Quo Vadis GOP?

[grumbler]

Kindly elaborate.

The sins that wokeism protests against are all undefined magic words--transphobia, Islamophobia, exploitation, facism, etc., etc.--and are subject to judgement only by members of the given protected class and their self-appointed translators.  There is no precision, there is no consensus, no universality, there is only an ex ante verdict.  There is no predictability, so the impression is given that *any* action or speech can and will be labeled intolerant.

Who are the wokists that would agree with your definition of the term.

It seems to me that "woke" is just another one of those magical words, like "fascist," which, deprived of their original meaning, are just invoked to stir up animus.

The opposite of "woke" is "asleep," no?

[DGuller]

Kindly elaborate.

The sins that wokeism protests against are all undefined magic words--transphobia, Islamophobia, exploitation, facism, etc., etc.--and are subject to judgement only by members of the given protected class and their self-appointed translators.  There is no precision, there is no consensus, no universality, there is only an ex ante verdict.  There is no predictability, so the impression is given that *any* action or speech can and will be labeled intolerant.

Who are the wokists that would agree with your definition of the term.

It seems to me that "woke" is just another one of those magical words, like "fascist," which, deprived of their original meaning, are just invoked to stir up animus.

The opposite of "woke" is "asleep," no?

I don't think wokists would agree with any definition of the term.  Agreeing to a definition would allow effective discussion of wokism, which is never to their advantage.

[Josquius]

Its the woke obsessives who are the ones who like to leave it vague so it can mean anything they don't like.

[DGuller]

Its the woke obsessives who are the ones who like to leave it vague so it can mean anything they don't like.

Utter bullshit.  The only people motivated to define wokeism are those who intend on criticizing it.  It is precisely for that reason that those who don't want it criticized engage in endless shifting of goal posts, or unilateral claims that the concept doesn't even exist.  When two people who want to criticize wokeism talk to each other, in my experience, they have absolutely no problem understanding what is meant by wokeism, so I guess workable definitions do exist if one desires them to exist.

[grumbler]

I don't think wokists would agree with any definition of the term.  Agreeing to a definition would allow effective discussion of wokism, which is never to their advantage.

So, do you reckon that they are grateful to have someone like you available to tell them what they believe?

[DGuller]

I don't think wokists would agree with any definition of the term.  Agreeing to a definition would allow effective discussion of wokism, which is never to their advantage.

So, do you reckon that they are grateful to have someone like you available to tell them what they believe?

No, they don't want their beliefs said out loud by anyone, including themselves.  Expressing beliefs verbally can be very damaging to cognitive dissonance.

[Admiral Yi]

Its the woke obsessives who are the ones who like to leave it vague so it can mean anything they don't like.

Wonderful.  Go ahead and define it.

[The Minsky Moment]

The sins that wokeism protests against are all undefined magic words--transphobia, Islamophobia, exploitation, facism, etc., etc.--and are subject to judgement only by members of the given protected class and their self-appointed translators.  There is no precision, there is no consensus, no universality, there is only an ex ante verdict.  There is no predictability, so the impression is given that *any* action or speech can and will be labeled intolerant.

The sins that MAGA protests against are all undefined magic words--"woke", "DEI," "cultural Marxism" etc., etc.--and are subject to judgement only by members of the MAGA base and their self-appointed podcasting translators.  There is no precision, there is no consensus, no universality, there is only an ex ante verdict.  There is no predictability, so the impression is given that *any* action or speech can and will be labeled "hate speech" by Pam Bondi.

It's mirror imaging all the way down.

[Admiral Yi]

The sins that MAGA protests against are all undefined magic words--"woke", "DEI," "cultural Marxism" etc., etc.--and are subject to judgement only by members of the MAGA base and their self-appointed podcasting translators.  There is no precision, there is no consensus, no universality, there is only an ex ante verdict.  There is no predictability, so the impression is given that *any* action or speech can and will be labeled "hate speech" by Pam Bondi.

It's mirror imaging all the way down.

Certainly.  Science has disappeared from the public realm and been replaced by religion.

[Josquius]

Its the woke obsessives who are the ones who like to leave it vague so it can mean anything they don't like.

Utter bullshit.  The only people motivated to define wokeism are those who intend on criticizing it.  It is precisely for that reason that those who don't want it criticized engage in endless shifting of goal posts, or unilateral claims that the concept doesn't even exist.  When two people who want to criticize wokeism talk to each other, in my experience, they have absolutely no problem understanding what is meant by wokeism, so I guess workable definitions do exist if one desires them to exist.

This is nonsensical.
In the modern use of the word you won't find many people who are "pro-woke". Its exclusively a snarl word used in a old man yells at cloud sort of way for anything that is different to back in the day (thus is bad). As such it is used to mean basically whatever the insulter wants it to mean.
That two people can meet and believe they're on the same page when ranting about woke despite possibly having differences on their lists of what is woke is entirely by design. It means whatever you want it to mean.

[garbon]

I heard it has something to do with eating tofu? idk

[Sheilbh]

I'm in favor of freedom of speech. However, I think intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

I think that depends on a shared understanding of who and what is tolerated, which is highly culturally and historically contingent. I think a multi-cultural, multi-faith society requires a degree of tolerance for intolerances. I've mentioned it before but in a UK context on issues of sexuality and gender, in polling the place with the most conservative attitudes is London because it is also more diverse and many migrant communities have faith and traditional beliefs on those issues (whether that's African or Latin American Churches or Mosques). The most liberal is the North-East of England because it is also the least diverse and most irreligious - it's also the "red wall". I think that's different in America but, I suspect, pretty common in the rest of post-faith Europe - and a challenge for wanting all the "correct" views to go together or all the "bad" ones to go together.

My view is that liberal tolerant principles are liberating and positive and over time will persuade people. And one of the risks is that what we see in America. Worms turn, the boot gets on the other foot, the people deciding the boundaries of intolerance may not be "our people" - the nature of tolerance is not an incontrovertible, revealed truth . It is contingent and it is contested and if it is a way of exercising power then it will be used for that reason. I would add in Europe there is no doubt in my mind that this sort of thing is a weapon waiting to be used against Europe's Muslims and by an Islamophobic government - the sort of Pim Fortuyn strand.

I would make the bar far higher around anti-democratic, or "not worthy of respect in a democratic society". Totalitarianism, Nazism, violence and hatred in its gravest forms.

[Admiral Yi]

It means whatever you want it to mean.

So woke-obsessives are not the only ones with an interest in leaving it vague.

[Josquius]

It means whatever you want it to mean.

So woke-obsessives are not the only ones with an interest in leaving it vague.

I'd love it if it had a set definition.
Alas in reality:

You cannot view this attachment.

[Valmy]

I'm in favor of freedom of speech. However, I think intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

I think we have to tolerate it. Trying not to tolerate it does not seem to work.

I don't mean on a personal level of course. The weird notion you are compelled to accept people in your personal life despite how much you hate them is...rather anti-freedom.