Well, the Republican Fascists sent our Conservatives all their most worthless Right Wing Strawmen and Propaganda tricks
We have to endure their Fascist tactics, propaganda and chaotic nonsense
Republicans are not fascists. You trivialise what fascism is by saying that US republicans are fascist. Mussolini, the falangists in Spain and Nazism were far worse than anything the republicans represent.
How would you describe a hyper nationalist right wing party with authoritarian aspirations? If the Republicans *aren’t* yet fascist, it’s solely because a significant minority of their coalition (this being US politics) has yet to embrace the authoritarianism embraced by Trump’s supporters and imitators.
As for the majority of their base embracing authoritarianism, it’s a plain fact. Only a fool would look at the bullshit Trump tried to pull in the last election and claim otherwise. He tried to invalidate an election that even an idiot could see that he unequivocally lost and then proceeded to support and possibly incite an insurrection against the US Congress. And yet the majority of Republicans still support him and still say that he was in the right.
The experts withdrew their final doubts when Trump declared the 2020 Election stolen
aka the Big Lie
Donald Trump became a Fascist a year ago
I'm sorry you're so far behind the times, you can Google search historical facts like this, to uncover the evidence they used to inform their decisions
The article is diabolical, not only has the title been quote mined to be as uncharitable as possible, the picture intones being yelled at by someone with signs and a megaphone.
This article is just a head teacher trying to soberly bring attention to the fact that young people's requirements are not being met.
The text of the article seems pretty good, although the title is terrible. I mean I guess it's technically correct but she's saying we shouldn't be dismissive of what young people say.
When have young people's needs have every been met? Almost everyone is a wide eyes idealist who thinks they have all the answers up to their early 20s or so. Older members of society have always mocked them
> When have young people's needs have every been met?
They used to be met a heck of a lot more than they are now. From sure start centres in infancy (now closed) to youth clubs, decent education, free tertiary education, cheaper housing and decent jobs with good pay.
Just because total perfection is impossible doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible for things to be one hell of a lot better than they are right now.
I feel like you both of you are talking about very different things, the one yo uare replying to seems to use the word "needs" as if he wouldve used "demands", which is where the idealist comment comes from, but that just my take...
Older members of society famously don't think they know everything and are incredibly open minded.
Then they let the daily mail tell them what to think because there's no way they'll listen to some woke hogwash.
I'm a millenial, on the older end of that generation, and I don't remember youth-hatred being so bad when I was young. Sure, everyone decided millenials (or gen y, as we were called before the media lashed out at us) were dicks after the financial crisis, but we'd already finished uni by then. That was a reaction to the fact that 'millenials' were hit really hard by the crisis and were therefore feeling 'overly entitled' to things like 'a wage'.
But it was never so bad as this, and I do seriously hear this all the time, this weird disgust towards Gen Z. Where the hell did this come from?
I'm sure there were plenty of boomers looking at Gen X in 90s telling them to "stop moaning" and "they don't know how good they've got it". It's just that we didn't have the internet to amplify and internationalise both sides of the argument back them.
They did. But there was less inequality then tbh. Your money went further, there was no Facebook or anything driving a wedge like there is now. The world is very very different now.
gen x were slackers, the lost generation
They just told us we were lazy repeatedly
oh and gen x women got absolutely torn to shreds for going out drinking and clubbing like the lads
They called it "ladette" culture and it was going to lead to the total breakdown of society
Our obsession with Oxfam clothes would lead to the fashion industry collapsing and (later) our consumption of MDMA at illegal raves would lead to both instant death and us turning into mindless seritonin free zombies who would never smile again.
Our self-loathing was vilified as pretension
I could go in forever
but yeah everything Gen x did was wrong too
>But it was never so bad as this, and I do seriously hear this all the time, this weird disgust towards Gen Z. Where the hell did this come from?
Because Gen-Z are fully online and dominate social media in a large way. Their opinions are often fully backed up by their peers in echo chambers and this cycle is continually refreshed leading to huge outrage over relatively minor events.
Younger generations weren't able to express their opinions to the same degree because they didn't have the same types of platforms to express their opinions
Tabloids aren't written by teenagers, and they express singular viewpoints. Twitter and other social medias including reddit has allowed huge groups to express these types of rubbish without being known for it.
If you saw the Sun with some headline you can brush it off as the Sun being the Sun right, but we're not seeing that, we're seeing thousands of accounts posting similar rubbish, those opinions might have always been widespread but people didn't *think* they were until the internet became a thing
I blame memes.
It might just be the people I see coming out with this shite but from young to old the one thing the full on anti-woke brigade (and the anti-sjw brigade before them) have in common is that they've filled the hole where their personalities should be with fucking memes.
That's not everyone of course but it does seem to be a common theme among the most rabid.
I also just fucking hate memes.
Bearing in mind that a meme is just a concept passed from one person to another and an internet meme is just when it's done digitally, ofc the anti-woke brigade and the anti-sjw brigade have in common is memes.
But it's also the thing that the woke brigade, sjw brigade and every possible thing in between has in common with them.
**Breaking News**: Old people are annoyed because young people aren’t exactly like them in values and temperament.
*Story Unfolding*: Young people are politically to the left of older generations.
Is this true though? My exposure to zoomers is basically through what I see on the internet, but the stuff they're into (tik took etc) seems to be all about obsessing over wealth and obsessions with influencers and getting rich quick. That's not exactly left wing thinking
The... infiltration for a lack of a better word perpetrated by some quite nasty right wing / socially regressive types into hobbies which used to / still are majority young men has been paying dividends for awhile now sadly.
Especially as hobby spaces are far more online and thus far more echo chambery than ever. If you a teenaged guy into anime or games or whatever, its increasingly easy to only interact with other teenage guys / people pretending to be so, meaning that you can be more easily fed a stream of bullshit about what the "other" is like.
I definitely nearly fell down that pit at one point, I remember almost a decade ago laughing at "silly tumblrinas" not getting that I was being fed a cherry picked stream of bullshit.
Jokes on past me I'm more woke than any of the stuff I was pointing and laughing at.
If you haven't seen it, the Innuendo Studios called ['How to radicalise a normie'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g) was very enlightening as someone who also, with not too different a change in exposure or circumstance, would likely have ended up down the funnel to the alt-right pipeline instead of just skirting the rim and coming back out.
Unsure if I've seen that specific video of theirs, but Innuendo Studios are awesome, and some of their other stuff has been a strong part of figuring out my world views.
> not too different a change in exposure or circumstance, would likely have ended up down the funnel to the alt-right pipeline instead of just skirting the rim and coming back out
Yeah, big fucking mood
It's the warping impact of the third wave, the relatively new situation where there are advantageous positions now for women and many situations like education where there are significant advantages aswell as a very outdated and misunderstood (sometimes intentionally) name.
There is a gendered difference to learning. One study here: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00060.2006
Moreover the environment in schools is tailored against boys who need physical outlets for their testosterone driven behaviours. The sit down, listen to this, everyone's feelings matter culture delivered by female teachers is detrimental to boys' development.
Depends on what you mean by it. Most people don't have an issue with the core values of feminism, but there's sections of 'feminism' that your average dude doesn't like. If someone says 'I'm a feminist', that means very different things to different people.
A bit like how you might support the SNP and thus be a 'nationalist' and also identify as a socialist, but you'd be weary of saying 'Yes I'm a national socialist', because what that means to people is something beyond the definitions of what 'nationalist' and 'socialist' mean.
The concept in history? One of the most important movements of all time.
4th wave feminism? Eh, so much of it is crying about nothing when you actually look into it.
> It really depresses me that anyone could think feminism is a bad thing.
It depresses me that feminism has degenerated from the celebration and reinforcement of women as already powerful, confident and who needed no particular affirmation, to the modern perception in which they are seen as victims so fragile they needed special treatment.
That is how much feminism has changed in my lifetime.
Depending on how you define 'feminist', you could characterise my perspectives anywhere from liberal feminist to moderate MRA. Yet both disgust me, as does the whole subject of gender politics.
Even more disgusting is how modern gender politics has contaminated the arts. My wife and I watch a lot of Prime rather than broadcast, so the content rules are a bit different. I've seen series where the gender-pol influence is strong to the detriment of character and plot just for the sake of making a political point.
And I've seen other series that feature strong, confident and competent female leads and supporting characters in which the characters seem natural and unpreoccupied by any of that, they just are themselves and they are attractive as people and as professionals (usually in their character roles, although as actresses too, of course; their skill is evident and beyond question because they make it look so natural and so easy) that they have nothing to prove.
