196

This is fucking brilliant.

Woke used to be a positive term. It referred to people who had their point of view expanded or changed so that they felt more awake than they had before.

Woke used to mean enlightenment.

Woke used to mean aware of systemic mechanisms of privilege and oppression in society. I had to stop using it unironically because it turned into a white power derisive buzzword.

To be fair, it still refers to awareness and sympathy for those who suffer from systemic injustice. It's just wrong according to hate-driven pro-authoritarian movements to sympathize with outsiders.

Current use of woke as a term of contempt is an admission if bigotry.

I hear what you’re saying, but if I may provide an extreme example… Try wearing a sauvastika in the western world these days and what do you think the response will be? Once a symbol of abundance and prosperity became the most prominent hateful symbol for generations. Decades after the annihilation of Nazi Germany and the swastika is still given their interpretation. I don’t have an answer as to how to prevent this from happening all over again like it is to a lesser degree with vocabulary such as this is describing.

You’re not wrong.

I did completely gloss over the fact this term existed long before it was co-opted by the right.

I’m wrong about that for certain.

If I was to make an excuse I suppose it would be that I just don’t hear leftists using this term much in its original form. It has been twisted and hijacked and that is sad.

Maybe we should take it back but IMO I’d rather just call an issue what it is rather than create umbrella terms that encapsulate a variety of really complex topics.

If it’s a feminist issue it’s a feminist issue.

If it’s a representation issue it’s a representation issue.

If it’s a systemic racism issue it’s a systemic racism issue.

I’d rather we call it what it is than ‘woke’ but fully open to criticism of this position based on the fact this is ignoring its origin.

racists literally intentionally and vociferously assert their conviction that the black community doesn't matter, so, yes literally that. if something originated in the black community, or was prominent in black history, that makes it MORE susceptible to being hijacked by fascists, because that makes it a tantalizing target to them. not only do the ethnonationalist scum get to steal something, they ALSO get to debase and undermine one of their favorite targets while they do so. of fucking course they're going to hijack it.

My local political scene is using French, not English nor AAVE. And yet there is a which-hunt in the academia to exclude the "wokes" and the "islamo-leftists". Sorry if my proximate political realities are more important than etymology.

Not a single person on the left has ever said math is raciat. That was something Tucker Carlson wholesale made up after we started asking why black kids did worse in school. As for "black lives matter" I'd say that's pretty self-evident, and the only possible rebuttal ("don't white lives matter too?") has a one sentence counter ("obviously. but white lives aren't under threat right now.")

More to the point, respectability politics in general is a trap. We could have better slogans, that's true, especially in the "getting people on our side" phase, but compromising what we believe in to be more palatable to moderates, even in the slightest, is unacceptable. "Sure, I'm cool with trans people (maybe I'm even trans myself), but neopronouns are where I draw the line" is their in. Once conservatives see that we admit some point is too far to our side, once they see the bubble of people we protect can shrink, they won't stop until it's shrunk all the way.

Liberal != leftist. Also, the right wing could not care less about optics, because they are the ones who dictate what is acceptable. Why would we play by their rules, especially since they always change them?

The left gets massacred for prosaic slogans like "Black lives matter" and "Trans rights are human rights" while the right straight up chants "Jews will not replace us" and nobody bats an eye. So I don't think the left's tone is the problem here.

And yes, for the record, black lives matter and trans women (note, no hyphen) are women.

.Those of us on the left needs to be more concerned with our optics and police ourselves better.

I think we already police each other far too much. We need to police the right better.

What puts you on the left, by the way?

Catch-phrases like "all cops are bastards", "defund the police", "~~math is racist~~", "black lives matter", "trans-women are women" etc., do not help to promote ~~liberal~~ progressive ideologies and push the people on the fence away

They're meant to get a reaction and spark conversation.

Many of these are so easy to correct for, "Reform the Police", "Black Lives Matter Too" are the most obvious and easy changes.

"Reform" and "defund" are not the same things. People tried "reform the police". That didn't work. It isn't a good rallying cry.

Defunding the police also makes more sense when you realize that the police are over-funded in the first place.

*I support the ideas behind all of them, but how they are perceived by conservatives is not how they were intended to be understood.

What do you think that the ideas behind them are? Because I have a feeling that you don't understand the meanings behind some of these slogans.

There's a lot to unpack behind something like "trans women are women", but that's supposed to be the start of the conversation, not the end.

Conservatives would not change their minds. They listen to whatever their talking heads tell them, and they would turn that around and make a counter protest. That's all conservativism is.

There are no "sensible" right-wingers, they've had their values thoroughly corrupted by a media-machine designed to split the worming class against itself. Changing optics would do nothing, so instead the left should focus on continuing grassroots efforts.

Also, liberals are not leftists, liberalism is pro-capitalism.

You actually kind of have liberalism wrong as well though. It's the idea that individual liberty creates political agency. From that we get the ideas around inclusive society being critical to a functioning democracy, because democratic participation is the intersection of inclusion, liberty and individual actualization.

Or rather, people must first be free to engage with political questions out in the open (liberty). Then they must feel like they have a stake in society (inclusion). Then they must have the time and resources to participate (actualization). This is the foundation of liberal democracy.

What you are describing is commonly considered a form of liberalism, but is more aptly described as progressive liberalism. You are definitely correct though, that many forms of leftism and liberalism are compatible, despite people on Lemmy insisting otherwise.

Please tell me, as a trans nonbinary person, what the respectable version of "trans women are women" is?

And before then it was "political correctness"