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?

That is an excellent analogy. I was reading about the Salem witch trials and mass hysteria recently and it brought to mind a lot of the woke mentality of today.

I really think a lot of them would be happy to stand and watch anyone burn at the stake who doesn’t share their mindset.

Woke = self-righteous

I like this summary. It explains my feelings. I like progress, equality and equal opportunities.

I hate that a misjudged comment or event can be used to end someone's career. If you want to change someone's behaviour or views you need a discussion, not a witch-hunt.

I hate when support for some people's rights is allowed to involve removing rights for others. That's not equality and it's not good progress. A lot of people who say they're woke don't seem to have any understanding of the impact of their demands beyond their own agenda.

Not in my job it's not

Nobody has addressed Poppers Paradox yet.

Some ideas are not tolerable.

@QuertyGirl that's why we have to continue to call woke people out on it

When the 'intolerant' are the ones who are describing themselves as the 'tolerant' ones, where do YOU think Poppers Paradox can be used?

Which group's use of tolerance do you use?

"Some ideas are not tolerable."

Such as the above statement

I agree, I've got a book on my reading list about it -
The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World

Engaging, incisive and acute, The New Puritans is a deeply necessary exploration of our current cultural climate and an urgent appeal to return to a truly liberal society.
The puritans of the seventeenth century sought to refashion society in accordance with their own beliefs, but they were deep thinkers who were aware of their own fallibility. Today, in the grasp of the new puritans, we see a very different story.
Leading a cultural revolution driven by identity politics and so-called 'social justice', the new puritanism movement is best understood as a religion - one that makes grand claims to moral purity and tolerates no dissent. Its disciples even have their own language, rituals and a determination to root out sinners through what has become known as 'cancel culture'.
In The New Puritans, Andrew Doyle powerfully examines the underlying belief-systems of this ideology, and how it has risen so rapidly to dominate all major political, cultural and corporate institutions. He reasons that, to move forward, we need to understand where these new puritans came from and what they hope to achieve. Written in the spirit of optimism and understanding, Doyle offers an eloquent and powerful case for the reinstatement of liberal values and explains why it's important we act now.

Literally in your OP.

Word salad is when people use big words to try and make a point in lieu of actually making any sense.

A book is misused?? How? Do you mean misinterpreted? If so, how?

OP, you aren’t our university lecturer, you can’t demand that we address whatever you think you’re teaching.

What about Poppers Paradox? Which which formulated 80 years ago in an entirely different social landscape where no one was cancelled for their views.

Even so - ‘intolerance’ is, once again, completely objective. What is intolerant to you won’t be intolerant to me and vice versa.

Also if this is the first generation to be tolerant how do you explain all the rights that have been hard fought for by people who are now elderly?

I don’t think you can generalise because people mean different things by it

Exactly.

And what is even more confounding is, in some groups the opposite meaning of 'tolerance' is actually true.

But let's see what OP comes back with on advice on how we eliminate these confounders.

This sounds interesting.

If you have Spotify there's a 53 minute interview with him about the book (if you search by title). I've just downloaded 👍🏻

You’ve very much misunderstood Popper’s point. He was not advocating for being intolerant of intolerance, and he most definitely was not arguing, as you seem to be, for censorship of speech which you’d classify as sexist.

He was pointing out a paradox, not suggesting a course of action.

I didn't say that either

Does nobody else find it interesting how people answer the questions they want to answer, as opposed to what's actually on the screen?

Oh the irony OP! Once again you aren’t our lecturer, we don’t need to answer your every question

You haven’t answered where you think existing rights came from?

@TheObstinateHeadstrongGirl

Which rights?

How far back to you want to trace them?

I’m repeating myself but

• The right to vote
• The right for girls to go to school
• Protections from discrimination in the workplace
• Maternity leave
• Domestic violence shelters
• Access to abortion
• Access to free contraception

Who do you think fought for these? Clue: It wasn’t the people who weren’t yet born that insist anyone who doesn’t match their views is ‘asleep ‘intolerant’ or ‘anti equality’

I'd trace some of that to Ancient Greece originally.

So, how far back do you want me to go?

I think it's a big mistake to think rhevoriginal meaning of a word is still it's meaning. Woke used to have positive connotations. Nowadays it doesn't. It actually refers to significant intolerance and bigotry now and that is what is being referred to when it's used as an insult. So actually the opposite of woke now is awake and open. That said, I'm not sure it's helpful in conversation as insults generallycsn be an attempt at shutting others up. Insulting is a favoured strategy of some people who attempt to destroy vulnerable group's rights whilst attempting veneer of progression. Those are not people to emulate. I expect your aunt objects to the obliteration of women's rights by men's rights activists. Emotions will of course get high when hard-won rights are taken away.

Might it be the same groups of people throughout history who have fought for those rights? Is there any value in choosing a specific rage of years in order to think about this?

The opposite of woke is red-pilled. They both mean being aware to the reality of the world, so it’s a political divide. Woke people are progressive and left-leaning, red-pill takers are conservative and right-leaning.

Karen originally is a name but the word has changed to mean other things. People should be allowed to use it the new way. Free speech.

I've never used the word in that way and a family member is called Karen. I'm only pointing out that many people who want to cling onto the new way of using woke as a pejorative, seem to be the same people who want to stop others from using a word they believe shouldn't be used differently.

It doesn't matter if one is someone's name, it isn't the first time a name has been used to mark a group. It's either people are free to say what they want and use words/names how they want or they're not.

I vote for Free Speech for all.