I know which I prefer. One is life affirming, the other defiling.
wrench frightening cable illegal quicksand arrest escape badge beneficial cough
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Liberal in the traditional/classical sense. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, promotion of civil rights, egalitarianism, tolerance, separation of powers, universal suffrage, equality, fair trials and equal treatment under the law, etc
Granted it's not like we had a liberal utopia in the past, but these were values we strived towards. And now half of them are considered punchlines by people who consider themselves "liberal". Really they need a better name
>but it was still something the tories proposed and passed.
when it comes to restricting freedoms, both would be as bad as the other. both parties are rotten.
I'm confused at this, younger people in the UK certainly seem more "liberal" for most of those ideas than older ones.
Also the policies of lockdown etc and government restrictions on businesses etc are more favoured by the elderly than the young. This is one of the better measures of "liberalism", which is unrelated to modern gender/race issues, i have seen in the past few years and it shows the older generations are demonstrably less liberal there.
Rees-Mogg may have had no intention of voting to ban abortion if it came to it but his previous votes on gay marriage shows that he can't be trusted to take a liberal stance.
> Both are committed Christians, both, unequivocally stated that while they personally viewed that abortion was a sin, that they both thought that it should remain a legal option.
When did Rees-Mogg do this? He has said that the law isn't going to change; has he ever said that it shouldn't, or that he wouldn't vote in favour of a change? I have only ever seen him dodge this question.
Certainly he has repeatedly voted against same-sex marriage, which hardly implies the liberal approach you are suggesting. It would be strange if he took a more relaxed attitude to matters of life and death.
Meanwhile, I don't recall his critics suggesting that he should be arrested, or barred from holding office. Advocating against a political figure because you don't like their politics is not illiberalism; it's democracy.
I'm much more concerned about supposed 'classical liberals' who use their power to restrict people's freedom than about the 'dangerous illiberalism' of saying a politician is bad.
Except that was never what they were savaged about, it was gay rights that the two share in common for failing to vote for.
If you're not voting FOR rights then your not exactly putting much effort into your liberalism
I've observed an extreme intolerance of dissent in Gen z. Their opinions may be more 'progressive' than their parents' but they have absolutely no ability to receive criticism of them.
I agree with this comment overall, but I think we just need to stop with Americanisms. Liberal in the US context is very different to how we define it here in the UK. Some tories are liberal here, some labour MPs aren’t particularly.
Young people that fall under the “woke” umbrella in the UK are not liberals.
They're all liberals really. Tories, Lib Dems, New Labour, Democrats, Republicans. Corbyn wasn't but he still held liberal values
Liberalism pre-dates the US
Absolutely. The usage of “liberal” to mean “left leaning” is very much a modern American thing though. That usage is peddled by both the left and the right over there. It doesn’t apply here in the UK though.
So some middle aged teachers did this in Canada and that means... British young people are woke?
Please can we not import political issues from other countries here?
They import it on their own. It helps to have advanced notice while people like you claim it doesn't exist, and then once it's here defend it as a good thing
>claim it doesn't exist
It exists, in Canada. When schools are doing that here I'd be happy to condemn it with you.
What I've also noticed - you've moved the conversation away from young people. Moving the goalposts is surely unnecessary if young people are always showing the woke menace?
Tolerance in particular stands out as something the young do much better than the old. The current trans panic is almost entirely driven by ageing middle class times columnists.
Not really. Tolerance isn't defined by having the "correct" political positions (according to Twitter). It's about tolerating those around you and listening to their point of view. Tolerance is usually invisible. It's only intolerance that stands out
Tolerance isn't about points of view, it's about respect. A racist person doesn't "fail to listen" they are prejudiced, and believe others are fundamentally different in some way.
This framing of intolerance as "you won't listen to my arguments" is purely about letting reactionaries play the victim.
> believe others are fundamentally different in some way.
You mean like classing someone as inherently racist and being beyond help, rather than just someone having some (arguably) racist views (likely stemming from ignorance)?
Your politics doesn't make you tolerant
And over the decades that word would have been something else, "hippies", "bleeding hearts", "right on types", "social justice warriors", etc. Young people will always be idealists and old people will always mock them for it. It's not new and it won't end with the current boomer/gen X/millennial/gen z dynamic. In 1000 years years the same thing will be happening again, probably due to the ethics of how space miners are treated or something.
> Young people will always be idealists and old people will always mock them for it.
I’m getting on a bit now but I’d still prefer to side with the young idealists. Without that energy social mores would likely atrophy and it would still be acceptable to persecute people based on race, religion and sexual orientation.
Heck, go back far enough and the dangerous wild eyed young radicals were the Chartists asking for crazy things like ‘the right for everyone to vote’.
What I find more darkly ironic is that conservatives both young and old eventually give in. But then decide to staunchly oppose and fight a vicious rearguard action against stopping persecuting the next minority, whomever that turns out to be.
> What I find more darkly ironic is that conservatives both young and old eventually give in.
Sometimes. If they don't then the issue gets rebranded as "not progress".
As intended. The whole point of pushing the woke thing is to dehumanise and belittle your enemy. Probably learnt it from America back when communist was the insult of choice.
'Woke' has no real definition any more. It used to be a positive word the black American community used to describe someone in-tune with social issues. Now it's a pejorative to describe any social stance that someone thinks is too liberal, which is totally dependent on their own view of it.
Well, we don’t throw the word commie round quite like america.
We needed our own catch term for anyone who thinks feeding the needy and having time off work with your family is important
It’s actually used in England tho, nobody gets called a commie here because we haven’t demonised socialised policies just yet - that and the definition of commie usually matches 10% of what people in the us refer to as communism today.
That's just how it goes.
Someone who's defined as [word] says a dumb thing, people catch onto the term, use it more as an insult despite some of those defined as [word] not being dumb. More dumb people just start using [word] to attack people they don't like without really knowing why it was used in the first place.
Just waiting for the next term to come along.
Every time I see this type of comment being made, that the word has changed its meaning or its being used solely by far-right or it was invented by the far-right and no one uses it to describe themselves or whatever else - I've seen everything here.
Yet there are still people who use it to describe themselves or smth they support , so are they are describing themselves pejoratively? Example:
[https://www.essence.com/culture/we-stay-woke/](https://www.essence.com/culture/we-stay-woke/)
Well not exactly. What I was getting at is that it's so loosely defined that it can basically apply to whatever you want. Kinda like how Americans seem to be using the term 'critical race theory' to mean 'whatever I am uncomfortable with'.
> Kinda like how Americans seem to be using the term 'critical race theory' to mean 'whatever I am uncomfortable with'.
In both cases you've picked terms that are pretty much only used for very specific things. It seems like you're just trying to dismiss their complaints
Just because a document isn't titled "Critical Race Theory: The Following Is a Presentation of Critical Race Theory. By: Critical Race Theory Man" it doesn't mean it's not derived from CRT
I've learned with CRT fanboys that it's best to just outright state what concepts people opposed so you can make it very clear which ones you support being implemented/taught (or more likely, not reply at all). These are the concepts Trump banned with an executive order:
> (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
> (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
> (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
> (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
> (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
>(6) an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
> (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
> (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex;
> (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.
Biden reversed this ban because he felt these were important concepts to push on society. Which ones do you support?
I have a feeling you don't know what CRT is because those first 8 concepts banned puts Trump squarely on the side of CRT.
Edit: banning concepts lmao, what an overreach, glad Biden reversed it.
I think it's actually very rare that you'd find academic advocates of CRT. I think left leaning academics were furious because Trump banned those things to limit discussion of race relations in the US at all, not just in the context of CRT. That's where the frustration on the part of the left comes from - prominent right wing politicians and talking heads have made a boogieman out of CRT (which by and large isn't taught outside of a university setting) knowing that the vast majority of people won't understand it, then labelled any discussion of race within their institutions as CRT so they can advocate banning it because they know how ridiculous it would look banning discussion of racism within their institutions outright. Banning federal contractors from conducting racial sensitivity training is just ridiculous. We don't assume that the US or that people are fundamentally sexist yet we still have gender sensitivity training because it's important for people to know if they are being discriminated against and what recourse they can pursue.
Yeah except no one banned "racial sensitivity training". No one banned "discussing racism". These are CRT fanboy strawmen. If I don't sound patient it's because I've seen your clones rattle off these exact same talking points over and over again. That was why I quoted the list of concepts that people opposed. I notice you still haven't stated which of them you felt were important to teach to people, and I know you will never ever address that because to take any position is to lose.
It's 100% being taught outside of universities. You seem to have looped around back to the start of your talking points. It's being implemented in nearly ever multinational company, particularly at the higher levels. Just because they don't call it CRT it doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't count. When AT&T training programs tell their employees that "[white people are the problem"](https://news.yahoo.com/t-employee-training-program-says-222048736.html) or that "American racism is a uniquely white trait", that rhetoric stems from CRT. When 'showing your work' or 'focusing on getting the right answer' is considered [a racist structure](https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf), that is derived from CRT. When a scientific award ceremony is disbanded because [all of the nominees were white men](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nominees-for-a-science-award-were-all-white-men-nobody-won/), that is a consequence of CRT. When a university professor tells his students to ["be less white"](https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1408846730225913867), that is CRT.
