Quo Vadis GOP?

[crazy canuck]

We already had plenty of terms to describe what work means today. Politically correct, social justice warrior...whatever.

But why the term woke was used it obvious. It is a term that comes from black people, so easily elicits disgust and contempt and fear from our very racist society. So hence woke, great branding by racists for racists.

I fucking hate America so much. I try to extend grace to my country but we just keep doing the same old horrible shit decade after decade century after century despite constantly assuring ourselves that oh that was in the past we are better now.

Yep

[Crazy_Ivan80]

by an Islamophobic government - the sort of Pim Fortuyn strand.

islamophobic is first and foremost a term invented by muslims and their useful idiots to prevent people from fighting the negative influence of islam on enlightened societies.

Pim Fortuyn wasn't islamophobic, he was islamocritical, and coincidentally: correct. Being gay probably helped focus on the problems of increasing influence of islam on our (superior) societies

cause things haven't gotten better. People are more afraid to speak out against that ideology and those that do get to enjoy a life of torment and the presence of permanent security (like Lale Gül). If they don't get killed, like Samuel Paty.

[Sheilbh]

Okay so some of the right will die on a hill over the meaning and origin of terms

[HVC]

Okay so some of the right will die on a hill over the meaning and origin of terms

About words used against them if woke became a pejorative used against the right they'd fight tooth and nail to correct the indignity "some of my best friends are black" is a running gag for a reason

[HVC]

For what it's worth Google says this:

French Origins:
The term appeared in French as "Islamophobie" in the early 1900s, with an example being Alain Quellien's 1910 thesis describing "a prejudice against Islam that is widespread among the peoples of Western and Christian civilization".

[Jacob]

IMO the whole "woke" / "social justice warrior" etc is just (successful) Orwellian newspeak by the right. The left has a term to define some of its values and goals. The right redefines the term by filling it with hate and derision thereby attempting to define the left out of existence except as a caricature of inept evil.

It's working pretty well too.

[Admiral Yi]

IMO the whole "woke" / "social justice warrior" etc is just (successful) Orwellian newspeak by the right. The left has a term to define some of its values and goals. The right redefines the term by filling it with hate and derision thereby attempting to define the left out of existence except as a caricature of inept evil.

It's working pretty well too.

How is this different than simply disagreeing with those values and goals?

[garbon]

Doesn't really seem that interesting to note how conservatives will torture terms. Well other than perhaps discuss why mainstream discourse allows that.

Well if it is meaningless or ceases to be meaningful and is basically only used by people to attach, then I think it allows you to call that out. It allows for clarity which is good for your own argument and communication.

And the reason mainstream discourse allows it to happen is because conservatives are part of discourse. They're not external to it, or discourse external to politics - they are participants shaping discourse. The question isn't why that is allowed but why their opponents aren't.

I think part of that is a slightly academic focus on precision ("well actually historically it meant this and it's a reference to that") which misses the point of communication and also a reluctance to ditch terms that have been turned in to an effective attack or have failed (I say reading a fabulous book talking about "assemblages" and "patches" of capitalism as a useful framework to "think and to play with" ). Whether it's "woke" or "defund the police" or whatever else there's more desire to explain why it doesn't mean what the attacker is saying - and if you're explaining you've already lost. As I say my own view is that because the "correct" use of these terms is used as a shibboleth and way of signalling to your own side not of communicating to the world. But I don't think we've seen conservatives for example dying on a hill to explain or defend "project 2025" - that became a successful attack line for Democrats and conservatives responded by killing it dead and moving on. They don't talk about it even if the underlying ideas (inevitably given what the document is) still matter.

I think that sounds like a lot of hooey. Alas, I don't want to write an essay response on a topic we have already done to death. If we had a working search function, we could save a lot of time.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

For what it's worth Google says this:

French Origins:
The term appeared in French as "Islamophobie" in the early 1900s, with an example being Alain Quellien's 1910 thesis describing "a prejudice against Islam that is widespread among the peoples of Western and Christian civilization".

well look at that.

doesn't much change the fact that we have no use for that ideology

[crazy canuck]

And the reason mainstream discourse allows it to happen is because conservatives are part of discourse. They're not external to it, or discourse external to politics - they are participants shaping discourse. The question isn't why that is allowed but why their opponents aren't.

