Hertsseasider
Well-known member
Well this went well
What does WOKE mean ?
- Thread starter Hertsseasider
- Start date
S
Scroogeswinebar
Guest
Worth a try I suppose
Bloodtangerine
Well-known member
Needless to say he ain’t repliedWorth a try I suppose
S
Scroogeswinebar
Guest
Macseasider
Well-known member
As I said to 20's I was just responding to the Op's question.
You've made statements on what your version of "woke" has become.
They differ to mine. Mine is just to be tolerant and decent to others.
As I said to 20's I'm not interested in your bizarre logic or debating it. You can do that with others who have limitless hours to type rafts of meaningless tripe on here. I don't know where you get the energy on the basis that nobody gives a shit?
Write a book.
tangerine_neil
Well-known member
It’s what the Chinese use for stir-fry
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Well you certainly come across as a man “who doesn’t give a shit”. And your clearly very “tolerant and decent to others”.... So there’s nothing more to say
hertfordseasider
Well-known member
It’s a very important word in American blues music 
Wizaard
Well-known member
Many are doing good and are criticised for it.
Lytham_fy8
Well-known member
How has your way of life changed because of them?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you mean?
The term 'do-gooder' is not a criticim or a reference to people who simply do good. The recognised use of that phrase is in more of an ironic sense where an individuals intentions are typically misplaced, questionable or often hypocritical.
EagleDay
Well-known member
Got something special on my mind.
EagleDay
Well-known member
It changes in subtle ways, doesn't it, the way we think, the way we speak even our idea of humour is affected. And if some zealots have their way, the style of dress we wear or the food we eat.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
What is Wokeness? it’s a distraction – that’s what it is. despite whatever is important – from Covid rates to Customs turmoil – the Government will be trying their level best to talk about what is petty. Here’s a (tangential) for instance: in last Monday’s Daily Telegraph we had a senior journo reporting approvingly about the idea of an “anti-woke Citizens Advice service”. Pettiness used as a means of distraction. These people create pantomimes, patriots battling straw men over trivia. This would make no sense if it came from a state in the grip of a crisis: which we are. However, it makes every sense from a state with only one aim – the survival of its ruling party. To the modern Conservative, all government business is party business.
While we’re blaming each other for wokeness or bigotry, that’s all energy not directed at the government. The more intense the debate, the more divisions it opens up within as well as between each side, so there is no oxygen for more productive discussions. By focussing on cultural identity and identity-building issues – patriotism, British exceptionalism, nostalgia, monoculturalism – the Conservatives have been able to sidestep the important need for the redistribution of wealth: “Here, have this orgy of flag-waving in lieu of liveable sick pay.”
Far more important than single focused identities, be they women’s rights, LGBT, ethnic minority or other constituencies that the Government is happy to pigeon-hole people into, are foundational issues that cut across these barriers: that one ought, for instance, to be able to sustain oneself with dignity and without hardship by working. This has much higher salience than what “woke” does or doesn’t mean.
While we’re blaming each other for wokeness or bigotry, that’s all energy not directed at the government. The more intense the debate, the more divisions it opens up within as well as between each side, so there is no oxygen for more productive discussions. By focussing on cultural identity and identity-building issues – patriotism, British exceptionalism, nostalgia, monoculturalism – the Conservatives have been able to sidestep the important need for the redistribution of wealth: “Here, have this orgy of flag-waving in lieu of liveable sick pay.”
Far more important than single focused identities, be they women’s rights, LGBT, ethnic minority or other constituencies that the Government is happy to pigeon-hole people into, are foundational issues that cut across these barriers: that one ought, for instance, to be able to sustain oneself with dignity and without hardship by working. This has much higher salience than what “woke” does or doesn’t mean.
But people are interested in questions of cultural identity far more than in the minutiae of Government policy. People vote because of their core beliefs not because they believe a particular policy will be implemented in a particular way. We don't need an endless picking apart of every single action elected politicians make (irrespective of party). That way leads to the hyper-partisanship like we currently see in the States and a potential breakdown in society.
Ultimately, 'wokeness' is just bigotry from a different direction.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I don't believe that people are more concerned that their Government should be there to massage their specific cultural identities when they could be providing adequate housing and a good internet infrastructure; a firm industrial base and secure employment prospects; compliance with living wage legislation by companies large and small, whilst they are also brought to account over tax avoidance.
These aren't the minutiae of Government policy - these are the key economic and social building blocks within which people of all cultual identities should be able to feel safe, secure and able to prosper. That's why I say people from all walks of British life should be holding Governments to account on these issues, not because one party believes in a woke agenda whilst another does not.
Last edited:
Political parties don't really 'massage' cultural views - they take their cues from them.
Everybody wants to be safe, secure and able to prosper - all parties promote this - but there's no monopoly on the political ideas of how these are achieved so, ultimately, you takes your choice as much on those that appear to be in sync with your cultural values as you do on a political manifesto. Dominic Raab would struggle in a Bradford constituency not because the residents are wildly racist but because they feel more comfortable with an Asian Muslim MP.
I just find wokeness an extension of identity politics which inexorably leads to further divisions in society.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Cultures are always in a state of flux. Look at the changes in the U.K. since the 1950s (marriage and divorce; the Church; attitudes to homosexuality and racism). Nothing new about any of this; it’s just that the word “woke” makes it seem that way.
B
basilrobbie
Guest
This is an insightful post. Especially the last sentence.
I think that there is something quite complex (socially) going on here. Its is a truism, but identity politics gathers strength because people crave identity. It's a natural human trait, and we all have it to some extent. But in my view the "need" for identity often stems from social inadequacy, poor self esteem and an inability to prosper within the societal frameworks that currently prevail.
if that is true - and obviously it is highly arguable - it tends to reinforce the view that tackling inequity (NOT inequality, which is different) is perhaps one of the most pressing challenges we face, and yields the highest (but possibly most intangible) benefits if we get it right.
Good post.
Inequity usually results in inequality, and poor governance is at the root of the problem.
There was an interesting programme on `Moonshot Economics` on Radio 4 last night discussing similar topics - and in part inequity brought about by `moonshot` policies.
It touched on the inequity to lower (and some middle) income workers, brought about (in part) by a decade of austerity, and how that had breached the social contract between the workforce and the government. That is labour is given by the workforce in return for a reasonable standard of living and hopefully some job security.
But nowadays many people cannot survive solely on a working wage and need credits (and sometimes foodbanks) to live at a basic level. This is in part to the suppression of wages and the continued increase in the value of `assets` (houses and such).
I remember listening to Theresa May`s very first speech when she said she would be prioritising addressing the plight of the JAMS, and I thought she was going to target the inequity of those who were working full time but still struggling. Sadly she didn`t.
Perhaps because nobody really can without a massive radical shake up. Certainly a libertarian government can`t...
Last edited: