I was recently tempted to pass the "how woke are you" test. Turned out I'm very very anti-woke. I got some below medium scores in "climate", "challenging norms", and "social justice". On other woke view scales I'm zero (fighting power, international solidarity, empowering underdogs, alternative knowledge). This almost looked like I'm a reactionary conservative or maga...
For control I decided to check my views on 8-scale test for political views. Result was very different. I scored as social, liberal, peaceful, very progressive. I.e. to the left from moderate in all scales. Significantly so in tradition vs progress. https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=60.3&d=63.3&g=66.0&s=78.4
Then I supposed that https://www.idrlabs.com/woke/test.php is just a parody, satire. Very small minority of people should be seriously that extreme in Oppression Olympics and white men bad thing. But there came another surprise. Lot's of people confessed that they are close to 100% in woke test, scoring maximum. Unironically. Calling names and throwing insults when someone didn't score woke. So at least on reddit they are not a minority, test reflects real views of significant groups of people.
Am I the odd one? Are left leaning people generally support the hierarchy of oppression/privilege, guilt of white men, affirmative action to artificially support "under represented groups", blaming modern science as a product of "white culture" and seeking "alternative knowledge". To me this is a perversion of the liberal and progressive ideas.
Tragically for the left, anti-woke sentiment is pushing people into conservative reaction camp steering popularity of right wing populists.
There's a whole subreddit of us: /r/stupidpol - rightoids welcomed as well.
We focus on economic and material issues, and while the left and right often disagree on the solution, we think it's important to still find common ground on the issues and work together to make a stronger working class
We loath wokeness, because it's nothing more than a distractory tool of the elites to occupy the time of activists and politically minded on divisive conversations. Seriously, it is. Most of this woke shit came from the elite universities on the even of the pro labor movement post 2008, where the rich kids felt sad that they couldn't get involved in a movement, and didn't like the existing movement that targeted themselves, so they were able to culturally push out a focus on weird gender and sex shit non-stop.
Just don't criticize Hamas there if you don't want an insta-ban.
Well that's disappointing.
Huh? WTF are you talking about? You can criticize Hamas all the time. Just don't come in sounding like one of those people who are "Stop saying mean things about Israel! Why haven't you condemned Hamas yet?! What about Oct 7?!"
We don't have time zionists. They are too far gone.
The dreaded Time Zionists.
Think about it... They didn't kill Hitler, yet have the ability to. Because if they did... no Israel. Think about it.
Whoa
I think being left leaning and hyper-woke is common among the chronically online. Social media pushes people to extremes.
Then the majority of offline leftists should be not woke or even against it?
I think the majority of offline leftists believe that racism and sexism are bad but that white men shouldn't be treated as inferior under the law, if that clarified anything. "Woke" gets used to mean everything from the classical liberal idea that we are all created equal to Marxist idiocy.
Woke as a term has been rendered completely meaningless and lacking any and all context. It's a catch all insult from the right like how anything that isn't complete unrestrained capitalism is communism.
Your opening sentence i agree with. Blaming it exclusively on the right i don't. Unless youre one of those "scratch a liberal and a nazi bleeds" people in which case no thanks, not interested.
Look at who actually talks about and obsesses over "woke". It's not the left, it's not even liberals and the non political. It's literally just rightoids
And for the record, no I'm not one of those. Actual liberals, eg the voters are just as pissed off as any leftist with Democrats and shameful display they've put on over Mamdai, over the full bore surrender on the shutdown, over the constant non stop fumbling of the ball over Israel. The list really can go on. There's a reason the Democrat party is more unpopular right now with its own voters and it's not because of some vague rightwing definition of "woke" and the party not being it enough.
Guess im a "rightoid" then. Good work. The formula never fails
Ed: rude.
Ed again: if your assertion is that not agreeing with all the worst excesses of idpol makes one a "rightoid" then you are exactly the sort of caricature I was talking about. Shut the computer down and go outside.
Talk about lacking any fucking awareness or reading comprehension.
