The Real problem with cancel culture

[crazy canuck]

I think that the Brits and Americans on this board need to understand that the British-English word "woke" is not the same "woke" as is used in American-English.  The dictionaries use the American-English definition, so I don't really know what the British-English word means, other than that is an insult of some kind.

So people here tend to speak at cross-purposes when using the word "woke" because they seem to think that it means the same in both languages.

Then why are Americans using it as an insult?

[Barrister]

I think the reason the word "woke" evokes such an emotional reaction is precisely because it is meaningful.  Meaningless things rarely evoke reactions.  I also think it's a fool's errand to look for an alternative to "woke", because it'll quickly just become the next "woke", and we'll keep on looking for alternatives endlessly without actually discussing the woke ideas.  Which is maybe the plan...

20 years ago we'd be using the term "politically correct" instead of woke.

[DGuller]

One of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency.  It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News. 

This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept:  it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult".  It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself:  when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.

[crazy canuck]

One of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency.  It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News. 

This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept:  it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult".  It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself:  when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.

See Grumbler, I am pretty sure this guy is not using woke according to the dictionary definition.  If he is, what does "the woke mind" mean in the context of his post?

[grumbler]

Then why are Americans using it as an insult?

Only a handful of the most ignorant conservatives think that it works as an insult.  In the US, people who consider themselves woke are proud of that fact.  Trying to use woke as an insult here is like trying to use "educated" as an insult (which they also attempt).

[grumbler]

20 years ago we'd be using the term "politically correct" instead of woke.

Woke is a bit different.  "Politically correct" is the idea that there are euphemisms that are kinder than the ones commonly used, and so one should use the kinder terms and chastise those that use the common ones. "Woke" means that one is aware of the structural inequalities in society, and that racism (or the other -isms) don't always come from racist motives.  It's an outgrowth of the BLM movement.

[grumbler]

See Grumbler, I am pretty sure this guy is not using woke according to the dictionary definition.  If he is, what does "the woke mind" mean in the context of his post?

DG can use words in ways that defy the common meaning if he wants to.  He shouldn't be surprised when that causes difficulty in understanding him, though.  I have no idea what "the woke mind" means, but don't really much care.  As far as I am concerned, the purpose of language is communication.

[Josquius]

One of the reasons I don't usually bother discussing specific issues is that I'm consistently being denied agency.  It's just not a possibility that crosses the woke mind that I can independently find fault with some woke idea without ever hearing about the criticism on Fox News. 

This is also why I'm railing against wokism as a general concept:  it appears to be exactly what Josquius is trying way too hard to project on some mythical "anti-woke cult".  It also seems to hamper liberals in exactly the same way that Putinist propaganda hampers Russia itself:  when you deliberately put yourself in an information bubble, you make terrible decisions, because reality doesn't bend to your highly filtered perception of reality.

Except reality fits my perception just fine.
I'm not one of these extreme niche social issues people. Rather I'm one of the people more concerned with broader social issues who loses out because of "woke" and the efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.

It's funny you try and draw parallels between myself and the putinists when they're pretty infamous ringleaders of the anti woke cult, and their current ultra-clever and morally upstanding decisions I do think are having an impact with the popularity of their ideas.

As said - have an actual opinion on an issue then mention your actual opinion on that issue. Don't just rant about the cover all category of woke.

Often I find it's a typical tactic people use to first have a little rant about woke and the intolerant tolerant left before they then go and say something which is beyond the pale of idiocy and shows they're not capable of even the base thinking for a discussion - eg my recent run in with someone ranting about "gender identity ideology".

[Berkut]

the efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.

There isn't anyone here doing that. Nobody. None. Zero.

I suspect reality and your perceptions of it are not nearly as aligned as you imagine them to be - you keep railing against people who are not part of the discussion.

[Josquius]

the efforts the cult make to brand anyone left of centre, anyone who says something different to what they knew growing up, with that brush.

There isn't anyone here doing that. Nobody. None. Zero.

You're completely missing the point.
I never said anyone is doing it here. Thats not what we are discussing at all.
We are talking about the issue in broader society.

I suspect reality and your perceptions of it are not nearly as aligned as you imagine them to be - you keep railing against people who are not part of the discussion

So the Biden thread is invalid because Biden isn't posting there?

[The Minsky Moment]

But every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.

The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.

[Sheilbh]

The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.

Particularly in a UK context where we still hear about it a lot.

Off the top of my head there was an sociology professor who was fired following a campaign by Jewish students largely over his teaching about the "Jewish lobby". There's also Katherine Stock who reisigned after a campaign by students - but strikingly though she thought the university was insufficiently supportive, they did back her as did her union (and she subsequently got an OBE).

That is also part of the issue that the government faced - they'd been bigging up an "academic freedom of speech" bill until it was pointed out that the professor teaching about the sociology of the "Jewish lobby" would be protected - as would numerous extremist Islamist academics who have also been forced out of academic positions over the last 20 years. It doesn't seem to me an issue that only cuts one way or is easy to divide between the acceptable "cancellations" and the bad ones.

I think for that reason it's somewhat fraught but doesn't meet the description you'll often see here in the press.

[Berkut]

But every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.

The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.

I think chilling freedom to speak is a rather serious consequence, in fact.

[DGuller]

But every time we do discuss extreme left positions, like how awesome it is to cancel people, the response is to immediately bring up how terrible the bigots on the right are, and how the entire objection to firing professors is just something the right invented.

The other response is to point out that although the "cancellation" problem from the left exists, the scope of the problem as measured by real life cases and consequences is quite small compared to the rhetoric about it.

We've done exactly the same dance here a dozen times by now.  The effect of ostracism is mainly in the chilling effect, you make an example of the few to intimidate millions and force them to self-censor.  The chilling effect is a fucking real and serious consequence.

I think I need to save this reply to a text file and copy paste it going forward.  Then again, if we have to keep repeating the very obvious point again and again only for the argument it rebuts to get repeated verbatim a short time later, then maybe there is just no willingness to consider it.

[Admiral Yi]

As a language purist I take exception to what I view as the sloppy and imprecise use of "woke."  My understanding of woke is that it is a black thing for black people, and the message of woke is in the quote in crazy canuck's signature.  I associate it in my mind with critical race theory, though I've never seen the connection made explicitly.  I disagree with the premise that racism is *everywhere*, but it doesn't intrude much in my life and I don't see it being talked up in any of the media I consume so I don't feel the need to push back.  I also get the feeling woke's 15 minutes is already up, and the people who complain about woke are arguing into a vacuum.

I've mentioned before that Brits seem to use woke to cover what I consider PC, with a good splash of green.  Save the whales etc.

I'd say the vast majority of cases of people being cancelled that I come across are eejits getting videoed while acting like assholes, many, but not all with a racist element.  I have no problem whatsoever with those people losing their jobs.

And then as Joan mentioned there are a handful of cases of university professors and their ilk losing jobs not for racist rants but for statements that go against PC dogma.  Those are troubling.  Like the student advisors at Harvard (?) who came out in favor of ethnic Halloween costumes.