Do you think it's been co-opted by sjw types? They love grabbing words and changing the meaning, which then spoils the normal use of the words. Of course, it depends on your company; if everyone in the room uses the first definition, the word effectively means that when you say it (as far as their understanding is concerned).
The present common definition I see for it basically means "blue pilled". Which is practically the opposite of what the origin seemed to have meant. I think part of the misunderstanding was organic since it may have been intended as a companion rather than a replacement for "red pilled" (theory seems backed up by your link that I skimmed), and nuance in slang can be difficult. The rest of it I'm ready to blame on co-opt efforts, but I'm interested if you have any personal insight for this.
Edit: My theory was off, as expressed further down in coversation chain. Leaving this post as is to evidence logical processing.
Makes sense. I remember that anti-white MTV video being mad that white guys were saying 'woke'.
The present common definition I see for it basically means "blue pilled". Which is practically the opposite of what the origin seemed to have meant
No, that is actually correct. Because 'woke' (as John McWhorter explained) meant among blacks 'realizing' the great role that racism supposedly plays. So blue pilled.
Of course anyone who starts believing in a delusion will think that he is drinking from the font of pure wisdom. No one who takes the blue pill will admit to having done that.
Okay, I read the above linked article a little more closely and you seem to be right. My fault for skimming, I suppose. That's unfortunate, but at least it gets used derisively (I'll actually ask one of my friends if and how it gets used by his young coworkers).
I'm not familiar with McWhorter, but his field of study looks appropriate on wikipedia. I assume he is not quite the essential reading as Sowell is, though. I have more fun engaging strangers directly about language use, so I generally don't research the field deeply.
That was my belief on the etymology as well.
Do you think it's been co-opted by sjw types? They love grabbing words and changing the meaning, which then spoils the normal use of the words. Of course, it depends on your company; if everyone in the room uses the first definition, the word effectively means that when you say it (as far as their understanding is concerned).
The present common definition I see for it basically means "blue pilled". Which is practically the opposite of what the origin seemed to have meant. I think part of the misunderstanding was organic since it may have been intended as a companion rather than a replacement for "red pilled" (theory seems backed up by your link that I skimmed), and nuance in slang can be difficult. The rest of it I'm ready to blame on co-opt efforts, but I'm interested if you have any personal insight for this.
Edit: My theory was off, as expressed further down in coversation chain. Leaving this post as is to evidence logical processing.
All good, had to ask.
Makes sense. I remember that anti-white MTV video being mad that white guys were saying 'woke'.
No, that is actually correct. Because 'woke' (as John McWhorter explained) meant among blacks 'realizing' the great role that racism supposedly plays. So blue pilled.
Of course anyone who starts believing in a delusion will think that he is drinking from the font of pure wisdom. No one who takes the blue pill will admit to having done that.
Okay, I read the above linked article a little more closely and you seem to be right. My fault for skimming, I suppose. That's unfortunate, but at least it gets used derisively (I'll actually ask one of my friends if and how it gets used by his young coworkers).
I'm not familiar with McWhorter, but his field of study looks appropriate on wikipedia. I assume he is not quite the essential reading as Sowell is, though. I have more fun engaging strangers directly about language use, so I generally don't research the field deeply.
No one can reach the heights of Sowell, of course, but he often does make good contributions.