to complete the process."

which you will understand means that SRY is for determination, and other genes (later in the process, after determination has occurred) affect phenotype. Not sex. It is also clear from this discussion (and, I think at least, you have already understood this) that XX,XY, XXY etc.. are a red herring for this issue.

The bold above is a bold-faced attempt to poison the well despite having absolutely nothing to back up your position. "conservative talking points" is the last bastion of the leftist who cannot understand the discussion they are engaged in.

WTF? We were talking about gender being non-binary, and you brought up the SRY gene. Don't blame me if it's an indefensible position. — Mijin

Your misunderstanding/misguided level of comprehension between the three relevant responses makes me unable to actually clarify this for you.

You brought up the concept of doing X. I pointed out that I didn't. You're now having a fit over it. I don't care.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism.

I find both extremes of the spectrum gross. I'm not used to feeling them gross in the same fashion. — Jeremy Murray

A fair point, but I have to ask: What are you talking about? There's no comparison between the two responses. Celebrating a political assassination of a non-politician and wanting to further your non-violent political agenda aren't quite comparable. To be clear though, Project 2025 seems insane. Perhaps I'm just not across it, but I have not seen anything which would lead me to thin there was opportunism. The murder itself was expected. The right was correct to prepare for something like this - particularly after Mangione and the two attempts on Trump. I simply cannot draw the parallel you are i guess.

How do you defend that on conceptual grounds? — praxis

He was heavily religious. I should probably not need to elaborate. But if I do, the point is that if you are taught, and believe, that the Bible is the Big Man Word, then a word like 'abomination' is descriptive, not moral. I take your point, but this explication should make it quite clear what I'm trying to get across: a non-religious person using that phrase would be as you say. Charlie using it, generally, is not. There are plenty of clips of him being soft, tender and loving towards these same people. And I actually happen to agree with his overall conclusion: Being at peace in your body as it actually is in reality will be infinitely more satisfying than the alternative. We can have other discussions about how that might or might not play out, but conceptually it seems unassailable. Additionally, there are plenty of life choices and lifestyles i'd call abominable. Violent drug dealers, for instance. Charlie's values were different to mine (though, i also take it he would call those dealers abominable too).

I should also say, I didn't usually find his conceptual defenses of positions i disagreed with very moving. Banno has, for instance, made a point Charlie just seemed entirely dead to: A fetus is not morally equivalent to a living, breathing child. His conceptual arguments about it being difficult to choose when a fetus becomes unabortable are difficult for dumb people to argue against, so he often made people look bad around that. If life starts at conception, there is at least a conversation to be had. But again, his arguments were, at best, semi-worth-considering.

, that was your takeaway?

if you ask me — Fire Ologist

Ask the participants. Some have commented.

Woke is: [...] — Fire Ologist

Some possible examples have come up. (Addressed to you I mean.) Are they "woke"?

You’ve given me a lot to think about…

Ok.

How? — Fire Ologist

It shows in your previous post. Can you really not see it?

AI verdict: Fire Ologist’s posts repeatedly use frames and metaphors common in MAGA / right-wing anti-woke rhetoric: “mob rule”, media bias, schools as indoctrination sites, victimization of conservatives, and reduction of “woke” to a leftist ideological orthodoxy.

He was heavily religious. I should probably not need to elaborate. But if I do, the point is that if you are taught, and believe, that the Bible is the Big Man Word, then a word like 'abomination' is descriptive, not moral. I take your point, but this explication should make it quite clear what I'm trying to get across: a non-religious person using that phrase would be as you say. Charlie using it, generally, is not. — AmadeusD

The Bible contains numerous passages that endorse or regulate practices considered morally repugnant today, such as human ownership. Charlie Kirk has explicitly described slavery as “bad and evil,” suggesting that he does not view the Bible as a literal description of reality. If slavery is understood as part of society’s proper organization under God’s covenant, then Kirk’s statement implies a judgment that God’s covenant itself would be “bad and evil.”

What’s wrong with that? The thread must have two dozen viable senses of “woke” at this point. — Fire Ologist

Everything is wrong with that. Off the top of my head:

1. You are the person that is throwing out these ever-shifting meanings.
2. While at the same time complaining about people that don't have a clear idea of what "woke" is (and, hilariously, saying that not knowing what woke is, is woke )
3. When the point has been put to you of how much of a mess the concept of "woke" is on the political right, going all the way to the president saying that the US lost in Korea, Vietnam etc because of "woke", your response was...well, I don't think you ever did respond to it.

And that's specificially the problems with this definition war you're having with your own brain.
I think there are many other problems with your perspective, chiefly that we're focusing on this boogieman while at the same time as human rights and freedom of speech is being trampled on a mass scale.

Prepare yourself for some blunt answers, and understand I am having to literally wipe my brow each time i need to respond to something abjectly dishonest in this post: — AmadeusD

Bring it on. Let's see if you find even one inaccuracy.

It is either active or inactive. There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. You're probably talking about translocation, which, if active, has happened in a male. Swyer is a female disorder and 46,xx are both male disorders of sex development. — AmadeusD

So you're choosing to say that only two genotypes "count" as genotypes and anything else is an aberration? So how is this any different to the special pleading you're doing with all other aspects of gender? (essentially: "it's binary except for the exceptions, which don't count")

This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. "how would we know" doesn't come close to even touching the security of the sex binary. — AmadeusD

The facts are that your definition of gender is not scientifically accepted and therefore is worthless.
I was also pointing out that it's completely unworkable as a definition of gender in society but if you want to put that other issue to one side, then fine.

Yes — biologists generally agree that SRY is the primary genetic determinant of male sex in humans. It acts as the initial switch that launches male sexual differentiation, though other genes and factors are also required to complete the process." — AmadeusD

So several issues here.
Firstly primary determinator does not mean only, secondly, once again, there are more than two genotypes for this gene.
And finally, it's farcical; you're saying if the SRY gene is male, that overrides everything else; it doesn't matter if the person was assigned female at birth, has breasts, a vagina, has lived as a woman and is married to a heterosexual man...this is the level people have to go to to avoid conceding that gender is more complex than we learned in high school.

this boogieman — Mijin

Nicely done. No such thing as woke. No way to define it. It doesn’t mean anything. Got it.

Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists. Whatever you do, don’t talk about liberal progressive ideology with a conservative.

Does “hate has no home here” mean you hate Donald Trump? I’m pretty sure it does. So woke.

How about pick a definition and work on it with me. Let’s coin a new term “woke” right now:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s a start. Revise it for us. Anything to add to the conversation besides times people say “woke” that confuses you. (If you see ‘the president calling losing in Vietnam due to woke’ makes a “mess” out of woke, you must see something besides a boogieman, otherwise why didn’t you pick trans children’s book readings or affirmative action as part of the mess of woke?)

You lose over and over with me. Nothing I’ve said has been addressed let alone refuted.

The only reason the woke don’t like the word “woke” anymore is because Trump and the right use the word.

AI verdict: — praxis

Just because someone else (whatever a “MAGA” is??) sounds like me has nothing to do with the content of what I said. Maybe “maga” is right about woke! Sis yay for me for getting it right like AI said. My sense of woke seems to have impressed enough people to throw the democrats out of the presidency, the senate, the house, Florida. The best response the democrats have had to the anti-woke rhetoric is to shoot guns. And call people names. And avoid discussion. And bleed voters. And disappoint polls.

Keep up the good work.

Nicely done. No such thing as woke. No way to define it. It doesn’t mean anything. Got it. — Fire Ologist

You have said it's not clearly defined, you stupid shit.

And the reason I'm calling you what you are now, is because your accusation that I am "hoping people shoot more fascists" is absolutely despicable.

You have said it's not clearly defined, you stupid shit. — Mijin

But is the question whether “woke” is clearly defined? That’s what you want to talk about. Without pointing to any definition at all!

I am trying to show you there is something there that exists and can take on a definition. Dummy.

I’m trying to define it.

You are saying it isn’t a thing; and, it is not a clearly defined thing. ??? That’s incoherent. Is woke a thing? If so, what is it?

Move the ball.

I am assuming it’s a thing because it convinced a country to put a felon in the presidency to beat it up and tear woke policy down. “Make America Asleep and not Woke again”. MAANWA. I am guessing that is no help to you. All while it vaguely happens before your very eyes.

