Leaving woke culture and God

[DrZoidberg]

Here's an interesting video about a woman on how she became a very active activist for social justice warrior causes and then lost faith in the cause, and is now an activist against it.

What's interesting is a detail, you'll only notice if you pay attention. She started off as a Christian. Became an atheist (implied) found Woke and became woke the same way as she was Christian, then left woke and became a Christian again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVSgVlZjk8c

I have never before considered the connection woke and atheist. Do you guys think it exists? Sweden is certainly a country very atheist as well as woke. Or is it just an accident of history?

The video is interesting just as being about a woman's journey into social justice warrior. I found it very telling when she mentions that she thinks that woke is the enemy of fun. And that it's part of the ideology to never have fun because that's part of being an oppressor. I recognize that a lot among my more woke friends.

Me personally I've never been woke. I've been close to getting sucked in. I recognize her story. But I early on realized that being woke was ultimately hubris and narcissism, ie you take it upon yourself to be the conscience of the world because people can't be trusted to run their own lives. Which I think is at the core of any belief system that proselytizes. Even though I never went as deep as this woman I recognize the journey in myself.

 

[rousseau]

When I was doing my undergrad I lived with and spent time around people who were much further left than me. From my observation some of the sentiments expressed did come across as quasi-religious - if we can just defeat patriarchy, racism, and capitalism then we'll have no more problems and we can live in peace. Peace being the central factor that most belief systems are aiming for.

The kind of - counter-cultural - mindset also works because it lets people believe that society is broken, not me. In my experience those who have more successful careers don't typically hold these beliefs - society is working fine for them.

To me these types of beliefs persist exactly because they do work in resolving cognitive dissonance in the same way actual religions do. People accept and spread them because they feel good to hold. No one, from anywhere on the political or religious spectrum, is interested in finding out that the world is way more complex and ambiguous than they think.

It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

Do you think it might be a personality type? Like some people are into cults. If they're religiously bent they'll join a religious cult, but if they're atheists they'll join an atheistic cult?

 

[rousseau]

It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

Do you think it might be a personality type? Like some people are into cults. If they're religiously bent they'll join a religious cult, but if they're atheists they'll join an atheistic cult?

It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

Most of us are born into de facto normal culture - you go to school, you get a job, you have a family, you retire, you die. When this doesn't work a lot of us tend to seek out justifications to maintain ego / sense of self - alternative belief systems.

The one thing that seems true to me is that very few people are actually interested in what is objectively true - the problem comes first, then the belief system comes to resolve the problem. Where if our species were actual critical thinkers the facts would come first, and the beliefs would come second. The irony is that even many of our best and brightest are predisposed to this - it's not just people who are flailing around who are prone to misconceptions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

Do you think it might be a personality type? Like some people are into cults. If they're religiously bent they'll join a religious cult, but if they're atheists they'll join an atheistic cult?

It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

Most of us are born into de facto normal culture - you go to school, you get a job, you have a family, you retire, you die. When this doesn't work a lot of us tend to seek out justifications to maintain ego / sense of self - alternative belief systems.

The one thing that seems true to me is that very few people are actually interested in what is objectively true - the problem comes first, then the belief system comes to resolve the problem. Where if our species were actual critical thinkers the facts would come first, and the beliefs would come second. The irony is that even many of our best and brightest are predisposed to this - it's not just people who are flailing around who are prone to misconceptions.

I'm not so interested in what's objectively true. I've accepted that at best I'm just guessing. What matters is having a belief about the world which motivates me to activate myself, to push myself and to give a shit. So I'm not sure holding up objective truth as a defense against cult behaviour. If that was the case, I'd be a cultist a long time ago, right? I think it's the other way around. If we accept that everybody is just blindly flailing around trying to make sense of things, then that's also true for our leaders and cult leaders, which loosens their grip. If cults teach anything it's that objective truth is knowable if only know listen to the right people.

 

[rousseau]

It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

Most of us are born into de facto normal culture - you go to school, you get a job, you have a family, you retire, you die. When this doesn't work a lot of us tend to seek out justifications to maintain ego / sense of self - alternative belief systems.

The one thing that seems true to me is that very few people are actually interested in what is objectively true - the problem comes first, then the belief system comes to resolve the problem. Where if our species were actual critical thinkers the facts would come first, and the beliefs would come second. The irony is that even many of our best and brightest are predisposed to this - it's not just people who are flailing around who are prone to misconceptions.

I'm not so interested in what's objectively true. I've accepted that at best I'm just guessing. What matters is having a belief about the world which motivates me to activate myself, to push myself and to give a shit. So I'm not sure holding up objective truth as a defense against cult behaviour. If that was the case, I'd be a cultist a long time ago, right? I think it's the other way around. If we accept that everybody is just blindly flailing around trying to make sense of things, then that's also true for our leaders and cult leaders, which loosens their grip. If cults teach anything it's that objective truth is knowable if only know listen to the right people.

Objective truth isn't a defense against cultish behavior, our lack of interest in it is a reason why cultish behaviour persists. Cultish behavior can't be defended against, it's built into our nature, it has more survival and reproductive value than truth seeking. For us to accept that everybody is just blindly flailing around making sense of things, that would mean that we actually are interested in the truth, which isn't the case.

I'd argue that if you've accepted you're just guessing then you are actually interested in being intellectually honest. It doesn't mean you have a burning need to know, just that you prefer your beliefs to be sound and consistent. And that's mainly what I'm getting at - most of us haven't even considered the concept of objective truth or logical consistency - we don't even realize that our beliefs may be inconsistent or incomplete, and we have no motive to rectify that because the beliefs already work for us.

The dumb people are always the other guy and never ourselves.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

Most of us are born into de facto normal culture - you go to school, you get a job, you have a family, you retire, you die. When this doesn't work a lot of us tend to seek out justifications to maintain ego / sense of self - alternative belief systems.

The one thing that seems true to me is that very few people are actually interested in what is objectively true - the problem comes first, then the belief system comes to resolve the problem. Where if our species were actual critical thinkers the facts would come first, and the beliefs would come second. The irony is that even many of our best and brightest are predisposed to this - it's not just people who are flailing around who are prone to misconceptions.

I'm not so interested in what's objectively true. I've accepted that at best I'm just guessing. What matters is having a belief about the world which motivates me to activate myself, to push myself and to give a shit. So I'm not sure holding up objective truth as a defense against cult behaviour. If that was the case, I'd be a cultist a long time ago, right? I think it's the other way around. If we accept that everybody is just blindly flailing around trying to make sense of things, then that's also true for our leaders and cult leaders, which loosens their grip. If cults teach anything it's that objective truth is knowable if only know listen to the right people.

Objective truth isn't a defense against cultish behavior, our lack of interest in it is a reason why cultish behaviour persists. Cultish behavior can't be defended against, it's built into our nature, it has more survival and reproductive value than truth seeking. For us to accept that everybody is just blindly flailing around making sense of things, that would mean that we actually are interested in the truth, which isn't the case.

I'd argue that if you've accepted you're just guessing then you are actually interested in being intellectually honest. It doesn't mean you have a burning need to know, just that you prefer your beliefs to be sound and consistent. And that's mainly what I'm getting at - most of us haven't even considered the concept of objective truth or logical consistency - we don't even realize that our beliefs may be inconsistent or incomplete, and we have no motive to rectify that because the beliefs already work for us.

The dumb people are always the other guy and never ourselves.

I remember a friend of mine who was super smart. A Lacanian. He knew Lacan forwards and backwards. He's a scientist. Brilliant. One day he had an epiphany of sorts and was crestfallen. We had a beer and he said, "Lacan is logically consistent. It's brilliantly put together, but it's just nonsense. It's indistinguishable from just making up any shit. I always knocked religious texts because they were so full of contradiction. Now I think that's something they have going for them. It's impossible to be an intellectually honest fundamentalist Christian because of the source material. It'll keep the faithful humble." I'm paraphrasing now. It's was something like that.

He's not a Lacanian anymore. Now he's a Whiteheadian. So he learned absolutely nothing. But I still use his deconversion from Lacanianism as a reminder of the need to stay humble. He's way smarter than me in general but has clearly a bent toward cultishness.

 

[Politesse]

Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

It doesn't sound like this person was ever particularly self-aware actually, then or now, regardless of how woke she believed herself to be. Taking other people's word as gospel is rather contrary to the basic notion of self-awakening. I have no idea what being "woke" would mean in Sweden. What social history are you becoming awakened to? Or is this just the usual conservative thing of referring to any remotely left-leaning thinking as "Woke"?

