Is Wokeism Best Understood as a Religion?

[Mathilda]

A small example: Caucasian elites fight for the removal of the terms Latino and Latina in favor of Latinex.

No they don't. If anyone is using Latinx then it's to use alongside Latino and Latina so non-binary / gender non-conforming people have a term to use for themselves. Same way the UK's National Health Service used the term chest-feeding and 'people who can get pregnant' to include trans men as well as cis women but then the papers then accused the NHS of erasing the terms 'breast feeding' and 'mother'.

This is typical far right rhetoric. It's always projection with the far right, straight out of the fash playbook to accuse your enemy of what you do yourself. In this case accusing inclusivity of being exclusive. The intention is to exclude minorities from society by removing the language they can use to understand themselves.

[Vorpal]

A small example: Caucasian elites fight for the removal of the terms Latino and Latina in favor of Latinex.

No they don't. If anyone is using Latinx then it's to use alongside Latino and Latina so non-binary / gender non-conforming people have a term to use for themselves. Same way the UK's National Health Service used the term chest-feeding and 'people who can get pregnant' to include trans men as well as cis women but then the papers then accused the NHS of erasing the terms 'breast feeding' and 'mother'.

This is typical far right rhetoric. It's always projection with the far right, straight out of the fash playbook to accuse your enemy of what you do yourself. In this case accusing inclusivity of being exclusive. The intention is to exclude minorities from society by removing the language they can use to understand themselves.

That's a good clarification to make. However, it's not the absolute removal but it is removal of gendered forms when referring to the group in general not when referring a particular group of men or women. It's not the intent to be inclusive that is the issue per se.  It is that a solution is identified from the top down and not the bottom up.  Why is a term being put forward that is unwanted by the people being described? Why is sensitivity to diversity being focused in one area that actually demonstrates insensitivity to diversity in another?

 My stance of course is not typical right rhetoric.  Misrepresenting the other team's views is rampant on both sides.  Sometimes it is unintentional.

[Vorpal]

 

     I have no need to use silly misappropriated words.     

Language is a living thing and we have words derived from very weird places.  It does not mean we have to abandon a word because of previous connotations.  A rich etymological journey is fun to explore. Some words evolve back and forth between groups  -- like the n-word, like the word queer, like the term fake news. Sometimes it is good to take back a word that is being misused rather than just leave it as an effective weapon by those with another point of view.

I'm surprised you think the issue is silly.

[SYZ]

One could ask how is it that ships are commonly gendered.

In the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand ships
are referred to as "she".

But... Captain Ernst Lindemann of the German battleship Bismarck
referred to his ship as "he’" in view of its awesome power. In popular
parlance, the tradition of calling ships "she" has now become less
common. It's worth noting that the shipping industry newspaper,
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, now calls ships "it".

I include this little titbit of non-information as
a counter to any nonsensical debate about the
even more nonsensical term "intersectionality",
made up by a woman who's unable to even spell
her first name correctly—Kimberlé Crenshaw.

Whatever, the very word "intersectionality" itself is typical of your smug,
fucking stupid "woke" generation, and their attempts at preening
self-righteousness.

     I fart in their general direction.

[SYZ]

  I have no need to use silly misappropriated words.     

Language is a living thing and we have words derived from very weird places.  It does not mean we have to abandon a word because of previous connotations.  A rich etymological journey is fun to explore. Some words evolve back and forth between groups  -- like the n-word, like the word queer, like the term fake news. Sometimes it is good to take back a word that is being misused rather than just leave it as an effective weapon by those with another point of view.

I'm surprised you think the issue is silly.

I take your point about an evolving—or devolving—language such as English,
but that acceptance doesn't mean we should be perfectly happy with words
that don't convey any or even a little of their original meaning.  Woke?  Seriously?  

"Gay" is an outstanding contender for that infamous claim!

So many classic, enjoyable songs written before the word—and more importantly
its meaning—were effectively hijacked by the homosexual community in the early
1950s as an unwarranted effort to disguise that period's initial opposition to the
era's first public exposure to homosexual relationships or activities.

How many people can sing the lyrics of one of my childhood rounds without, at the
very least, a little smirk? For example:     

     Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree,
     Merry, merry king of the bush is he,
     Laugh kookaburra, laugh, kookaburra,
     How gay your life must be!

[Dānu]

I read a paper once that essentially pointed out that when changes to a language occur, when the usage of a word shifts, it is usually a reflection of an action or usage of the word by community leaders. Thus changes to language are top-down because that's the way social groups work. Thus the fact that any linguistic change occurred by a top down process is not in and of itself a demonstration that it is nefarious, harmful, or inappropriate. The top-down nature of change in social groups is not inherently bad, regardless of what area is being changed. You need to show something more.

[Rhythmcs]

My stance if course is not typical right rhetoric.  Misrepresenting the other team's views is rampant on both sides.  Sometimes it is unintentional.

It is, actually, word for galloping word..and if that concerns you then you might want to do something about it.  Like not consuming right wing propaganda, for starters.

[Vorpal]

I read a paper once that essentially pointed out that when changes to a language occur, when the usage of a word shifts, it is usually a reflection of an action or usage of the word by community leaders.  Thus changes to language are top-down because that's the way social groups work.  Thus the fact that any linguistic change occurred by a top down process is not in and of itself a demonstration that it is nefarious, harmful, or inappropriate.  The top-down nature of change in social groups is not inherently bad, regardless of what area is being changed.  You need to show something more.

I would argue a term that is generated from inspiration of a leaders usage is actually bottom up.  The inspiration of the people is the engine of change.  If the leader mandates or strongly encourages a type of usage, it is top down even if it is later wholeheartedly accepted.

[Vorpal]

It is, actually, word for galloping word..and if that concerns you then you might want to do something about it.  Like not consuming right wing propaganda, for starters.

I have the sense that you think most if not all right wing reasoning is propaganda.  I like Sam Harris and have been reading about some of Eric Kaufmann's view.  He is not some crack pot. He is a professor and not from Trump University.  He supported Desantis over Trump. Not that Desantis doesn't try to overcorrect the overcorrection.

[Dānu]

I read a paper once that essentially pointed out that when changes to a language occur, when the usage of a word shifts, it is usually a reflection of an action or usage of the word by community leaders.  Thus changes to language are top-down because that's the way social groups work.  Thus the fact that any linguistic change occurred by a top down process is not in and of itself a demonstration that it is nefarious, harmful, or inappropriate.  The top-down nature of change in social groups is not inherently bad, regardless of what area is being changed.  You need to show something more.

I would argue a term that is generated from inspiration of a leaders usage is actually bottom up.  The inspiration of the people is the engine of change.  If the leader mandates or strongly encourages a type of usage, it is top down even if it is later wholeheartedly accepted.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I take your point about an evolving—or devolving—language such as English,
but that acceptance doesn't mean we should be perfectly happy with words
that don't convey any or even a little of their original meaning.  Woke?  Seriously?  

But "woke" actually does convey its original meaning, metaphorically -- as in waking up from a sleep, and opening one's eyes to a situation one hadn't seen while somnolent.

Stripping language of metaphor and simile impoverishes our ability to express things with richness.

[Vorpal]

I would argue a term that is generated from inspiration of a leaders usage is actually bottom up.  The inspiration of the people is the engine of change.  If the leader mandates or strongly encourages a type of usage, it is top down even if it is later wholeheartedly accepted.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Nonsense. You are slippery sloping to the poles because nuance has been suggested. Poor form. Thomas Jefferson used the word pedicure and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  A rapper used the word bling, for jewelry etc. and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  The University of California, Berkeley, has established the Latinx Research Center. If they require Latinx be used by students in their dissertations, is that top down?

Maybe you saw a YouTube video that obliquely addresses this- that you can reference rather than taking your own position.

[Dānu]

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Nonsense. You are slippery sloping to the poles because nuance has been suggested. Poor form. Thomas Jefferson used the word pedicure and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  A rapper used the word bling, for jewelry etc. and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  The University of California, Berkeley, has established the Latinx Research Center. If they require Latinx be used by students in their dissertations, is that top down?

Maybe you saw a YouTube video that obliquely addresses this- that you can reference rather than taking your own position.

Yeah, same old Vorpal. Bitter and petty. You can apologize and I may address your question, or not. The choice is yours.

[Rhythmcs]

I have the sense that you think most if not all right wing reasoning is propaganda. 

You'd be wrong.

I like Sam Harris and have been reading about some of Eric Kaufmann's view.  He is not some crack pot. He is a professor and not from Trump University.  He supported Desantis over Trump.  Not that Desantis doesn't try to overcorrect the overcorrection.

His work speaks for itself...and you might not be paying attention to what ronny d has been up to. He's not overcorrecting anything. There was nothing to correct.

Look, this part is almost certain to be unproductive. I only mentioned it on the off chance that you were unaware that you were spouting standard issue reich wing propaganda from known disseminators. If you know you are and agree with them, obviously, disregard.

