If this is how Ramaswamy defines 'WOKE'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMR9-0jHSy8

'I am going to define it in neutral terms, not in critical terms. Being woke to becoming alert to invisible societal injustices, generally based on genetically inherited characteristics like race, sex, and sexual orientation and then being called on to act on those injustices using whatever potential legally means are necessary including the market to do it.

That's a neutral definition that even most proponents of woke-ism in the United States would agree with. My criticism of this is that I think it is inherently divisive to tell us that we are nothing more than the characteristics we inherit on the day we are born. That divides us on the basis of race and sex and sexual orientation. And then when that merges with capitalism, which is what I've actually been the biggest critic of what it does is we lose the sanctuary the apolitical sanctuary in our economy that otherwise brings us together"

I give the guy credit he tried to define WOKE in an interview on CNN that takes some balls. Pretty sure the 'proponents of woke-ism' are not in agreement the injustices don't exist in reality. The idea of sanctuary is a safe space so this notion of some apolitical sanctuary he mentions has a pleasant ring to it until you give it a moments thought and try not to laugh out loud.

So his biggest issues are the divisive nature of woke-ism and that private business would be used to support the message? It takes 2 to make something divisive and the 'go woke go broke' crowd is certainly guilty of both things so whether he meant it or not his neutral definition to me points fingers in both directions. Pretty sure he didn't mean to advocate that members of the gay community are the product of genetics which would just make them children of God like all the rest of us.

But I contend that 'woke' is just code for 'people whose beliefs I want to override' anyway so I am biased.

...'I am going to define it in neutral terms, not in critical terms. Being woke to becoming alert to invisible societal injustices, generally based on genetically inherited characteristics like race, sex, and sexual orientation and then being called on to act on those injustices using whatever potential legally means are necessary including the market to do it. ... Originally Posted by DNinja69

If that's his definition - it is way off the mark. Woke is the tip of the tail trying to wag the whole dog. It's internet amplification of an exceeding tiny fraction of the population using a bullhorn to make it sound important. It is not important - at all. In short - it's attention seeking.

According to the bible of woke - the Berkley Rubric, it is Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging. As such, it is a hair-brained spec of existence trying to convince everyone else that they are normal, of exceedingly large mass and more important than the other 99% of the population.

As opposed to the "normal" 99% (likely highly inflated percentage) of the population is trying to denote them as hair brained spec of existence that they don't somehow belong.

I mean the guy is considered an up and coming star in the Republican party who chant 'go woke go broke' like they are going to get free beer & tacos for the loudest effort. If the 'war against woke' was some legit talking point vs a partisan finger pointing process I think somebody would be able to define it in a way that made good basic sense.


Anyone?

As opposed to the "normal" 99% (likely highly inflated percentage) of the population is trying to denote them as hair brained spec of existence that they don't somehow belong. Originally Posted by reddog1951

OK. You tell me, how many trans guy2gals with beards (think Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) are there as a % of the population. Those were the ones the LA Dodgers trotted out.

My definition of ‘woke’:

To be in the minority (usually to a huge degree) on an issue, usually a lifestyle issue, or a racial issue, and it takes an organized stance supported by Liberals, especially by the media, that the organization deserves ‘Special Treatment’ that the majority does not receive or even ask for.

That shit Ramaswamy spat out is fucking ridiculous, weak, and irrelevant.

My definition of ‘woke’:

To be in the minority (usually to a huge degree) on an issue, usually a lifestyle issue, or a racial issue, and it takes an organized stance supported by Liberals, especially by the media, that the organization deserves ‘Special Treatment’ that the majority does not receive or even ask for.