I think part of that is a slightly academic focus on precision ("well actually historically it meant this and it's a reference to that") which misses the point of communication and also a reluctance to ditch terms that have been turned in to an effective attack or have failed (I say reading a fabulous book talking about "assemblages" and "patches" of capitalism as a useful framework to "think and to play with" ). Whether it's "woke" or "defund the police" or whatever else there's more desire to explain why it doesn't mean what the attacker is saying - and if you're explaining you've already lost. As I say my own view is that because the "correct" use of these terms is used as a shibboleth and way of signalling to your own side not of communicating to the world. But I don't think we've seen conservatives for example dying on a hill to explain or defend "project 2025" - that became a successful attack line for Democrats and conservatives responded by killing it dead and moving on. They don't talk about it even if the underlying ideas (inevitably given what the document is) still matter.

I think this is the interesting question to answer.  But I respectfully disagree with the answer you have developed. The example you used, Project 2025, is a good example of what I think gets closer to the answer.  The right has been fundamentally dishonest.  They backed away from the label project 2025, and in fact Trump even said he didn't know anything about it (a blatant lie) all along with intent of implementing it as soon as they got into office, which they have.

The left, for the most part, is still interested in ethical conduct and being truthful.  I think that is a good thing.

[DGuller]

IMO the whole "woke" / "social justice warrior" etc is just (successful) Orwellian newspeak by the right. The left has a term to define some of its values and goals. The right redefines the term by filling it with hate and derision thereby attempting to define the left out of existence except as a caricature of inept evil.

It's working pretty well too.

I don't think it's productive to deny agency to people who use the word "woke", and assume they're just victims of Orwellian propaganda.  People of all political persuasions except the woke left need a word to use to refer to the woke left, and given that they have no interest in playing dumb, they just use the word "woke" because they know it will be clear enough to them.

[Josquius]

Stop pretending people are playing dumb when they call out woke as a nonsense word. We are very much calling it like it is.

You say a word is needed for the "woke left".
OK.
So who are the woke left?
I might imagine a screeching pink haired stereotype who gets offended at the slightest gust of wind that hints of not being totally on board with their views.
Someone on the right meanwhile might mean me or many others here. People who are chill with minorities and think we should let LGBT people get on with life.
That's entirely WAD with woke being such a vague "anything I don't like is woke" word.

[Jacob]

I don't think it's productive to deny agency to people who use the word "woke", and assume they're just victims of Orwellian propaganda.  People of all political persuasions except the woke left need a word to use to refer to the woke left, and given that they have no interest in playing dumb, they just use the word "woke" because they know it will be clear enough to them.

They have agency. The definition of terms is a political struggle. It's just that the left has form for losing, these last few decades - in this political struggle as in many others.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Woke" is not being used by the right as a convenient referent to a defined group of people to make having meaningful discussions for more tractable. It's exactly the opposite: it's being used as a lazy pejorative label to avoid having a substantive discussion through name calling.  And it's another way to lump together vast swaths of people, from traditional liberals to Hamas-cheering campus radicals, from corporatist centrists like Hakeem Jeffries to left activists like Cornel West.

It's just like Trump and his ilk babbling about the RADical Left. It's a way to shut down all discussion and avoid actual thought, not promote it.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it's productive to deny agency to people who use the word "woke", and assume they're just victims of Orwellian propaganda.  People of all political persuasions except the woke left need a word to use to refer to the woke left, and given that they have no interest in playing dumb, they just use the word "woke" because they know it will be clear enough to them.

They have agency. The definition of terms is a political struggle. It's just that the left has form for losing, these last few decades - in this political struggle as in many others.

I have to give you credit, you have been saying this for a while now. But it is just recently that I realize the truth of it.