[concordDance]

Rocking the boat basically.

Are you advocating for change in your workplace that isn't strongly linked to workplace peformance? (E.g. pronouns in email signatures or having the company take a public stance on some contempory issue like BLM) And is what you're advocating for considered "lefty"? And wasn't even on the public radar 20 years ago? Then it's woke.

[matt-attack]

I see you’re being facetious, but in all honesty, my mega large media conglomerate forced us to attend an equity presentation where we were told precisely: if you’re not actively working to quell this particular initiative that we right now find important, you’re then working against it and 100% part of the problem.

Were they talking about green peace? Climate change? Save the whales? Homelessness? Air pollution? Food preservatives? Obesity? Genocide? Under-representation of Jews in the NBA? No.

No apparently you can not be actively working to better those situations and you’re just fine and definitely not part of the problem. Oh but this one cause? Yeah we declare you’re part of the problem.

Sorry but there are a lot of causes in the world. You simply cannot pick and try to guilt me into actively supporting it in leau of all the other causes I might be personally connected with.

That was quite the insulting seminar.

[middleclick]

> Are you advocating for change in your workplace that isn't strongly linked to workplace peformance?

Who is doing that? Please cite something.

> And wasn't even on the public radar 20 years ago?

Where does 20 years ago time frame come from? That's pretty arbitrary and seems more to be based on your feelings than fact.

[concordDance]

I'm trying to give a working definition of "woke" based on how I've seen it used. If you have a better one I'd love to hear it.

[uejfiweun]

I'm not sure what's up with these people who go around commenting asking people to "define X" or "define Y" or "cite Z", but IMO it seems they generally have nothing interesting to say and aren't worth responding to. Just my 2c.

[Buttons840]

Many arguments boil down to the definition of a word. Talking about definitions seems worthwhile.

We've all heard there are facts and opinions, but there's a 3rd category I think: definitions.

[concordDance]

> Many arguments boil down to the definition of a word.

And this is awful :(

It's normally the Worst Argument in the World: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

Arguing about whether a definition is particularly useful or outlines a cluster of similar things can be good, but it's rare.

[uejfiweun]

The mods deleted the other thread, but basically what this guy was doing was Sealioning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Certainly sometimes it's good to debate a word but this crossed the line into incessant requests for people to do work to come up with ever more definitions and citations.

[dubswithus]

I felt your definition was spot on. Thanks.

[StanislavPetrov]

Anything relating to equity, diversity or inclusion.

[middleclick]

Still waiting for that citation for performance and wokeism but I guess I will never see it.

[concordDance]

I get the feeling you've misunderstood my comment.

From my perspective you asked "What does woke mean?" and I drew from my personal experience to answer how I have seen it used. The examples I choose of pronouns in signatures and having a BLM position were very common ones that also occurred at my current company.

Does that make sense now? I'm not actually sure what you want a citation on... that people push for pronouns in email signatures? That this does not have a direct and obvious link to workplace performance? That pushing for such was unheard of in 2001? That this is how people use the word "woke"?

[oittaa]

The dude gave you an answer to your question. What are you arguing about?