Can someone point me to a working definition/analysis of "Wokeism" as used in the rationalist/rationalist-adjacent memeplex? I've mostly encountered the term as a conservative/reactionary screed against anything at all and the closest to a definition I've come across is the one given by lawyers defending a Republican politician in court, which was something along the lines of "raising awareness to systemic causes for discrimination" or some such.
I don't know how everyone else uses it. I absorb a lot of American media, but haven't actually been in the US since I was 5 years old. My experience of people using the term "woke" is adjacent to my experience of people using the term "libtard" amd "snowflake". But at least I know what those terms mean. Libtard is a derogatory term for left leaning liberals that calls out how stupid their unworkable policies are and how their very worldview doesn't make sense (in the eyes of the person using the term). Snowflake comments on someone feeling "special" and on their fragility both. So it's perfect on the one hand for people who "make up" their minority identity and for people who get easily offended or triggered.
I read both those articles. The first one wasn't helpful at all. It seems to be directed towards disingenuous people that don't require an explanation but to be hit over the head and called out for their lies.
The second article was a bit better. It actually describes and explains something. Not something I have really experienced in person, but again, not in the US. But it sounds more like it describes negative traits of a broader movement than anything any member of said movement (or any complete outsider) can recognize as policy that they should or shouldn't pursue. I would be able to describe what I mean when I use words like "Christian", "moderate", "conservative", "progressive", "environmentalist", "rationalist", "liberal", "vegan" and "reactionary" in just a few sentences. But even after reading the article you linked I feel I know more about why people are fed up with then than what they actually are and what they actually stand for. Is it just "academic progressivism with an emphasis on language but gone too far"? But if "gone too far" is an important factor in making something woke, how far is that? And if it's academic nature is important, how do you call someone who seems woke except for being uneducated?
But okay. According to the link the word is used to describe something very real and problematic. I'm not going to dispute that. I sure have seen the behavior described in the individual points and it sure was annoying and frustrating. I just haven't ever come face to face with a movement that is all this all the time. I only have seen people online being accused of having said something "woke" and whether I agreed with the "woke" statement varied. Thus my question here.
Still, using the definition of the second article, I struggle fully understanding your own use of the word in your own article. It seems more like a breakdown of discourse culture and a widespread misuse of progressive ideas in dysfunctional than a description of the core of an ideology or ersatz-religion.
I'd be curious how Freddie deBoer would have described it if he were challenged to steelman his eight points. It seems like that would have given me some more insight.
I was entirely unaware of Cafe Rio (they don't have a presence in the north east). Curious how they are blue tribe coded. The only thing I could find in my admittedly cursory search was this ad campaign, which is maybe poking fun at a red coded fear of change, but that my be just reading too much into it: https://www.waypointfilms.com/dir-cafe-rio
Can someone point me to a working definition/analysis of "Wokeism" as used in the rationalist/rationalist-adjacent memeplex? I've mostly encountered the term as a conservative/reactionary screed against anything at all and the closest to a definition I've come across is the one given by lawyers defending a Republican politician in court, which was something along the lines of "raising awareness to systemic causes for discrimination" or some such.
I use it the same way everyone else does TBH, I don't think rationalists have a special definition. Freddie covers it pretty well
https://web.archive.org/web/20230404013511/https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tell-me-what
https://web.archive.org/web/20230404013504/https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/of-course-you-know-what-woke-means
I don't know how everyone else uses it. I absorb a lot of American media, but haven't actually been in the US since I was 5 years old. My experience of people using the term "woke" is adjacent to my experience of people using the term "libtard" amd "snowflake". But at least I know what those terms mean. Libtard is a derogatory term for left leaning liberals that calls out how stupid their unworkable policies are and how their very worldview doesn't make sense (in the eyes of the person using the term). Snowflake comments on someone feeling "special" and on their fragility both. So it's perfect on the one hand for people who "make up" their minority identity and for people who get easily offended or triggered.
I read both those articles. The first one wasn't helpful at all. It seems to be directed towards disingenuous people that don't require an explanation but to be hit over the head and called out for their lies.
The second article was a bit better. It actually describes and explains something. Not something I have really experienced in person, but again, not in the US. But it sounds more like it describes negative traits of a broader movement than anything any member of said movement (or any complete outsider) can recognize as policy that they should or shouldn't pursue. I would be able to describe what I mean when I use words like "Christian", "moderate", "conservative", "progressive", "environmentalist", "rationalist", "liberal", "vegan" and "reactionary" in just a few sentences. But even after reading the article you linked I feel I know more about why people are fed up with then than what they actually are and what they actually stand for. Is it just "academic progressivism with an emphasis on language but gone too far"? But if "gone too far" is an important factor in making something woke, how far is that? And if it's academic nature is important, how do you call someone who seems woke except for being uneducated?
But okay. According to the link the word is used to describe something very real and problematic. I'm not going to dispute that. I sure have seen the behavior described in the individual points and it sure was annoying and frustrating. I just haven't ever come face to face with a movement that is all this all the time. I only have seen people online being accused of having said something "woke" and whether I agreed with the "woke" statement varied. Thus my question here.
Still, using the definition of the second article, I struggle fully understanding your own use of the word in your own article. It seems more like a breakdown of discourse culture and a widespread misuse of progressive ideas in dysfunctional than a description of the core of an ideology or ersatz-religion.
I'd be curious how Freddie deBoer would have described it if he were challenged to steelman his eight points. It seems like that would have given me some more insight.
I was entirely unaware of Cafe Rio (they don't have a presence in the north east). Curious how they are blue tribe coded. The only thing I could find in my admittedly cursory search was this ad campaign, which is maybe poking fun at a red coded fear of change, but that my be just reading too much into it: https://www.waypointfilms.com/dir-cafe-rio
You can tell if you go into one tbh. It's not like Chick-Fil-A advertises as Red either
Podcast AI Narration of this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/askwhocastsai/p/pragmatists-guide-to-crafting-religion-dfc?r=67y1h&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true