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.

I’m sorry I just can’t take this seriously.

I assume she meant calling other people anti-science flat-earthers when it’s actually you spouting the anti-science bullshit, but in any case, why have you commented on her use of DARVO but not provided any of the science she asked for? You do have some proof, right? I’m sure we’re all dying to see it.

And that’s a you problem 🤷🏼‍♀️

Show us the science and we’ll do better.

I’ll leave the first point as I’m not sure I’ve got much more to add.

Mixed-race casting of a story in modern London, or quant finance, or whatever wouldn’t signal any attempt to shape, I agree. Mixed race casting of a story set in Shogunate Japan, or most of those quaint pre-war English rural murder mysteries probably does.

But I’m not trying to push some edgy or pejorative definition of progressive here. I think just as a straight definition at its base it’s a project concerned with shaping and improving, just as conservatism is about preserving and preventing decay. Anyone sensible draws on both.

the problem isn’t me, or my lack of science , or my wokism or my ineffective skills in persuasion. There are all kinds of resources out there. I’d also be very happy to talk things through with you.

But you have already decided what you know, what the “facts” are, what “reality” is, based on your perception: “common sense.” The earth is flat because you can see it is flat, with your very own eyes. You are standing on it now , and not falling off!

Men are men and women are women, and nobody has ever changed sex!

When you say “prove otherwise” to me it’s not because you’re curious. It’s not because you think there is a possibility - however small- that the earth might in fact be round after all and you want to hear why. it’s because you want to show to yourself and others that I can’t- you want to satisfy yourself that I am stupid, or crazy, or lying. Or possibly all three. Either I engage and you berate me. Or I decline and you win. Either way, ultimately you will exhaust me until I decline to reply and you will have satisfied yourself that you won.

These attempts to define woke are maybe an example of how 'woke' has changed. As someone concerned about climate change many moons ago I was termed 'woke' and one of the things that was hard to deal with was that those who disagreed with taking action in relation to anthropomorphic climate change would constantly move the goalposts in debate - you'd say one thing and the response would never be a specific response to that thing but something else entirely.
Now that I'm apparently a 'bigot' I find exactly the same problem trying to discuss women's rights in the context of trans activism. Whataboutery and this weirdly humpty-dumpty approach to the use of language.
In both cases, that makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion. Except now it's even worse because climate change is hugely complex and multi-faceted, but there being two sexes isn't.

This is what people say when they know they’re lying. If you have proof that a man can become a woman, post it. Show us all. I, for one, would be more than willing to change my mind if I had irrefutable proof that a male has, even just once, became a woman.

And why do you keep implying that women who believe in biological reality are akin to flat-earthers? You’re the one who can’t back up what you’re saying with science @Lostcat.

I rest my case

Aye - @Lostcat show us scientific proof! Settle the trans debate once and for all and I will agree with you

I honestly can't work out if you genuinely believe that

Nope. If you had some proof, you’d be happy to post it. Shut us all up once and for all, but you won’t and you never do, why is that?

People will see you refusing to do so and make their own conclusions. You’re not as clever as you can think. I’ll continue to trust Robert Winston on the matter, I think.

I might be missing the point here but the mermaids in the original Andersen tale are male and female. The Little Mermaid has a dad.
Why on earth should they be white? Why not black or brown? Would it have been better if they had been blue or green?

Absolutely perfect example of all I just said :

Aye - show us scientific proof! Settle the trans debate once and for all and I will agree with you

But if there was scientific proof a man can become a woman, we could settle debate once and for all, couldn’t we? We’d be able to test them and tell if they really had changed sex, and if they had, there’d be no problem.

So, if you have this amazing scientific proof a man can become a woman, why not share it?

Yep. Someone posting long ranty obfuscations on the nature of ‘reality’ and trying to tell us that biological sex isn’t grounded in reality is absolutely going to be met with a ‘prove it’

Or did you think we were just going to change our minds because you have asked us to?

And you’re right, I’m not asking for proof because I think there is a small chance you’re right. I’m asking because I know you can’t prove it. And that’s where I rest my case.

did you think we were just going to change our minds because you have asked us to?

not sure how you took that from this exchange 🥴. To the contrary, I’m very well aware that you are so certain in your convictions that nothing I could say would change your mind.

And you’re right, I’m not asking for proof because I think there is a small chance you’re right. I’m asking because I know you can’t prove it.

Right . Exactly.

Prove her wrong then?

Why are you happy to keep coming back arguing the toss with us, but won’t provided the evidence that will actually win the argument?

I genuinely wish that a TRA could come up with anything at all resembling a logical argument. Because it's far easier to counter an argument based on an agreed premise. So I wish they would just say, openly and honestly 'Male rights are more important than female rights'. Many many people in the world would agree with this. So let's just discuss it openly. Rather than the bizarre obfuscation about biological sex not existing or mattering or whatever.

I see we have an example of "operation let them speak" in progress. 😁

I’m not making any point about what race they ‘should’ be, or saying that art should never be progressive (my favourite stage show is avowedly progressive, for example).

In my five minutes of research about the Little Mermaids remake, various changes have been made in the remake that fit the definition of progressivism, and group-based progressivism specifically, to me.

The PP was asking whether the movie fits the woke description or not. My view is that it does in some quite central aspects of woke. I don’t think it fits the whole bill though, as I can’t see anything authoritarian about it or necessarily CSJ inspired.

It appears we have reached an impasse.

And we agree. I am certain in my convictions and nothing will change them other than scientific proof.

This.

i don't think that's really all that odd when you consider how political boudaries have shifted.

People who were on the left 40 years ago or more were typically understanding parties like Labour to be looking out for working class interests.

Those same parties now are looking out for the interests of the professional MC. The right has taken up many of the traditional WC issues and with them, the WC voters,