Discussion about ‘What is woke?’

What does it mean to be woke?

I think wokeness is an overt focus on certain social justice issues.

Can you give examples of what social issues would be considered woke and some social issues that aren’t considered woke?

Examples of woke social justice issues include those surrounding race, LGBT, immigration.

A social justice issue woke people don’t care about is children’s rights/the emancipation of children.

Woke ppl often focus on the issue of oppression. But as I’ve been thinking more about children’s rights, I’ve realized that a major part of someone’s oppression is that ~no one realizes the oppression even takes place. Like with children.

Is it fair to assume that wokeness is tied to the identity of the group or person?

Or in other words, what qualities would a person have or need to demonstrate to be considered woke?

Virtue signaling comes to mind. That isn’t a quality but it’s something woke people do a lot. The social cause they ‘fight’ for has to be trendy and socially approved before they fight for it. They don’t fight for anything that’s majorly unpopular.

Let’s unpack some of these. Starting with virtue signaling and then it would be interesting to get to defining what makes something trendy and socially approved

Following Karl Popper, I don’t believe definitions are overly important. But I guess virtue signaling means abusing some cause for social gain, to show that you are a good person. Trendy means popular and fleeting, a bit like a fad. Socially approved just means that a significant proportion of the population sees nothing wrong it. Those might not be dictionary definitions, but it’s how I think about these terms.

These are helpful perspectives. It’s helpful to get your take on things to make sure that I’m actively aligned and understanding what you’re saying without substituting my own assumptions

got it

In what you highlighted about virtual signaling and tying that to abusing a cause for social gain, I get the impression that there are insiders and outsiders. Insiders meaning those who are directly impacted by the social cause and outsiders those who are not

Yes. ‘If you don’t have a uterus you don’t get to speak on the issue of abortion’ (but somehow a uterus isn’t required anymore to be considerd a woman… but I digress).

This is interesting because I’m still unclear about are specific social issues inherently woke or how social issues are acted upon that make them woke or is wokeness determined by the identity of those raising the social issue as a matter of concern

I suppose one could say that woke issues are those primarily talked about by woke people. In which case there’d be nothing inherently woke about some cause, the label ‘woke’ is more about the people fighting for that cause. What do you think?

I’m running through this in my head. I wonder would Christians who fight for freedom of religion woke?

I wonder would Christians who fight for freedom of religion woke?

Sounds like there’s a word missing there. Are you asking whether they’d be woke, or be considered woke, or something?

Yes, you got it. My brain processed my thoughts faster than my hands

I don’t think they’d be woke or considered woke because wokeness is a left-wing phenomenon. Christians fighting for freedom of religion don’t sound very left wing to me. Not sure.

So reflecting some of the qualities of what makes a person woke:
- Focus on issue of oppression: Christians have often mentioned that they feel like they are being oppressed because of their beliefs. There have been several cases that have reached to the Supreme Court that have addressed the active promotion of religious considerations in the economy, education, and health
- Virtue signaling: Many Christians seem to use their religion to state implicitly and explicitly that they are living a more righteous life and that it gives them status as a good person
- Trendy: Fighting for carve-outs from law on the account of one’s religion has become more prominent in these past few years undoing policies that a significant proportion of the population didn’t see anything wrong with before

So it be fair to say that wokeness even with the presence of the same factors of focus on oppression, virtue signaling, and jumping on a trend only be considered when a person’s or a group’s ideology is left-wing?

Christians have often mentioned that they feel like they are being oppressed because of their beliefs.

Any specific examples?

Virtue signaling: Many Christians seem to use their religion to state implicitly and explicitly that they are living a more righteous life and that it gives them status as a good person

Yeah, I could see that. For instance, pro-life people do that sometimes when they point out they’re not ‘baby killers’, while the issue is more complex than they let on and pro-choice people generally aren’t evil.

Trendy: Fighting for carve-outs from law on the account of one’s religion has become more prominent in these past few years undoing policies that a significant proportion of the population didn’t see anything wrong with before

Any specific examples? Are you thinking of abortion here?

So it be fair to say that wokeness even with the presence of the same factors of focus on oppression, virtue signaling, and jumping on a trend only be considered when a person’s or a group’s ideology is left-wing?

Not sure yet. Depends on your answers.

Christians have often mentioned that they feel like they are being oppressed because of their beliefs.

Any specific examples?

For example, a county clerk didn’t want to process the marriage license of a queer couple because it went against her beliefs as a Christian.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087723875/kim-davis-court-same-sex-marriage

Another example, Hobby Lobby wanted an exemption from the Affordable Health Care law because they didn’t believe in providing insurance for their employees who wanted birth control.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/06/30/327065968/hobby-lobby-ruling-cuts-into-contraceptive-mandate/

When I do a word search for the string ‘opp’ in the articles you linked to, nothing comes up. So I’m guessing the people involved didn’t claim they were being oppressed.

