Readers have hit back against a contributor who wrote in to complain about the ‘woke’ coronation of King Charles III that’ll take place this year.
They argue that being ‘well-informed and alert’ to injustice is nothing to criticise, but one reader adds that such ‘wokeness’ often comes across as arrogant.
Do you agree?
Read on to see what else is causing a stir.
■ I feel compelled to respond to Stefan Badham’s eye-rolling letter (MetroTalk, Tue) about how King Charles III’s coronation in May ‘looks set to be as cringeworthy as the dreadful and woke opening ceremony for the 2012 London Olympics’, as well as his equally nauseating response to Robert (MetroTalk, Fri).
The Oxford English Dictionary defines woke as ‘originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’. Surely being alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice isn’t a bad thing?
To quote the song Danny Nedelko by Idles, ‘Fear leads to panic, panic leads to pain, pain leads to anger, anger leads to hate’. A little more education and little less ignorance would go a long way at uniting polar opposites of the argument.
It is perfectly acceptable to have your own opinion and right to freedom of speech. Everyone can have different opinions, as long as the opinions don’t actively harm and oppress others.
We’re not talking about whether you like Danny Boyle films or music by Idles, as that is a difference of opinion. We’re talking about how very real, racist views and systems make it harder for groups of people to exist.
Whether we like it or not, this country is diverse, and the coronation will likely reflect this, just as the opening ceremony did in 2012.
Being British doesn’t mean you are white, middle-class, cisgendered or straight, and as soon as Stefan wakes up to this notion rather than clouding his prejudice behind his meek ‘just an opinion’, the sooner this country can move forward in equality. Laura, Walthamstow
■ I agree with HG from Maidstone (MetroTalk, Fri) that there are some arrogant people wishing to display their ‘woke credentials’. However, if woke means being alert to social injustice, then I regard arrogance as the lesser evil.
There are also many people who use ‘woke’ as a pejorative in an attempt to silence those who protest against bigotry. It’s often a word that racists, misogynists and others attempt to hide behind. Ed, Portsmouth
■ HG from Maidstone almost gets there in their attempt to answer the question of defining ‘woke, but in their attempt to answer it, they fall straight into the trope the right rely on to dismiss it.
They are correct about people who are considered ‘woke’ to be more alert than others about social and political issues, but then their views are generally waved off by those with right-leaning views, trying to dismiss them as ‘adopting an air of superiority’ because they don’t like the fact they base their views on evidence and studies.
So using ‘woke’ as name-calling has become the default for the oafish who hate people daring to challenge their rather one-sided mindset. Unfortunately, ‘woke’ has become a blanket term that is used by those who don’t want to have their views challenged. Matthew, Birmingham
■ Stefan Badham is correct that he is giving his opinion, rather than facts. However, when he goes on to claim that Oscars are ‘pointless’ – Olympics director Danny Boyle has one – he isn’t strictly correct because box-office receipts increase as a result of an Oscar nomination. In addition, those who win Oscars can command a greater payday or career as a result of this – which is a fact, not an opinion. Jim, London
My erratic bus drivers aren’t fit to drive cattle
■ With regards to the MetroTalk debate about thanking bus drivers, I would gladly thank the bus drivers on my route if they didn’t drive their bus like a Formula One car, overshoot stops, fail to stop at bus stops and generally drive the bus as though it’s for their benefit, not ours. James, Ealing
■ I say ‘thank you’ when getting off the bus but most times I’m so frustrated by how late they are, I say nothing. Dennis, by email
■ Every weekday I say ‘good morning’ to the bus driver and ‘could I have a Metro, please?’, and if there is one available, I say thank you. Sara, Cheltenham
■ Noel from Selby (MetroTalk, Thu) sounds like a politically correct yes-man with his ‘refuse technician’ and ‘post person’. Whoever has heard of a refuse technician? Stuart Meall, Newton-le-Willows
Are most voters really too ignorant?
■ In response to Kevin from London (MetroTalk, Fri), who says the likes of Brexiteers should be denied a vote. Yet another hysterical rant from a remoaner who still, nearly seven years on, can’t stop stamping their feet and calling those who disagree with him names. I love it. My day began with a smirk. David, Gravesend
■ Kevin from London is absolutely right except that it’s not the majority of the English who are ‘evidently too stupid and too ignorant to deserve a vote’. It’s the majority of the people in the whole country. Those with a modicum of knowledge and intelligence have left the decaying Union we are in because they foresaw its collapse. What’s left are the beer and wine huggers who will believe anything they see on TV or social media. Sam, Bridge of Weir
■ Why not just implement a short test to make sure voters have read the various manifestos before you’re eligible to vote? Aidan, Dartford
Start a text with VIEWS followed by your comment, name and where you live to 65700. Standard network charge applies. Or email [email protected]. Helpline for Views: 020 3615 0600. Full T&Cs on metro.co.uk/terms Metro is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Comments may be edited for reasons of legality, clarity or space.