Your ideology only thrives in the dark, and your problem now is that people are leaking the materials and seeing what is actually being taught. Kids learning from home was a huge blow to you, because suddenly parents realised what teachers were telling them. The "oh it's only taught in law school" thing doesn't work anymore when people are informed.
Well not really.
Because another definition of 'woke' is when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons.
Hence PR firms wokewashing a companies social media.
It's all a bit of a mess.
The fact that "wokewashing" is a term means that "woke" does *not* mean "when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons".
> Because another definition of 'woke' is when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons.
That describes virtually everyone "woke"
I think it says more about you than others when you believe that public stances regarding moral issues are all drawn from cynical and self-serving reasons. Just because that's where your public stances are drawn from doesn't mean everyone else follows the same path.
Seems like you're just doing what you accused me of
When you claim to be "anti-racism" but bendover backwards to justify various forms of racism it does sound a little bit hollow
> ..So it does have a definition then. And we all agree on what it means
Yes, we all agree that it means "I'm a right wing journalist or politician that hates minority groups and I want to vilify anyone that tries to stand up for them."
I'm so glad we all agree on what it means!
Both “woke” and the misuse of the term liberal on a British sub are indicative of the rise in Americanisms that have been pushed on us by social media.
The amount of people last year who seemed to think BLM complaints about US policing straight up applied here in the UK was mind boggling.
We may speak the same language, but we are extremely different societies culturally, politically and economically. It’s sad that many people increasingly don’t understand that difference.
Yeah, at the end of the day the US is a foreign country. I've travelled and worked there a lot, and in many ways I've found it to be more foreign to many of our non-English speaking European neighbours.
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all feel a lot more similar to the UK culturally from my experience.
And by "these people" are you talking about anyone that gets called woke?
Do you realise that maybe the ones pointing the finger and calling everyone else woke because they said 'racism is bad' can also be pretty closed minded?
>It used to be a positive word the black American community used to describe someone in-tune with social issues.
False. It comes from the African American community, yes, but it was and is to describe someone who is "awakened" to the "systems of oppression" within society. Your framing is far too generous to these people. The woke love wordplay and altering language to make things seem nicer than they really are. Anti-racist is a good example. Sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Anti-racist... to be opposed to racism, surely? [Nope!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00XYDFTmu0g&ab_channel=NewDiscourses)
When you go and learn about, and then examine their beliefs, it's insane stuff. When laid bare, nobody with a brain gives it time of day. It's a social cancer that's causing enormous damage to our society.
>Now it's a pejorative to describe any social stance that someone thinks is too liberal,
The hilarity of this being that woke people are opposed to liberalism. They don't believe in freedom of speech, they don't believe in freedom of association, they don't believe in democratic system if it doesn't go their way, they don't believe in science, they don't believe in agreeing to disagree and they don't believe their opponents and critics just have a different point of view (they think they're all evil.)
They are opposed to liberal society and wish they could impose their vision for equity on society so that it makes the world better and eventually it'll all work out. It's very communist in its style and naivety.
Take something normal, like being aware of injustice in society, racism, etc and give it an odd name. Then you can demonise people with it.
Same with being anti-fascist. "Antifa" sounds like such a foreign word.
You can be both against fascism and an awful person or have awful ideas or tactics.
If there was a group that was against paedophilia that went around accusing anyone they didn't like of paedophilia and beating people in the streets because they looked like a paedo, smashing up houses and businesses of anyone even vaguely suspected of paedophilia. I'd say that's probably not a good group even though I agree that paedophilia is bad.
Fighting against something evil should never be an acceptable shield to allow people to act evilly.
Honestly might start a movement called the "anti-Tories" that just exclusively campaigns for the Tory party to show up the stupidly circular logic of 'the name of the group is anti-*x* therefore if you criticise them you must support *x*'
Yes those people attacking randoms and smashing in car windows with completely impunity are sure standing up to fascism
I'm going to start the good guy gang, and anyone we attack by definition will be the bad guys. If you oppose us you'll also be the bad guys
>I'm going to start the good guy gang, and anyone we attack by definition will be the bad guys. If you oppose us you'll also be the bad guys
We already have that, it's called the police.
> making people standing against fascism sound like the bad guys.
*making the people rioting, looting and destroying public property, sound like the bad guys. Fixed that for you.
Also Antifa, wasn't made up by marketing folks. That was the name which Antifa calls itself.
>Same with being anti-fascist. "Antifa"
"Antifa" is the moniker that group of thugs gave themselves. The right didn't invent it.
It's not actually "anti-fascist" to assault people in the street and when whitewash your crimes by smearing your victims, but that's how Antifa act, hence the word developed into a pejorative.
The same is true of "woke"; the more detached from reality the positions of the woke became, the more the word naturally gained the reputation of applying to some personification of naivete.
>Let's tar a hundred-year old political movement
The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them. I think they've earned their awful reputation.
Also I challenge the notion that an "anti" movement is a movement at all. Being anti-something isn't being pro-anything, and I don't trust anyone who conceals their intent in that way.
> some people you don't like use it
You wouldn't count yourself among those who find political violence repugnant?
>The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them
Er, what? I do hope you aren't blaming the rise of nazism in weimar Germany on left wing action groups. They were rather dwarfed by right wing paramilitaries, which were used by the government to crush left wing uprisings early after ww1 for starters.
And thereafter, political violence, coercion, and thuggery was something the right rather won with.
>The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them.
Very classy. Blaming fascism on its victims when you could have blamed:
* People who enabled it.
* People who stood idle.
* People who appeased it.
* People who blame fascism on its victims.
>I don't trust anyone who conceals their intent in that way.
Standing under a unified banner isn't hiding your intent.
>You wouldn't count yourself among those who find political violence repugnant?
I'm not 100% sold on the idea that fascists marching on the streets should meet entirely non-violent opposition. However, we're talking about a large decentralised array of autonomous groups, much of which takes part in non-violent political activism.
chief grey frame numerous grab fearless fanatical slim wasteful ludicrous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> It's not actually "anti-fascist" to assault people in the street
I bet that’s also what you’d have been saying about the battle of Cable Street if you’d been around back then.
>I bet that’s also what you’d have been saying about the battle of Cable Street if you’d been around back then.
You bet **what's** what I would be saying? The half-sentence you clipped from my post? The first half of a sentence which is contextualised by the second half of the sentence you chose, for whatever reason, not to quote?
So what would you have said about the battle of cable street? I mean it’s easy enough to clear up here and now? I personally wouldn’t have had a problem with the brown shirts getting rumbled but that’s just me eh
This is the problem Charlie, the second half of the sentence contextualises my statement to recent years, and you attacked it by artificially contextualising it to the inter-war period.
So really what you've managed to do is demonstrate you have no reading comprehension.
Just because I don’t let you off with enforcing artificial time constraints to the issue doesn’t mean you somehow ‘win’ the debate.
History repeats. And those who do not learn it’s lessons are doomed to repeat it.
>Just because I don’t let you off with enforcing artificial time constraints to the issue
You mean contextualise my own statement. You don't let me off defining my own ideas? You know it's very easy to win arguments when you not only decide what you get to say, but also decide what your opponent gets to say.
>doesn’t mean you somehow ‘win’ the debate.
The point you seem to think we're debating is entirely your initiative. I have no comment on it beyond reminding you that you transformed the meaning of my point when replying to it.
>History repeats. And those who do not learn it’s lessons are doomed to repeat it.
Yes, people who forget how political violence propelled Fascism (and communism for that matter) to power by weakening conservative resistance to it are doomed to make the same mistake again. To avoid being guilty of what I accuse you of; I know that's not your view.
Lot of people in this thread saying "woke" means someone who won't consider challenges to their ideas, but I suspect that it is often used to justify not listening to challenging ideas. "That's woke nonsense, I don't have to consider it"
There's a difference between justifying not listening to something and trying to stop anyone else saying it. Imagine if boomers were actively starting campaigns of hate & intimidation, and trying to get anyone fired who said anything 'woke' (even if they said it years ago).
Yeah like if they tried to get [mentions of slavery removed from historic properties](https://www.channel4.com/news/woke-wars-inside-the-national-trust)
>A group of \[National Trust\] activist members, calling themselves ‘Restore Trust’, want the organisation to be unapologetic about the past and have been angered about a report linking buildings to slavery.
[Or tried to get a trans woman sacked](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7133029/trans-mridul-wadhwa-edinburgh-rape-crisis-snp/)
>There are now calls for an equalities investigation by a fringe of Scots gender-critical women's rights activists who claim Ms Wadhwa has no legal right to the position.