What is opp?

The beginning of the word ‘oppression’. So if the word ‘oppression’ is in those articles, ‘opp’ should have come up.

You’re using Gen Z speak, aren’t you? Lol

no

Maybe I’m wrong. The first article says:

“Davis argues that a finding of liability would violate the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion,” says the counsel, a religious liberty organization that litigates cases involving evangelical Christian values.

Then again, that still doesn’t sound like she’s claiming that she’s being oppressed. Just that her rights are being curtailed. Oppression sounds like a step up from that, no?

By the way, a large (though not the only) part of wokeness seems to be fighting on behalf of others, particularly those one deems (whether correctly or incorrectly) to be powerless. Woke people are often quite privileged and don’t struggle themselves.

Abortion fits the bill of fighting on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves (ie fighting for babies, who are all powerless). But not wanting to process a marriage license doesn’t fit that bill.

That’s a helpful addition to the description about what being woke entails – fighting on behalf of others deemed to be powerless.

Going back to abortion in the case of pro-life advocates, how do they fit the definition of being woke?

Or, if they don’t. How do they not?

Going back to abortion in the case of pro-life advocates, how do they fit the definition of being woke?

They on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves (babies), and sometimes they use it to virtue signal (positioning themselves in opposition to people they consider ‘baby killers’).

Or, if they don’t. How do they not?

Pro-lifers aren’t left wing, so in that regard they don’t fit the bill.

They on behalf

I meant to say ‘they fight on behalf’.

Pro-lifers aren’t left wing, so in that regard they don’t fit the bill.

Got it. Am I right in understanding that a that a right-wing person can do the same thing as a woke person in terms of focusing on an issue of oppression, virtue signaling, and tapping into a trendy subject and not be considered woke because of their political leanings?

I suppose so, yes.

Does that seem arbitrary?

Yes

It seems like it’s a catch all term for a person who is liberal leaning and the issues that they care about

Yes, well, again, I don’t think definitions are all that important.

As a derisive term for left-wing social climbers, it works well. But there are nasty people on the right as well. We can use different terms for them.

But what is interesting to me is why are social issues like immigration, race, and LGBTQ are such hot button topics that immediately get thrown in the woke category and the focus on these are seen as a net negative?

Isn’t what’s primarily seen as a negative when left-wingers abuse those issues for popularity? ‘Look what a great person I am, I care!’ The underlying issue is interchangeable, the concern is fake.

But people actually working in the field – say, immigration lawyers – are different. For them, the underlying issue is not interchangeable, and they’d still have the same job even if the issue weren’t popular. Maybe not if it were hugely unpopular, but they’d still have it if nobody cared.

Going on that thread, BLM (the original organizers) are often seen as woke. Would they not be comparable to immigration lawyers to immigration by that same logic. Even if the issue were hugely unpopular, they would still be impacted by issues of race and work to change certain realities?

Even if the issue were hugely unpopular, they would still be impacted by issues of race and work to change certain realities?

They’d be impacted, but would they have started BLM?

What social risk is someone taking by starting BLM or by joining a BLM protest? Near zero.

It takes ~no courage to join a trendy cause. Fighting for an unpopular cause, now that would be interesting.

That’s a helpful distinction. So part of the problem with wokeness implies that there is very little to no social risk of fighting for a social issue. Taking that further, that’s a turning point for an issue to become a woke issue, no? Whether or not the issue is popular.

But just because something is popular does that mean there is no risk? And popular to whom?

So part of the problem with wokeness implies that there is very little to no social risk of fighting for a social issue.

To be clear, I’m not saying one should always define once stance in opposition to approved opinions. One should do what oneself thinks is right, regardless of what others think of it.

It’s just that woke people portray themselves as brave when it takes no braveness to do something a lot of people already agree with. It’s a type of fraud.

Taking that further, that’s a turning point for an issue to become a woke issue, no? Whether or not the issue is popular.

Yes.

But just because something is popular does that mean there is no risk?

Maybe not zero, but the more popular, the less risk there is.

And popular to whom?

To a large part of the population, or at least of some group that the wokester cares about. For example, someone standing up for gay rights in the deep south? Actually courageous. Doing so in LA? Meh. ~Everyone in LA already agrees.

The libertarian Tom Woods has said something along the lines of: the same people who oppose slavery today think they would have opposed it 200 years ago. Wrong. They would have caved to peer pressure, as they do today.

Got it. I’m now clearer on how you’re defining what it means to be woke