That shit Ramaswamy spat out is fucking ridiculous, weak, and irrelevant. Originally Posted by ManSlut

Your definition is definitely on point with the use of WOKE and given that outline if in fact someone were asking for special treatment it could be a problem for others. Ok. Cool. My question is how would having a Pride display at Target be asking for special treatment? Or putting a trans person's face on a beer can?

sure seems to me that all of you including swamy himself are missing the whole history and concept of the idea.

it's being aware of discrimination, injustice, or worse being perpetrated by one group on another group. and then doing what you can to make people aware of that discrimination so that it can be changed or ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

in the past decade or so, some people have used it to shine the light on the discrimination against other groups (i.e., not african descendants). and some on the conservative end of the political spectrum are using it a) to label anything that they dont want light shone upon or b) to discredit the anti-discrimination efforts as extreme or made up (so, rather than argue that the discrimination does not exist or rarely exists, one way to "win" a debate is to just say that the other side is all liars or just too sensitive and crying [e.g., "snowflake"]). (*)

yes, there are differences - sex, ethnicity, genetics, age, education, color of hair/eyes, body shape, income, net wealth, etc. Some are inherent and some are due to decisions and/or opportunities that the person made/received.

should one group of people negatively discriminate against another group of people????
or are some on the conservative (**) end really saying "we dont want to give up our power and influence. so, anything you say that might allow others to share or have some of that power and influence is b.s. and should be discarded or ignored or castigated." ?

bottom line for me: i'd rather be woke - aware of some discrimination/injustice - than be asleep!


btw, many in this sub-culture of ours are discriminated against by "moral" people.
since what some of us do is technically illegal, we dont have much use of shining light on our activities so that others will end their discrimination against us.


( bolding and emphasis is mine)
(* from the Wikipedia article - "By 2019,[41] opponents of progressive social movements were often using the term mockingly or sarcastically,[4][42] implying that "wokeness" was an insincere form of performative activism.[4][43] British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock "overrighteous liberalism".[41] In this pejorative sense, woke means "following an intolerant and moralising ideology".[19]

Among American conservatives and some centrists, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult.[4][29][43]

Perry Bacon Jr. suggests that this "anti-woke posture" is connected to a long-standing promotion of backlash politics by the Republican Party, wherein it promotes white and conservative fear in response to activism by African Americans as well as changing cultural norms.[29][45] Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems.[42]"

(** from Oxford Languages via Google - conservative: 1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
2. (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. [whose tradition??} )

btw, many in this sub-culture of ours are discriminated against by "moral" people.
since what some of us do is technically illegal, we dont have much use of shining light on our activities so that others will end their discrimination against us. Originally Posted by pmdelites

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of conservatives, your post is interesting, especially the part above. It would be great if the rest of America woke up tomorrow and stopped condemning people for engaging in PFP. We should all agree that society shouldn’t condemn the behavior of consenting adults, as long as it doesn't harm others. As such perhaps we should be more accepting of the LGBTQ community too.

My definition of ‘woke’:

To be in the minority (usually to a huge degree) on an issue, usually a lifestyle issue, or a racial issue, and it takes an organized stance supported by Liberals, especially by the media, that the organization deserves ‘Special Treatment’ that the majority does not receive or even ask for.

That shit Ramaswamy spat out is fucking ridiculous, weak, and irrelevant. Originally Posted by ManSlut

what ‘Special Treatment’ are people in the "organization" asking for that the majority does not receive or even ask for?

are you're saying that people in the "organization" (guessing group) should not be receiving treatment like
a) not getting killed by police?
b) not getting beat up by people?
c) not getting denied an apartment or a mortgage or credit?

While I strongly disagree with your characterization of conservatives... Originally Posted by Tiny

what part of the definition i pulled from the web do you disagree with? or was it my thought/belief that conservatives wanna keep the pie and not share it with others??

... your post is interesting, especially the part above. It would be great if the rest of America woke up tomorrow and stopped condemning people for engaging in PFP. We should all agree that government has no business regulating the behavior of consenting adults, as long as it doesn't harm others. As such perhaps we should be more accepting of the LGBTQ community too. Originally Posted by Tiny

perfect example of "woke" being applied to a behavior of one group towards another group.

what part of the definition i pulled from the web do you disagree with? or was it my thought/belief that conservatives wanna keep the pie and not share it with others?. Originally Posted by pmdelites

The latter, this

should one group of people negatively discriminate against another group of people????
or are some on the conservative (**) end really saying "we dont want to give up our power and influence. so, anything you say that might allow others to share or have some of that power and influence is b.s. and should be discarded or ignored or castigated." ? Originally Posted by pmdelites

I believe he gave an excellent definition of Woke.