[Vorpal]

Nonsense. You are slippery sloping to the poles because nuance has been suggested. Poor form. Thomas Jefferson used the word pedicure and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  A rapper used the word bling, for jewelry etc. and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  The University of California, Berkeley, has established the Latinx Research Center. If they require Latinx be used by students in their dissertations, is that top down?

Maybe you saw a YouTube video that obliquely addresses this- that you can reference rather than taking your own position.

Yeah, same old Vorpal.  Bitter and petty.  You missed the obvious point that whether something is top-down or bottom-up by itself says nothing.  So examples of either by themselves simply misses the point.

I disagree with your point that it means nothing.  AND, I support it with specific examples.

You gloss around things and now add "by itself"  which is not clear in your first vague response.  By itself it means a lot.  But, sure other dimensions are also relevant and could possibly dilute the general trend.

You are not a good debater.  Instead of addressing issues in good faith, you reference reputation, misapply logical fallacies, and pretend vagueness is a virtue.  People who wallow in your vagueness then can be called dumb.  Jerry has your number. Congratulations on your accomplishments.

[Dānu]

Yeah, same old Vorpal.  Bitter and petty.  You missed the obvious point that whether something is top-down or bottom-up by itself says nothing.  So examples of either by themselves simply misses the point.

I disagree with your point that it means nothing.  AND, I support it with specific examples.

You gloss around things and now add "by itself"  which is not clear in your first vague response.  By itself it means a lot.  But, sure other dimensions are also relevant and could possibly dilute the general trend.

You are not a good debater.  Instead of addressing issues in good faith, you reference reputation, misapply logical fallacies, and pretend vagueness is a virtue.  People who wallow in your vagueness then can be called dumb.  Jerry has your number. Congratulations on your accomplishments.

Yeah, no. If you want my participation, you can cut the shit and apologize. It's up to you. Your insults are not directed to specific aspects of the discussion and are just gratuitous.

At minimum you need to agree to knock it off.

[Vorpal]

I disagree with your point that it means nothing.  AND, I support it with specific examples.

You gloss around things and now add "by itself"  which is not clear in your first vague response.  By itself it means a lot.  But, sure other dimensions are also relevant and could possibly dilute the general trend.

You are not a good debater.  Instead of addressing issues in good faith, you reference reputation, misapply logical fallacies, and pretend vagueness is a virtue.  People who wallow in your vagueness then can be called dumb.  Jerry has your number. Congratulations on your accomplishments.

Yeah, no.  If you want my participation, you can cut the shit and apologize.  It's up to you.  Your insults are not directed to specific aspects of the discussion and are just gratuitous.

It's a factual observation that you have recently been noncommittal in your presentation of points. You present videos, cartoons, quotes from literary works, or refer to someone else's reflection that might be relevant. You then do not explain the connection you are trying to make,  It appears that you do this to avoid stating a point and completely owning it.  Seems defensive.  I am not apologizing for my observation or my interpretation of it.  You can correct my interpretation if you want.  I don't care to discuss anything with you if you plan to continue your MO of 80% posturing, 20% substance.  It's not worth it.

[Dānu]

Yeah, no.  If you want my participation, you can cut the shit and apologize.  It's up to you.  Your insults are not directed to specific aspects of the discussion and are just gratuitous.

It's a factual observation that you have recently been noncommittal in your presentation of points. You present videos, cartoons, quotes from literary works, or refer to someone else's reflection that might be relevant. You then do not explain the connection you are trying to make,  It appears that you do this to avoid stating a point and completely owning it.  Seems defensive.  I am not apologizing for my observation or my interpretation of it.  You can correct my interpretation if you want.  I don't care to discuss anything with you if you plan to continue your MO of 80% posturing, 20% substance.  It's not worth it.

Vorpal, you may not understand this or that specific point that I am making, that can happen to anyone. But to reason from the fact that you don't understand something or see why some specific elocution makes sense in a given place to concluding that it is all bollocks is just an error in reasoning. I don't have a clue when I look at equations having to do with quantum physics, that doesn't mean that my incomprehension is a sign of something significant about those equations.

I get that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, but lately I've noticed you taking a turn toward more substantive participation and I applaud you for that effort. However, when it comes to me, you apparently have some unsettled scores that are motivating you to make accusations of fault and other snarky or insulting comments. I am happy to overlook whatever failings you might have on substance if you are willing to stop with the personal attacks and remain civil. If you can't bring yourself to at least showing a minimum of decorum in your interactions with me, then why would I -- or anyone -- voluntarily submit themselves to such abuse?