Who are these lots of people who get angry when you don't get 100%?
almost came to ask the same but stopped when I realized there was no chance of a worthwhile answer lol
I saw this in some teen targeted sub. I was puzzled, as I often heard that "woke" has no definition and is basically a slur rather then description of views. Then I went to check that woke test and was surprised to see lots of people in comments posting their results - majority were woke and proud.
Dude, come on, a teen sub and you're acting like it's actually a normal thing?
Teenagers don't have any grasp on life. Get off your computer and talk to real people.
Woke is about being aware of disadvantages from things you can't control in your life. That can be race, gender, sexuality, social status...
There's something else I'll say. The wording in a lot of the statements in that test is questionable at best, but how you can be at almost 80% progressive and over 60% progressive on both social and international ideas, and still get basically zero on the woke test for climate and international unity is beyond me.
You're basically a progressive who doesn't trust science. I've never heard of such a thing.
OP saw teenagers and bots and believed they were the medium voter
Sounds likes those teenagers are accurate to some adults like yourself.
Got 54% so those teens probably wouldn't like me, but please, go on with your logic.
Over 50%?
Nah, you pass, homie.
Welcome to the wonderful world of WOKE, my friend!
Thank you, I know how hard it is to understand that there are advantages to being born looking the same as the majority, or god forbid, rich, or that 99,9% of the scientific community might be right, but with some effort, everyone can get there.
So you are proudly woke?
For me, I don’t deny the issues. But I focus on my day to day life, having a child really helps with that.
It’s not that I am anti-woke, I am Anti-Time Wasting. I can’t sit around upset about being white when I want to feed my kid. Just because people aren’t racist towards me doesn’t mean I have some amazing life. My wife and I get by, but we aren’t rich, so I am not concerning myself with “oooh white people bad.” Or even that black people have it bad, I am not wasting time helping them if it takes me away from raising my kid.
And it’s great because if our kid ends up with a friend who is a minority, I just treat them the same as any other kid when they come to visit, which is ostensibly the goal anyways. I look at it as a pay it forward type of thing.
I can’t change the statistics, but I can meet any minority as my equal so long as I actually interact with them in my life.
If you disagree with me, that’s what makes it “woke” because you would be so upset about black people you don’t know (the “group”) then you are the individual.
It's comments like these that really show how much people misunderstand the word.
When people say it's been weaponized, this is what they mean. You, by your own definition, are woke, yet you think you aren't because you're not a reactionairy.
That's not what woke means. It's not about having purple hair and saying Reeeee a lot. It's just about being aware that certain groups of people are born with disadvantages, wich are out of their control, and in order to give them a chance to get the same oportunities as everyone else, they need help.
If you weren't born rich, you've been helped as well. Did you get a public education? Guess what, that's literally a way of helping those who aren't able to pay for education, get the same oportunity as those who were able.
I don’t call that woke though, I simply call it, awareness.
I am aware of the history of how black people were treated, how it can affect many today. But it doesn’t affect Obama, he was able to reach the highest high of a “white dominated” field.
The issue is the wordings, “white dominated” “trans rights”
I have to say woke is when it crosses the line into Reee and “we need to do something.”
It shouldn’t be called woke just because I wouldn’t treat any minority differently. It should be called woke when you’re like “omg it’s offensive to do an Indian accent.” Sorry but that’s in your camp. I work with some young people, starting college age, and they are devoutly anti-Trump, and have chastised us for simply doing an Indian accent, which we all do, because we work with an Indian guy and it makes him laugh.
There doesn’t need to be a word for, “remembers what he learned in history class.”
Stop getting your political perspectives of groups from Reddit.
Woke people like to push this idea that "woke" can't be defined and that their views are just "normal". They want everyone on the left to think that if you aren't woke you're a bigot.
The kryptonite of the woke is the idea that you can be on the left and not be woke.
I think there is a component of wokeness that cross a line and that is when it gets to purity and purity tests.
The 4 or 5 people that shut down a Japanese exhibit at a museum because they were allowing white people to put on a kimono are plainly purity bull shutters.
It is unfortunate because it has direct repercussions in that it forms these opposition's. The way you describe things, it is almost you are hard right.
