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.

Allegedly. There hasn't been a trial.

If the only rapes that really happened were the ones that were tried and convicted, what a safe world we women and girls would live in.

It wasn't rape, it was attempted and you're assuming guilt before a trial. However I don't imagine you're interested in due process or human rights so it's a waste of time engaging with you.

I can answer in what way you are fighting an imaginary foe.

You've imputed all those positions to OP when she hasn't advanced any of them. You've then set up the straw-man that she's arguing that you "aren't allowed" to strongly disagree with them. Again nowhere in her posts. Finally, you've sneered at her for thinking her view is worth a thread.

What you haven't done is engage with any of it.

What I can't answer is why you are fighting an imaginary foe. I think it's a waste of your time though, and everyone else's.

I haven’t imputed these positions at all. These were the examples she gave of the opinions that we are not allowed because they are “out of touch” with “the mainstream”:

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

I think this was the Guardian columnist that did a piece that excused the cologne sexual attacks on the basis the male attackers were migrants who had hard lives and the victims were privileged and had mobile phones so deserved it. I can’t really move on from that.

That's highly unlikely but I'm happy to read the article if you have a link.

@Lostcat Yes, I can see that quote from the piece. But where's the bit where OP argues for:

i) be[ing] transphobic ;
ii) enforc[ing] the arbitrary and violent injustice of nation state borders;
iii) support[ing] a regime that has been enforcing apartheid for decades and is currently implementing genocide;

For that matter, where is the bit in which she:

iv) oppose[s] action drawing attention to the destruction of the planet which sustains all forms of life on earth.

Or says:

v) [you] are not allowed to strongly disagree with you on these points because it’s “out of touch” and “woke”?

It looks like a swing and miss on all five counts to me.

It's possible to have a more nuanced outlook. OP's main thrust is about how the progressive agenda has been advanced. I don't know her views on the topics above but she's not making that case.

You yourself recognised that this wasn't a post about the substantive issues (when you were attacking her for making a post at all), but then suddenly she's guilty of being on the wrong side of the issues when you want to attack her again for what she's posted.

The problem is not me created a "straw man", the problem is that people want to reserve the right to "debate" the legitimacy of trans existence, while pretending they have no problem with trans people.

They want to complain about immigration, while refusing to acknowledge the broader injustices at stake.

They want to oppose environmental activism while claiming to care about climate change.

They want to defend a regime committing genocide, without anyone using the word genocide.

They are also so entitled that they think it's the job of other people to persuade them to change their mind, instead of their own responsibility to behave in socially responsible ways.

I will continue to call this out for what it is - that's the most that I can do, and it doesn't mean I have blue-hair or a nose piercing.

That's highly unlikely but I'm happy to read the article if you have a link.

I remember the article too - it talked about privileged women with iphones.

But both can be true. Bigotry may very well become acceptable quickly again and Reform's appeal can also be a reaction to the excesses you mention.

See my post above regarding how quotes map*.

Regarding this:

You yourself recognised that this wasn't a post about the substantive issues (when you were attacking her for making a post at all), but then suddenly she's guilty of being on the wrong side of the issues when you want to attack her again for what she's posted.

It was a post where she was mocking people for holding certain positions - examples of which she then listed. She wasn't engaging with them substantively in the sense that she did not present any arguments for or against, she simply mocked people who had them and declared they were "out of touch" and "woke" (and had blue hair and piercings)

I certainly didn't "attack her" for starting a thread - how inflammatory. I just pointed out the irony in OP thinking she had some kind of excellent or novel point when it's one of the most pervasive and tired tropes out there at the moment.

*"people want to reserve the right to "debate" the legitimacy of trans existence, while pretending they have no problem with trans people.
They want to complain about immigration, while refusing to acknowledge the broader injustices at stake.
They want to oppose environmental activism while claiming to care about climate change.
They want to defend a regime committing genocide, without anyone using the word genocide.
They are also so entitled that they think it's the job of other people to persuade them to change their mind, instead of their own responsibility to behave in socially responsible ways."
There are those of us to consider these things deeply disingenuous and hypocritical and will continue to say so!

God, the amount of gaslighty, alt-right shite on this site is really ramping at the moment.

Wokeismm doesn't exist. It's a label thrown around by the right to poke at anyone who cares about anything.

If you're offended by other people having a moral compass, that's on you.

Also, fuck right off.

