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.

The “no nation states” position. How does that work then? So anyone can go anywhere. Fine. But if hundreds of millions all travelled to the most economically-beneficial “nations” then that’s the end of many of the societal privileges that those trumpeting for this currently enjoy.

"Startlingly" is such a key word isn't it. It sums up the woke brigade - they literally cannot understand how anyone can disagree with them or hold an alternative view. For them there are no other perspectives, no nuance, no leeway, theirs is the only 'right' way. Idealogical possession at it's strongest.

Would you say the same if the alleged attempted racists were white British males?
If you would then fair enough.

For balance, I also think the protestors are hypocrites if they only protest against immigrants being rapists. Why aren’t they out on the street when British men rape too? The fact they’re using the attempted rape of this girl to protest against immigration and not the crime itself leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth

Interesting that the posts selling women down the river are merely proving the author's point.

Of course I would. I believe in innocent until proved guilty. I don't naturally assume that someone accused of a crime has done it.

Yet you had no problem believing a poster was lying about the treatment of the women in Cologne.

You do like to make things up. Its quite amusing.

You said you found it hard to believe.

This thread has veered in all sorts of directions but the premise of the original article is interesting, regardless of whether you agree with or support certain causes. Namely, that the Overton window appears to be shifting again, or didn’t shift for many in the first place.

What's hard to believe pinochio?

Pointless trying to discuss with those exhibiting juvenile behaviour. That's the left for you.

Oh dear. Realised you're wrong, again?

Yup. Always the same signs: get angry, be patronising and sneery, throw the lazy labels out, be childish. Got the whole lot on this thread. It's as though Gaby Hinsliff had these posters all in mind.

Was this you @miloMinderbinder925 or not? You made an assumption before you had even read the piece.

Yes, I said it was highly unlikely the author said that women were sexually assaulted for having mobile phones. I was correct, the author didn't say that.

How is that:

believing a poster was lying about the treatment of the women in Cologne.

Does the author have to have said those exact words? Your first reaction was to have believed excuses weren't made for the perpetrators. Now why is that, if you reckon you like to be objective?

I find the insults amusing, they really do make their own point. But what's going to be even funnier is the next general election.

I know the author, having read the Guardian for years. She wouldn't say something so bloody ridiculous.

I bet you're ecstatic at the circus finally coming to town.

This article is interesting and I broadly agree with the premise. Ultimately the absolutism of the woke left has alienated the majority of the population. As we live in a democracy then this is a big problem for them.

I feel like social media has played a huge role in all of this. So many people essentially live in an echo chamber where they are served up content that matches their ideological views. They begin to believe that almost everyone thinks like them apart from some evil people that are morally to reprehensible. They have no idea that the masses actually don't agree with them and often for good reason. The world isn't black and white but all kinds of shades of grey. The population at large knows this but I think the woke left really struggle to comprehend this.

Exactly. I've got purple hair and a nose piercing. I'm not interested in engaging with people who use the sort of language and tone adopted by the OP. It's perfectly possible to have a debate without using a term like "wokeism" and without stereotyping and insulting people.

Read between the lines when she is quibbling about some victims not having had the valuables stolen, therefore arguing against those assaults being purely sexually motivated. Is this the same Hinsliff, who has written this latest balanced article, that has got lefties spinning?

I'm not interested in your desperate spin. She didn't say that women were assaulted because of phones. She didn't blame the women in any way or make excuses for the perpetrators.

I agree wholeheartedly. It’s so pathetic and small minded. I until recently was guilty of both ‘offences’ in question and I’m a responsible clinical professional. Stupid stereotypes, which reflects badly on OP.

You really aren't understanding it are you? Pointless.