Let's take this, "guilt of whitemen". One would almost surmise that you would support stopping the gov from tracking Black people unemployment numbers because all the race problems have been resolved and everyone makes decisions and jusdgements not on race but on merits.
We know that is objectively false.
I am the first generation where it became illegal to discriminate due to race. It was legal just 5 years before my birth. People's ability to get educated, to earn a living, to even vote was suppressed by government and the people.
The people who think that we are 100% past that and whole are just simply ignorant or to steal a term, not woke.
We did that to generations of Black Americans and its effects persists today. You did not do it, I did not do it, but we the people sure hell did and we never have made it right yet.
All this purity and political bickering is designed to keep us separate rather than having subsative dialog.
Know this, there is conservative political correctness and conservative wokness too. You can see it in the Charlie Kirk canceling and those purity tests.
We need to cut purity tests and we need to expand these dialogs beyond politically charged posturing so something useful can get done.
You make a lot of (wrong) assumptions about my views. Yes, people can be biassed and discriminate by race despite discrimination being illegal. Guilt mongering and anti-white sentiment is a counter-productive approach to combat this.
I did not make an assumption of your views. I juxtaposed two woke issues, one illegitimate and the other legitimate. I also observed how you used conservative coded language dripping with pretext.
I got "slightly woke, 59%"
I got 84%.
Oh, la la! I'm so fucking fancy and woke over here. Lol
TIL: I'm libertarian socialist. Did not know that was a thing.
I argue that we stop calling “woke”. As a progressive centrist/independent (I know it sounds crazy), I feel that it has been detrimental to the progressive movement. The right has weaponized the term and made it seem nefarious. I agree with a large portion of the progressive left, but maybe move past that term.
I just don’t think woke is a bad word. Some of it crosses the line most of it is good.
Im not even sure I understand what woke is beyond just being a stupid word for being self aware.
The right hates it, because self reflection about being racist as fuck isnt exactly popular with them.
I took the test and it seems fairly accurate.
I got ~85% 'woke.'
When people unironically use the word 'WOKE' as a pejorative term, it says a LOT about that person's character and moral standing.
Being 'woke' is a good thing.
Woke is defined as being aware of systemic bigotry and injustice while having a desire for these systems to change and improve the lives of everyone.
Being against 'woke' means you're an asshole who supports oppression and draconian bullshit
Woke just means equality, compassion, empathy, love, and social justice! If you're against that, you suck. Full stop.
By "systemic" wokes usually mean one directional e.g. "only women can be systemically discriminated on basis of gender". Examples of systemic discrimination of men are deflected with nonsense like:
But we live in patriarchy (extremely vague term, notoriously no falsifiable definition)
Men created the system!
Men discriminate themselves.
Everyone who is not terminally brainwashed can see that facts disagree with these theories, but wokes (defined in terms of the test provided in OP) are too entrenched in Oppression Olympics to reflect on their views.
Systemic doesn't mean one directional, it means it's not originating with any individuals choice. It's a bias built into the way systems work. There are systemic biases that favor men and others that disadvantage them. Same for women
So, here are two proposals:
A) Men are on average more interested in things, so assuming no external forces it is more likely for a men to chose a STEM field.
B) Men are expected to be better at STEM, creating a system where they are incentivized to chose a STEM field, regardless of their own preferences.
How can we tell if A and\or B is false?
That can of worms aside, the really uncomfortable truth is that stereotypes are simplified, exaggerated, or overgeneralized, but not flat out wrong. It is absolutely true that a group average (or expected value) does not define an individual, cause math does not work like that. It is also obviously true that just because one individual (or a handful of them) is an outlier does not mean that the average is wrong, cause math does not work like that.
Those systematic biases that you run into with 1/100 people work pretty well most of the time.
Proving / disproving B seems easier than A. "A" has a lot of assumptions built in (like what's constitutes "things" and what doesn't)
Some biases are easy to prove - like how women weren't included in clinical trials until 1993.
The funny part is that I immediately thought that I was unclear, so asked AI for the assumptions:
A)
If group difference → then likely different outcomes in absence of external forces.
B)
Society holds a widespread expectation that men should be better at STEM.
Those expectations translate into actual structural incentives.
These incentives override or distort men’s own preferences.
These incentives are strong enough to produce macro-level demographic outcomes.
So... Yeah it's not my bad.
The usually cited thing for this is The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education from Psychological Science, where they show that women choose STEM less often in egalitarian countries like Finland, Norway, and Sweden. It lines up nicely with A, and flies in the face of B
To properly prove B, you would need to prove every single link in the chain. Disproving it on the other hand? Just that one study is enough, as with a complex chain argument you can either show that the whole argument is wrong, or pick a link in the chain and show that the specific link is wrong.
In Scandinavia they lowered the expectation that men should be better in STEM, and instead of the number of women increasing (as B would predict) it decreased.
You could also point out that women are incentivized to chose a STEM field, invalidating the 'men should be better at STEM translate into actual structural incentives.'
IF there are no significant differences between men and women, why is this an issue? Also, they were excluded for fucking obvious (thalidomide) reasons.
That's a big if, and one that doesn't hold true. Men and women have different average physiology.
Systemic bias is still systemic bias even if the bias was introduced with a reason, like to avoid another disaster like thalidomide. It still resulted in decades of drug trials that treated male physiology as the baseline, resulting in negative effects for women
It's not a big if, it's obviously not true. That's kind of my point, that treating people as a homogenous blob is blatantly not correct, neither is expecting the same result from different groups.
Thing is, systemic bias that is the former is few and far between, while the equality fallacy systemic bias of seeing different outcomes and assuming systemic bias is a core tenant of wokism.
People are obviously not a homogeneous blob, that's why systemic bias exists to begin with. The only way systems can impact people in different ways, positive and negative, is by the fact that they are not all the same.
And so we have systems that bias some groups over others
There is a contradiction, let me see if I can phrase it clearly.
This is true, but it remains true even in a perfectly just and fair system, by definition. In fact, you would need a very specifically unfair system to force different people to get the same results.
SAT scores impact people's lives positively and negatively, but that by itself does not mean that SAT is unjust.
It may even seem biased to favor women, but the operative keyword there is seem biased. The fact that the SAT results are better for one group does not prove that the test is sexist. This was the point I made with the "the equality fallacy systemic bias of seeing different outcomes and assuming systemic bias is a core tenant of wokism."
"Men" didn't create the system. This demographic thinking is dumb. There are no meetings where men come together and plot anything.
Patriarchy and matriarchy starts and ends with the structure of the family. If men control family structure, then it is patriarchy. If women control family structure, then it is matriarchy.
Being against woke means you don't support divide and conquer tactics, which woke is seen as. Woke turns everyone's neighbor into their enemy.
The association between woke and left wing is on the axis of social justice, specifically identity politics. You can be economically leftwing, in favor of larger state capacity, environmental justice etc without being “woke”. It’s where conversations of racial justice (especially equity), transgender issues, decentering white, Christian heteronormative norms conversations come in, intersectionality, etc that the wokeness meter starts ticking up. I don’t necessarily think that any of these individual conversations are wrong per se, but I do think that they have been prioritized above basic governance on the left which is frustrating.
I’m pro human. I have no idea what any of this means. This is very weird language.
Do you think being a racist, a sexist and/or queer phobic and treating people like dirt for characteristics of their person is bad? Congrats, you're "woke".
This is not how woke is defined according to the test
I said "woke" not woke.
Woke 20 years ago meant that you were aware of power structures in society that tried to stay in hiding while they manipulated the economy and behavior.
Today, woke means that you believe that demographics conspire against each other because they dare uphold any standards or values at all in their own communities. This then agitates those communities, and some of them actually do then try to apply the standards of their community to the entire state or nation, out of fear.
Do you notice the shift, and perhaps care to take a guess as to how/why this shift happened?
I think you can't just put together topics like climate change and social justice under an umbrella term like "woke".
That's just used to muddy the discourse about those topics.
climate change yes, but social justice is indeed entangled
The concept of social justice seems to bother the powers that be.
door profit middle handle payment mighty insurance smart bells longing
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact