Talk:Woke

A separate article for "wokeism" or "wokeness"?

Hello. I have registered a lot of the debate on this page, and I am wondering if it might be an idea to create a separate article for "wokeness/wokeism". Several notable individuals have written on this (i.e. "wokeness", not "woke") as some perceived political inclination, worldview, phenomena or ideology, and provided historical context for it. In other words, while derived from "woke", when "wokeism" is used by historians and others, it seems to refer to a contemporary political ideology, not in the original meaning of attentiveness to discrimination, etc. For example, it is noteworthy how many historians have framed "wokeness" or "wokeism" as a post-Christian revival. Here Ian Buruma discusses "wokeness" as "an essentially Protestant phenomenon"; historian Niall Ferguson comments in this talk on the "turgid and ultimately nihilistic cult of wokeism which has much more, it seems to me, in common with the crazier aspects of the Protestant Reformation than it has with Romanticism". (Ignore the negative personal opinion, focus on his comparison). Similarly, historian Tom Holland draws parallels in his book Dominion, even naming a chapter "Woke" (Holland does not take a negative position, only attempting to see it through the prism of Christianity in America). (Here is one tweet further showing his opinion). Buruma, by the way, references John McWhorter, who has published the book Woke Racism, again drawing direct comparisons with Calvinism. This is but a handful of the stuff floating around at the moment on the "Christian side". Others have written on it, such as Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity, to name one. (Here in this tweet he contends wokeness "is a deformation and not the essence of liberalism". [Edit: and Here (at 5:18 and especially 37:41 onwards) is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress]. Another "school" as it were prefers to link it to post-modernism and identity politics; Helen Pluckrose has written much on what she (and others) call "Critical Social Justice", which she claims is "colloquially" called "wokeism" (Cynical Theories). Finally, of course, you have all the very political crap from Conservatives who argue it somehow has to do with "Marxism", which more often than not seems very connected to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is uninteresting in all ways except merely to show the large debate over taxonomy. In other words, there is a wide range of analysis ranging from the sensible to the very not sensible. Add to this all the thousands of articles in major outlets (New York Times, Atlantic, etc.). The Economist joins many other authors to write about a "Great Awokening", viewing it as a part of the "illiberal Left". All in all, an impression starts to form that what is being discussed is more than "woke" as originally defined, but rather as shorthand for a certain set of political assumptions. The very fact that so many struggle to define it, and define it differently, is worthy of note.

My main point is that there seems to be a plethora of historians and political scientists who have written on "wokeness" as something distinct, and tried to analyze it in a historical and ideological context. In this there is wide disagreement, which itself is noteworthy. To keep this article clean and covering the original source from which this other things "wokeness" has been derived, might a separate article for it be worth considering?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Euor (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the split, as the second term has a distinct meaning and has attracted sufficient attention to pass the threshold of notability. I also note Wikidata already holds separate items for the two concepts: (Q(Q28136847)) and wokeism (Q118324158). fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. SparklyNights 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think there's really enough to support a separate article and would be concerned that it could become a WP:POVFORK, since the sources you presented mostly seem to indicate that "wokeism" is a pejorative neologism used by people who set out to criticize the concepts that they use it to encompass and define. I'd also be concerned that there's a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage; pejorative political neologisms are dime-a-dozen. Also, I'm not convinced that they're talking about something distinct - these seem to be the same topic. Most of the sources you cite use "woke" repeatedly and talk about the precise history described in this article; what would be the point of separating them out? --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion How about splitting "wokeness", instead? fgnievinski (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, what is the difference between "woke" and "wokeism"? Is there even a difference? That seems to be the crux of the matter. Tadreidms (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Tadreidms Their meaning is well established in dictionaries, for example:

  • https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wokeism
  • https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wokeness

  Crucially, one of the two terms is derogatory. fgnievinski (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Your link for "wokeness" just redirects to "woke" [1] which somewhat undermines the case for a split. Splitting off "wokeism" as a derogatory term is almost certain to result in a POV fork. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll copy and paste the definitions here:

  • Wokeness, woke: Someone who is "woke" is very aware of social and political unfairness.
  • Wokeism (informal, often derogatory): the behaviour and attitudes of people who are sensitive to social and political injustice.

