How Woke is too Woke?

Originally posted by truejedi
So I think land acknowledgements are silly. That's pretty much what sparked this thread.

My two cents on pronouns: I don't think they/them is silly, but I did hear someone say the other day that "at this point, I know people who are getting my pronouns wrong at this point don't care about gender inequality*. And that frustrated me a bit, because I'm only going to know someone's pronouns if I actually care about them. It's just an extra piece of information to remember about someone when there are plenty of people out there who I'm lucky to remember their names, if that makes sense...

It isn't that I don't care about gender inequality, I just don't care about YOU enough to care how you identify, if that makes sense. There are plenty of people I interact with everyday that I don't know well enough to care about what they identify as. I don't need to know and don't care one way or another. But by insisting on proper pronoun usage from people who are essentially strangers-- I just don't get it. I'm careful and happy to use proper pronouns with my friends, but as far as daily acquaintances that I don't know, and don't care to know, it seems like pronouns shouldn't come up. I hope I've explained that well. I don't know anything about you, why are pronouns important at that point? I've had people whose name I don't even remember correct me on pronouns... Like if I don't care enough to remember your name, why should I remember your pronouns? I'm always going to try, I'm not using incorrect pronouns on purpose, ever, but chances are if I get it wrong, it simply doesn't matter to me how you identify, so it never crosses my mind, I guess.

Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me. If I go to a beach and there's a sign that reads "we acknowledge and respect that this beach historically belonged to *insert name* tribe", it's fine; I'm not going to start screaming "liberal wokeness!" like some unhinged Rightist.

In regards to pronouns, that's where intent comes in. If you legit just don't remember that someone is now a "she" when they were born a "he", especially someone you barely know, that's not a sin. If they attack you for it, that's their problem.

If you're doing it on purpose to be offensive to the person, then you're just a c*nt. eg The Far-Right hero Jordan Peterson made a lucrative career for himself because saying "she" instead of "he" to a given person was just too upsetting and off-putting to his feelings. When it reality saying "she" cost him nothing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Here you go.

No I know that it is: how are you applying it to this thread? You believe the Acknowledgment of cultural appropriation is too Woke? Do you mean all cultures, or any specifically?

If someone wants to know where the line is, just watch a Democratic Socialists of America convention online, and see how impossible it is for them to even communicate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me.

Originally posted by truejedi
No I know that it is: how are you applying it to this thread? You believe the Acknowledgment of cultural appropriation is too Woke? Do you mean all cultures, or any specifically?

To quote Judy Funny, "If no one ever copied anyone else, we would all still be naked in caves and grunting at each other."

Culture is shared, not owned. The notion that any one group can claim anything as belonging exclusively to them is preposterous. As if everything that exists is not the result of syncretism anyway.

It is just a way for people who feel powerless to police people they perceive as powerful.

Originally posted by Robtard
Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me. If I go to a beach and there's a sign that reads "we acknowledge and respect that this beach historically belonged to *insert name* tribe", it's fine; I'm not going to start screaming "liberal wokeness!" like some unhinged Rightist..

I've been in meetings recently where someone keeps standing up to do land acknowledgements. "I want to take this opportunity to do a land acknowledgements...". Like ffs... Not again...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
just seems like "how much acknowledgement of history and reality is too much"?

Like ignoring atrocities commited by groups that europeans committed atrocities against?

We have entire lectures dedicated to the problem of "whiteness". By itself, this isn't a problem.

What IS a problem is insisting EVERYTHING is someone elses fault, while accepting no criticisms for anything at all.

Originally posted by Smurph
Land acknowledgements are contextual. Maybe they don't serve a purpose in all contexts, but they're increasingly seen as important in Canada, where various land agreements (or lack thereof) form the legal context for rights and ownership.

I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Smurph
Land acknowledgements are contextual. Maybe they don't serve a purpose in all contexts, but they're increasingly seen as important in Canada, where various land agreements (or lack thereof) form the legal context for rights and ownership.

Fair enough if there's a legalt/land rights aspect behind it in some instances 👆

I was under the impression it was all empty "hope you feel good now" acknowledgements.

smurph is surtur.

doubt it

Smurph is intelligent and doesn't seem angry at life. So no.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough if there's a legalt/land rights aspect behind it in some instances 👆

I was under the impression it was all empty "hope you feel good now" acknowledgements.

Obviously it could be a totally different context in the US, or in other commonwealth nations.

Originally posted by Blakemore
smurph is surtur.

Thinking that a hijab is a symbol of women's empowerment is definitely an example of "too woke" (if that's such a thing. Not sure that's the label I would give it. I think the label that it was given was "regressive."😉

A head scarf on the other hand is a pretty nice garment and attractive, imo.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Thinking that a hijab is a symbol of women's empowerment is definitely an example of "too woke" (if that's such a thing. Not sure that's the label I would give it. I think the label that it was given was "regressive."😉

I'd probably just label that as goofy, if not ignorant.

It's like saying chains are a symbol of power on an enslaved person.

Originally posted by truejedi
I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean?

Sounds like he's saying rights are linked to property ownership. Like say, land owners get to vote.

Am Interested and would like to know more.

Originally posted by truejedi
I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean?

Among other things, land acknowledgments are a collective reminder that those treaties are still relevant, legally enforceable instruments

Can you give any examples? I'm a practical learner, abstract reasoning is helped with a few examples to work with.

Originally posted by cdtm
Can you give any examples? I'm a practical learner, abstract reasoning is helped with a few examples to work with.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_7

So you'll see that the Blackfoot nation(s) have certain rights within the terms of that treaty. Much of it, I expect, is in dispute.

Now I live in Vancouver, which the city acknowledges (via one of those lane acknowledgments) is the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/land-acknowledgement.aspx

It's complicated and not my area, but the fact that everybody now acknowledges that the land was never ceded through treaty will change the legal requirements on how those nations need to be consulted at various points of land/water development.