All Sarcasm Aside
Like many people on the political Left, I have an uneasy relationship with the word “woke.”
Partly because, like so many words nowadays, there’s a lot disagreement about what it means, partly because I don’t particularly like collectivising terms, and partly because the Tucker Carlsons of the world use it to vent their frustrations about insufficiently sexy M&Ms and offering representation to disabled kids.
But sadly, it’s the only word we currently have to describe a distinctly toxic movement in social justice activism.
Case in point? In my article, Hamas Finally Answered The Question: “What Is Woke?”, I wrote about several organisations that condoned or even celebrated the Hamas terror attacks. I pointed to various hallmarks of “wokeness” that enabled this catastrophic failure of morality and empathy.
Mikael reminded me that there was something missing from my definition.
Mikael:
You should silence yourself for a study in history, nothing is innocent about a settlement built on the corpses of dead palestinian's homes for purposes of ethnic cleansing by people who have no connection to the middle east since thousand years.
Also the silence for palestinian victims over the decades is a cause in a cause and effect relationship that Israel as an organised state could change any time by stopping the apartheid policy that was the actual killer.
As a maga lunatic it is despicable that you try to exploit the deaths of thousands to make a point in a domestic argument.
Steve QJ:
“As a maga lunatic”
LO...and I can't stress this enough, L.
Before you judge me too harshly for using “LOL” here, being called a “maga lunatic” genuinely did make me laugh out loud. But more to the point, Mikael’s reply is like a greatest hits of my frustrations with “wokeness.”
Firstly, there’s the fact that he’s not completely wrong. Sadly, woke people aren’t simply stupid. If they were, it might be safe to just ignore them. But they’re so high on their imagined self-righteousness they can’t see that criticism of terrorists and their cheerleaders should be a no-brainer. Regardless of where you stand on Israel/Palestine.
Secondly, there’s the inability to distinguish between people and their “identity groups.” Yes, the Israeli government has committed several crimes over the past 75 years, the settlements among them. But none of them justify the slaughter of 1200 innocent people who happen to live in Israel.
And thirdly, right on cue, there’s the claim that anybody who disagrees with him is a “MAGA lunatic” (see also; far-right, transphobe, white supremacist, and countless other important words rendered meaningless by over/misuse). And because all of these people are, by definition, “evil”, he never has to worry his little head about what they’re saying.
Mikael:
Your response shows who you are, and the disorder you need abuse other peoples misery for personal gain!
Steve QJ:
“Your response shows who you are”
Someone who thinks you might be suffering from a head injury? Because right now, that's who I am.
Mikael:
Even with my head injury I will define the word woke for you:
It is being vigilant and calling out assholes abusing real tragedy to promote their need to pamper their ego with likes and applauces.
Adding that you didn't even bother to learn the history you aren't only an asshole exploiting palestinian and israelian deaths for your ego, you also are a lazy asshole.
That is a correct definition of woke.
Steve QJ:
“calling out assholes”
All sarcasm aside, this right here is actually the problem. Nothing wrong with being vigilant, I think we can all agree that's a good thing. The problem is, you think insulting people who disagree with you, instead of exploring that disagreement, is somehow meaningful or productive or praiseworthy.
You skim-read an article by a total stranger, fail spectacularly to understand the problem the article is pointing to, and immediately characterise them as a “MAGA lunatic” (still chuckling about that one).
You don't talk, you certainly don't listen. You jump straight to ad hominems and demonisation instead of asking yourself whether you might be the one missing something.
So sure, if you'd like me to add "calling strangers on the internet 'assholes' because you lack the emotional regulation and basic knowledge to have an intelligent conversation," to my definition of "woke," I'll be sure to work it into my next article on the topic.
Mikael:
That is a fairly good reply, while I could argue your assessment point to point, read your own text and use the same arguments.
Did you just skim-read about the conflict in the Middle East and use the tragedy of thousand as a tool to win an argument about the word woke?
And as such anything derived from your actions, I don’t care too much about being an asshole as I am woke in the correct definition of the term as defined by AAVE.
As of that, my being an asshole is directed at your actions, not ad hominem and you can choose to retract your asshole status any time or continue claiming that abusing the deaths of other people to make a political point is a bad choice.
And yes, I skim-read anything toxic, and if I find abusive behaviour I call it out. I am after all woke especially around things in the Middle East where Palestinians have been disenfranchised for decades for even being recognized when cleansed ethnically.
Steve QJ:
“As of that, my being an asshole is directed at your actions, not ad hominem and you can choose to retract your asshole status any time”
Yeah, sorry, you don't get to claim that your obvious ad hominems aren't ad hominems because I didn’t stoop to your level and now you're feeling a little embarrassed.
If you’ve decided an article is toxic before you’ve actually read it, how do you know if it’s toxic? If you begin discussion by abusing people, whose fault is it if you encounter abusive behaviour in return?
Why not try taking a deep breath, thinking carefully about where your disagreement with what I wrote lies, check whether the article is even about what you think it’s about (this step is especially important as, as far as I can tell, your comment completely misses the point of the article), and then express it in such a way that it's intelligible/useful?
Doesn't that sound more pleasant and productive than...whatever it is you've been doing with myself and other readers here?
Anybody who has had the pleasure of talking to somebody like Mikael will be unsurprised to learn that when given the opportunity to have a conversation instead of a shouting match, he courageously deleted his comment, blocked me, and skulked off to find somebody else to yell at.
And here, we arrive at my biggest issue with “wokeness”. All of this righteous outrage and moral grandstanding isn’t about building understanding people or changing minds or making the world a better place.
It’s about yelling at strangers about how terrible they are (and, by proxy, how righteous you are).
Because what’s the point of talking to people if you run away the instant you’re out of insults? How much can your cause mean to you if you’re not willing to defend your arguments? How confident can you be that you’re on “the right side of history™” when you’re afraid to even read the work of people with a different point of view?
Wokeness, social media activism, outright cowardice, whatever you call it, we’d all be better off without it.
always had you down as a maga lunatic Steve ;)
As another person from a generally left perspective often distressed by current left discourse, I share Steve's frequent discomfort with the term woke and applaud his comments here.
Among the many, many problems with the comments of the folks with whom he quarrels in this thread, one of the most egregious and ignorant is made by Mikael, who says in referring to Jews, that they are "people who have no connection to the middle east since thousand years". Even if it were true that Jews' modern connection to the Middle East had begun with the founding of Israel in 1948 or the beginning of the Zionist movement around 1880, it would certainly not justify Hamas' horrific actions towards Israeli civilians.
But even a cursory look at the facts shows that this supposed lack of connection of Jews to the modern Middle East is a total myth. There have always been thousands of Jews living is what is now Israel, in Ramallah, in Jaffa, in Jerusalem, and many other places. Moreover, beginning in the late 19th century and continuing through the 1940s and 50s, Middle Eastern Jews, who numbered in the hundreds of thousands in countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen and Iran, were forced directly or indirectly from the lands where they had live for many hundreds of years by Arab governments. In fact almost all of them were expelled. So, right now about half of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahis,, or Jews or recent Middle Eastern origin. Most were Arabic speakers and very much part of the local culture when they were expelled and fled to Israeli. In many cases their property was seized and others moved into their homes (yes of course this has also happed to many Palestinians at the hands of Israelis and both action were totally wrong).
The Palestinian/Israel conflict is a complex and may layered one. Both peoples have very compelling narratives and claims which are valid in some ways and with which all decent people should be able to empathize. I strongly oppose many Israeli actions and have always supported Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state. But justifying civilian massacres and falsifying very basic, easily accessible history is surely not the way towards a peaceful, just solution.