You just won’t talk about it. No self-reflection or self-assessment. You are like a kid with his hands over his ears yelling “waaa waaaa - I can’t hear you when you say ‘woke’ waaaa waaaa.”

Nice strategy. It’s not like I gave you volumes of material you can use to make an actual point that might interest someone.

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

Key words you would be better served to address:

Behavior and ideas
Awareness
Inequities
Race, sex
Power
Diversity
Inclusion
Left-leaning

Those are all part of any idiot’s understanding of wokeness or appropriate use of the word “woke”.

despicable — Mijin

Don’t be a baby. Put your big boy pants on. You can always refute something I said that matters.

Woke is consistently picking the wrong priorities.
Woke is focusing on who is talking not what they are saying.
Woke is never having to say sorry.
Woke is never having to say “woke”.

If you can’t say something substantive, I will assume deep down you are convinced of the wisdom of my working definition and that you will be supporting JD Vance for president in 2028 (if Trump hasn’t set up his dictatorship in time of course - and he isn’t shot in the head).

But is the question whether “woke” is clearly defined? That’s what you want to talk about. Without pointing to any definition at all! — Fire Ologist

No it's not "what I want to talk about".

My position has been, and remains, that the word "woke" is a meaningless scare word that a certain audience has been conditioned to be triggered by.

My cites are firstly all the examples of conservative media using the word to mean everything and nothing, like that it's the reason the US military has lost wars, or vaccines are woke, or that teaching accurate history is woke etc etc. You repeatedly played dumb and ignored these examples.

The second cite is your flailing in this thread; where woke has been used to mean just about everything, but we're not allowed to say woke is ill-defined because "not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke".

Don’t be a baby. Put your big boy pants on. You can always refute something I said that matters. — Fire Ologist

OK, let's see, can we refute this?
You said "Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists."

Firstly, no I don't want anyone hurt by political violence. So that remains a scurrilous accusation.

Secondly, you seem to be alluding to the word "fascist" as encouraging violence. But no-one calls his enemies "fascist" more often than Trump.

Is it OK when Trump does it? Or is Trump woke?

"fascist" as encouraging violence — Mijin

A new topic. Avoids the issue.

It’s ok to call someone fascist. If they are fascist. But get us back on track.

You really need to deal with this:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s what people are saying when they say “woke”.

You are just wrong and delusional if you think woke is just a word. It’s modern American left ideology. It’s what I said above.

Make an argument. That is about the topic of the thread. Assume everyone knows I am a despicable person - who gives a shit?

The subject is the end of woke. So do you think that means the end of a meaningless scare word? Is that what you see going on in America?

A new topic. Avoids the issue. — Fire Ologist

Yes and you brought it up

It’s ok to call someone fascist. If they are fascist. But get us back on track. — Fire Ologist

Sure, and Trump fits the definition to a tee. I seem to remember someone, not sure if it was you, that tried to claim Democrats were more fascist but when asked what part of the definition is met by whom, no response was forthcoming. But ok, let's return to "woke".

You really need to deal with this: — Fire Ologist

I don't "need to" deal with anything. You've used woke to mean a dozen different things in this thread, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, so has MAGA media.

So more important than your (constantly shifting) claims about the word, is your repeated assertions of overreach in the name of woke. Do you have any examples of that? Something better than the anecdote of one guy who said some women were mean about men many years ago?
Or better yet; something even vaguely comparable to the silencing of universities, journalists, public protests etc happening under this administration?

And indeed, since the last time that I said that we've of course had an executive order, ostensibly about the "left-wing terrorist networks" that the government has claimed (without evidence) orchestrated Kirk's murder. But the order will crack down on groups that engage in anything deemed "anti-American," "anti-capitalism," or against "traditional American views,"
No problem there with free speech, eh? And nowhere near as bad as "something something woke".

"left-wing terrorist networks" that the government has claimed [...] orchestrated Kirk's murder — Mijin

When was that? :brow:

constantly shifting) — Mijin

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.
— Fire Ologist — Fire Ologist

Let’s start over.

Many times. For example, in the podcast by JD Vance and Stephen Miller, Miller said:

"It is a vast domestic terror movement [...] We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organised campaign that led to this assassination"

The executive order is similarly in weakly veiled language: the groups and entities that perpetuate this [left-wing] extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations