What does “wokeness” even mean? Is it just “not being a dick”?

For me one of the main problems of philosophy is the way it is communicated to common people. That elite-ish shirt that can't rid of it. Even philosophers the way they express themselves seems to care more to remain philosophy that way. They see it maybe as a privilege of their own and a reason to feel superior than common people. Philosophy should be more active imo in things that can be done actually from the society and people themselves. Have more practical value and not so much theoretical. The goals must be closer to what people can actually reach and not so many idealistic promises that can never be fulfilled.At the end its 2021 how much more philosophical theory? For all these centuries people have almost said everything! There is always something new to say of course but for me it would be better if we could look back to everything that has been said through all these great philosophical minds and try to compose something that is actually doable! To care more about transmitting the Message to common people and how this would be to everyone (even those who aren't educated at all) and stop caring about how to make that message as fancy to satisfy our philosophical ego. At the end of the day we care more about the Message or for our Ego?

What does “wokeness” even mean? Is it just “not being a dick”? — Michael

No, it’s more about the kind of people who are so self righteous they can only view people with different views to be “dicks”.

sentiment appears to have no place in philosophy, as well as personal bias.
Knowledge does not equate to preferences or sentiment. — Andrew4Handel

You appear to believe that the striving for absence of bias is the ‘correct’ role of philosophy. Others will suggest that this view is just one among competing notions of what philosophy is about. A substantial community of philosophers today rejects the idea that there could be such a thing as an unbiased perspective , or that such a goal was even desirable. From their vantage your aim is what they call a god’s eye view, or a view from nowhere. It seems to me that you’re taking notice of these truth relativists now that ‘wokism’ is spreading such ideas to the general public like never before. ‘Wokism’ is a big category, including on it’s conservative flank believers in moral absolutes and on its liberal fringe those who completely abandon notions of absolute moral and empirical truth. What all points on the wokism spectrum have in common is the belief that implicit bias can never be eliminated, which likely conflicts with your view. Not only does it likely conflict , but the ‘wokists’ will push hard to expose your view as ‘oppressive’.

No, it’s more about the kind of people who are so self righteous they can only view people with different views to be “dicks”. — DingoJones

It's not self-righteous if they're right. If they're right then the people who believe otherwise are wrong, and so therefore dicks (given that this term "wokeness" seems to refer to views on ethical matters).

You misunderstand. If someone thinks “wokeness” is the “right” view as implied by other views being the views of “dicks” then that person is dangerously self righteous.
Like this:
People who disagree with woke ideology are terrible humans, dicks. Not only should we look down on them but we shouldn’t listen to them either, and we shouldn’t let other people listen to them so let’s make sure they suffer as a consequence of their free speech, hopefully job loss but for sure canceling an event other people wanted to have. You know what? Let’s just call him a racist, or a Nazi, then we scarcely have to justify anything we do any more. We are fighting evil racist nazis after all. Then let’s scour the texting history of everyone we don’t like to see if we can find something we can cancel them over. While we are it, let’s make sure we frame everything in the most severe way possible so that anyone who isn’t woke is a monster...let’s make insults a form of violence...hmmm, not enough let’s make it so it’s violence if you just don’t like what you hear. Perfect. Just remember, only a racist or bigot or nazi doesn’t share our view and rejects our social engineering and language control.

Thats what woke is about. That’s textbook behaviour of the biggest dicks in history. The self righteousness is in the act of viewing “woke” as a moral high ground over other views. That’s the direct implication of saying opposing views to wokeness are the views of dicks.

You can not be woke and still not be a dick and there are plenty of woke dicks out there so no woke isn’t just not being a dick. It’s as often the opposite of not being a dick as any other person with any other view is a dick...pretty often.

Oh my Christ you people complain about this nonsense all the time, all the god damn time, shut up, go outside, get fresh air, this is so dumb

You misunderstand. If someone thinks “wokeness” is the “right” view as implied by other views being the views of “dicks” then that person is dangerously self righteous. — DingoJones

I asked what it means to be woke. You said that to be woke is to be self-righteous and believe that those with different views are dicks. But unless you want to argue for some form of moral relativism or subjectivism or whatever then there aren't two valid sides to an issue. One side is in the right and one side is in the wrong. We don't "agree to disagree" about ethical matters. If you mistreat others then you're a dick, plain and simple. That doesn't make me self-righteous; that just makes me right.

