Or do those who say it have no idea what "woke" is?
I saw this today:
What this bridge is, is a memorial for pets who have crossed the Rainbow Bridge. The sides have tags and collars of loved ones.
The damage was someone took some white paint and poured it on the bridge, then decided to spread it with their shoes.
Someone in the comments said:
It's just paint. Pubic places should be vandalized. People are tired of woke.
Are people truly this tired of woke to do something this petty and small while misunderstanding what the rainbow is about here?
Someone said:
Conservatives think about gay people more than gay people do
Do they do this to every rainbow they see? Try to destroy it? Without even understanding what it may be there for?
Do they also forget that the rainbow is a religious symbol, so they are destroying a effigy?
I have think, anyone this concerned about a rainbow in their community is either mentally unwell and needs help, or needs to stop listening to whatever they are listening to and get above that droning because it is hurting them and their community.
They absolutely don't understand what woke is, and they keep looking for things to be offended about even when there are none.
Remember that clip about someone complaining that you can't celebrate Christmas and say Merry Christmas anymore, while standing in front of a 4 foot high Merry Christmas sign next to a 30 foot Christmas tree?
@FoxyGoddess Side effects to being anti-woke may include: - Uncontrollable outrage at cartoon characters wearing pants - Sudden inability to define "woke" despite using it constantly - Excessive fear of rainbow-colored objects - Spontaneous boycotting of products you weren’t buying anyway - Hallucinations of nonexistent Dr. Seuss book bans - Chronic victim complex despite claiming others are too sensitive - Severe allergic reaction to empathy - Unshakable belief that corporations care about your feelings - Inability to enjoy media without first checking its political alignment - Compulsive need to rant about pronouns in bios - Unfounded paranoia that M&Ms are plotting against you If you experience any of these symptoms, please consult literally any history book immediately.
@NerdyPotato seriously! They complained about the green M&M, they were upset about the girl rabbit in "Space Jam" not being sexy anymore and another female cartoon character. I'm sorry....what? You're mad that a cartoon isn't giving you wood? What...what is wrong with you?!
What I do not like is any cartoonish way of presenting life. To me the garish rainbow has come to symbolize that . Here it was done by children, so it's understandable. But I don't feel comfortable with adults reducing their selves to a childish symbol. It's a shallow form of activism, looking more like marketing than trying to delve into the complexity of anyone's identity.
@EarthlingWise I tend to dislike shallow forms of activism myself, so I understand what you are saying. It was brought to my attention by a friend that, yes, the rainbow flag may be shallow, but it serves as a marker of where your people are. A way to find like people, make community and bonds. So that makes sense to me. It may be shallow, but it is often the first sign of being with those how are like you. Then, the rainbow becomes less of a thing as the community builds and can become something stronger.
That was how it was explained to me and it really helped me understand its importance.
That first response you quoted - calling for vandalism - shows only just how shallow, peurile, irresponsible anc coardly some "someones" on antisocial media can be.
I am tired of hearing the work "woke" used.
This American slang had a tragically real and understandable meaning when coined in the 1930s, if not earlier. It was revived only fairly recently and soon became merely a meaningless term of abuse against anyone or any idea not fully that of its unthinking user.
....
In this particular case I doubt very much the vandals would understand and could answer your questions. I doubt they have the intelligence, and would certainly lack the courage, to explain their motive.
The main problem facing society today (and throughout history) is wealth inequality. At a time of crises, when the economic situation is bleak, people begin to focus on wealth inequality. That makes elites anxious, and so, using social media and the efforts of their media tycoon lapdogs (who are also part of that wealthy elite) they use the old tactic of distraction. Let's agitate against gay and trans people. Lets stoke up the race divide with some well-timed dog whistles. And so, instead of banding together to fight the real enemy, here we are again, arguing over the tiny fraction of trans people, or proposing that gay people are an abomination against God. Don't look at the rich billionaires, look at the poor black guy stealing your job. The term "woke" is simply one of those dog whistles, designed to stoke up division in society. People fall for it every time. Meanwhile, the rich elites continue fleecing the country because everyone is arguing about immigrants. Or gay people. Or women......
@Richard65 Maybe so but that does not excuse the subject of the OP: that of some mindless vandal defacing a bridge for no reason, not even personal advantage.
The term "woke" originally meant being "awake to" racial prejudice and first appeared in the 1930s after a group of black American teenagers were falsely accused of attacking a white woman. The charge was dropped, by her, and the word "woke" (first publicised in a song from the time) seemed to have disappeared until its recent revival as a term of mere abuse to avoid or suppress constructive political and social debate.
Nothing to do with with wealth or "elites" (whatever they are) or "media tycoons".
@ArishMell it's got everything to do with it, but you fail to see the connection. That's exactly what they rely on, ironically enough. You're kinda proving my point.
I think these days another word is being similarly co-opted and transformed into a broad catch-all pejorative to mean literally anything the co-opter wants it to mean.
That word is "toxic".
It makes me wonder how many times throughout history disingenuous people have done similar co-options of preexisting words.
They had a meltdown over a female actress, Jodie Whittaker, playing the part of Dr Who. And they were absolutely [b]screaming[/b] when Ncuti Gatwa became the Doctor....
@jackieash Oh yes, some people are that delicate...
I once unwittingly so annoyed someone on SW for revealing a friend who had become ordained as a deacon, is a woman that the individual - a woman herself - blocked me!
You've also copid a word.The word gay used to mean happy. Why don't people just create new words?The rainbow used to mean a promise.The covenant, if you look at it in the bible. The definition of the word liberal has been changed.
Shallow and wicked people that think Santa Claus brought me and you both bigger bicycles than they got when we were kids and never got over it. These people literally stop learning anything when they leave high school if they make it that far.
@bijouxbroussard It first appeared in the 1930s, long before daft labels like "boomer" were invented, but was revived only in recent years, within America's febrile domestic politics.
@bijouxbroussard Many of these terms end up being co-opted into meaning something completely different from what they actually are. DEI, for example, got twisted, especially by people like Kirk, into implying ‘Black incompetence,’ only for it to turn out that Black people benefited the least from these programs. And now we even see some Asian groups who jumped on the anti-DEI bandwagon complaining that their university acceptance rates aren’t what they used to be. It’s almost as if a lot of people have convinced themselves that the simple existence of Black people is the reason their own lives are shitty
