Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

When did being woke become a bad thing?

Options
13468913

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Less bullying from the woke is what I would like to see. If you want your opinioons to be tolerated, then dont gang up and jump on someone else just because they have a different opinion to you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Well no, because some opinions are dangerous and lead to actual harm. These should be drowned out. Examples being: Trans individuals not being equal to cis individuals, gay people not deserving of respect, black people being responsible for the majority of crimes, Mexican people being drug dealers and rapists, the pro-choice movement being responsible for the death of post term babies etc. etc.. All these “opinions” have led to people being attacked and in many cases, killed.

    If people on the right were accepting of opinions being just an opinion instead of facts that need to be actioned on, there would be a lot less “bullying”, as you call it.

    For all their crying and lamenting over snowflakes, there’s a lot on the right that could do with growing a spine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    They arent being anti racist for the sake of supporting the victims of racism, they are doing it to be "SEEN" supporting such a cause, the cause is irrelevant its about them and what supporting the cause does for them.

    Then you have the problem of them stomping all over someone else's rights in order to try and enforce a minorities rights.

    Then you have the issue with them trying to force there "wokeness" on everyone else.

    Post edited by delusiondestroyer on


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,028 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I wouldn't characterise it as bullying, more that its preachy hysterical carry-on.

    People that have reached adulthood are either good people, or bad people. People who generally try to do the right thing, treat others respectfully, conduct themselves with dignity and make a decent contribution. And those who do not.

    Either way, you aren't going to change a person's thought pattern or way of life by preaching, belittling, contradicting, whinging and so on.

    What the worst of 'woke' hystericals do, is patronise and condescend, as if you haven't lived any life and can't make a moral decision on your own or haven't a brain in their head.

    I'm 47. Any whining SJW with the life experience of a goldfish who tries to tell me where I'm going wrong is in for a rude awakening.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭Jude13


    When feelings and shouting take precedence over scientific evidence of fact.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    So you think you know it all, do you? You know what it’s like to be a single mother with 3 kids to feed and no money? Or maybe you know what it’s like to see your CV going in the bin because of your address? Or maybe it’s because your name looks a little black, traveller etc?

    Do you not think it’s pretty rude to say someone has the life experience of a goldfish? At 47, you should know better manners at this stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    He knows everything except how to read a train timetable 🤣 He is 47 and still mocks special needs you should see some of his comments its embarassing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie


    only fascists believe “ opinions are dangerous “



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Well that’s utter nonsense.

    all actions start from an opinion. Everything.

    These attacks were perpetrated by people that originally had a pro-life opinion, until they started blowing up buildings and murdering people. It all starts with opinions and leads on from there.

    Opinions can be very dangerous, especially if they lead to people committing murders or violence.

    it’s quite eye opening that you don’t believe opinions can be dangerous.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    The problem in my opinion with the term "Woke" is that it is too nebulous, it means different things to different people.

    My opinions on most topics may be considered woke by some, perfectly reasonable by others.

    For some people acknowledging climate change as a problem, or thinking covid vaccines were useful is part of some woke agenda.

    If someone would just define what Woke means can work out whether I'm woke or not.

    "Take out test see how woke you are...."



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    I find many of the people who loudly profess to be "anti-woke " are quite good at disgarding scientific evidence when it suits them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Sp you support bullying then. You arent very woke now are you?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,669 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    What are you doing to help White South African farmers?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Where are you getting that from? Do you think debating and offering evidence that someone’s opinion may be wrong= bullying?



  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    I think saying that Opinions can be dangerous is for me a bit like saying some emotion can be dangerous. It is one of those things that is (pedantically) so linguistically true that it becomes useless to say at all. Kinda in the "water is wet" category.

    Some would think of emotions in and of themselves as somehow "good" or "bad". Love being "good" or hate being "bad" for example.

    Rather it is what any given emotion leads us to do that is "good" or "bad" and in fact many people have done awful things in the name of love while others have done wonderful things because of hate or anger.

    I see all emotions as valid just like I see all opinions as valid. How you manifest those in the real world however is what is to be judged and dealt with. Rather than being told your emotion or opinion is bad or evil and needs to be suppressed.

    As such I would quickly dissociate with anyone - even those fighting for a cause I believe strongly in - who want to shout down, silence, or "drown out" any opinion at all. I am quite far along the continuum of "Free Speech absolutism" in many respects. I suspect I would agree with someone like Harvey Silvergate in nearly everything he says on that subject for example - given I just this morning listened to him speak for nearly 2 hours on it while I did my morning run.

    Further I can not really see any discussion about the limits of free speech as being complete without acknowledging that anyone who wishes to impinge on that right - would as a consequence also be impinging on the concept of any right I have to hear what those people are saying. So if we "drown out" or silence the words of individual "X" then you are also vicariously deciding for me and any number of other individuals as to my right/ability to hear what that person has to say. Which makes a sentence like "So you think you know it all, do you?" quite a potentially ironic one deserving of a lot of introspection from anyone subsequently using it. Because when you are deciding for others what they can or can not hear - you very much are not just of the opinion that you "Know it all" compared to them but are actively putting that opinion into practice.

    Also facts and opinions are very different things. One of the examples given above of "opinions" was actually in the realm of "facts". Which is that of "black people being responsible for the majority of crimes". That is a statistical claim not an opinion. The claim is either statistically true - or it is not. If the claim is not true it merely has to be rebutted with the actual facts. If the claim is in fact true it deserves to be evaluated and used properly to stimulate ideas, questions, explanations and much more. Either way it does not deserve to be "Drowned out". Rather it deserves to be asked "Why is that happening? What options do we have to improve that situation? And which of those options maximizes as best we can the well being and futures of all concerned both in and out of that community?".

    If however someone takes such a statistic and claims that - for example - "This is because black people are less evolved, evil, and inferior to the rest of us" then that would be an opinion. An opinion that A) I believe the person should have a right to express B) I believe I should have the right to hear it, rather than someone decide for me without my consent and C) can be rebutted, dealt with and destroyed in many ways other than shouting it down or drowning it out or silencing it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    If it wasn’t for the internet, I would agree with a lot of what you are saying.

    However, times have changed. The truth no longer is the important bit, what is more important is how many times something gets said and that leads to what people believe.

    I am obviously not a “free speech absolutist”, Thanks to Musk, I now don’t think anyone truly is.

    It’s the paradox of tolerance. If we allow intolerant speech, that will lead us to very very bad places. It is an irony, and a head scratcher.

    I’ll be honest, your post is very long (to me) and with my ADHD, I am having trouble breaking it down. Hope you understand.


    edited to add:

    Also, a majority on the right refuse or plainly cannot ever apologise. How can you have a healthy debate when one party refuses to secede any ground whatsoever?

    I recently challenged 3 right wing posters to name someone from the right who:

    has erred (racism/sexism/financial etc)

    recognised their error

    apologised unreservedly

    made amends.

    now the defence of this was that a right winger wouldn’t do it as lefties would never let it go.

    which I don't believe, and they could not offer one example of one person that ticked all that criteria.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie


    What do you suggest?, unlike those with “ trans women are women “banners , I wouldn’t have billion dollar companies backing me



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie


    The number of people with opinions dwarfs the number of people who act violently by an infinite degree , you are attempting to equate mere opinions ( you don’t like ) with violent actions, that is extremely dangerous



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,669 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    Unfortunately I have a genetic inability to be brief that is as out of my control as your ADHD makes it difficult for you to process what I write. :) So alas our realities might place successful conversation between us out of our reach.

    I would not call myself a Free Speech absolutist either. I just think I am very far along that continuum.

    I recommend if you have the time to kill a recent Lex Friedmann podcast with Harvey Silvergate. I found myself agreeing with the near totality of what he was saying on the subject. There was also a great and entertaining you tube broadcast between Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on the subject some years back.

    You were confused above by someone calling you a "bully". I think that was a response to you wanting to "Drown out" people. Because that can be seen as bullying.

    The topic of this thread is why "woke" has been recently seen as a "bad thing". And I think one of those reasons is the videos of people - often students - going into talks and screaming nonsense to "drown out" the speaker so they can not talk. Or crowding around doors to stop people being able to enter. And so on. That is what some people consider "bullying". And it gets associated with the "woke" a lot.

    And perhaps this is not what you intended when you said "drown out". But you should be aware that this is what many people will think when they hear the phrase "drown out". They will think of that kind of bullying. And they will be - rightly in my opinions for the reasons in my previous post - against it and by proxy against you.