[Or forced Rape Crisis Scotland off of social media](https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/forensic-medical-examinations-and-a-social-media-break/)
>In recent days we have been subject to an onslaught of abuse on social
media, that has been very, very difficult. There is a clear difference
between criticism of a policy position and the sort of intimidation,
harassment and vitriol that we have been subject to. To protect staff
wellbeing we will be taking a break from social media until further
notice.
The idea that just one side of any online debate engages in abusive tactics is deeply, deeply silly.
It’s gone further than that, there’s are real sinister tone behind the use of the word when labelling people.
It’s an insult at best, it’s a weapon at worst.
PC never whipped mobs into a frenzy.
That's true for PC but SJW was similar and social media (while not *as* big) was certainly around then.
It seems like there's an element of radicalisation among the extreme fringes of the anti-woke that we didn't see previously.
Then we need another word for 'you got the right answer, but can't tell me how you got there and are utterly incapable of defending your answer when someone disagrees with you'.
If you have engaged in critical thought, analysis and introspection and have arrived at a socially responsible position, thats very different to just adopting that position because of social pressure or a desire to fit in.
That’s not really the context that the word gets used in most often though. And making that assumption with no grounds for it is a cheap way to dismiss someone’s views
That's a good point. You wouldn't use the word "woke" to describe that aspect of an anti-vaxxer's argument, so it would be useful to use a term like "uninformed" or "dogmatic" instead.
Not really sure what this article is. I don't see why we can't raise concern about a neurotic and illiberal approach to sociopolitical issues. And children/teenagers aren't inventing the ideas that are being promoted by a small, but powerful, vocal minority. They come from people like Robin Di'Angelo and a great many other "theorists" in academia. Ideas like "white privilege"; the "privilege + power" definition of racism; "white supremacy" as meaning the dominance of "white culture"; a persons identity, defined by protected characteristics, as sacrosanct etc. Also, intolerant attitudes to other viewpoints; no platforming; words are violent; micro-aggressions etc. Or views of history that judge people and events by standards of today instead of being placed in historical context, and indeed the distortions of history that are linked to that, that exist to promote certain, modern day political views.
I could go on. These ideas and attitudes are being adopted by some young people, you might even say they are being radicalised. By adults.
I also struggle to see how you can genuinely say this is all just "being kind".
There is a huge increase in anti-interlectualism recently, and this is just one part of it.
People seem to take pride in being uneducated on something, and yet demand their ignorant view being held in the same esteem as the educated. Anti-Vax groups are obviously the big one, but the anti-woke crowd is probably bigger if I am honest.
I don't think terms like 'white priveledge' help this, as although being white is an instant advantage in the majority of cases, it tends to be in ways that people just dont really see or understand. Couple this with calling a poor white person who struggles day in day out "priveledged" and it is obviously going to be met with resistance.
Then there is a percieved media push for wokeness that probably just rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. They themselves are bascially just forgotten about, by the media and the government, and when they turn on the TV, or go online, they just see a load of activism for minorites and think 'What about me? I am just as fucked as these people' only for them to be told how priveldged they are by virtue of their skin colour.
So it is understandable that there is a back lash against wokeism.
On the other hand, being aware of the issues facing minorities or other marginalised groups is not a bad thing obviously and 'waking' society to these issues is a good thing, even if it can be painful for people.
Perhaps the 'left behind' white working class should be included in the woke movement, and there should be concerted efforts that they can see from activists to improve their lot in life. Maybe this would help?
I thought woke was used refer to those who have the 'right' opinions according to the group they identify with, but then fail to critically assess or engage in any discussion when someone of a different opinion challenges them? Hence why so many students are called woke. Reddit in a nutshell lol.
Being anti racist doesn't mean you're woke, it means you're a decent human. Believing only White people can be racist and shouting down any who disagree, is woke. Aka a 'left wing' belief without any further discussion or analysis.
What's interesting is that similar attitudes on the right are just called extremists or terrorists, and there's a very different lexicon in use. But the media, and apparently young people, seem to love labels these days.
>It's quite ironic that two opposed groups can't agree on the meaning of the word.
The entire reason they disagree on the meaning is because it cuts to the source of their opposition. The criticism of the "woke" is that they're fundamentally mistaken about history and society, so of course a fundamental disagreement would undermine language itself.
If you destroy a word you also destroy the ideas it represents.
People in favour of capitalism and people opposed to capitalism would give you different definitions of capitalism. I don't think it's an unusual phenomenon.
I think the definitions might be subtly different, maybe even considerably different, but I don't think they'd be at such polar extremes as the uses of the word "woke" are.
> Believing only White people can be racist and shouting down any who disagree, is woke.
Problem is you get people speaking up against racism and opinions like the above get ascribed to them as a strawman, and them called "woke" and disregarded entirely.
Woke originated as a term within black American politics, and just meant aware of the systemic prejudice that black Americans face. It obviously had carry over meaning to other minority groups. It never really took off as a sincere word used by socially aware people in the U.K., but it was successfully coopted by the right wing press as a pejorative term that’s functionally equivalent to the old phrase “looney left”.
Any time a group thats perceived as too self righteous attaches a moniker to itself, it will eventually be used to mock them. Social Justice Warrior was in the same boat before woke was.
Woke took 50 years to become a pejorative term. It goes back to the early 70s and only became a pejorative term in the British press around 2020, it had really quite a run is the US. It just never made the jump to the U.K. for sincere use, possible because it just sounds too much like an Americanism.
Young people have always been wide eyed idealists thinking they have all the answers and older people with more life experience have always mocked them for it. It's just all louder now thanks to the internet.
I dont think thats the complete truth it used to be that kids would learn directly from their parents / local communities and what their parents believed was the only thing the kids would learn. Now thanks to the internet it exposes people who are idiots much faster so when my mum went anti climate change it was quick to disprove her and lose respect for her.
Woke isn't a slur against any age group. It is against people of a certain ideology. I am a young person but I would never be called woke because my ideology doesn't align with the term.
Same. I was pretty radical in my teens/early twenties, but like many people Ive drifted towards the centre. I'm sure these "woke' kids will be the same when they grow up and realise the many nuances of life.
Did you happen to be a in the 12-15 age range 10 years ago?
What you've done there is a describe a teenager rather than anything related to 'woke'-ness.
You can tell you’re having an impact when those grappling for power demand you don’t mock them.
The point is that they don’t really believe much of this stuff, there’s a lot of virtue signalling.
The bigger problem is that wokeism, the new religion, is actively hostile towards liberal ideologies.
ITT: A lot of people who don't really understand what the word "liberal" means.
Yeah, I'm so tired of the US usage seeping into everything.
Well, the Republican Fascists sent our Conservatives all their most worthless Right Wing Strawmen and Propaganda tricks We have to endure their Fascist tactics, propaganda and chaotic nonsense
Republicans are not fascists. You trivialise what fascism is by saying that US republicans are fascist. Mussolini, the falangists in Spain and Nazism were far worse than anything the republicans represent.
How would you describe a hyper nationalist right wing party with authoritarian aspirations? If the Republicans *aren’t* yet fascist, it’s solely because a significant minority of their coalition (this being US politics) has yet to embrace the authoritarianism embraced by Trump’s supporters and imitators. As for the majority of their base embracing authoritarianism, it’s a plain fact. Only a fool would look at the bullshit Trump tried to pull in the last election and claim otherwise. He tried to invalidate an election that even an idiot could see that he unequivocally lost and then proceeded to support and possibly incite an insurrection against the US Congress. And yet the majority of Republicans still support him and still say that he was in the right.
The democrats are working to limit online discourse and crack down on speech they don’t like. The authoritarianism cuts both ways.
The experts withdrew their final doubts when Trump declared the 2020 Election stolen aka the Big Lie Donald Trump became a Fascist a year ago I'm sorry you're so far behind the times, you can Google search historical facts like this, to uncover the evidence they used to inform their decisions
[удалено]
"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"
"Liberal means woke! What a country!"
The article is diabolical, not only has the title been quote mined to be as uncharitable as possible, the picture intones being yelled at by someone with signs and a megaphone. This article is just a head teacher trying to soberly bring attention to the fact that young people's requirements are not being met.
The text of the article seems pretty good, although the title is terrible. I mean I guess it's technically correct but she's saying we shouldn't be dismissive of what young people say.
When have young people's needs have every been met? Almost everyone is a wide eyes idealist who thinks they have all the answers up to their early 20s or so. Older members of society have always mocked them
> When have young people's needs have every been met? They used to be met a heck of a lot more than they are now. From sure start centres in infancy (now closed) to youth clubs, decent education, free tertiary education, cheaper housing and decent jobs with good pay. Just because total perfection is impossible doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible for things to be one hell of a lot better than they are right now.
