[ad404b8a372f2b9]

Definitions are important so people can avoid talking past each others, so it's good to define what "woke" means to you. But going past that and saying "my definition is right, everyone else has no clue" is not productive.

I think you'll find most people who complain about wokeness have no issue treating others with respect and behaving with decorum. "Woke" people do not have a monopoly on kindness and respect.

I'll give my definition of wokeness, which I think is shared by a lot of people who complain about it. "Wokeness", to me, is divisive self-righteous zealotry. It's a way for a lot of people who claim to stand for inclusion and kindness to ignore all nuance and paint themselves as morally superior while openly despising anyone who holds different beliefs.

[mike00632]

In the future do you think anyone will care about the "nuance" behind marginalizing LGBT people?

Do you think that there was "nuance" in the racism of the 18th and 20th centuries?

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

Your post is not a good example of nuanced speech. The obvious implication is that people who disagree with the current political climate and "wokeness" are LGBT hating bigots.

By taking this stance, you only increase the political division, make these topics the cleaving issues and do a very large disservice to the people you claim to care about.

[mike00632]

>... make these topics the cleaving issues...

I don't think you understand. I'm gay.

When you hate on gay people and call people who disagree with your bigotry "woke" then it has everything to do with your "stance", not mine. And I'm not the one 'cleaving' people apart. You are.

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

For the sake of discussion I'll assume you mean the general "you" since I clearly haven't done any of the things you're talking about, but that's also a problem because you're arguing with a bigot who's not here and ignoring what I actually said.

I can understand that LGBT issues are important to someone who's gay. But the people who define "wokeness" as a pattern of hateful and exclusive behaviours are not entirely, or I believe even mostly, comprised of bigots who hate people based on their sexual orientation. If you bring up LGBT issues in a discussion about free speech, for example, and claim anyone who believes one thing about free speech is automatically prejudiced against gay people, you redefine the political landscape to put LGBT issues at the center of every political issue and therefore in opposition with half the people who care about those issues entirely unrelated to LGBT rights. That is very counter productive, and not just for you personally.

I know discrimination, I suffer through it daily, and I really wish people would actually discuss the many important, contentious modern issues that affect everybody without forcing people into trenches and putting them in opposition to my personal identity even though they are completely unrelated.

[mike00632]

Do you think that LGBT people and their allies are "woke"? Do you think that the emancipation of Black slaves was "woke"?

[antisyzygy]

You're using a definition that nobody who identifies as a left wing "woke", inclusive or kind, person uses. This is demonstrating my point.

I think you need to follow your own advice! You and those like you don't have a monopoly on what this term means either. In fact I'd argue the people who created the term have the right to define it.

To your point, right leaning people can also be woke! I.e. concerned with inclusion, kindness and equity.

Perhaps it's time to retire the word. It's become some off the cuff, ad hominem insult by right wing leaning people rather than retaining any of the original meaning.

What I gather is that you actually have a problem with something specific that isn't related to "wokeness" but to the tribalism and "othering" that is going on among some left leaning people. This can be talked about specifically without abusing definitions or changing the meaning of words.

I'd go further and argue using woke the way it is used currently by right leaning people is a form of othering in and of itself.

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

I'm not making your original point, your point is that nobody but the left knows what "woke" really means so everybody else is wrong when they discuss it. My point is that you have no sole claim to the meaning of woke, the people who use the word do, and it means different things to different people.

As for following my own advice, I gave you two very explicit disclaimers that it is solely my own definition of the term, as I understand its use by a significant part of the population. It is not a claim of ownership, but it is a useful definition, widely in use, if you wish to discuss wokeness with people who disagree with you.

Language is fuzzy and evolves on its own, the place of the author V.S the users is a discussion that's been had here a million times about many other terms far removed from politics. The term has shifted precisely because the people who exhibit these exclusive and unkind behaviours call themselves woke, in that sense it is related to wokeness. Both definitions exist concurrently, neither of us can change that, but if you wish to discuss wokeness you'll have to accept that it does have a cohesive meaning, different from your own, to a lot of other people, and not just deny the existence of this meaning.

(On a side note I'm a leftist and so are many of my friends who have issues with "wokeness", as we understand it.)