That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around…
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
The one example I give - BLM (Black Lives Matter) explicitly identify themselves as a social justice organisation (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-lives-matter-growth-new-social-justice-movement/).
The individual who purchased the mansion not only identifies as BLM, but as one of the co-founders (
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/controversial-blm-co-founder-doled-out-8-million-of-groups-money-for-canadian-mansion-financial-records-show). I could also reference the black businesses that were destroyed during the BLM protests (https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/09/06/no-justice-as-blm-burns-black-owned-business-in-rochester/).
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.