To think that the opposite of woke, is asleep?

[QuertyGirl]

Following on from a conversation with my elderly (but very with it) Aunt the other day.

She stated that she was anti-woke and I asked her if that just meant that she wasn't interested in equality, social justice any more. Being literally "asleep" to this sort of thing, as opposed to being awake or "woke". She definitely is not asleep to that stuff.

Another conversation with a (middle aged like me) friend and we agreed that when woke is used as an insult, it's no different to the old "political correctness gone mad" cry.

So, is anti-woke to be willingly asleep to stuff?

You also want to remember OP that the reason girls can go to school, vote, have equal rights, maternity leave, be protected from DA and have laws to protect them as a characteristic isnt because those things fell out the sky.

The now-elderly women before us - like your ‘anti equality’ aunt - fought bloody hard so your generation could enjoy equality. Rather than being insulting you could maybe reflect on that rather than writing them off as bigots.

Also you may want to use ‘literally’ in the right context

Because political can and does mean very different things to different people.

Both "I hate the Labour Party" and "I think all gay people should be killed" could be construed as political statements.

@TreadLight

Even if the views are objectively wrong?

I'm talking something like eugenics or sexism?

Do we allow those views to be aired?

Those views are not justifiable in anyway.

Well the approach developed by long and circuitous paths has been:

If someone isn't actually doing anyone any harm, leave them alone.

Any time you feel like a medieval witch hunter because someone takes a different view, stop. Don't say anything, if they aren't hurting anyone it's none of your business what they believe

It's super-easy to do actually, but seems to elude most civilisations.

She isn't a bigot and I did not imply she was.

Are you tolerant of being openly manipulated for instance?

static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd0f29d0d626c5fb471be74/t/61b13d00236e2f7f2dbb9a36/1639005441624/Transgender+Youth+and+the+Freedom+to+Be+Ourselves.pdf

This is a document that was published for activists to use to 'shape' their arguments.

I guess this is probably common place in political circles. But, how do people feel about knowing that information is being orchestrated in this way when there is also this very clear line of calling for people to be deplatformed, people being abused and for protestor's violence to be ignored .

It all creates a 'chilling' effect. Where people are not free to voice their opinion, they fear losing their jobs, their careers, their friends and their loved ones.

How is this 'tolerance'?

To give a specific person example, incel "philosophy".

Do we allow that to spread?

Pre 2015 you'd have a point. But here in 2023, to have your opinion you'd really have to be "asleep" with regards to social issues, campaigning and the media. Current Woke is authoritarian, science denying bullshit that's endangering many of the groups in society that it's purportedly representing.

While I am gathering other links, please feel free to follow that link and look for yourself. Dr Frank Luntz is a professional polster, there is very likely a link to the question documentation there. Or if you care to look up his name, he did a series of interviews.

You're right!

I'm sorry; I was not clear. Of course the word "woke" has existed for ages:

He woke me at dawn.
I woke up this way.

I should have said that I do not like "woke" being used as an adjective. Maybe that was not inherent for you in the OP's post. It was for me. I'd like to believe that I think what I am saying is clear here. But day by day, week by week, I see that it is not. Thank you very much for reminding me of that.

I think there is great value in challenging objectionable opinions openly so that people can see the method by which we can dismantle weak opinions through questioning the foundational belief systems. I prefer this to mindlessly chanting mantras.

Rubbish, naive and predictable. Like a lot of other nonsense it's been hi-jacked by the extremists and used as a way of closing down any rational discussion, if you don't totally agree with me then you're totally opposed, no middle ground allowed and in doing so they destroy what they're trying to achieve.

Stop. Read this. If you are someone who is not black and has no black ancestry, please butt the fuck out and get your own word.

Is that the acceptable face of racism?

‘You can’t say that!’ – New polling shows students want more controls on free expression

The Higher Education Policy Institute has polled 1,000 full-time undergraduates on free speech issues via YouthSight, a market research company specialising in students’ views. The questions were identical to those posed by HEPI via the same polling company in 2016 (with two additions).

The new results, published as ‘You can’t say that!’ What students really think of free speech on campus (HEPI Policy Note 35) by Nick Hillman, show students are significantly less supportive of free expression than they were.

www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/06/23/you-cant-say-that-new-polling-shows-students-want-more-controls-on-free-expression/

Key findings

Free speech and discrimination

-79% of students believe ‘Students that feel threatened should always have their demands for safety respected’ (up from 68% in 2016) while 4% disagree (down from 10% in 2016).
-61% of students say ‘when in doubt’ their own university ‘should ensure all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech’ (up from 37% in 2016).
-The proportion of students who believe ‘universities are becoming less tolerant of a wide range of viewpoints’ has risen to 38% (up from 24% in 2016), and this view is considerably more common among male students (51%) than female students (28%).
-The proportion of students who agree that ‘if you debate an issue like sexism or racism, you make it acceptable’ has doubled to 35% (from 17% in 2016).
Events

-Most students believe one or more political groups should be banned from speaking at higher education institutions, including the English Defence League (26%), UKIP (24%), the British National Party (19%), the Communist Party (12%) and the Conservative Party (11%) – when presented with a long list of political parties, just 13% say ‘none of the above’ should be banned from speaking (down from 27% in 2016).
-64% of students think universities should ‘consult special interest groups (e.g. religious groups or gender societies) about on-campus events’ (up from 40% in 2016).
-When asked what rights students and staff should have to respond to an event they dislike, 39% of students say they should be able to ‘hold a protest outside’, 20% say they should be able to ‘stop the event from happening’ and 12% say they should be able to ‘disrupt the event’ (all up since 2016).
-The proportion of students who think ‘gender segregation should be allowed at official university events’ is 32% (up from 20% in 2016).
Students’ unions

-86% of students support the No-Platform policy of the National Union of Students, (up from 76% in 2016) while just 5% say ‘the NUS should not limit free speech or discussion’.
-62% of students support students’ unions refusing to sell tabloid newspapers on grounds of sexism (up from 38% in 2016) while only 10% disagree.
-39% of students believe ‘students’ unions should ban all speakers that cause offence to some students’ (more than double the 16% figure in 2016).
Staffing and academic resources

-77% of students believe there should be ‘mandatory training for all university staff’ on understanding other cultures (up from 55% in 2016).
-The proportion of students who think academics should be fired if they ‘teach material that heavily offends some students’ is 36% (over double the 15% in 2016).
-When asked about university libraries, one-third of students (34%) say ‘all resources should be included for the purpose of academic study, regardless of content’ (down from almost one-half of students – 47% – in 2016).
-Trigger warnings, removing memorials and safe spaces

-86% of students support trigger warnings (up from 68% in 2016).
-76% of students think universities should always or sometimes ‘get rid of’ memorials of potentially controversial figures (up from 51% in 2016).
-62% of students support safe-space policies (up from 48% in 2016).
Government

-In response to a new question, around one-half of students (48%) support the Government’s proposal to establish a ‘free speech champion’ for universities in England. Around one-quarter (23%) disagree and the rest are uncertain (29%).

unherd.com/thepost/britains-students-will-be-woke-forever/

Oh my god YES! @SlightlyJaded you've nailed it

As oppose to what?
Challenging it, or censorship?

How?

It just shows how the "WOKE" agenda works now days and why so many people object. If it had been worded to include the word white it would have been deleted by now and had everyone jumping on to get the user banned.

Another yougov poll.

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/22/cancel-culture-what-views-are-britons-afraid-expre

A majority of Britons (57%) say they have, at least sometimes, found themselves stopping themselves from expressing their political or social views for fear of judgement or negative responses from others.

Women are also more likely to have held their tongue than men (62% vs 52%).

29% of those who disagree with the statement “a transgender woman is a woman” feel they have to frequently keep bottled up.

Only 10% of respondents agree with the statement "a transgender woman is a woman"

This contains a very interesting chart at the bottom that shows ‘conservatives more inclined to have concerns about free speech and labour being more concerned about protecting peoples feelings and sensitivities.

Those links ok @QuertyGirl ? Can you access them.

Absolutely 👏👏👏 some people seem to have very very short memories

😁

You think that if I had written "Stop. Read this. If you are someone who is not WHITE and has no WHITE ancestry, please butt the fuck out and get your own word" MNHQ would have deleted it?

What word do you think could have been substituted for "woke" here, keeping all of the connotations, so that MNHQ would have done that?

If there is a word that is used for white people that is racist and discriminatory, I will also say that I do not think that people should use that word. Try me - I'll either debunk your assumptions or tell you your word is OK. Go on.

Read Orwell's 1984. So many of the things he warned about are coming true: the re-writing of history, the narrowing of human thought and imagination, the removal of books, the control of language, the way people are being forced to pretend to believe things they know aren't true, etc. Or think of that sinister phrase "cancelling someone". Jesus, that could have been invented by Orwell himself.

Bertrand Russell once said that we must always be wary of fanatics. Fanaticism is the greatest enemy civilization has. We've had religious fanatics, nationalist fanatics, communist fanatics...now we've got woke fanatics. Some people are drawn to extremes. They love the idea of provoking and upsetting others. And they love the idea of smashing things up.

Plus, of course, it appeals to bullies, who can use it to attack and control. Then you get the narcissists and show-offs who see it as a chance to get attention (we've all read social media posts by people who couldn't care less about the cause they are backing).

What terrifies me most are the attacks on the canon. Harold Bloom came up with a list of the greatest books written over the last 3,000 years – the best that has been thought and expressed in human history. But the woke bullies (like all bullies they just become more and more extreme) are now trying to 'cancel' many of these great writers. It's even happening in the universities. Once you do that, you're in the Dark Ages again.