Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[tstorm823]

So, what you're saying is that the problem of "wokeness" is one of cultural appropriation?

That's certainly a way to look at it.

But, are the people complaining about "wokeness" actually closer to those marginalized communities than the people being criticized?

No, but I don't think that is a bad thing. No one person is going to be attached to every community on the planet. Pretending that you are would be dishonest.

If it were the problem, if the point is that these people are misusing or appropriating words they don't understand, then it would be pretty hypocritical to keep describing those people as "woke" when you (supposedly) know that these people are doing it wrong.

I do not, outside of a context like this where we're discussing specifically the language. I try to use normal, basic language as much as I can. The fact that "woke" can inspire a discussion on what it actually means indicates it's a pretty useless word for communicating other ideas to people.

So, when we talk about performative activism. When we talk about corporations slapping rainbows on everything for a month or white comic book writers creating stereotypical and insulting black characters in the name of diversity. What exactly is the problem there?

Bad representation is obfuscation. If a white person knows know black people, would you rather leave it at that or toss some minstrel shows at them?

 

[Hawki]

Ah, so Bill Maher, Jimmy Dore, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin are woke. Trump would be the wokest thing that's ever happend

Wow. Just realised that Dave Rubin is the least woke of this group

Not really. The only thing that Trump really has in common with wokeness is hyper-sensitivity. The above (I assume, haven't heard of Jimmy Dore) are explicitly anti-woke.

Also, not sure how you concluded that Rubin is the "least woke," since he was explicitly anti-woke. So anti-woke that he ended up going down the rabbit hole of stating that on January 6, "nothing happened."

My feeling from decades of media watching, all the way back to the 80s, is that "woke" (or "political correctness" as it used to be) is almost always far less significant than it is usually presented to be.

If we're talking about Oz, I definitely agree with you, mostly. Sky News at night has a business of calling everything "woke," and I'm left to ask why (I mean, I know why), but in the US? Not so much. Read too many articles and too many books for that.

Also, "wokeness" and "political correctness" are different things, even though they're related.

There are two reasons for this. For a start, a lot of what is badged as "woke" (or "politically correct") is simply the gradual evolution of society which is broadly accepted by younger generations and will become the status quo, no matter how much fusty oldsters with outsize representation in media rail against the dying of their light. After that, it's that those same fusty oldsters spend their time deluging media with every trivial instance - or completely made up falseness - to try to stoke outrage and create a social backlash to changes or just demean their political opponents, leading people to assume it's far more prevalent and serious than it is.

In the latter case, one might compare perceptions of crime and immigration. Interesting studies have revealed that even as people think crime is modest and decreasing in their local area, they believe nationwide crime is spiralling out of control, or that areas with about 2% immigrants think the country is overrun and 30% of the population are foreign-born. They form this dissonant view because they can see their local area with modest crime and barely any immigration, but they rely on the media for the rest of the country, and if they read the wrong media what they read is crime and immigrants (and especially crime caused by immigrants) rampant everywhere.

Of course, "woke" serves another function, too: which is to keep people looking at stuff that doesn't really matter so they don't look so much at the stuff that does matter: the meat and veg of what should be political discourse such as their jobs, public services, etc.

Broadly agree with a fair bit of this. The last point is especially succinct. I can't recall where I read it, but there was an article awhile ago of someone in a not-for-profit wondering if the "woke" employees that were making life hell were actually implanted by the right, because if that was the case, the amount of self-sabotage would make sense (phrased better than that, but you get the idea).

I know it's a maxim that the left eats itself, but look at the purity spirals that it's gone on recently, and you tell me.

 

[Dreiko]

Ah, so Bill Maher, Jimmy Dore, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin are woke. Trump would be the wokest thing that's ever happend

Wow. Just realised that Dave Rubin is the least woke of this group

Jimmy Dore is woke on important issues, but those issues you don't get called woke if you believe in them in the pejorative sense so I don't know how to define it exactly. But either way, woke people are not known to be focused on ending wars and getting everyone healthcare that doesn't involve their reproductive system or physical sex and so on, nor do they call out the democrats who are supposed to be different from the republicans when they do things the republicans would also do, simply because democrats appease them through virtue signaling, they're focused on big important things like pronouns and peeing in the correctly labeled gross washroom and the race of people who commit or fall victims to crime as opposed to the causes of it.

 

[Trunkage]

Not really. The only thing that Trump really has in common with wokeness is hyper-sensitivity. The above (I assume, haven't heard of Jimmy Dore) are explicitly anti-woke.