People who disagree with woke ideology... — DingoJones

What is "woke ideology"?

I agree with philosophy being ruined by bias and such as my philosophy is based in a similar with with fallacies included.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" — Andrew4Handel

This kind of claim is prone to fault because you have the obvious stereotyping or hasty generalization fallacy which is built on the assumption that everyone is consistently equal in identity or status.
The claim itself is socially biased overall and not really constructive.

I'm not in favour of just allowing people to post garbage because "censorship is bad". — Judaka

:up:

have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform. — James Riley

:cheer:

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" — Andrew4Handel

We don't faciliatate debate on issues we consider unworthy of debate. We consider that a poor use of our space. There are plenty of other forums less concerned about quality who do. Just go there. That's to emphasize, this is a popular philosophy forum with an academic bias. That's what we do here. It's our niche. Any subject that has zero chance of being considered worthy of academic debate probably has zero chance of being accepted here. It's not even really a question of what should or should not be debated. It's like going into an Italian restaraunt and wondering why they don't serve hamburgers. Just go to a McDonald's, man. That's not what we do here. Simple.

property is theft. — Andrew4Handel

How can "property," correctly understood, be theft?

As if being gay stops you from having regressive views on Palestinians or your voting pattern has to conform with what you actually believe. Your views are pretty clear snowflake.

How can "property," correctly understood, be theft? — tim wood

I think a lot hinges upon the words "correctly understood" and "theft." If we are to limit our consideration to law or other norms, then it is easy to argue that property is not necessarily theft. However, if "property" is anything held, or withheld then we must ask "held by whom" and "withheld from whom"? (Not too sure about my use of the word "whom" but you get the idea.)

In answering the first question, we should ask, how did they come into ownership of it? And how did their predecessor in interest come into possession of it, and the person before that? In answering the second question, we should ask what claim does that party have to it? And is that claim reasonable?

And then there is the nature of the "property" itself. If it is free and abundant, there is no need for the consideration of property. Those from which it is withheld would lay not claim, because they have "their" own. But if it is limited and expensive, then work must be undertaken to gain ownership of it. If the work involves taking, with only might as a justification, then a claimant might reasonably argue it was "theft."

The law and other norms like to provide a limitation on actions and other fictions in order to avoid the messy process of tracing an origination of ownership back to a point of "harmless" obtaining of possession, and the consequent "ownership." But if we don't run from that business and take on the challenge, I think it is reasonable to argue that all property is theft. It all was originally taken from someone or something that would otherwise have shared in it's use. That would include non-human entities. Their weakness and inability to resist our work cannot reasonably be distinguished from a certain person's weakness or inability to resist. Does weakness or inability to resist grant good title?

That brings my mind back to legal fictions, like "first in time, first in right" and "possession is 9/10ths of the law" and adverse possession, condemnation, etc. All variables on the notion of "might makes right." In the end, theft successfully executed results in property. Some criminals have succeeded to the point of going respectable. But it was still theft. Even their "innocent" heirs stand on theft.

Just thinking out loud.

...I have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform. — James Riley

That's pretty much the argument used whenever speech is censored by those in power. Facism and racism - or communism, Marxism, socialism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and on and on - are often in the eye of the beholder. That's certainly the case here on the forum.

hat's pretty much the argument used whenever speech is censored by those in power. — T Clark

The fact that evil can use a gun does not mean that goodness should forgo the use.

P.S. Unless and until we educate to the point where falsehood becomes a point of humor, entertainment, or parable, we'd do well to license and prohibit.

Your post makes a good case against the kind of self-righteous suppression of speech we sometimes see here on the forum. I appreciate that.

The fact that evil can use a gun does not mean that goodness should forgo the use. — James Riley

If you're saying that because others restrict speech we think is valid, we should do the same, I disagree.

Thats what woke is about. That’s textbook behaviour of the biggest dicks in history. The self righteousness is in the act of viewing “woke” as a moral high ground over other views. That’s the direct implication of saying opposing views to wokeness are the views of dicks. — DingoJones

It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point:

As if being gay stops you from having regressive views on Palestinians or your voting pattern has to conform with what you actually believe. Your views are pretty clear snowflake. — Benkei

There are plenty of other forums less concerned about quality who do. Just go there. — Baden

If you mistreat others then you're a dick, plain and simple. That doesn't make me self-righteous; that just makes me right. — Michael

It's not self-righteous if they're right. If they're right then the people who believe otherwise are wrong, and so therefore dicks (given that this term "wokeness" seems to refer to views on ethical matters). — Michael

Ah, another right wing prejudiced poster complaining about quality because not enough people agree with him. Whatever snowflake. — Benkei

It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators.