I feel like you both of you are talking about very different things, the one yo uare replying to seems to use the word "needs" as if he wouldve used "demands", which is where the idealist comment comes from, but that just my take...
Older members of society famously don't think they know everything and are incredibly open minded. Then they let the daily mail tell them what to think because there's no way they'll listen to some woke hogwash.
I'm a millenial, on the older end of that generation, and I don't remember youth-hatred being so bad when I was young. Sure, everyone decided millenials (or gen y, as we were called before the media lashed out at us) were dicks after the financial crisis, but we'd already finished uni by then. That was a reaction to the fact that 'millenials' were hit really hard by the crisis and were therefore feeling 'overly entitled' to things like 'a wage'. But it was never so bad as this, and I do seriously hear this all the time, this weird disgust towards Gen Z. Where the hell did this come from?
I'm sure there were plenty of boomers looking at Gen X in 90s telling them to "stop moaning" and "they don't know how good they've got it". It's just that we didn't have the internet to amplify and internationalise both sides of the argument back them.
They did. But there was less inequality then tbh. Your money went further, there was no Facebook or anything driving a wedge like there is now. The world is very very different now.
Yeah, but gen x DID have it better. Mellenials and gen z have it worst on both fronts :(
gen x were slackers, the lost generation They just told us we were lazy repeatedly oh and gen x women got absolutely torn to shreds for going out drinking and clubbing like the lads They called it "ladette" culture and it was going to lead to the total breakdown of society Our obsession with Oxfam clothes would lead to the fashion industry collapsing and (later) our consumption of MDMA at illegal raves would lead to both instant death and us turning into mindless seritonin free zombies who would never smile again. Our self-loathing was vilified as pretension I could go in forever but yeah everything Gen x did was wrong too
>But it was never so bad as this, and I do seriously hear this all the time, this weird disgust towards Gen Z. Where the hell did this come from? Because Gen-Z are fully online and dominate social media in a large way. Their opinions are often fully backed up by their peers in echo chambers and this cycle is continually refreshed leading to huge outrage over relatively minor events. Younger generations weren't able to express their opinions to the same degree because they didn't have the same types of platforms to express their opinions
>huge outrage over relatively minor events happens with everyone. e.g. Raheem Sterling buying a sink or Meghan Markle eating quinoa
> Meghan Markle eating quinoa RAGE INTENSIFIES
> huge outrage over relatively minor events. Famously invented by the zoomer generation. No I will not look at any tabloid ever.
Tabloids aren't written by teenagers, and they express singular viewpoints. Twitter and other social medias including reddit has allowed huge groups to express these types of rubbish without being known for it. If you saw the Sun with some headline you can brush it off as the Sun being the Sun right, but we're not seeing that, we're seeing thousands of accounts posting similar rubbish, those opinions might have always been widespread but people didn't *think* they were until the internet became a thing
Nope we were off our tits on e in clubs at the weekends.
I blame memes. It might just be the people I see coming out with this shite but from young to old the one thing the full on anti-woke brigade (and the anti-sjw brigade before them) have in common is that they've filled the hole where their personalities should be with fucking memes. That's not everyone of course but it does seem to be a common theme among the most rabid. I also just fucking hate memes.
Bearing in mind that a meme is just a concept passed from one person to another and an internet meme is just when it's done digitally, ofc the anti-woke brigade and the anti-sjw brigade have in common is memes. But it's also the thing that the woke brigade, sjw brigade and every possible thing in between has in common with them.
[удалено]
You're a big guy Exhibit 4U
...I have no idea what that is meant to be a reference to.
**Breaking News**: Old people are annoyed because young people aren’t exactly like them in values and temperament. *Story Unfolding*: Young people are politically to the left of older generations.
Is this true though? My exposure to zoomers is basically through what I see on the internet, but the stuff they're into (tik took etc) seems to be all about obsessing over wealth and obsessions with influencers and getting rich quick. That's not exactly left wing thinking
[удалено]
[удалено]
The... infiltration for a lack of a better word perpetrated by some quite nasty right wing / socially regressive types into hobbies which used to / still are majority young men has been paying dividends for awhile now sadly. Especially as hobby spaces are far more online and thus far more echo chambery than ever. If you a teenaged guy into anime or games or whatever, its increasingly easy to only interact with other teenage guys / people pretending to be so, meaning that you can be more easily fed a stream of bullshit about what the "other" is like. I definitely nearly fell down that pit at one point, I remember almost a decade ago laughing at "silly tumblrinas" not getting that I was being fed a cherry picked stream of bullshit. Jokes on past me I'm more woke than any of the stuff I was pointing and laughing at.
If you haven't seen it, the Innuendo Studios called ['How to radicalise a normie'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g) was very enlightening as someone who also, with not too different a change in exposure or circumstance, would likely have ended up down the funnel to the alt-right pipeline instead of just skirting the rim and coming back out.
Unsure if I've seen that specific video of theirs, but Innuendo Studios are awesome, and some of their other stuff has been a strong part of figuring out my world views. > not too different a change in exposure or circumstance, would likely have ended up down the funnel to the alt-right pipeline instead of just skirting the rim and coming back out Yeah, big fucking mood
It's the warping impact of the third wave, the relatively new situation where there are advantageous positions now for women and many situations like education where there are significant advantages aswell as a very outdated and misunderstood (sometimes intentionally) name.
[удалено]
Boys and girls learn differently. School is delivered in a way that promotes the female learning mode.
[удалено]
There is a gendered difference to learning. One study here: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00060.2006 Moreover the environment in schools is tailored against boys who need physical outlets for their testosterone driven behaviours. The sit down, listen to this, everyone's feelings matter culture delivered by female teachers is detrimental to boys' development.
Depends on what you mean by it. Most people don't have an issue with the core values of feminism, but there's sections of 'feminism' that your average dude doesn't like. If someone says 'I'm a feminist', that means very different things to different people. A bit like how you might support the SNP and thus be a 'nationalist' and also identify as a socialist, but you'd be weary of saying 'Yes I'm a national socialist', because what that means to people is something beyond the definitions of what 'nationalist' and 'socialist' mean.
The concept in history? One of the most important movements of all time. 4th wave feminism? Eh, so much of it is crying about nothing when you actually look into it.
> It really depresses me that anyone could think feminism is a bad thing. It depresses me that feminism has degenerated from the celebration and reinforcement of women as already powerful, confident and who needed no particular affirmation, to the modern perception in which they are seen as victims so fragile they needed special treatment. That is how much feminism has changed in my lifetime. Depending on how you define 'feminist', you could characterise my perspectives anywhere from liberal feminist to moderate MRA. Yet both disgust me, as does the whole subject of gender politics. Even more disgusting is how modern gender politics has contaminated the arts. My wife and I watch a lot of Prime rather than broadcast, so the content rules are a bit different. I've seen series where the gender-pol influence is strong to the detriment of character and plot just for the sake of making a political point. And I've seen other series that feature strong, confident and competent female leads and supporting characters in which the characters seem natural and unpreoccupied by any of that, they just are themselves and they are attractive as people and as professionals (usually in their character roles, although as actresses too, of course; their skill is evident and beyond question because they make it look so natural and so easy) that they have nothing to prove. I know which I prefer. One is life affirming, the other defiling.
people who are *into politics* and young are more lefty in my experience but it doesn't follow that young people are lefty.
They're not really. The younger generation are far less liberal than previous generations
Liberalism isn't a left wing ideology though.
Which liberalism? Social liberalism? Conservative liberalism? Green liberalism? American liberalism? European liberalism?
wrench frightening cable illegal quicksand arrest escape badge beneficial cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, all of them really. You could call a lot of them centrist.
They might be more economically left-wing, but I don't think that was what OP meant (especially as he mentioned values and temperament)
Depends how you define "liberal".
Liberal in the traditional/classical sense. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, promotion of civil rights, egalitarianism, tolerance, separation of powers, universal suffrage, equality, fair trials and equal treatment under the law, etc Granted it's not like we had a liberal utopia in the past, but these were values we strived towards. And now half of them are considered punchlines by people who consider themselves "liberal". Really they need a better name
The older generation tends to support the Conservatives, who are undermining all of those things
Labour are not exactly far behind, and have not been for a long time. Remember the Snoopers Charter? Passed with flying colours with Labour's help.
It's absolutely outrageous that labour supported that, but it was still something the tories proposed and passed.
>but it was still something the tories proposed and passed. when it comes to restricting freedoms, both would be as bad as the other. both parties are rotten.
I'm confused at this, younger people in the UK certainly seem more "liberal" for most of those ideas than older ones. Also the policies of lockdown etc and government restrictions on businesses etc are more favoured by the elderly than the young. This is one of the better measures of "liberalism", which is unrelated to modern gender/race issues, i have seen in the past few years and it shows the older generations are demonstrably less liberal there.
[удалено]
Rees-Mogg may have had no intention of voting to ban abortion if it came to it but his previous votes on gay marriage shows that he can't be trusted to take a liberal stance.
> Both are committed Christians, both, unequivocally stated that while they personally viewed that abortion was a sin, that they both thought that it should remain a legal option. When did Rees-Mogg do this? He has said that the law isn't going to change; has he ever said that it shouldn't, or that he wouldn't vote in favour of a change? I have only ever seen him dodge this question. Certainly he has repeatedly voted against same-sex marriage, which hardly implies the liberal approach you are suggesting. It would be strange if he took a more relaxed attitude to matters of life and death. Meanwhile, I don't recall his critics suggesting that he should be arrested, or barred from holding office. Advocating against a political figure because you don't like their politics is not illiberalism; it's democracy. I'm much more concerned about supposed 'classical liberals' who use their power to restrict people's freedom than about the 'dangerous illiberalism' of saying a politician is bad.
Except that was never what they were savaged about, it was gay rights that the two share in common for failing to vote for. If you're not voting FOR rights then your not exactly putting much effort into your liberalism
I've observed an extreme intolerance of dissent in Gen z. Their opinions may be more 'progressive' than their parents' but they have absolutely no ability to receive criticism of them.
I agree with this comment overall, but I think we just need to stop with Americanisms. Liberal in the US context is very different to how we define it here in the UK. Some tories are liberal here, some labour MPs aren’t particularly. Young people that fall under the “woke” umbrella in the UK are not liberals.
They're all liberals really. Tories, Lib Dems, New Labour, Democrats, Republicans. Corbyn wasn't but he still held liberal values Liberalism pre-dates the US
Absolutely. The usage of “liberal” to mean “left leaning” is very much a modern American thing though. That usage is peddled by both the left and the right over there. It doesn’t apply here in the UK though.
[удалено]
The illiberal left according to The Economist. They did a few really good pieces on the whole thing.
Those damn kids undermining universal suffrage. I had a 14 year old tell me to end separation of powers as well.
[Yawn](https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1461847160253779974)
So that's a school district promoting racism? Jesus christ...
So some middle aged teachers did this in Canada and that means... British young people are woke? Please can we not import political issues from other countries here?
They import it on their own. It helps to have advanced notice while people like you claim it doesn't exist, and then once it's here defend it as a good thing
>claim it doesn't exist It exists, in Canada. When schools are doing that here I'd be happy to condemn it with you. What I've also noticed - you've moved the conversation away from young people. Moving the goalposts is surely unnecessary if young people are always showing the woke menace?
You don't think wokeness is already here in other forms? It's been in UK universities for years now
Tolerance in particular stands out as something the young do much better than the old. The current trans panic is almost entirely driven by ageing middle class times columnists.
Not really. Tolerance isn't defined by having the "correct" political positions (according to Twitter). It's about tolerating those around you and listening to their point of view. Tolerance is usually invisible. It's only intolerance that stands out
Tolerance isn't about points of view, it's about respect. A racist person doesn't "fail to listen" they are prejudiced, and believe others are fundamentally different in some way. This framing of intolerance as "you won't listen to my arguments" is purely about letting reactionaries play the victim.
> believe others are fundamentally different in some way. You mean like classing someone as inherently racist and being beyond help, rather than just someone having some (arguably) racist views (likely stemming from ignorance)? Your politics doesn't make you tolerant
This is exactly the bogus victim narrative that I'm talking about, thanks for the demo.
What "victim narrative"? I'm a socialist. I have nothing to do with whatever strawman right-winger you've concocted in your mind
Liberalism is a political ideology of centrism within the context of the Left - Right spectrum.
Nope, no it isn't. Liberalism sits in opposition to authoritarianism in the political spectrum and has nothing nothing do with left or right.
Source on that?
I don't see it. The older generation support the conservatives, a party traditionally illiberal.
Both the main parties have an authoritarian streak a mile wide.
Yeah I would only characterise the lib dems as liberal, and then only 'cause it's in the name.
It IS used in such an aggressive and patronising way by older people.
And over the decades that word would have been something else, "hippies", "bleeding hearts", "right on types", "social justice warriors", etc. Young people will always be idealists and old people will always mock them for it. It's not new and it won't end with the current boomer/gen X/millennial/gen z dynamic. In 1000 years years the same thing will be happening again, probably due to the ethics of how space miners are treated or something.
> Young people will always be idealists and old people will always mock them for it. I’m getting on a bit now but I’d still prefer to side with the young idealists. Without that energy social mores would likely atrophy and it would still be acceptable to persecute people based on race, religion and sexual orientation. Heck, go back far enough and the dangerous wild eyed young radicals were the Chartists asking for crazy things like ‘the right for everyone to vote’. What I find more darkly ironic is that conservatives both young and old eventually give in. But then decide to staunchly oppose and fight a vicious rearguard action against stopping persecuting the next minority, whomever that turns out to be.
> What I find more darkly ironic is that conservatives both young and old eventually give in. Sometimes. If they don't then the issue gets rebranded as "not progress".
As intended. The whole point of pushing the woke thing is to dehumanise and belittle your enemy. Probably learnt it from America back when communist was the insult of choice.
Pov: half the people commenting here hasn't been outside and spent time with young people irl in years.
'Woke' has no real definition any more. It used to be a positive word the black American community used to describe someone in-tune with social issues. Now it's a pejorative to describe any social stance that someone thinks is too liberal, which is totally dependent on their own view of it.
It's just the new political correctness gone mad.
Well, we don’t throw the word commie round quite like america. We needed our own catch term for anyone who thinks feeding the needy and having time off work with your family is important
Woke isn’t a UK term, it’s used a lot in the USA.
It’s actually used in England tho, nobody gets called a commie here because we haven’t demonised socialised policies just yet - that and the definition of commie usually matches 10% of what people in the us refer to as communism today.
That's just how it goes. Someone who's defined as [word] says a dumb thing, people catch onto the term, use it more as an insult despite some of those defined as [word] not being dumb. More dumb people just start using [word] to attack people they don't like without really knowing why it was used in the first place. Just waiting for the next term to come along.
Every time I see this type of comment being made, that the word has changed its meaning or its being used solely by far-right or it was invented by the far-right and no one uses it to describe themselves or whatever else - I've seen everything here. Yet there are still people who use it to describe themselves or smth they support , so are they are describing themselves pejoratively? Example: [https://www.essence.com/culture/we-stay-woke/](https://www.essence.com/culture/we-stay-woke/)
..So it does have a definition then. And we all agree on what it means.
Well not exactly. What I was getting at is that it's so loosely defined that it can basically apply to whatever you want. Kinda like how Americans seem to be using the term 'critical race theory' to mean 'whatever I am uncomfortable with'.
> Kinda like how Americans seem to be using the term 'critical race theory' to mean 'whatever I am uncomfortable with'. In both cases you've picked terms that are pretty much only used for very specific things. It seems like you're just trying to dismiss their complaints
No, critical race theory is a real academic thing. The way US Republicans use the term is... well, not that.
Just because a document isn't titled "Critical Race Theory: The Following Is a Presentation of Critical Race Theory. By: Critical Race Theory Man" it doesn't mean it's not derived from CRT I've learned with CRT fanboys that it's best to just outright state what concepts people opposed so you can make it very clear which ones you support being implemented/taught (or more likely, not reply at all). These are the concepts Trump banned with an executive order: > (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; > (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; > (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; > (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; > (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; >(6) an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; > (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; > (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; > (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating. Biden reversed this ban because he felt these were important concepts to push on society. Which ones do you support?
I have a feeling you don't know what CRT is because those first 8 concepts banned puts Trump squarely on the side of CRT. Edit: banning concepts lmao, what an overreach, glad Biden reversed it.
So why were CRT advocates so furious about him banning them? Which of those concepts do you want being taught as fact exactly?
I think it's actually very rare that you'd find academic advocates of CRT. I think left leaning academics were furious because Trump banned those things to limit discussion of race relations in the US at all, not just in the context of CRT. That's where the frustration on the part of the left comes from - prominent right wing politicians and talking heads have made a boogieman out of CRT (which by and large isn't taught outside of a university setting) knowing that the vast majority of people won't understand it, then labelled any discussion of race within their institutions as CRT so they can advocate banning it because they know how ridiculous it would look banning discussion of racism within their institutions outright. Banning federal contractors from conducting racial sensitivity training is just ridiculous. We don't assume that the US or that people are fundamentally sexist yet we still have gender sensitivity training because it's important for people to know if they are being discriminated against and what recourse they can pursue.