Also, not sure how you concluded that Rubin is the "least woke," since he was explicitly anti-woke. So anti-woke that he ended up going down the rabbit hole of stating that on January 6, "nothing happened."

Trump? Who regularly goes on about the colour of people skin and people's sexuality? Where we had to regularly point out that Trump might not be as pro-LBGT as he says he is? Gaining an extra percent of black men in 2020 election proved how pro-black he was?

Sure

Anyway, so what you really men is that if people talk about cis white men, its never woke. Talk about anything else, it could be woke. I was suprised you made up a definition that was so broad that it could encompass anyone and didnt only target the left

Rubin's gay and discusses black people. Shapiro spends a lot of time say he's 'pro-gay' (I put it in quote because his version of pro-gay, no one else would ever consider it being pro) and 'for black people.' They use identity politics all the time, it's just that no one is listening when they get called out for it

 

[Gergar12]

Hot take, John Oliver's show on renting shows he's just Joe Rogan for urban liberals.

Doesn't mention the supply-side/need to increase the building of housing as much as the demand side.

Argues landlords hate vouchers, proposes more vouchers.

Granted lots of people arguing this want me/everywhere and everyone to be like San Francisco or Chicago but with better housing laws.

 

[Gergar12]

Hot take, John Oliver's show on renting shows he's just Joe Organ for urban liberals.

Doesn't mention the supply-side/need to increase the building of housing as much as the demand side.

Argues landlords hate vouchers, proposes more vouchers.

Granted lots of people arguing this want me/everywhere and everyone to be like San Francisco or Chicago but with better housing laws.

For the record my solutions are

We flood the market with apartments and other housing, give every tenant a public defender or something like that, seal eviction records, and and increase funding to the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. Never trust someone who doesn't offer their own solutions, well here you go.

 

[Hawki]

Trump? Who regularly goes on about the colour of people skin and people's sexuality? Where we had to regularly point out that Trump might not be as pro-LBGT as he says he is? Gaining an extra percent of black men in 2020 election proved how pro-black he was?

Sure

You're confusing wokeism with racism.

Trump's your run of the mill racist (arguably outright white supremacist) and sexist. If he's a homophobe, that wouldn't surprise me either.

That more black Americans voted Republican than before is actually a titbit though that confounded the wokeists - see Biden's eyerolling "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black," since the woke view involves racialization, just in a more paternalistic manner.

When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything - YouTube

Anyway, so what you really men is that if people talk about cis white men, its never woke.

Um, no, wokeists talk about "cis white men" all the time. It's part of the woke viewpoint of seeing inherent traits as being defining ones. It's part of why the woke viewpoint is opposed to the non-woke viewpoint (or viewpoints, technically).

Talk about anything else, it could be woke. I was suprised you made up a definition that was so broad that it could encompass anyone and didnt only target the left

Well, first, I dispute that I "made up" the definition, I'm using the traits of wokeness that people have been pointing out for years on both the right and the left. Second, "anything else?" In what sense? I can talk about anything in a woke manner or not.

Rubin's gay and discusses black people. Shapiro spends a lot of time say he's 'pro-gay' (I put it in quote because his version of pro-gay, no one else would ever consider it being pro) and 'for black people.' They use identity politics all the time, it's just that no one is listening when they get called out for it

Um, yes? Shapiro embraces identity politics, Trump sure as hell embraced identity politics, these aren't grand revelations. Identity politics isn't something confined to either side of the political spectrum. They whine about identity politics, but only the identity politics that they oppose. FFS, the GOP is practically the party of white identity politics right now (with Christian identity politics thrown in), to an extent that's downright terrifying (see Texas for the most recent example.

Again, you seem to be responding to arguments I haven't made. I was talking about wokeness, not identity politics. There's overlap, sure, but you can have identity politics without wokeism and vice versa.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That's certainly a way to look at it.

Are there any other ways to look at it?

No, but I don't think that is a bad thing.

It's not a question of whether it's a bad thing.

It's a question of whether your engagement with politics actually differs from that of the people you're criticising.

You argue that it's cringe for affluent white people to use AAVE to indicate a connection to the black community. I broadly agree. However, is it more cringe than white people getting mad at dinosaur documentaries because they think showing dinosaurs caring for young is "woke?" Is it more cringe than white politicians declaring a "war on woke" and then being unable to answer basic questions about what being woke means, who is woke and whether being woke is bad? Again, no. Is it less cringe than @Hawki decrying identity politics while inventing a whole imaginary class of people called "wokeists" and claiming to have some deep insight into them? Absolutely not.

Why is it up to you to decide who is woke or not? You didn't invent the term. It wasn't made for you or for people like you. You openly admit that you aren't certain what it means, and yet you're perfectly okay with appropriating it for your culture war against other white people. How exactly is that different from exploiting concepts of injustice or social issues to advance your own brand?

I try to use normal, basic language as much as I can.

Is AAVE not normal language for people who speak it?

The fact that "woke" can inspire a discussion on what it actually means indicates it's a pretty useless word for communicating other ideas to people.

Some people, certainly.

But you seem to have no trouble using the word in whatever way you see fit..

 

[tstorm823]

But you seem to have no trouble using the word in whatever way you see fit..

Did you skip the part where I said I don't use the term outside a discussion of the term specifically?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Did you skip the part where I said I don't use the term outside a discussion of the term specifically?

Sure, but since we're discussing the term specifically, why are you trying to define and explain it when you fully admit that you don't use it or know what it means?

Why are you defending and excusing the actions of some people (no less out of touch than the people you're criticizing) who are using it in ways that are clearly self-serving? That doesn't seem at all consistent with the point you're making at all..

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, but since we're discussing the term specifically, why are you trying to define and explain it when you fully admit that you don't use it or know what it means?

Why are you defending and excusing the actions of some people (no less out of touch than the people you're criticizing) who are using it in ways that are clearly self-serving? That doesn't seem at all consistent with the point you're making at all..

Because I understand conservative perspectives better than the rest of you, and can offer insight that might help you all appreciate the viewpoints you don't share better than "obviously it's just the newest way to justify racism, duh!"

 

[Trunkage]

You're confusing wokeism with racism.

Trump's your run of the mill racist (arguably outright white supremacist) and sexist. If he's a homophobe, that wouldn't surprise me either.

That more black Americans voted Republican than before is actually a titbit though that confounded the wokeists - see Biden's eyerolling "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black," since the woke view involves racialization, just in a more paternalistic manner.

When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything - YouTube

Um, no, wokeists talk about "cis white men" all the time. It's part of the woke viewpoint of seeing inherent traits as being defining ones. It's part of why the woke viewpoint is opposed to the non-woke viewpoint (or viewpoints, technically).


Well, first, I dispute that I "made up" the definition, I'm using the traits of wokeness that people have been pointing out for years on both the right and the left. Second, "anything else?" In what sense? I can talk about anything in a woke manner or not.

Um, yes? Shapiro embraces identity politics, Trump sure as hell embraced identity politics, these aren't grand revelations. Identity politics isn't something confined to either side of the political spectrum. They whine about identity politics, but only the identity politics that they oppose. FFS, the GOP is practically the party of white identity politics right now (with Christian identity politics thrown in), to an extent that's downright terrifying (see Texas for the most recent example.

Again, you seem to be responding to arguments I haven't made. I was talking about wokeness, not identity politics. There's overlap, sure, but you can have identity politics without wokeism and vice versa.

Let's frame this in a different setting. In Warhammer 40K, there aren't allowed to be any fem Space Marines. I'm pretty sure I remember you personally saying that it should stay this way

The reason why we don't have fem Space Marine is that they didn't sell as well as the male ones in Rogue Trader days. Thus, GW went after a demographic and profit, and banned fem Space Marines. I.e. it's exactly the things you're complaining about with Wokeness. It doesn't matter about 'lore' justifications. That wasn't the reason for the banning, The lore just came later to reinforce their decision that they didn't want to change.

So, tell me why corporations pandering to cis white males is cool and pandering to LBGT stuff isn't? I don't see support of male only Space Marines is better than any woke stuff. A lot of woke stuff doesn't ban a whole gender. You might believe it's true that there can only be male Space Marines based on lore reasons but you're just falling for the corporate spin

This didn't just happen with GW. It happened with most companies and personalities. Of that era and this one. It's almost like this is a problem of Capitalism needing to commoditise everything and is problematic and we keep doing culture war bull crap to not focus on the problem

 

[Trunkage]

Sorry forgot to add this:

I originally looked at the woke scold thing on Twitter etc and wondered why they just copied a lot of conservative tactics. It didnt make sense to me. It seemed very counter productive

But then I thought - LBGT stuff is eventually going to be a conservative idea. It's going to become a tradition... so how do traditions get started?
.
.
.
Oh fuck me. Woke Scolds are just conservatives that are pro-woke stuff

Also might explain Liberals to me

 

[Hawki]

...how the fuck did we get to Space Marines?