  The latter is a criticism for the former. fgnievinski (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose due to WP:POVFORK concerns. Since all three terms are now mainly used to attack what is deemed "wokeness" by critics, I expect any spin-off article to become a POV magnet for a bunch of primary sources such as opinion pieces written from that perspective. If there were a WP:SIZE issue, a spin-off might be warranted, but that's not the case here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In particular, I contend that Helen Pluckrose and John McWhorter are not reliable sources for broad sociopolitical issues. The source from The Economist is an editorial, which is a primary source. Whatever Niall Ferguson's academic bona fides, an interview published by a conservative think tank is another primary source. All these primary sources together fail to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources for the concept of "wokeness", in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Harpers article by Ian Buruma is primarily about the term "woke" itself, and uses "wokeness" and "woke" basically interchangeably, depending on whether the author needs a noun or an adjective. Buruma certainly does not give a definition or description of "wokeness" as separate from "woke". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Here (at 5:18, and later 37:41 he further develops this, and even later when he talks about its "antinomianism") is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress. (37:41: "woke movements are vehicles for a secular hyper-Christianity emptied of any sense of mystery and any commitment to forgiveness", in his opinion). Another sign that many thinkers see something ideologically distinct and noteworthy here. (There seems to be a distinct argument over whether "woke" is distinct from liberalism (as Fukuyama thinks), or a natural branch of it (like Gray thinks). I have purchased some other recent books covering these topics, such as by Yascha Mounk, or Greg Lukianoff, but I haven't read them so I will not add anything except to say that the topic is also broached there -- by Mounk in quite detail, judging by the index. I understand all the criticisms, and it must be done correctly, but I find it undeniable that there is something more here -- which is the talking point of many thinkers, philosophers, and, yes, columnists, than it "being aware of social inequalities" or whatever.--Euor (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and? A short reference in passing hardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, let alone a comment made in a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed academic publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That refers to the Gray bit, I assume. Listening to the entirity, it was a regular topic of discussion towards the end, wherein he outlines quite clear thoughts on "woke" from a philosophical point of view. But beyond that, someone like Mounk has not written about it in passing, but instead to a great extent in his recent book as mentioned.--Euor (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yascha Mounk's academic specialty in international affairs doesn't exactly qualify him as an expert on the subject. I note that his book is from a trade publisher, not an academic or educational publisher. That makes me think it's just another attempt to cash in on the trend of attacking so-called "wokeness" rather than a serious analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Is your opinion of Mounk to be held as more authoritative than an actual, published source -- which now joins a long list of credible, published authors which I have mentioned? Are we to believe that you would be equally critical of a book from trade publishers if it aligned with the article's content as is? This is goalpost-shifting. I understand you have some allergy to critical views of "wokeness", as, yes, there is a large industry of right-wing grifters writing on it. This shouldn't drown out the serious authors mentioned here, though (from Fukuyama and Holland, to Gray and Mounk -- which are only a selected handful. Why these are to be so easily dismissed by you -- meaning you view your authority as higher -- I find astonishing.).--Euor (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that most of the authors you listed are not credible on this topic. And yes, I would be equally critical of any book from a trade publisher regardless of POV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Add a section Add a section for "wokeness" in this article. Google Scholar [2] mentions the word a number of times. Here are some sources from The Economist

How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04/how-did-american-wokeness-jump-from-elite-schools-to-everyday-life

How to cancel “cancel culture”: Two new books examine the brokenness of wokeness

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/10/19/how-to-cancel-cancel-culture

Tadreidms (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An editorial on the subject of the "illiberal left" and a book review are hardly authoritative sources on the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSOURCES The Economist is considered reliable. For one example, I see Donald Trump uses sources from The Economist for statements of fact. Why would, for example, "Analyzing Trump Inc" (From the Tower to the White House) be considered acceptable (and used as statement of fact) but "The illiberal left" (How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?) be not? What is the difference between the two?

