'Woke' is a very loaded word. A heads up that if you use it in the way you just did, people will assume certain things about you. Unless you don't care, in which case continue so that everyone knows what assumption they should make.
I don't think you can assume someones internal views by use of word, especially such a term with a complex history that means different things to different people.
The way you present it seems to have more problems than the 'not care' use case.
The use of quotations on a Single word which had no unusual usage in common parlance and which was not being used to request clarification is implicitly being air quoted... Y'know, the thing bigots do to cowardly deride others.
There was a period of time where self-described woke people identified themselves as woke, and now there's a period of time where people that don't like woke people mock them as woke, and other people just use it as a descriptor, and it all overlaps, and also all sorts of people have a good idea of the corpus of what woke means. At the very least, it's a useful word to refer to the concept it is meant to capture.
I think there's a cultural thing where once a group's use of the word is "outed" to the public the in-group doesn't like it anymore. That's how it makes me feel seeing you react like this- you're going out of your way to be on the bleeding edge of in-group linguistic fashion.
You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.
1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept?
2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion?
3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details?
4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions?
Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive.
As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.
> You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.
I gave the benefit of the doubt and a warning that they might be misinterpreted.
> As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur.
If you had really given them the benefit of the doubt, you would not have implicitly shamed them for using the language they chose to use. Or explicitly shamed me for defending their choice of language.
They used terminology in a way that carries implications. If by pointing that out I brought them 'shame' then so be it (and notice how they never decided to contradict the 'if you don't care' part, so let's not give benefit of the doubt any more).
If you feel ashamed for me arguing against you, then you shouldn't as long as you were doing it out of ignorance and in good faith. However just because you are not aware of or don't believe certain things does not make them cease to exist.
You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way. I'm just gonna accept the fact that you want to continue your linguistic mission and disengage. Judging by your comment history you have a habit of winning wars of attrition.
Please at least consider the idea that being the censorious force in the world can worsen the quality of discussion.
> You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way.
You are right. I need to work on not being so dismissive.
I think this correspondence would have been more appropriate and fruitful as an 'essay'/'counter-essay' instead of this social media format which tends to drive me to look for a decisive, pithy 'win'.
Sorry for railroading you and thank you for being courteous.
Thanks for taking the time to stand up to this kind of arguing. As a non-native speaker, I definitely dont have the stamina to enter a real discussion with this type of person.
You can call things 'language police' all you want, but assumptions are based on reality and experience, and pushing back when they are obviously true is silly.
And you seriously believe this condescending way of talking down to people is great? Your choice, your opinion. Maybe reality will catch up, maybe you will catch up with reality, time will tell.
I'm an ABCD and never found it offensive , since I refer to myself as one and it's a non-issue if another ABCD uses to refer to me with that term. But it can be offensive to some if it comes from non-ABCDs. Usually in those cases, its perceived as a pejorative. (Personally it has never bothered me. But some can be sensitive to it)
Whether or not something is offensive almost always depends on context. Knowing your context requires careful listening and respect for those around you. This is true regardless of whether or not you use one particular term or not.
If you do not intend to be respectful, then was there ever any issue in the first place? Your disrespect will be conveyed regardless.
If you do intend to be respectful, then you will know if using it is offensive or not in your given context.
> If you do intend to be respectful, then you will know if using it is offensive or not in your given context.
It's very easy to intend to be respectful but misread the context. Also, there are words that are so taboo they are not ok in any context.
I find it particularly hard to navigate the English taboos from a non native perspective. I believe the person asking wants to know how the word is seen by others, which is great in my opinion. Direct communication is much better than trying to guess.
I agree, and am merely encouraging this direct communication to be used with those you are directly speaking to. When it comes to things like this, there might be some broad understanding, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to the person you are speaking to.
Maybe he didn't mean that much by it. Different people, different countries, different contexts. Specially online, we definitely need to give the benefit of the doubt. A friend of mine, who doesn't speak English very well, thought the n word was a completely fine way to reference your mate. He was mortified to know what he was actually saying.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how the term woke is currently used vis a vis American politics. It's a pejorative typically used as the foundation of a disingenuous argument about being respectful towards others or as a way of demonizing anything you disagree with.
Woke was used in line with its most common meaning and scare quotes were added. It wasn't a mistake and the context was made explicit (offending people). It was used out of ignorance, sure, but not the kind of naive ignorance you're suggesting. It was used as a dog whistle.
Unlike "the n word" which, in a familiar context, is used as a term of endearment in some groups, woke as an adjective has long since ceased to be used as anything other than a derogatory term used to vilify people you dislike.
Woke used to be an endearing term at some point. You're assuming that the quotes are there to poke fun of it, they could be there because it's a foreign or coloquial term that the author is a bit unsure about too. You have not to lose by assuming good intention until irrevocably proven wrong. The US, being influential, ends up exporting a lot of its internal politics, however other parts of the world don't necessarily interpret them in the same way. I've seen people in Brazil using the term woke in a positive way. To be honest, I only learned now that it's always pejorative.
Perhaps unlikely, but one of the rules of this site is to assume noble intent. I try to apply this, and I think it does generate overall higher quality discussion.