Fine, let's get through this:

Let's frame this in a different setting. In Warhammer 40K, there aren't allowed to be any fem Space Marines. I'm pretty sure I remember you personally saying that it should stay this way

I've given my reasons why I think female Space Marines are a bad idea (same reason why male Adeptus Soriatas are a bad idea, and why there's no good reason for male and female Imperial Guard), I'm not particuarly interested in going over them, but I can if we must.

The reason why we don't have fem Space Marine is that they didn't sell as well as the male ones in Rogue Trader days. Thus, GW went after a demographic and profit, and banned fem Space Marines. I.e. it's exactly the things you're complaining about with Wokeness. It doesn't matter about 'lore' justifications. That wasn't the reason for the banning, The lore just came later to reinforce their decision that they didn't want to change.

Still not sure why we're on Space Marines, but let's take that as being true - if lore justifications came in 1st edition, then they're lore justifications that remain decades on, so it's a false equivalance.

And that's nothing to do with wokeness. GW could come out with female Space Marines tomorrow, and it wouldn't necessarily be woke, nor would the world end, nor would the setting end, even if I'd find it silly.

Again, why are we talking about Space Marines?

So, tell me why corporations pandering to cis white males is cool and pandering to LBGT stuff isn't? I don't see support of male only Space Marines is better than any woke stuff. A lot of woke stuff doesn't ban a whole gender. You might believe it's true that there can only be male Space Marines based on lore reasons but you're just falling for the corporate spin

Still don't know why we're talking about genetically engineered super-soldiers, or pandering, or how either of these things are related to "wokeness," but okay:

-I've pointed out countless times that corporations pander. I've pointed out the double standards of people complaining about LGBT stuff being "pandered" to while being fine with being "pandered" to themselves. Again, it's like you've got me confused with someone else.

-Because the reason I think Space Marines should stay male is because of lore reasons - same reasons why Sisters of Battle should stay female, same reason orks should stay as they are (single-sex males effectively), same reason I think aeldari being professions separated by gender would be stupid, etc. I mean, I'm happy to discuss 40K lore if you want, but I still don't know why you went on this tangent.

-Again, you're projecting with "corporate spin." You want to know why I think female Space Marines are silly? Here's why:

1: Space Marines have stayed male for over 10,000 in-universe years. If you started having female Space Marines now, that's not impossible, but it's a weird shift, especially since the entire conceit is that the Imperium is in a state of cultural and technological stagnation.

2: Because there's a symmetry in the Imperial forces that I think works - we get a male faction (Space Marines), a female faction (Sisters of Battle), and everything else is come one, come all. Personally, I think that works, and I'd be more reciprocal to the idea if people were pushing for male Sisters of Battle (who'd have to be renamed), but so far, that hasn't happened.

3: If there was a time for female Space Marines, it was arguably with the Primaris marines, but that still didn't happen. Now, my thoughts on Primaris marines aside, you can generally only pull this trick once from a writing perspective.

4: Getting back to point 2, the Space Marines are primarily a "patriarchal" group, and no, I'm not talking about "the patriarchy," I'm referring to how the Space Marines have operated until now. You have the Emperor (male), create twenty primarchs (male), whose gene-seed is used to create legions of (male) soldiers, who give reverance to both (if not deification) in monotheistic-esque worship (usually male). Now, hypothetically, you could have a female chapter, and hypothetically do something interesting with that, and if that was the argument being made, I'd have some sympathy to it, but a lot of the time, the reason people seem to want female Space Marines is due to nothing more than vague notions of "representation" or "equality."

5: Um, conversions are a thing? Hello?

So, yeah. Is it impossible for female Space Marines? Not really. Is it iffy? Yes. Is the demand often driven from stuff that has nothing to do with reasons relating to (the five elements of) story? In my experience, almost always.

And again, I don't know why we're even talking about fictional soldiers of a fictional setting, but I'm not the one who brought them up.

This didn't just happen with GW. It happened with most companies and personalities. Of that era and this one. It's almost like this is a problem of Capitalism needing to commoditise everything and is problematic and we keep doing culture war bull crap to not focus on the problem

Um, yes? Games Workshop made a product, people bought the product, the product was adjusted, etc. Not seeing the problem here.

I mean, I like MLP, even though I'm not the target audience in either age or gender. I've never insisted that the setting change to suit my tastes, or any other one. I mean, for instance, why is it that every alicorn has been a female? Don't particuarly care, don't see it as a problem, don't think there's anything that prevents male alicorns from existing, but it's a non-issue. I mean, I've written plenty of stuff for both settings (and others) on FFN, and that's a far more creative outlet than whining that things change in settings with supersoldiers and talking equines for "reasons."

 

[Agema]

So, yeah. Is it impossible for female Space Marines? Not really. Is it iffy? Yes.