Tadreidms (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that between a neutral statement of fact supported by multiple sources ([Trump's] investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets) and using this source as a basis for describing an entire subtopic. We know from other sources that nowadays "woke/wokeness" are used mainly pejoratively amid an anti-woke backlash; any source talking about so-called wokeness must be evaluated in that context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting this topic almost a year since I published it, I can simply say that it seems to have become ever more relevant to make such a distinction. Still I believe Sangdeboeuf makes a good argument that it must be based on rigorous sources. I notice a slew of books coming out from various university presses that might be relevant (say, for example Musa al-Gharbi's upcoming book — do read the description for an example of a use of "wokeness" as a distinct ideology), so I believe this talk section is still relevant...--Euor (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"American thought has always tended to a certain solipsism, a trait that has become more prominent in recent times. If Fukuyama and his neoconservative allies believed the world was yearning to be remade on an imaginary American model, the woke movement believes “whiteness” accounts for all the evils of modern societies. America’s record of slavery and racism is all too real. Even so, passing over in silence the repression and enslavement of peoples outside the West – Tibetans, Uighurs and now Mongols in China, for example – because they cannot be condemned as crimes of white supremacy reveals a wilfully parochial and self-absorbed outlook. Wokery is the successor ideology of neo-conservatism, a singularly American world-view. That may be why it has become a powerful force only in countries (such as Britain) heavily exposed to American culture wars. In much of the world – Asian and Islamic societies and large parts of Europe, for example – the woke movement is marginal, and its American prototype viewed with bemused indifference or contempt." This is by John Gray. Another example of current use which would benefit from a separate article analyzing philosophical background and underpinnings, and analyses by contemporary thinkers on left and right.--Euor (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of addition of "woke math" as a recent example

This topic has been in the news for several years now. It is a good example for the most recent use of the term and it should be mentioned here. However, my addition was immediately reverted today here with the comment " relies on the headline for relevance, and unclear why this would clear WP:WEIGHT". The reversal also summarily reverted edits improving tense and adding dates.

Ok, so I next I added 2 different sources, Economist and Newsweek, not relying only on headline for relevance and these were reverted too here with the same argument, saying WP:UNDUE based on sources which are a collection of WP:NEWSOPEDS.- I disagree, this isnt WP: UNDUE. Furthermore simply reverting and not finding a better source @Sangdeboeuf isnt productive criticism. Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t the user that reverted the change and haven’t looked at it in detail, but Newsweek is not generally reliable, so that probably wouldn’t add to notability for inclusion. Raladic (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's clearly WP:UNDUE. The purpose of this page isn't to list every single time any talking head has called anything woke; given how aggressively the term is thrown around by culture-war types, there isn't much meaning to individual uses like that. If you think that it's relevant, find high-quality secondary sources covering that usage, not just primary opinion-pieces that happen to use the term. If no secondary sources have covered that usage then it probably just isn't particularly significant - lots of times, especially when it comes to culture-war stuff, a talking head or two gets a bee in their bonnet about something and tries to turn it into a forced meme. But if there's no secondary coverage then it probably didn't go anywhere and doesn't really belong here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Both the Newsweek and Stanford Review sources are clearly labeled as "opinion". WP:NEWSOPEDs like these are only useful as primary sources. Without reliable, secondary sources about usage of the term, the "woke math(s)" kerfuffle seems of little relevance.

The Economist article in fact only uses the term "woke maths" in the headline, which is not a reliable source. The only other use of the term "woke" is a passing reference to detractors, who regarded the scheme as yet another attack on excellence by woke educators. Who were these detractors? What does "woke educators" mean in this context? The source doesn't say, which doesn't make for very useful information for our readers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence

It's pretty ridiculous that the first sentence of this article does not provide a concise, neutral definition of the current and most common usage of the term and instead gives an outdated definition that is no longer widely used. I would propose something like Woke is a pejorative used primarily by American conservatives as an umbrella term to criticize liberal and progressive policies regarding race and gender. (open to alternative wordings). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If sources are necessary, there is no shortage of them: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The link to Merriam-Webster gives essentially the same definition we do: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice). Here are the rest in order (my bolding):

• ABC News (citing Merriam-Webster): "The definition of 'woke' changes depending on who you ask. [...] The term has recently been used by some conservatives as an umbrella term for progressive values, often using it with negative connotations. [...] To be 'woke' politically in the Black community means that someone is informed, educated and conscious of social injustice and racial inequality"
• NYT: "For Republican candidates, no word has hijacked political discourse quite like 'woke,' a term few can define but many have used to capture what they see as left-wing views on race, gender and sexuality that have strayed far beyond the norms of American society."
• Vox: "Though the term 'woke' has been found to be used in the social justice context as early as the early 20th century, in modern history, Black activists have used it on the frontlines of protests. [...] But by 2020, 'woke' had 'evolved into a single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory,' Romano wrote. 'This framing of "woke" is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right.'"
• USA Today: "Among conservative lawmakers and activists 'woke' tends to be an across-the-board denunciation of progressive values and liberal initiatives. [...] But Black Americans have used the term 'woke' since at least the early-to-mid 20th century to mean being alert to racial and social injustice."
• WaPo (opinion column): "'Woke' was once used largely by Black people, invoking the idea that they should stay mindful of racism in America. The term is now used by political figures on the center-left, center-right and right as a kind of epithet against those they view as too left-wing on racial, gender and LGBTQ issues. [...] 'woke' and 'wokeness' are vague. They don’t have a broadly agreed-upon meaning."
• Forbes: "'Woke' is now best known as a negative political buzzword used to describe anything deemed too liberal or progressive [...] but the word has a long history, originally meaning to be aware of racially motivated threats. [...] Before the word was co-opted by the right wing, 'woke' was a word used within Black communities and social justice campaigns to refer to an awareness of inequality"
• NPR: "But what does the word really mean, and where does it come from? [...] In simple terms, it just means being politically conscious and aware, like stay woke. [...] It comes out of the experience of Black people [...] now the word has been co-opted as a political slogan on the right"
• Knox News (regional newspaper): "In 2014, 'woke' expanded outside of Black communities into the larger public lexicon and became co-opted or appropriated for various political agendas [...] the definition of the word has evolved and come to mean different things to different people."

Only Vox approaches defining the term exclusively as a summation of leftist political ideology, and says it is used this way on both the left and the right, not always pejoratively. A few (NYT, Forbes, USA Today) are about right-wing usage specifically, so cannot be cited for how the term is used in general. The sources generally stress that there is no single agreed-upon definition, and that current pejorative usage by conservative Republicans is an alteration or co-opting of the original meaning. So it's hardly outdated to put the original meaning first. We should also avoid falling into recentism bias – just because a certain usage has been in the news a lot lately doesn't mean that's the most noteworthy meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be turning a blind eye to claim that woke has not taken on a new, more sinister meaning that has overshadowed its original definition. The sources linked above were specifically selected because they attempted to provide a definition; a simple survey of sources that mention "woke" in context (without defining it) will easily demonstrate what the current most common usage is. I don't think we should ignore this by dismissing it as recentism and sticking to the original meaning now rarely used due to its loaded connotations. The sources above acknowledge the history of the term and describe the current usage as an appropriation of its original meaning; I'm not refuting that, we should still mention the original meaning, but we would be doing readers a disservice by saying the primary definition is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. That's not helpful to readers trying to figure out what the term means when they hear it. As a compromise, I would also be open to incorporating both definitions in the first sentence, i.e. ... is an adjective originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination, but is now often used as a pejorative by American conservatives to describe liberal and progressive policies regarding race and gender. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in merely providing definitions, because Wikipedia not a dictionary or usage guide. Readers interested in what the term means in its full historical context can find out by reading the article. To evaluate for ourselves what the current most common usage is based on primary sources would be original research, and calling that new usage sinister is just editorializing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in merely providing definitions What are you talking about? The first sentence of this article literally defines the term, which is expected and appropriate because the subject of the article is a word or phrase. I'm simply contesting which definition is being used in the interest of readers who know little to nothing about the subject. I've presented sources that demonstrate that a newer usage is increasingly overshadowing the old one; no OR is being done. I also suggested a compromise to include both the original (outdated) and current meaning in the first sentence, is that not reasonable to you? InfiniteNexus (talk)

You seem to be cherry-picking a definition you feel to be sinister, which suggests you have strong feelings about the topic that may interfere with maintaining a neutral point of view while editing. Several of your own sources say the definition "changes depending on who you ask", means "different things to different people", or simply favor the original meaning (as Merriam Webster and NPR do).

Once again, just because something is in the news doesn't mean it's more relevant to an encyclopedia article; over-reliance on news outlets can lead to an inflated focus on recent events. For comparison, see Cammaerts (2022), published in a peer-reviewed academic journal: "Let me first consider the genealogy of 'woke'. Woke is intrinsically tied to black consciousness and anti-racist struggles [...] Staying Woke or being aware and conscious of racism rose to prominence again in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement [...] At the same time, however, 'woke' and 'wokeness' was also weaponised by the right." Note how even an article about the "anti-woke culture war" emphasizes that the term and concept are primarily tied to anti-racist movements.

The lead section already states, By 2019, the term was being used sarcastically as a pejorative among many on the political right and some centrists in Western countries targeting various leftist and progressive movements. I trust readers to be able to assimilate information from more than a single introductory sentence. The pejorative usage could perhaps be mentioned earlier in the lead, but there's no need to cram in every noteworthy thing at the beginning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep stressing my offhand use of that word. The original meaning was a positive one before it was appropriated into a pejorative. My word choice was thus fairly objective, unless you're suggesting the original meaning was a slur and conservatives are now using it in a positive light. I don't have "strong feelings" about this topic, nor is that relevant to this discussion. I don't think I've been accused of having an NPOV agenda before, so this is a first. I would ask that you assume good faith; I'm sure we're both trying to improve this article in readers' best interest.

I'll reiterate that I am not saying that we should disregard the original meaning; I moved away from that several comments ago. I am only calling for the new definition to be given equal emphasis early on in the lead as I find it unhelpful and, frankly, unacceptable that this does not appear until three paragraphs later. The sources both you and I listed generally discuss only two primary meanings: the original one used primarily by anti-racist movements and the current one used primarily by conservatives. I don't think this can be disputed, regardless of how "new" the current meaning is.

How about this: I will still push for the modified wording I proposed earlier, which I will repeat here, but here are two other alternate wordings:

A. Woke is an adjective originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination, but is now often used as a pejorative by American conservatives to describe liberal and progressive policies regarding race and gender.

B. Woke is an adjective meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. Originally derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), it has been increasingly used by American conservatives since the 2020s as an umbrella term for liberal and progressive policies regarding race and gender.

C. Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) originally meaning alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. Since the 2020s, the term has been increasingly used by American conservatives as an umbrella term for liberal and progressive policies regarding race and gender.

Are any of these acceptable to you? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

i just started a new discussion actually. i think my provided definition is far closer to what the right genuinely think wokeism means. NotQualified (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

is this a good defintion of wokeism

Wokeism is the ethics and processes of socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race, gender, and sexual struggle, as well as any other near infinite of marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality.

a less tidy but more thorough version would be

Wokeism is the ethics and processes of socialism, applied to things besides class struggle but instead to any 'marginalized group' as defined by intersectionality. As in, treating a "systemic oppressor group" (e.g. white people, men, etc.) as the bourgeois and treating a "systemically marginalized group" (e.g. black people, women, etc.) as the proletariat in accordance to socialist theory.

i have seen multiple right wing commentators agree roughly with this definition https://x.com/sleepy_devo/status/1781001342615535907 https://x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OHDky6KRQ&t=2s status/1596591428796547072 https://x.com/whatifalthist/status/1822117893279994096 NotQualified (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

do note, dev is not a right winger and i do believe he is a centrist, or at least self identifies as one NotQualified (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

24 October 2024

WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You guys you write the Wikipedia articles in America you seem to think that you’re liberal Democrat party is the same as liberal Democrats in other countries like the UK the Labor Party is more liberal than the liberals in America the conservatives are a little bit more liberal than conservatives in America the word conservative and liberal and Democrat and Republican means something different in other countries so I really suggest you get that accurate when you’re writing your articles. Stop assuming we are one big family where everybody in the world is the same conservative and the same liberal Lickmyshoes (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC) All Liberal parties in Europe are communist parties so of course an American Liberal/liberal would be conservative compared to Europeans. This whole thread here are communists obscuring their current culture change device's Name with the thinnest of justifications. "Woke means to be awake" "Woke was used in a song(s)" It is all retconning the history of events to make the socially conscious the underdogs fighting for every scrap of freedom. You are the same communists from 1880s, 1920s,1960s, and 2010s. You change your tactics when you get called out so you regroup, change your name, and Push again, but your rhetoric will always return to "End capitalism". This is always how it will end every time because all the social issues are a cover to ultimate goal, the ending of the ownership of private property and the collectivization of human life under a single worldview. 161.6.106.109 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)