[Rhythmcs]

An alternate theory presents itself. Perhaps the dems lost not because they failed to stand up to leftist extremism..but because more and more of them find themselves agreeing with right wing extremism.

[Vorpal]

It takes two to tango.  You are often opaque. That could be my failing, your failing, or both. It doesn't even have to be seen as a failing. It's a misunderstanding, a mismeeting of minds. My experience of your interaction with me is every other post contains a barb.  I could tolerate the barbs if you just addressed my point and got to your point.  You are heavy on the insults and then you quit leaving things unfinished.  Not fun.  Contrast your style with epronovost's. He is fun to interact with. You could be too if you wanted.

You are very focused on me not being the sharpest tool. That is insulting. I am not the sharpest nor the dullest. You state that I overestimate my accomplishments. In this forum the only accomplishment I am trying to achieve is to have fun.  I have not changed anyone's view more than by the most insignificant fraction. Nor do I expect to. IRL I have many accomplishments in education and professionally, not so good in personal life right now.  You do not know my accomplishments enough to assess whether I overestimate them.

That's the extent of my issue with you. When I first came to this forum you were one of the people who intrigued me. Now I could care less about whether we interact or not. I am burnt out on you.

[SYZ]

...Thomas Jefferson used the word pedicure and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  A rapper used the word bling, for jewellery etc. and it caught on. Would you describe that as top down?  The University of California, Berkeley, has established the Latinx Research Center. If they require Latinx be used by students in their dissertations, is that top down?

Maybe you saw a YouTube video that obliquely addresses this- that you can reference rather than taking your own position.

Both words—pedicure and bling—were created as totally new
words, rather than being misappropriated from those extant— as
has been the word "woke" (and its meaning).

The term woke purportedly originates from Black America, traced back to
blues singer Huddie Ledbetter’s 1938 song Scottsboro Boys: "So I advise
everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there—best stay
woke, keep their eyes open".

And Willard "Ramblin’" Thomas lamented a lost love in Sawmill Moan:
"If I don’t go crazy, I’m sure gonna lose my mind, 'cause I can’t sleep for
dreamin’, sure can’t stay woke for cryin’."

(But this is simply BLM bullshit.)

Of course what they meant was "awake", but that's simply because of both
men's minor grammatical error in using the past tense "woke" instead of the
present tense.

But... and it's a big but, neither use of the word "woke" was intended, then,
to ever mean anything even vaguely like its use does today.

[Dānu]

It takes two to tango.  You are often opaque. That could be my failing, your failing, or both. It doesn't even have to be seen as a failing. It's a misunderstanding, a mismeeting of minds. My experience of your interaction with me is every other post contains a barb.  I could tolerate the barbs if you just addressed my point and got to your point.  You are heavy on the insults and then you quit leaving things unfinished.  Not fun.  Contrast your style with epronovost's. He is fun to interact with. You could be too if you wanted.

You are very focused on me not being the sharpest tool. That is insulting. I am not the sharpest nor the dullest. You state that I overestimate my accomplishments. In this forum the only accomplishment I am trying to achieve is to have fun.  I have not changed anyone's view more than by the most insignificant fraction. Nor do I expect to. IRL I have many accomplishments in education and professionally, not so good in personal life right now.  You do not know my accomplishments enough to assess whether I overestimate them.

That's the extent of my issue with you. When I first came to this forum you were one of the people who intrigued me. Now I could care less about whether we interact or not. I am burnt out on you.

It's true that I can be 'opaque' or hard to understand at times. And sometimes I'm just being silly.

You need not interact with me, if you choose. You could simply ignore me and not respond to things that I post. I have in the past done that with you, as I generally try to do with jerry, as we inevitably get off the subject and into pointless personal exchange. I'll confess that I do the same at times and wherein I do, it deserves no defense and I should be thought worse of for those times that I fail.

But that's not what's happening here, as far as I can tell. You seem to want to reply, if only so that you can say something shitty about me. If you really can't stand me, then simply don't reply. That's a perfectly reasonable solution. But you seem to want it both ways. You want to reply to my posts substantively in order to justify and say shitty things about me. I am simply asking you to pick one or the other. If all you want to do is say shitty things about me, then I don't have to listen or reply. If you want to make substantive replies to me -- and I'm usually happy to try to explain further if something is unclear --then do that. All I'm asking is that you pick a lane. Do one or the other. Just not both.