If you're saying that because others restrict speech we think is valid, we should do the same, I disagree. — T Clark

I don't think we should restrict speech we think is valid. I think we should restrict speech we think is invalid, regardless of what they think. I'm saying you don't want to bring a flower to a gun fight.

And really, my gun analogy is too early and too late. The opposition we currently fear, and the champions of their right to speak (you?) should thank their lucky stars I'm just talking about shunning, banning, marginalizing, pushing back under the fridge and into the darkness, and de-platforming. It's a shame they were not all slaughtered during the Civil War and WWII when the guns were out. Now we dishonor the memory of those who did all the hard work by allowing these people to crawl back out from under the fridge. That's what flowers will get us.

Now we dishonor the memory of those who did all the hard work by allowing these people to crawl back out from under the fridge. — James Riley

So, you think those wars for freedom were fought to protect your liberty and not those you disagree with.

I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this discussion.

So, you think those wars for freedom were fought to protect your liberty and not those you disagree with. — T Clark

Yes. I think those wars were fought to free slaves and slaughter racists and fascists murders. I don't want them to have liberty.

P.S. I'm not a big fan of monarchs, religious states, dictators, et al, either.

I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this discussion. — T Clark

Could be.

It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point: — T Clark

Ya, that’s the “consequences” of free speech that isn’t protected. A nice little sidestep the woke brigade uses to maintain the illusion of moral high ground.

It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators. — T Clark

I still think your anger is clouding things for you. Baden made excellent points in that exchange you had.

I cannot think of anyone, dead or alive, with enough moral sense to pick and choose what people can or cannot say, and by extension, what we can or cannot hear. I do not envy the censor because they find themselves among the worst humanity has ever produced.

That being said some enforcement is inevitable should one want to present a modicum of respectability.

The general argument concerning free speech of course has nothing to do with the argument concerning moderation on any particular forum any more than an argument for free food choices obliges an Italian restaurant to serve hamburgers. And yet posters consistently conflate these debates. There’s no inconsistency whatsoever between supporting free speech and running a moderated forum.

How can "property," correctly understood, be theft? — tim wood

Because it is claiming something that isn't yours. It doesn't belong to anyone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who wants to say something, but feels put-upon, censored, or PC'd out of a conversation, will have a number of angles from which to approach the same idea in a way that will let them through the door. The only thing that limits them is their lack of creativity, analytic thought, and reasoning ability.

If it's argued that they should be able to express themselves in the manner they choose, no matter how crude, stupid, pre-judgmental or offensive, then the response to that is this: Consequences. Others have the same right to shit on you. Don't like it? Tough. Quit being a fucking snowflake.

But here's an idea: Sit down, pencil and paper in hand. Think, strategize, formulate, and then write down honest questions from a sincere seat of curiosity. Then ask those questions. No body here, or anywhere else, is going to make you, or ask you to drink hemlock, simply because you asked honest questions. And make no mistake, asking questions will get across any point you have to make much better and more persuasively than simply blathering about things like racial superiority, the benefits of slavery, "the final solution" or whatever "philosophy" you think you hold. It will work better than trying to shift a burden of proof to those who think you are a POS, and who don't have the burden of making your case for you.

But yeah, can't figure out how to stay in the game? Consequences. It's evolution, taking out the trash.

I still think your anger is clouding things for you. Baden made excellent points in that exchange you had. — DingoJones

You and your damned reasonableness. Would you please stop it!!!

I've been in quite a few exchanges like this one, both as a participant and a bystander. In those situations, censorship by bullying is a common tactic. Moderators sometimes are part of that, although others certainly participate too. When a moderator does it it can be a lot more intimidating.

https://quizly.co/how-woke-are-you/

:cry:

I expect few on the mod team would qualify for the woke brigade. We are likely just boringly representative of the clever and the charming.

The test tells me I qualify as woke, but apparently we're so inclusive a group that includes people who answered that "it's okay to wear blackface on casual Fridays" on the appropriate question.