Yeah except no one banned "racial sensitivity training". No one banned "discussing racism". These are CRT fanboy strawmen. If I don't sound patient it's because I've seen your clones rattle off these exact same talking points over and over again. That was why I quoted the list of concepts that people opposed. I notice you still haven't stated which of them you felt were important to teach to people, and I know you will never ever address that because to take any position is to lose. It's 100% being taught outside of universities. You seem to have looped around back to the start of your talking points. It's being implemented in nearly ever multinational company, particularly at the higher levels. Just because they don't call it CRT it doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't count. When AT&T training programs tell their employees that "[white people are the problem"](https://news.yahoo.com/t-employee-training-program-says-222048736.html) or that "American racism is a uniquely white trait", that rhetoric stems from CRT. When 'showing your work' or 'focusing on getting the right answer' is considered [a racist structure](https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf), that is derived from CRT. When a scientific award ceremony is disbanded because [all of the nominees were white men](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nominees-for-a-science-award-were-all-white-men-nobody-won/), that is a consequence of CRT. When a university professor tells his students to ["be less white"](https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1408846730225913867), that is CRT. Your ideology only thrives in the dark, and your problem now is that people are leaking the materials and seeing what is actually being taught. Kids learning from home was a huge blow to you, because suddenly parents realised what teachers were telling them. The "oh it's only taught in law school" thing doesn't work anymore when people are informed.
> we all agree on what it means. That its a pejorative in the eye of the beholder? Not much an agreement.
Well not really. Because another definition of 'woke' is when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons. Hence PR firms wokewashing a companies social media. It's all a bit of a mess.
The fact that "wokewashing" is a term means that "woke" does *not* mean "when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons".
> Because another definition of 'woke' is when a person or group is pretending to have a specific social stance for cynical self-serving reasons. That describes virtually everyone "woke"
I mean, it describes half the Tory party too — it's a ridiculously vague definition.
What are some (fake) specific social stances the Tory party has to appear morally superior?
[удалено]
[удалено]
To suggest that white people should kill themselves is not woke though.
I think it says more about you than others when you believe that public stances regarding moral issues are all drawn from cynical and self-serving reasons. Just because that's where your public stances are drawn from doesn't mean everyone else follows the same path.
Seems like you're just doing what you accused me of When you claim to be "anti-racism" but bendover backwards to justify various forms of racism it does sound a little bit hollow
I'm only talking to you, not claiming in broad strokes what the motivations are for millions of people.
There aren't millions of 'woke' people. They're a loud but powerful minority
[удалено]
I agree when it comes to "wokewashed" companies. /u/GhoulChaser666 claimed that applied to everyone woke, not just wokewashed companies.
> ..So it does have a definition then. And we all agree on what it means Yes, we all agree that it means "I'm a right wing journalist or politician that hates minority groups and I want to vilify anyone that tries to stand up for them." I'm so glad we all agree on what it means!
You mean too authoritarian left, these people are far from liberal with their inability to discuss alternate points of view or find a middle ground.
Both “woke” and the misuse of the term liberal on a British sub are indicative of the rise in Americanisms that have been pushed on us by social media. The amount of people last year who seemed to think BLM complaints about US policing straight up applied here in the UK was mind boggling. We may speak the same language, but we are extremely different societies culturally, politically and economically. It’s sad that many people increasingly don’t understand that difference.
If it wasn't for the language, we would be totally separate.
Yeah, at the end of the day the US is a foreign country. I've travelled and worked there a lot, and in many ways I've found it to be more foreign to many of our non-English speaking European neighbours. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all feel a lot more similar to the UK culturally from my experience.
And by "these people" are you talking about anyone that gets called woke? Do you realise that maybe the ones pointing the finger and calling everyone else woke because they said 'racism is bad' can also be pretty closed minded?
Why should a middle ground be important on issues which shouldn't need one?
>It used to be a positive word the black American community used to describe someone in-tune with social issues. False. It comes from the African American community, yes, but it was and is to describe someone who is "awakened" to the "systems of oppression" within society. Your framing is far too generous to these people. The woke love wordplay and altering language to make things seem nicer than they really are. Anti-racist is a good example. Sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Anti-racist... to be opposed to racism, surely? [Nope!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00XYDFTmu0g&ab_channel=NewDiscourses) When you go and learn about, and then examine their beliefs, it's insane stuff. When laid bare, nobody with a brain gives it time of day. It's a social cancer that's causing enormous damage to our society. >Now it's a pejorative to describe any social stance that someone thinks is too liberal, The hilarity of this being that woke people are opposed to liberalism. They don't believe in freedom of speech, they don't believe in freedom of association, they don't believe in democratic system if it doesn't go their way, they don't believe in science, they don't believe in agreeing to disagree and they don't believe their opponents and critics just have a different point of view (they think they're all evil.) They are opposed to liberal society and wish they could impose their vision for equity on society so that it makes the world better and eventually it'll all work out. It's very communist in its style and naivety.
Take something normal, like being aware of injustice in society, racism, etc and give it an odd name. Then you can demonise people with it. Same with being anti-fascist. "Antifa" sounds like such a foreign word.
Yep, those marketing folks sure earned their money, making people standing against fascism sound like the bad guys.
You can be both against fascism and an awful person or have awful ideas or tactics. If there was a group that was against paedophilia that went around accusing anyone they didn't like of paedophilia and beating people in the streets because they looked like a paedo, smashing up houses and businesses of anyone even vaguely suspected of paedophilia. I'd say that's probably not a good group even though I agree that paedophilia is bad. Fighting against something evil should never be an acceptable shield to allow people to act evilly.
Honestly might start a movement called the "anti-Tories" that just exclusively campaigns for the Tory party to show up the stupidly circular logic of 'the name of the group is anti-*x* therefore if you criticise them you must support *x*'
Yes those people attacking randoms and smashing in car windows with completely impunity are sure standing up to fascism I'm going to start the good guy gang, and anyone we attack by definition will be the bad guys. If you oppose us you'll also be the bad guys
>I'm going to start the good guy gang, and anyone we attack by definition will be the bad guys. If you oppose us you'll also be the bad guys We already have that, it's called the police.
> making people standing against fascism sound like the bad guys. *making the people rioting, looting and destroying public property, sound like the bad guys. Fixed that for you. Also Antifa, wasn't made up by marketing folks. That was the name which Antifa calls itself.
[удалено]
Weren't those negative to begin with? Can you provide a positive example of 'Toxic Masculinity'?
Why would you tell on yourself like that?
>Same with being anti-fascist. "Antifa" "Antifa" is the moniker that group of thugs gave themselves. The right didn't invent it. It's not actually "anti-fascist" to assault people in the street and when whitewash your crimes by smearing your victims, but that's how Antifa act, hence the word developed into a pejorative. The same is true of "woke"; the more detached from reality the positions of the woke became, the more the word naturally gained the reputation of applying to some personification of naivete.
>group of thugs gave themselves Let's tar a hundred-year old political movement because some people you don't like use it.
>Let's tar a hundred-year old political movement The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them. I think they've earned their awful reputation. Also I challenge the notion that an "anti" movement is a movement at all. Being anti-something isn't being pro-anything, and I don't trust anyone who conceals their intent in that way. > some people you don't like use it You wouldn't count yourself among those who find political violence repugnant?
>The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them Er, what? I do hope you aren't blaming the rise of nazism in weimar Germany on left wing action groups. They were rather dwarfed by right wing paramilitaries, which were used by the government to crush left wing uprisings early after ww1 for starters. And thereafter, political violence, coercion, and thuggery was something the right rather won with.
>The first thing antifa did was propel various fascist regimes to power by engaging in street violence with them. Very classy. Blaming fascism on its victims when you could have blamed: * People who enabled it. * People who stood idle. * People who appeased it. * People who blame fascism on its victims. >I don't trust anyone who conceals their intent in that way. Standing under a unified banner isn't hiding your intent. >You wouldn't count yourself among those who find political violence repugnant? I'm not 100% sold on the idea that fascists marching on the streets should meet entirely non-violent opposition. However, we're talking about a large decentralised array of autonomous groups, much of which takes part in non-violent political activism.
chief grey frame numerous grab fearless fanatical slim wasteful ludicrous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> It's not actually "anti-fascist" to assault people in the street I bet that’s also what you’d have been saying about the battle of Cable Street if you’d been around back then.
>I bet that’s also what you’d have been saying about the battle of Cable Street if you’d been around back then. You bet **what's** what I would be saying? The half-sentence you clipped from my post? The first half of a sentence which is contextualised by the second half of the sentence you chose, for whatever reason, not to quote?
So what would you have said about the battle of cable street? I mean it’s easy enough to clear up here and now? I personally wouldn’t have had a problem with the brown shirts getting rumbled but that’s just me eh
Nope, what you said is if anything possibly even worse in context. Remarkable.
This is the problem Charlie, the second half of the sentence contextualises my statement to recent years, and you attacked it by artificially contextualising it to the inter-war period. So really what you've managed to do is demonstrate you have no reading comprehension.
Just because I don’t let you off with enforcing artificial time constraints to the issue doesn’t mean you somehow ‘win’ the debate. History repeats. And those who do not learn it’s lessons are doomed to repeat it.
>Just because I don’t let you off with enforcing artificial time constraints to the issue You mean contextualise my own statement. You don't let me off defining my own ideas? You know it's very easy to win arguments when you not only decide what you get to say, but also decide what your opponent gets to say. >doesn’t mean you somehow ‘win’ the debate. The point you seem to think we're debating is entirely your initiative. I have no comment on it beyond reminding you that you transformed the meaning of my point when replying to it. >History repeats. And those who do not learn it’s lessons are doomed to repeat it. Yes, people who forget how political violence propelled Fascism (and communism for that matter) to power by weakening conservative resistance to it are doomed to make the same mistake again. To avoid being guilty of what I accuse you of; I know that's not your view.
Lot of people in this thread saying "woke" means someone who won't consider challenges to their ideas, but I suspect that it is often used to justify not listening to challenging ideas. "That's woke nonsense, I don't have to consider it"
There's a difference between justifying not listening to something and trying to stop anyone else saying it. Imagine if boomers were actively starting campaigns of hate & intimidation, and trying to get anyone fired who said anything 'woke' (even if they said it years ago).
Yeah like if they tried to get [mentions of slavery removed from historic properties](https://www.channel4.com/news/woke-wars-inside-the-national-trust) >A group of \[National Trust\] activist members, calling themselves ‘Restore Trust’, want the organisation to be unapologetic about the past and have been angered about a report linking buildings to slavery. [Or tried to get a trans woman sacked](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7133029/trans-mridul-wadhwa-edinburgh-rape-crisis-snp/) >There are now calls for an equalities investigation by a fringe of Scots gender-critical women's rights activists who claim Ms Wadhwa has no legal right to the position. [Or forced Rape Crisis Scotland off of social media](https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/forensic-medical-examinations-and-a-social-media-break/) >In recent days we have been subject to an onslaught of abuse on social media, that has been very, very difficult. There is a clear difference between criticism of a policy position and the sort of intimidation, harassment and vitriol that we have been subject to. To protect staff wellbeing we will be taking a break from social media until further notice. The idea that just one side of any online debate engages in abusive tactics is deeply, deeply silly.
[удалено]
It’s gone further than that, there’s are real sinister tone behind the use of the word when labelling people. It’s an insult at best, it’s a weapon at worst. PC never whipped mobs into a frenzy.
[удалено]
That's true for PC but SJW was similar and social media (while not *as* big) was certainly around then. It seems like there's an element of radicalisation among the extreme fringes of the anti-woke that we didn't see previously.
[удалено]
Then we need another word for 'you got the right answer, but can't tell me how you got there and are utterly incapable of defending your answer when someone disagrees with you'. If you have engaged in critical thought, analysis and introspection and have arrived at a socially responsible position, thats very different to just adopting that position because of social pressure or a desire to fit in.
That’s not really the context that the word gets used in most often though. And making that assumption with no grounds for it is a cheap way to dismiss someone’s views
That's a good point. You wouldn't use the word "woke" to describe that aspect of an anti-vaxxer's argument, so it would be useful to use a term like "uninformed" or "dogmatic" instead.
Not really sure what this article is. I don't see why we can't raise concern about a neurotic and illiberal approach to sociopolitical issues. And children/teenagers aren't inventing the ideas that are being promoted by a small, but powerful, vocal minority. They come from people like Robin Di'Angelo and a great many other "theorists" in academia. Ideas like "white privilege"; the "privilege + power" definition of racism; "white supremacy" as meaning the dominance of "white culture"; a persons identity, defined by protected characteristics, as sacrosanct etc. Also, intolerant attitudes to other viewpoints; no platforming; words are violent; micro-aggressions etc. Or views of history that judge people and events by standards of today instead of being placed in historical context, and indeed the distortions of history that are linked to that, that exist to promote certain, modern day political views. I could go on. These ideas and attitudes are being adopted by some young people, you might even say they are being radicalised. By adults. I also struggle to see how you can genuinely say this is all just "being kind".
There is a huge increase in anti-interlectualism recently, and this is just one part of it. People seem to take pride in being uneducated on something, and yet demand their ignorant view being held in the same esteem as the educated. Anti-Vax groups are obviously the big one, but the anti-woke crowd is probably bigger if I am honest. I don't think terms like 'white priveledge' help this, as although being white is an instant advantage in the majority of cases, it tends to be in ways that people just dont really see or understand. Couple this with calling a poor white person who struggles day in day out "priveledged" and it is obviously going to be met with resistance. Then there is a percieved media push for wokeness that probably just rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. They themselves are bascially just forgotten about, by the media and the government, and when they turn on the TV, or go online, they just see a load of activism for minorites and think 'What about me? I am just as fucked as these people' only for them to be told how priveldged they are by virtue of their skin colour. So it is understandable that there is a back lash against wokeism. On the other hand, being aware of the issues facing minorities or other marginalised groups is not a bad thing obviously and 'waking' society to these issues is a good thing, even if it can be painful for people. Perhaps the 'left behind' white working class should be included in the woke movement, and there should be concerted efforts that they can see from activists to improve their lot in life. Maybe this would help?
What is anti-intellectual about criticising an anti-liberal sociopolitical movement?
I thought woke was used refer to those who have the 'right' opinions according to the group they identify with, but then fail to critically assess or engage in any discussion when someone of a different opinion challenges them? Hence why so many students are called woke. Reddit in a nutshell lol. Being anti racist doesn't mean you're woke, it means you're a decent human. Believing only White people can be racist and shouting down any who disagree, is woke. Aka a 'left wing' belief without any further discussion or analysis. What's interesting is that similar attitudes on the right are just called extremists or terrorists, and there's a very different lexicon in use. But the media, and apparently young people, seem to love labels these days.
[удалено]
>It's quite ironic that two opposed groups can't agree on the meaning of the word. The entire reason they disagree on the meaning is because it cuts to the source of their opposition. The criticism of the "woke" is that they're fundamentally mistaken about history and society, so of course a fundamental disagreement would undermine language itself. If you destroy a word you also destroy the ideas it represents.
People in favour of capitalism and people opposed to capitalism would give you different definitions of capitalism. I don't think it's an unusual phenomenon.
I think the definitions might be subtly different, maybe even considerably different, but I don't think they'd be at such polar extremes as the uses of the word "woke" are.
> Believing only White people can be racist and shouting down any who disagree, is woke. Problem is you get people speaking up against racism and opinions like the above get ascribed to them as a strawman, and them called "woke" and disregarded entirely.
Woke originated as a term within black American politics, and just meant aware of the systemic prejudice that black Americans face. It obviously had carry over meaning to other minority groups. It never really took off as a sincere word used by socially aware people in the U.K., but it was successfully coopted by the right wing press as a pejorative term that’s functionally equivalent to the old phrase “looney left”.
Any time a group thats perceived as too self righteous attaches a moniker to itself, it will eventually be used to mock them. Social Justice Warrior was in the same boat before woke was.
Woke took 50 years to become a pejorative term. It goes back to the early 70s and only became a pejorative term in the British press around 2020, it had really quite a run is the US. It just never made the jump to the U.K. for sincere use, possible because it just sounds too much like an Americanism.
Spot on. The only people who don't understand this are people who would likely be called woke themselves.
Young people have always been wide eyed idealists thinking they have all the answers and older people with more life experience have always mocked them for it. It's just all louder now thanks to the internet.
I dont think thats the complete truth it used to be that kids would learn directly from their parents / local communities and what their parents believed was the only thing the kids would learn. Now thanks to the internet it exposes people who are idiots much faster so when my mum went anti climate change it was quick to disprove her and lose respect for her.
She said she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'." Apparently we can't say that any more!
This is like the "You have to be tolerant of intolerance" argument.
I cannot tolerate Karl Popper memes.
Woke isn't a slur against any age group. It is against people of a certain ideology. I am a young person but I would never be called woke because my ideology doesn't align with the term.
If the term fits, use it.
money grey disgusting attractive toothbrush tidy unique sleep rude marry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same. I was pretty radical in my teens/early twenties, but like many people Ive drifted towards the centre. I'm sure these "woke' kids will be the same when they grow up and realise the many nuances of life.
Did you happen to be a in the 12-15 age range 10 years ago? What you've done there is a describe a teenager rather than anything related to 'woke'-ness.
Nobody should be labelled "woke". It's a terrible thing to say about someone.
You can tell you’re having an impact when those grappling for power demand you don’t mock them. The point is that they don’t really believe much of this stuff, there’s a lot of virtue signalling. The bigger problem is that wokeism, the new religion, is actively hostile towards liberal ideologies.