    I can not really respond to must of your "edit" because I tend not to function well in this kind of american imported "right/left" discourse. I find an inability to apologize - admit to errors or failings - or to back down even when ones arguments are totally destroyed - to be a very human thing. Not something limited to some concept of "right" or "left". I do not like the tribalism "Us versus them" mentality that seems to come with that kind of categorization.

    I do not see myself as right or left or centrist or any of that. I consider each and every topic on it's own merits and attempt to come to my own conclusions on them. Then I will align with anyone of any party or affiliation who shares that view that I hold and is willing to further it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Opinions aren't harmful, but acting on those opinions or getting others to act on those opinions can be.

    Every Human society from the most basic to the most complex, from the most totalitarian to the most liberal has social norms. The idea of absolute free speech where you are allowed to express any opinions has never existed in any socety and never will.

    Humans have become the dominant species on the planet due to our abilty to work together and co-operate. That means a general acceptance of shared values to a certain extent.

    i do believe in free speech and think censorship of any kind whether official, at govt level, or just the groupthink in your friendship group can be harmful, but i'm also enough of a realist to know that for societies to function we all have to work together, therefore some opinions can be harmful when expressed or acted on.

    Absolute free speech has never existed anywhere and never will.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Just one example of woke bullying.

    Imagine ganging up on a schoolgirl because she biught a nice dress.

    Thats just one example of woke bullies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Also European culture, particularly Anglo culture, can't be "appropriated". Its just seen as invisible.

    There's a Mexican band that plays traditional Irish music.

    If this kind of stupidity went both ways they would, I suppose, be chastised and have gigs cancelled on them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,701 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    It’s not just “bought a nice dress” though, is it?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,669 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I doubt it. As a rule, if someone just dumps a link with nothing more than a snappy comment, I ignore it.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Few tweets from 5 years ago isn't really indicative of anything. People complaining about the dress are dicks no doubt about that but they're not that representative of the general public.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭tesla_newbie


    Yeah , I’ve seen you employ that trick before on this site



  • Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭taxAHcruel


    It is a word that probably (?) had some utility when it was first created but over use and steadily more nebulous use has dissolved it's utility.

    An analogous example that springs to mind is "Toxic Masculinity". I know what that was coined to mean and it is a useful phrase in that context. It basically was coined to refer to how toxic it is to expect boys or men to act - or not act - in certain ways purely because they are boys/men.

    If however enough people use it to mean that masculinity itself is toxic for example - the phrase takes on new very different meanings. And if that continues the utility of the phrase lessens and can even cause people to talk past each other.

    But such it is with language. There is not much we can do about it except police how we ourselves use such words or phrases. So how - since no one asked :) - do I personally use the word "woke"? Well these days I pretty much don't. I can find no utility to the word any more.

    There is an article on it's history here though: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woke-meaning-word-history-b1790787.html

    As to the OPs question as to when "woke" became a bad thing - I would suggest it is in part due to people who are not just "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" as one definition claims - but are hyper alert to it to the point of finding it in the strangest of places. Or are playing that game for fun in what some people have termed "recreational outrage".

    Comically a good example is the recent "Fake Sun Tan" article written by AI as it shows - because it deliberately uses - the rhetorical structure I would refer to even if the article itself was just a satire example of it.

    In such examples a person, or in this case an AI doing satire of the stereotype: 1) describes some trauma or emotional hurt that they feel personally or have identified vicariously in others 2) has then identified some often entirely tangential issue or product that in some small way evokes or triggers that trauma 3) and then tries to change or end the rights or behaviors of others in relation to this trigger in the likely fruitless hope that getting that "win" will somehow lessen the original trauma or suffering.

    In the Sun Tan article the "author" for example opens with a discussion of the personal pain of being dark skinned in a white skinned society, from judgements to exclusion to bullying. Tangential to this is identified the use of Sun Tan to move between light and dark skin at will - without having to suffer any of that skin tone attendant pain. Culminating in the suggestion that therefore the use of the product in question is "problematic" in some way when it absolutely isn't and therefore people should reconsider it's use.

    The more that happens - and the more ridiculous the examples get to the point it becomes indistinguishable (as we recently saw) from satire - the worse the term "woke" is going to come off to people and become unusable as a result.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,669 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    And I've seen the alleged White South African farmers being cynically deployed as a whataboutery tactic several times in bad faith.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



Advertisement