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.

Nope

i believe in climate change abd that we need to make plans to mitigate the effects and prevent further erosion

I believe that many institutions and organisations remain institutionally racist and sexist

I believe LGBTQ+ people are entitled too, and must have, the same human rights as everyone and should not be discriminated against

I do not believe men LARPing as women are actual women and they are not entitled to access women’s single sex spaces/places/programmes & initiatives

sorry if that doesn’t accord with your black and white world view

At least this is a definition.

But then this is why it causes confusion. As the recent Barbie and Little Mermaid movies were labelled “woke” and I cannot see how your definition applies to them.

I'm fine thanks.

What does this have to do with my post? Is this you saying you are not a conservative but believe “woke” exists but also chose not to define it?

So maybe it’s more accurate for me to say:

”The definition of “woke” appears to simply be a term used to describe anything the person using it dislikes”.

(Black and white world view - huh?!?!)

The definition of woke has evolved pretty quickly. People who described themselves as progressive were happy to embrace the term woke until very recently. When they started to receive criticism and even ridicule for some of their more absurd projects they claimed it was being used as a pejorative.

When I say absurd I'm talking about situations like Nicola Sturgeon trying to make the case for rapists being sent to women's prisons but totally fluffing it in TV interviews. She clearly didn't believe her own bullshit or she would have found it easier to defend.

I’m totally aligned with you

My interpretation is that it started as a term from the US black community to mean awake to social injustice/systemic racism and morphed into a mocking term for 'progressives' or activists or social justice warriors. In particular cancel culture or no platforming.

From the article:

”Trying to clarify what the UK public understands by the perennially slippery term “woke”, in 2022 the pollsters YouGov asked respondents how well it fitted various contemporary causes. The highest match – above trans rights, no-platforming people whose opinions you dislike, stronger action on climate change and the Black Lives Matter movement itself – was with removing historical statues associated with slavery, like that of Colston. Something about this combination of direct action against a highly symbolic target, and revisiting history through a modern social justice lens, meant that 61% considered it woke.
For some, that was perhaps a compliment. But by 2022, a word briefly synonymous with enlightened liberal consciousness – borrowed from a phrase used as far back as the 1930s by black Americans, urging each other to “stay woke’” to the threat of racial violence – was already becoming what the then Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon called “a pejorative term of abuse”.

So many would consider you “woke” while you would reject being categorised such.

Which really illuminates my point.

But your facts aren’t facts they are more like Trump’s “alternative facts”. You think a substantial part of the population is engaging in fantasy play, but what you can’t see is that it’s actually your own lack of understanding of trans experience that is causing the disconnect .

You are arguing that the earth is flat, because it looks flat to you- to the naked eye- this is your reality . and because of this you won’t listen to the scientists who are explaining why, even though it might appear to be flat from your perspective, it is in fact round.

Just like “conservatives” (small c) is a catch-all phrase for anybody with an opinion that people who consider themselves progressive disapprove of. Personally I don’t consider focussing on antiquated sex stereotypes rather than the reality of being born female particularly progressive. Or centring men who want to think as themselves as women over actual women. But apparently I’m wrong.

I don’t think it’s either / or. Many people see themselves as “woke” (in the original
sense) but also acknowledge that how it is used now is just a meaningless pejorative.

Which is why the Barbie movie and Christmas adverts with black people are “woke”.

Oh to be clear I FULLY understand the original meaning.

No idea what the current meaning is.

Exactly. She and Hamza had no logical argument, because they don’t actually believe that these men are really women.

So it’s not a fact that males are always male whatever cosmetic surgery they get or hormones they take? Or that women are most at risk from men? I think you’ll find those are both objective facts. Gender is a concept or belief, which people are free to believe or not, just like any other concept or belief like a flat earth or a loving God.

Facts exist. Material reality exists. Even if some people don’t like it.

I’m sure you’ll be able to explain the science that changes a male pelvis into a female one

I can’t believe some people think that subjective feelings trump actual facts and that anyone who says no to that is a bigot, and we wonder why we’re in such a mess.

I haven’t seen either but Googled Little Mermaid and it seems to fit my definition fairly well, albeit not every branch of it.

Certainly progressive (using cultural institutions to shape rather than reflect society, in a liberal or leftward direction, eg the rewriting of the kiss the girl song to emphasise verbal consent, the emphasis on environmentalism), and emphasising group-based representation (the mermaids now being a mixed sex and mixed race group).

I can’t say I saw any authoritarianism or CSJ thought in my brief look.

How does the little mermaid movie fit the concept
of “group based progressivism and authoritarianism” when it’s simply a live action remake of a disney film? (The Mermaids were always mixed sex).

So consent and mixed ethnicity representation is what people mean by “woke”.

It’s disturbing either are seen as negative.

So it’s not a fact that males are always male whatever cosmetic surgery they get or hormones they take

nope. this is an ideological - tautological - claim with an imprecise scientific meaning.

Or that women are most at risk from men

this is not an “objective truth” about the world - it’s a social reality. Furthermore “men” is a social category.

Bullshit. Show me the science that man can become a woman.

What’s the difference between a social reality and an objective truth? if 98 prevent of sex crimes are committed by males (however they identify) how is it not objective truth that women are at greatest risk from men?

You have the cheek to say other people are the equivalent of flat-earthers! Classic TRA DARVO though.

I’ve given my best shot at explaining already, albeit based on a quick Google only.

At risk of repeating myself, it’s not especially authoritarian, but I do see group-based progressivism.

The fact it’s a remake doesn’t mean it must be or can’t be woke.

Though it does give us an interesting additional way to consider the progressive dimension (ie the desire to remould rather than reflect society). Does the original movie represent the ‘reflect’ version, and the deviations the remoulding? Or does a remake by definition ‘reset’ what is canon?

(@JHound I’ve not said anything about the changes being positive or negative. Not sure if that was aimed at me or just a musing).

How is that DARVO 😂

Musing.

As those who use the term outside of its
original meaning think it is a negative (although I genuinely don’t see how either of the films I mentioned meets even your definition.)

But it’s not even group based progressivism given the story is unchanged and TLM was never a progressive story.

And if progressivism is about remoulding as opposed to reflecting, then ethnically diverse casting is the opposite of progressivism