By the way, I'm sorry that you find my opinion of you insulting. I suppose it is and I apologize if I've hurt your feelings with such comments. I'll try to do a better job of keeping it under my hat. I am cursed with being smart enough to see other's faults but not smart enough to just keep my mouth shut. I'm not perfect. Far from it. And sometimes, on social media such as this, such things do need to be addressed.

And finally, I appreciate this last response of yours. It was entirely civil and I appreciate that you are making an effort.

Now, if you want my input on this or that comment that was opaque, I'll try my best. The quote from Orwell was half serious and half silly, if you are curious. Or if you want to ignore me, then you know what to do.

[SYZ]

It takes two to tango.  You are often opaque. That could be my failing, your failing, or both. It doesn't even have to be seen as a failing. It's a misunderstanding, a mismeeting of minds. My experience of your interaction with me is every other post contains a barb.  I could tolerate the barbs if you just addressed my point and got to your point.  You are heavy on the insults and then you quit leaving things unfinished.  Not fun.  Contrast your style with epronovost's. He is fun to interact with. You could be too if you wanted.

You are very focused on me not being the sharpest tool. That is insulting. I am not the sharpest nor the dullest. You state that I overestimate my accomplishments. In this forum the only accomplishment I am trying to achieve is to have fun.  I have not changed anyone's view more than by the most insignificant fraction. Nor do I expect to. IRL I have many accomplishments in education and professionally, not so good in personal life right now.  You do not know my accomplishments enough to assess whether I overestimate them.

That's the extent of my issue with you. When I first came to this forum you were one of the people who intrigued me. Now I could care less about whether we interact or not. I am burnt out on you.

Mate... you really need to give up on this personal, embittered and repetitious tirade
of yours.  It has NOTHING at all to do with the topic at hand, that of "wokeism", and
is in reality simply sniping, uncalled for towards another member of the forum.

And your nonsensical appeal to authority: "I have many accomplishments in education
and professionally" is neither here nor there on a basically broad-based forum like this.

     Personally, I couldn't give a fuck if you've got a doctorate in
     string theory, or proved the existence of dark matter or that
     Donald Duck wasn't Huey, Dewey and Louie's father.

[Vorpal]

It takes two to tango.  You are often opaque. That could be my failing, your failing, or both. It doesn't even have to be seen as a failing. It's a misunderstanding, a mismeeting of minds. My experience of your interaction with me is every other post contains a barb.  I could tolerate the barbs if you just addressed my point and got to your point.  You are heavy on the insults and then you quit leaving things unfinished.  Not fun.  Contrast your style with epronovost's. He is fun to interact with. You could be too if you wanted.

You are very focused on me not being the sharpest tool. That is insulting. I am not the sharpest nor the dullest. You state that I overestimate my accomplishments. In this forum the only accomplishment I am trying to achieve is to have fun.  I have not changed anyone's view more than by the most insignificant fraction. Nor do I expect to. IRL I have many accomplishments in education and professionally, not so good in personal life right now.  You do not know my accomplishments enough to assess whether I overestimate them.

That's the extent of my issue with you. When I first came to this forum you were one of the people who intrigued me. Now I could care less about whether we interact or not. I am burnt out on you.

Mate... you really need to give up on this personal, embittered and repetitious tirade
of yours.  It has NOTHING at all to do with the topic at hand, that of "wokeism", and
is in reality simply sniping, uncalled for towards another member of the forum.

And your nonsensical appeal to authority: "I have many accomplishments in education
and professionally" is neither here nor there on a basically broad-based forum like this.

     Personally, I couldn't give a fuck if you've got a doctorate in
     string theory, or proved the existence of dark matter or that
     Donald Duck wasn't Huey, Dewey and Louie's father.

Your reaction to my post is odd given that its intended recipient called it entirely civil. Why don't you butt out?  It is a brief aside, Get over it. You were in the other thread that provides context here so you have no excuse.  I was not saying that my achievements IRL should give my posts credibility.  You added all that yourself.  As always my points speak for themselves.  I hope they are cogent, but of late they have not been received that way. Yet.

G'day, mate.

[Rhythmcs]

This is all fascinating. We began with the question of whether wokism was best understood as a religion. Specifically, in the sense that it was not empirical. However, we've since learned that the demonstrably religious and unempirical nature of right wing wokism is not a problem for you. You agree with it all the same.

Whatever your objection is, it doesn't seem to be religiosity, literal or metaphoric. It doesn't seem to be fealty to empiricism. It doesn't seem to be opposition to extremist viewpoints.