Given the trompe l'oiel nonsense of 40k, it's blending of magic and demons into a SF setting, the fact it can just whip up whole new alien races and obliterate its own lore at whim, there is never, ever, ever any good reason to argue it would be "iffy" to make female space marines.

 

[Hawki]

Given the trompe l'oiel nonsense of 40k, it's blending of magic and demons into a SF setting, the fact it can just whip up whole new alien races and obliterate its own lore at whim, there is never, ever, ever any good reason to argue it would be "iffy" to make female space marines.

Really disagree here, as in:

-"Blending of magic and demons." Um, yeah, that's science fantasy. 40K isn't the only example of the sci-fa genre, I don't think sci-fa gets special pleading in regards to other genres.

-"Whip up whole new alien races." Um, yes? Lots of IPs can do that. If your IP takes place all over an entire galaxy, the no. of alien species you can generate is practically infinite (see Star Trek and Star Wars for instance).

-"And obliterate its own lore at whim." Again, this applies to every fictional setting ever concieved. You're right, lore can be obliterated/retconned at whim, that doesn't make it a good thing to do. Thing is, 40K has done this, and it was iffy there too (for instance, I particuarly dislike how the necrons shifted into space Egyptians, especially since the shift didn't really need to be a retcon if it had been handled better.)

Also, read the points I made. I stated above that in-universe that there's not much that would stop female Space Marines from being created, that's not why I think female Space Marines would be, to quote, "iffy." I mean, there's countless fictional organizations that are all one gender (be it male or female), and if people want the writer(s) to change that, there should be a good reason.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, I'm also against female marines, for lore reasons.

However, I'm also against Primaris marines, and marines in power armour wearing other power armour on top of that (and rectonning it so they always could). And also new races like the C'tan (which weren't totally new, but only existed in brief mentions before the Necrons codex) being rectonned in to always being there and being super important. And Tau. Effing Tau. And new Necromunda changing the houses in new and stupid ways, making some bigger than marines and giving hive gangers better guns than some marines. And...

So, yeah, my opinion doesn't seem to be of that much relevance here.

 

[Hawki]

Yeah, I'm also against female marines, for lore reasons.

However, I'm also against Primaris marines, and marines in power armour wearing other power armour on top of that (and rectonning it so they always could). And also new races like the C'tan (which weren't totally new, but only existed in brief mentions before the Necrons codex) being rectonned in to always being there and being super important. And Tau. Effing Tau. And new Necromunda changing the houses in new and stupid ways, making some bigger than marines and giving hive gangers better guns than some marines. And...

So, yeah, my opinion doesn't seem to be of that much relevance here.

Wait, what's wrong with the tau? I don't recall them being retconned in any major way. Changed to be a bit more sinister perhaps, but that's about it.

As for the c'tan, I don't have a problem with them being important, my problem was that revisions made them less important. In the necron codex, the c'tan were fleshed out as effectively leading the necrons, which was changed to make the necrons space Egyptians and the c'tan their servants. What bugs me is that this really didn't need to change like that. You could have some necrons under the control of the c'tan, while others were more independent. This wouldn't even require new army lists,, see the various Craftworld eldar that, at the end of the day, function pretty similarly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Wait, what's wrong with the tau? I don't recall them being retconned in any major way. Changed to be a bit more sinister perhaps, but that's about it.

That they aren't grimdark and backwards enough for 40k (some of the creators even mentioned this when they came out). And once they came out they appeared everywhere for a minor race isolated in the middle of nowhere.

As for the c'tan, I don't have a problem with them being important, my problem was that revisions made them less important. In the necron codex, the c'tan were fleshed out as effectively leading the necrons, which was changed to make the necrons space Egyptians and the c'tan their servants. What bugs me is that this really didn't need to change like that. You could have some necrons under the control of the c'tan, while others were more independent. This wouldn't even require new army lists,, see the various Craftworld eldar that, at the end of the day, function pretty similarly.

Yeah, that would have worked if they'd started out like that, but they went for mysterious and undeveloped, and then developed them into something boring. Also, way back when they were doing Khemri for WHFB they had an actual archeologist working on them, and it showed, not for the Necrons.

Also:

Spoiler

From a selection of Disney Princesses as Space Marines that came up on FB just now:

 

[Neuromancer]

Spoiler

From a selection of Disney Princesses as Space Marines that came up on FB just now:

Considering Belle's established as a very educated and headstrong woman, I don't think being associated with the stupid drunk is especially flattering. She'd make a better Magnus, obviously.

Mulan is Jaghatai, isn't she?