I am glad the article appears in the Guardian. I used to be a member, just as I used to call myself 'left wing'. My views haven't changed - for eg I still dont think that privatisation of industry, rail etc was a good thing; I dont believe in a totally libertarian market economy; I do not agree with the power of global corporations over governments and tax regimes etc., I have campaigned for the environment for decades and donated funds.
However, I also know that males cannot be allowed to use females' sex-based rights if females are to have any hope of taking a full and equal role in society. That apparently make me 'right wing' by some accounts of 'wokeism'. Which makes 'right' and 'left' utterly meaningless.
And I frankly can't for the life of me think why fighting for male access to female spaces, jobs and prizes is at all 'woke'.

Firstly, OP didn't advance any of those positions in her post, so I think your time would be better spent debating people who have or do.

Also, I do think people have "the right" to advance the positions you outline. If they do, I'll agree with them in some bits and disagree with them in others.

Advancing positions not shared by Lostcat is not acting 'entitled'. You don't have to take up 'the job' of debating them, but if you don't then you can't really complain when positions you disagree with advance.

Fundamentally, I think the outlook you are showing here is authoritarian.

Fuck right off yourself. Let me see poking fun at something v physical violence against a woman. 🤔

Sorry but there’s so much silliness in this post that it’s hard to respond to seriously. I don’t know how many people you think make up a ‘horde’ but I’m struggling to think of a time I’ve ever even seen one blue-haired person, and I say that as someone who is fairly regularly in academic and queer spaces. They’re not exactly rampaging through Sainsbury’s, are they?

It’s sort of unclear whether what offends you is certain viewpoints and tactics or just the blue hair and nose piercings in and of themselves? Are you equally offended by people who support causes you don’t agree with but don’t have blue hair or nose piercings? If they have blue hair and nose piercings but regularly read the Daily Mail, from which you seem to get most of your talking points, then are they ok? ‘Captured the elites’ you mean convinced people of their arguments? Can you be a bit more specific about which elites you have in mind? I’m going to take a wild guess that academia is in there somewhere, which feels sort of tragically hilarious as I look at the sea of low pay, precarious contracts and overwork around me. If you’re really interested in elites maybe take a look at the people who own the newspapers you read.

’Woke is a bit of a vague term’ yes you don’t say. I think you should take a bit of a look at the ways it gets used around the internet, and be more concerned about the people and viewpoints you’re associating yourself with when you use it.

Unfortunately I remember that too…

I didn't understand much of this.

If you would like to debate any of the issues, I am happy to.

I am nothing if not anti-authoritarian.

Perhaps you could explain to me how engaging in this mumsnet thread with posts that you apparently find provocative is showing an "authoritarian" "outlook"?

I'm happy to read the article if you have a link.

There’s a bit more nuance but it still doesn’t read that well:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve

I also remember a poster saying I was lying that there were any Cologne attacks at all.

Many thanks, I already read it. Quite a bit different to the description.

Perhaps you could explain to me how engaging in this mumsnet thread with posts that you apparently find provocative is showing an "authoritarian" "outlook"?

Certainly. I'll try to keep it simpler too.

Your post starts with a complaint that "people want to reserve the right to" and then goes on to list various positions.

That's a complaint about people seeking a right to advance positions in ways that Lostcat disagrees with. It's a right I support and that you are opposing.

You then describe as "entitled" the idea that if others want them to change their mind they should seek to persuade them.

You instead think it's "their own responsibility" to desist from these positions you disagree with.

That is not a liberal outlook. A liberal is someone who sees value in a pluralistic society where issues are settled in debate, and prizes the right to hold and advance a wide range of views. Including (or especially) views the person disagrees with.

An authoritarian outlook is one that opposes it.

@ThatNimblePeer

I have been very clear and addressed your points.

Why are you all so riled about the "nose-pierced, blue-haired", when you call so freely people fascists, Karens, gammons etc? Because it stings when it's done to you? Exactly. That is why we need for rules that applies to everyone in every circumstance, independently of the character or the views of the person who does it. That is why democracy was invented. To go beyond sliding insults at each other and beating up political opponents.

And it applies to absolutely everyone, even the gammons, the karens, the rightwings, even TR (as long as what is said and done is legal) or it is not fair, nor a democracy.

It’s sort of unclear whether what offends you is certain viewpoints and tactics or just the blue hair and nose piercings in and of themselves?

I have been so clear I actually used BOLD, please go re-read that paragraph.
It is not about the ideals defended, it is about the tactics used and their very low ethics/intellect. I will not engage with the rest of your obfuscating questions trying to make me justify every syllable of my opinion and being, because there are very clear comprehension issues on your side that are outside my abilities.

Keep thinking, take a deep breath, keep having a lovely day,

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve