Woke / Bigot / Snowflake / Gammon / Racist / Karen etc

[Iwanttoliveinagardencentre]

The polarisation of our society does no good for anyone and these terms are thrown around in the media and have become part of everyday conversation.

We need to think about the damage done when describing people a way which encourages tribalism and division.

You can make your point without these labels. We need to be able to agree to disagree again.

Language matters.

If you care about the climate you part of the wokerati.
If you don’t think humans can change sex you are a bigot.
If you are concerned about immigration you are a racist.
If you object to something you think is rude you are a pearl clutcher.
If something offends you which someone else decides is not offensive enough you are a snowflake.
If you are a woman who stands up for almost anything you are a Karen.

At the risk of coming over a bit John Lennon can we just fucking stop it?

Religion doesn't really help things either in terms of polarisation and tribalism

What is your concern?

Absolutely - your first example is racist.

But someone discussing the issues that net positive immigration causes is often incorrectly branded racist. It's a term that can be used to shut down conversation even when that conversation needs to be had.

Sadly, some people are more interested in labelling me a closet racist than looking at the point behind the thread.

For the record, racism exists. It is abhorrent.

It is however possible to raise concerns about something which involves people from other countries or cultures without being a racist.

Just as campaigning against climate change does not mean you care nothing for people who work in fossil fuel industries.

Or being a vegetarian doesn’t mean you hate meat eaters.

Or being a sex realist doesn’t make you a homophobe.

Labels and division. “Haters” as a noun. Scoring points.

None of it is helpful

Agreed OP. These words (although I agree with other posters that Racist shouldn’t be included) are thrown around so much they’ve lost their meaning, which is dangerous because people who truly are being bigoted, for example, end up getting free pass.

"it is however possible to raise concerns about something which involves people from other countries or cultures without being a racist."

Of course it is and I would never call someone who has concerns a racist, its how they express those concerns that may well be racist.

Meaning?

Way too complex to summarise in this thread on a Sunday morning! The gateway is often through sites and forums ostensibly about fitness and making money - things that many young men think will help them attract women but don't necessarily have guidance for. The underlying assumptions there are very much rooted in gender stereotypes - men have to be protectors and providers and those things are the essence of masculinity. Undoing rigid ideas of what real men/real women are is really important.

Interestingly and alarmingly I find a lot of rigid gender ideas that I'd only ever previously encountered in toxic male spaces on... Mumsnet. You can't move for biological essentialism and evolutionary psychology on here.

Unfortunately you will have to wait a while longer because I have a rule of not arguing with transphobes on here. As I implied earlier I'm here to find out why you think those things but I'm doing so while holding my nose and making a face, not interacting with you.

(Do you not think that men can be marginalised if they are gay, bi, from an ethnic minority, disabled or working class?)

I think its pretty clear, which part of my statment is causing you difficulty?

Well this is the problem isn’t it? There’s multiple definitions of racism and what constitutes it now. The dictionary, previously widely agreed definition, and for example the academic/ideological/identity definitions which are so often used to manipulate, and stymie discussion. Until we can agree on a definition and all the components that make up that definition we will struggle to connect and find a way to discuss without rancour. Additionally the bad faith framing of even the slightest divergence from certain preferred definitions by certain types, with certain political leanings/agendas, as “Hate!” means that useful discussion and a meeting of the minds is near impossible to reach.

I call racists racists and I have dear friends who are trans so I disagree with you on those two points.

Loving your content!
I want to hear more about this work on the manosphere, can you signpost to any sources?

Sadly, some people are more interested in labelling me a closet racist than looking at the point behind the thread.

Not really. Still agree with your general point. However, I think you only have a problem with what you have a problem with and not words in general being misused or overused.

I'm waiting for you to use a similar example on things you likely are part of and/or would use too but object to its "frequent use or misuse" (like sexist, misogynist, antisemitic, MRA, ableist, ageist, etc).

Also, I think you wouldn't double down and hold on to the word 'racist' in your list if that wasn't part of your main gripe. You'd easily discard it and focus on others not being objected to. I think you probably added others to fluff up your actual issue.

I could be wrong but so far, I don't think so.

I think the use of these terms gives a good insight into the callibre of person you are engaging with and the likelihood they will have anything of value to bring to the discussion. The moment someone resorts to a silly cliche to describe someone, I know they are incapable of debating the opinion expressed, and that their posts will likely add nothing to my understanding of the subject. On busy threads it's quite handy for weeding out the chaff.
I do think an element of tribalism is inevitable though. Human beings tend to make sense of their views in relation to those of others and its natural to seek and label our allies and opponants. It should be kept in our own heads though, not flung about in lieu of a compelling argument.

Politics, the media and social media are full of people having that conversation.

I note you're not having the conversation but complaining that you are unable to have the conversation.

I think the use of these terms gives a good insight into the callibre of person you are engaging with and the likelihood they will have anything of value to bring to the discussion

this, there are probably a few posts on this thread which could be used as an example depending on your point if view

Of course. That should have been obvious really, but I took the OP's post at face value.

Sadly, some people are more interested in labelling me a closet racist than looking at the point behind the thread

I've just reread the whole thread.

I can't see anyone labelling you as a closet racist. Would you care to point out who has and where?

Interesting discussion.
I've often wondered about the term 'woke'. Whilst I have heard it defined as having originated from 1950's American civil rights (correct me if wrong) and in relation to the environment I have never heard anyone really talk about it much regarding spirituality.

This may be the fact that spiritual types are meditating gently in the background whilst observing all the chaos...but there is a connection there too. We (myself and very many others) are on a journey of spiritual awakening so it seems like a slight on this.

Some years ago I taught a group where a chap in the class described the clothes I was wearing as 'woke' and then I started to hear the term more and more. It was a real surprise to me that something that seems so positive i.e. the opening of your mind and greater consciousness and awareness could be perceived negatively. Prior to this there was much less judgement. A conspiracy theorist I guess, might say, at least in terms of being spiritually awake, someone, somewhere would benefit from people not being so. I certainly think it's strange.

I have to say I am with Kathy Burke on the matter.

Okay, but this is where the nuance comes in.

I would describe myself as being concerned about the handling of immigration in this country, the lack of action on the things driving it (lack of skilled workers in the UK, climate change in other countries, conflict in other countries etc). I would not describe myself as concerned about immigration because in itself this is a very natural human behaviour and has been since the beginning of time. It’s like saying “I’m concerned about the weather”.

In what ways would you describe that immigration concerns you?

I am concerned about how immigration is potentially affecting our economy here I.e. lack of skilled workers coming in, them taking priority over British nationals for housing, healthcare, education etc. I am concerned by the crime that has and can be committed by asylum seekers, particularly men who are waiting to be vetted and processed. I am also concerned about how it can affect local communities.

On the other hand, immigration is good and necessary when we are thinking about employing our NHS, social care, engineering etc industries in need.

I am a fan of controlled and properly managed immigration. And I’d also like for people from other countries to be respectful of British qualities and values, and attempt to integrate with existing communities.

I, myself am third generation immigrant and I am of mixed race.

It isn't easy to have a proper debate when slang is thrown around will-nilly. I find that when people cannot back up their position with evidence, nastiness ensues.

Wasn’t John Lennon abusive to his partners? Can remember if it was verbally/emotionally/physically etc, I’d have to look it up.