Great article in the Guardian about wokeism

[inkognitha]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/10/how-does-woke-start-winning-again

Good morning everyone.
Today, even the Guardian admits woke isn’t working.

« Yet Progressive Activists’ fatal flaw, the report argues, is that they’re further from mainstream public opinion on cultural issues than they realise. They’re the only group where a majority thinks that immigration should be as high or higher than it is now, and that protecting people from hate speech matters more than defending free speech (a key rationale behind “no debate” – the idea that trans identities aren’t up for discussion – and “no platforming”). They’re also the group most likely to think social change sometimes requires breaking the law, whereas two-thirds of Britons disapprove of protesters blocking roads or gluing themselves to things.
Tryl stresses that being outliers doesn’t invariably make Progressive Activists wrong – perhaps they’re just ahead of the curve, as the suffragettes once were – but it has important tactical implications. His polling shows that Progressive Activists overestimate by a factor of two to three how much others agree with their core beliefs, from abolishing the monarchy to letting children change gender. Consequently they tend to invest too little time on persuasion, focusing instead on mobilising the masses they wrongly imagine are on board. “If you’re reaching out to people, then you’re watering down,” is how Tryl describes this mindset.
While successful campaigns usually build the broadest base possible, Progressive Activists also tend to be purists, rejecting supporters who don’t endorse a complete worldview. (More than a quarter wouldn’t campaign alongside someone who believes – as a majority of Britons do – in Israel’s right to exist, for example.) Their yearning for grand systemic change means they can sound dismissive of other people’s small but well-meaning efforts, and they’re also unusually keen on correcting other people’s “mistakes” on diversity issues, something other groups consider likely to cause embarrassment. »

I hope some of the keyboard warriors/bullies roaming this board and the blue-haired, nose-pierced authoritarians will have a read, and at last, a think on how they do more harm than good.

Sorry, didn’t mean to add a poll!

Traditionally the left and Labour were expected to support the working classes and the less economically well off. For the last 30 years they have been using the votes of these groups in order to push a woke agenda. Which is fine, but they haven’t been delivering on better lives for the people whose votes they depend on.

If the left want to progress a progressive agenda then they need to pay back to the people the claim to represent-but really don’t.

I actually had to check my eyes weren't deceiving me, when I read the source was the Guardian. Thanks for sharing OP. A very balanced and thought provoking article.

Blue haired, nose pierced authoritarians 😂

Interesting that the Guardian has covered this, but Gaby Hinsliff makes her allegiances clear (pro-woke).

She clearly thinks Robert Wintemute deserved to be cancelled (and that Guardian readers would feel the same) for views that (“startlingly” according to Gaby) 50% of the population agree with.

The Guardian is part of the problem and I don’t think this article is a sign that it will be part of the solution.

Fantastic post.

I did read the article and thought it was a very rare admission of the authoritarian exclusionary nature of woke.

It’s a lot more self-aware than their usual drivel though.

Woke just means not causing deliberate offence or unfairly discriminating against or being prejudiced about group of people. It's not authoritarian or progressive but just about being a basic decent human being.

Not causing deliberate offence when TRAs tell women they want to punch a TERF. Discriminating against women with genuinely held GC beliefs. Being prejudiced against natal women. Being authoritarian in demanding everyone fight for Palestine over Israel to the point of antisemitism, or demanding everyone stop using cars (like the Bristol SUV tyre slashers who are apparently an environmentalist group).
Sounds really decent. Yeah. 🤔
Way to miss the point there.
And this is the problem OP. They are so convinced they're right that they won't take on board any criticism of the methodology or the attitudes that have turned everyone off them. Even from the Grun.

That's called disagreeing with people who have different views from you.

Wokeism is not a consistent movement consisting of all the people you don't agree with.

It's a concept invented by fat white old men on the internet who want to be racist and sexist and get away with it, and by far right plutocrats and their minions who want to cause hatred, fear and division in society, while pretending to support the poor working class people, while laughing at us and taking more of our money.

It was meant to represent those values, before it was hijacked and manipulated by so called progressives on the left.

Racist and ageist. Nice.

The Guardian is terrible these days on anything vaguely political. ‘How you should put more effort into persuading people you are right about all things even though that is so unfair as they should know you are right about all the things already as you self identify as ‘progressive’.

Which newspaper is good on anything "vaguely political"?

Look forward to hearing which ones you think have neutral and balanced views.

also responding to @spoonbillstretford 's post but not sure if it's possible to 'quote' two posts:
"Woke just means not causing deliberate offence or unfairly discriminating against or being prejudiced about group of people. It's not authoritarian or progressive but just about being a basic decent human being."

The word 'woke' was first used by African-Americans, and the original meaning was closer to 'conscious' (as in conscious of how race and other oppressions affect us all, how colonialism and capitalism have functioned against most people etc), rather than simply not being prejudiced.

I think you're all getting confused with 'politically correct' (another phrase whose meaning was deliberately reframed and mischaracterised by racist/ sexist/ homophobic right-wing people) when you define it as adapting the language we use so as not to cause offence.

'Woke' in its original sense might well have included causing offence (to those who disagreed with that world view, who were opposed to things like defunding the police, opposed to groups like antifa etc) and I don't think that was necessarily a bad thing.

I thought the article was v thoughtful and worth reading.

Are you saying that when a convicted violent criminal tells huge crowds that they should be punching gender critical women, that’s just disagreement?

A "basic decent human being" imho
respects the rules of democracy regarding freedom of expression and political debate
does not use violence, intimidation or destruction to get their point across
does not cancel or perform purity tests
makes the effort to know and learn more about what they are actually against
does not belittle, patronise or bully opponents
can listen to a different opinion with an open mind
does more than being a performative keyboard warrior and tantrum thrower

Being antiracist, for the environment, pro-Palestine, whatever, DOES NOT exempt anyone from these basic rules.

👏 👏

The very language that poster uses, tells me that I'm glad I'm not an advocate of wokeism.

I dunno you tell me. It’s no better than the daily mail these days - it’s just a different rhetoric. I remember when it was a liberal paper, sad times now.

Is "woke" just the modern day term for "PC gone mad"? If it's different then what's the difference between the two terms?

What popularly gets called "wokism" is typically a very racist and discriminatory ideology in itself - as evidenced by other posts in this thread already.

What's interesting about the article to me is that clearly a large group, a majority really, don't agree with many of the ideas it seems to push. And the people like spoonbill who are adherents seem to really believe everyone that doesn't is just completely awful.

I think it’s just the same as many social groups or movements, where there are degrees of extremity to a belief system / values and in the resulting personal and social choices. Taking religion as an example, loads of people have a Christian faith, try to live by the values of that faith I.e love your neighbour, etc etc. and promote those values, turning away from ideas and groups that are opposed to those values. People believe and live by a faith to different degrees, and some are so vehement in their beliefs that anyone who doesn’t fall in line well enough (even if they’re a Christian but are okay with something that causes debate in the church like same sex relationships, for example) become a threat or something to correct.

I don’t think wokeism is that different. I think it’s complicated, because people take it to different places and there’s so much variety in how people use it but at it’s core, most people who align with trying to be woke are just doing their best to understand and be mindful of everyone’s experiences. It becomes difficult when someone perceives someone else as not being respectful / inclusionary / kind enough according to their view of what that should be, and polarisation and heated debate follows.

It's a good article and clearly discusses the poor tactics being employed rather than the meat of the causes themselves.

People in general seem to be broadly supportive of tackling climate change although they may disagree on the methods.

People are generally liberal on cultural issues when they are not being personally encroached on although they may be less happy about perceived or actual loss of rights such as housing effects of migration or loss of single sex provision.

People really dislike being lectured and hectored. Activists can't expect people with varying levels of education to understand ever changing social justice academic jargon.

All seems very obvious but clearly it isn't otherwise the TRAs wouldn't be losing as badly as they are.