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?

I have produced them.

You don’t seem to be able to engage with them at all.

You are showing your own intolerance over my use of the word ‘study’.

Crack on. I am here still engaging.

All you have done is not engaged by discussing the substance of what I linked at all.

Nope

You simply refuse to engage with it and the points raised.

And wonder why no one will engage with Popper.

Here's something you posted:

"
-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%)."

Less that a quarter object to the "free speech champion". Some of the uncertain group will actually be, don't care.

The Popper issue, is that you cannot have absolute tolerance as the intolerant will naturally overwhelm. That's something which human history demonstrates.

Anyway, I'm an old bag who's got gardening to do and a bike to fix.

Yabu and it is as simple as that.

Woke is about ‘kindness’ always being right. It is about cancelling those who disagree even though the wokes are often naive in the extreme with their viewpoints and blind to their own privilege.

Popper states that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. However he also says quite clearly that he does not think we should stop people speaking. Rather than we should we able to discuss with rational thought and logic. We should only use force to ‘silence’ the intolerant if followers refuse to listen to rational argument and engage.

It’s rather interesting actually that you, OP, have refused to engage with one poster and discuss with any rationality what’s actually wrong with the data and instead refuse to engage because you don’t like the person who has collated the data.

And out of all that… you picked one thing? About free speech.

And not about people’s perceptions.

For all your quibbling about ‘your’ field using study to only ever mean peer reviewed research. ‘My’ field of qualifications use ‘study’ to describe research projects such as the one done by Luntz. “4,500 interviews, more than 200 questions, and two focus groups.”

As I said before, in ‘my’ field this is a ‘study’.

Crack on. We obviously work in different fields.

Enjoy your garden.

I would have said it was hypocritical, but I don’t quite understand OP’s intent, hence I think I said it was irony…

To me woke is a post feminist movement as it prioritises men's rights.
Feminism has been more and more diluted since the 1980's and has been taken over by men's rights to prostitution rights and trans rights.

This article by Abigail Shrier sums up some of this, as it shows how the extremes of woke politics damage women.

abigailshrier.substack.com/p/a-predators-paradise

"The Popper issue, is that you cannot have absolute tolerance as the intolerant will naturally overwhelm. That's something which human history demonstrates." @QuertyGirl

I get the feeling that the intolerant are trying to overwhelm this thread.

@Helleofabore engage with stuff!

Querrygirl engages

@Helleofabore not that bit!

great, what do you think is the relevance of that particular point out of all the rest of the points that I posted from that source.

And yeah… righto… plonking it down is ‘engagement’ to you?. A very high bar for ‘study’ and a very low bar for ‘engagement’.

Good to know

How have you engaged with it, a point about ‘free speech’? Tell us, in your words how does this point work with the rest of the findings of that study?

”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%).”

Because to me, and maybe others, it seems like it is a ‘lip service’. Like either those students like to think they support ‘free speech’ when they don’t support it, they support their version of free speech.

Like applying the label of ‘tolerant’ when they will exhibit ‘intolerant’ behaviours when they disagree. All while upholding their interpretation of ‘tolerance’.

Particularly when you consider the other points, including this one;

“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).”

and this one:

“-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).”

and this one:

“-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).”

twitter.com/gbnews/status/1619661336505360384?s=46&t=wGPF5dc1ootVJuf2lRdZ8g

Here is Julie Bindel, she is now a ‘GB News commentator’. Want to use it to denounce the work of Julie Bindel too?

Just for consistency.

I think this thread has been very enlightening to those who have not previously noticed how some
people have redefined words to mean the opposite to fulfill their need to be seen as the right side of history. And how some people use terms like ‘dog whistle’ and ‘[supposedly not worthy media source] commentator’ to dismiss people’s work.

Not necessarily the same people, but they may well be overlapping motives if you look further into it. To shape the discussion happening in society and discredit people for ‘wrong think’. Some people use emotive terms, some people scream Fascist at babies. They seem to call themselves tolerant.

I'm not exactly clear what point you think these statistics prove. Maybe I'm missing the point but if I was asked to vote whether my workplace should have a free speech champion I would say no - not because I am against free speech, but because I would be against the idea of one person being in charge of it. I would also consider it a waste of resources in the current economic climate but that's a separate issue.

This thread has been interesting.

I won't pretend to be active on every Mumsnet thread, but I visit most days and would say it's my social media channel of choice.

My observation about the word 'woke' is that it tends to have two main use cases on Mumsnet:

1: As a term to describe people who are (aggressively) pro-trans rights. Given some of the commentary on this thread, I would hazard a guess that several of you use the word to mean this
2: As a shiny, new (and more succinct) way of saying It's PC gone mad! You can't say anything these days! This, if I understood correctly, is the 'dog whistle' that PP referred to earlier. It's no coincidence that Piers I'm-a-victim-of-cancel-culture-but-please-tune-into-my-brand-new-television-show Morgan writes for the Daily Mail and is vehemently anti-woke (he probably coined the vom-inducing 'wokerati' which I've seen used in a recent thread about racial stereotyping)

And there are more definitions outside of Mumsnet, ranging from someone who would consider themselves enlightened and opposed to discrimination, to someone who considers themselves judge, jury and executioner of anyone who has or has had what might be considered an impure thought.

It's a shame because the original meaning of the word (not literally to wake, but the AAVE term originating from the 30s to mean alert to racial prejudice and discrimination), has been totally lost.

They're also sometimes paid for by people with money and power, e.g. food and nutrition research. They are affected by societal power relationships and are not above scrutiny. Nor are they the only source of truth. They can sometimes highlight the assumptions and errors we make but they can also be used to entrench bigotry and justify oppression.

“I'm not exactly clear what point you think these statistics prove. Maybe I'm missing the point but if I was asked to vote whether my workplace should have a free speech champion I would say no - not because I am against free speech, but because I would be against the idea of one person being in charge of it. I would also consider it a waste of resources in the current economic climate but that's a separate issue.”

Is this a post for me or for the OP?

Because I am again agreeing with you in the respect that I, too, would be against one person being in charge. And I think it much more important to change the attitudes that are underlined by intolerance of concepts that are considered ‘not to be tolerated’.

I am very happy to have conversations about issues and listen to reasoned opinions that don’t rely on emotional manipulation in an attempt to convince people.

”1.As a term to describe people who are (aggressively) pro-trans rights. Given some of the commentary on this thread, I would hazard a guess that several of you use the word to mean this”

This is maybe only a partly formed concept. It maybe spread more widely to concepts like queer theory and the destabilising of established language, social mores and science. It is not just ideological thinking about gender ideology . The discussion about transgender rights is just part of it.

”2: As a shiny, new (and more succinct) way of saying It's PC gone mad! You can't say anything these days! This, if I understood correctly, is the 'dog whistle' that PP referred to earlier. It's no coincidence that Piers I'm-a-victim-of-cancel-culture-but-please-tune-into-my-brand-new-television-show Morgan writes for the Daily Mail and is vehemently anti-woke (he probably coined the vom-inducing 'wokerati' which I've seen used in a recent thread about racial stereotyping)”

It needs to also be mentioned that there are some very well known feminist writers who also write for the Daily Mail. Because the Guardian has rejected their work.

If anything can be said about the DM, is that they seem to print views that are deemed ‘untouchable’ for different reasons. Those labelling it as a ‘conservative dog whistle’ like to ignore that at least one of the Uk’s prominent feminists writes articles there. I would consider her a socialist feminist… maybe others can tell us either that she has changed political alignment or whether she is simply dedicated to getting her voice heard wherever she can.

quite frankly the word has become meaningless

Those wanting to discredit the Daily Mail, would you like to point out the errors in these articles?

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7860747/More-1-000-patients-sexually-abused-mixed-sex-NHS-mental-health-wards-2-5-years.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11638065/Patient-claims-sexually-assaulted-threatened-stays-two-NHS-hospitals.html

Understandably, ‘some’ Daily Mail articles are written poorly, and might be using click bait headlines. They are a free to read media source. However, as I said. If you can make a blanket statement or generalisation about the Daily Mail, I expect it would be something like they publish writers who have been shunned by other media for a variety of reasons.

GB News and now the Daily Mail?

Those labelling it as a ‘conservative dog whistle’ like to ignore that at least one of the UK’s prominent feminists writes articles there.

I think you're reading way too much into my flippant Piers Morgan/Daily Mail comment and (conveniently?) ignoring the rest of it.

Perhaps you haven't been on the same threads as me, which is fine, because I probably haven't been on the same ones as you, but 'woke' has most definitely been adopted by the type of person who would formerly cry PC gone mad! etc ^in response to a topic regarding racial discrimination (for example). In that sense it's being used to shut down conversation, by ridiculing anyone with opposing views with a catch-all insult, rather than engaging in any sort of meaningful discussion. It often comes with a smugness (gotcha!^) that is very rarely justified.

If I'm being honest, it's becoming a bit of a marker for people that are probably closet racists. For that reason I think it's starting to have it's day.

Yes. I also read and watch many other sources of information. That way I can nut out the original sources if needed and interpret what information I find myself.

Do you not do this, OP?

We probably are not on the same threads, no. But as I said, I do think you are not necessarily wrong and I do agree in part.

To be clear Calphurnia88, I think it is used to silence discussion when it is thrown around as an insult. I think it is misused by those describing themselves as woke and attempting to shame others they believe are ‘not woke’, and by people using ‘woke’ as an insult. Although that ‘insult’ is also because those people who describe themselves as ‘woke’, may be falsely doing it because they wish to be seen as ‘woke’ but are not ‘woke’ in the original sense.

This is not limited to MN, of course.

As a term, it may have had its day as I think it has been rendered meaningless- just as ‘tolerant’ and ‘kind’ and other terms have. I believe that is what you have been saying. I have just taken it further.

Yes, but why would that require me to read the Daily Mail or GB News?

I am not saying you are required to.

How bizarre?

I am saying that some people who seem keen to dismiss the Daily Mail or GB News as being not a worthy source of information for whatever reasons, are doing so from a position of prejudice rather than watching or reading and then judging the individual article on its merits.

If I didn’t answer you as you expected me to answer, maybe you’d like to explain what you meant by :

”GB News and now the Daily Mail?”

Were you making the comment about Julie Bindel? And her contributions to both of these media outlets. Do you think Julie Bindel is in any way a disputable source of feminist commentary because she uses both these outlets?

I ask for clarification, but I won’t hold my breath that you will clarify. You don’t seem to interested in doing so on other aspects on this thread.