 

[rousseau]

Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

It doesn't sound like this person was ever particularly self-aware actually, then or now, regardless of how woke she believed herself to be. Taking other people's word as gospel is rather contrary to the basic notion of self-awakening. I have no idea what being "woke" would mean in Sweden. What social history are you becoming awakened to? Or is this just the usual conservative thing of referring to any remotely left-leaning thinking as "Woke"?

Depends on the variety of 'atheist'. Most atheists I know don't frequent message boards and talk about God - they play video games, drink beer, and don't think about God at all. To some atheism is actually a stance, to most it's just a coincidence of non-belief.

I think we get a very mistaken impression of atheism from spending so much time at Talk Freethought.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

It doesn't sound like this person was ever particularly self-aware actually, then or now, regardless of how woke she believed herself to be. Taking other people's word as gospel is rather contrary to the basic notion of self-awakening. I have no idea what being "woke" would mean in Sweden. What social history are you becoming awakened to? Or is this just the usual conservative thing of referring to any remotely left-leaning thinking as "Woke"?

As far as I know Woke is in daily speach equivalent with intersectionalism. She explains it really well in the video. It's Marxism, where power derived from control of capital is replaced by power derived from belonging to a privileged group. And doing a reductio ad absurdum where this becomes the most important problem in society to solve.

More specificaly bring Woke means to be aware of one's privilige and to make an effort to compensate for your perceived privilege. Also its about being aware of how oppression changes behaviour. Which translates to making excuses for the behaviour of underprivileged groups.

I think the term is well defined. South Park has made a veru good job showing how it works in practice.

 

[Politesse]

Ah. Not what it means here, then.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah. Not what it means here, then.

So what does it mean there?

I like this video on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHSVjmO4iJY

 

[Politesse]

Ah. Not what it means here, then.

So what does it mean there?

I like this video on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHSVjmO4iJY

To be conscious of your social position within a framework of structural inequalities, and as such to be vigilant and guarding one's own against the instruments of oppression. The hard part isn't getting woke, but staying woke. Hegemonic systems of power have an endless store of weaponry with shich to wear people down, until they either give up and accept their situation or are rhetorically sidelined into irrelevancy or even hostility by their own community. The woman in the video got the slightest taste of the latter, and turned tail. Which is to be expected, as it isn't really her fight to begin with.

The appropriation of the term by middle class whites is well-intentioned, but still appropriation; the term is a product of the organizers of the Harlem Renaissance, not white liberal sympathizers. It matters very little if the woman in the video understands things correctly, as there's little for her to be woke to anyway. Aside from her own privilege, which she ultimately realized she had no intention of surrendering as indeed is normally the case. If you're only "woke" when it is convenient for you, you aren't really very woke, are you? And I would suggest that watching videos by white Angry Jack types is probably not the best avenue of approach for researching this topic, all things considered.

It is also not synonymous with intersectionality, the study of how conflicting systems of privilege and oppression interact, or Marxism, a class-based theory of economic exchange.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah. Not what it means here, then.

So what does it mean there?

I like this video on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHSVjmO4iJY

To be conscious of your social position within a framework of structural inequalities, and as such to be vigilant and guarding one's own against the instruments of oppression. The hard part isn't getting woke, but staying woke. Hegemonic systems of power have an endless store of weaponry with shich to wear people down, until they either give up and accept their situation or are rhetorically sidelined into irrelevancy or even hostility by their own community. The woman in the video got the slightest taste of the latter, and turned tail. Which is to be expected, as it isn't really her fight to begin with.

The appropriation of the term by middle class whites is well-intentioned, but still appropriation; the term is a product of the organizers of the Harlem Renaissance, not white liberal sympathizers. It matters very little if the woman in the video understands things correctly, as there's little for her to be woke to anyway. Aside from her own privilege, which she ultimately realized she had no intention of surrendering as indeed is normally the case. If you're only "woke" when it is convenient for you, you aren't really very woke, are you? And I would suggest that watching videos by white Angry Jack types is probably not the best avenue of approach for researching this topic, all things considered.

It is also not synonymous with intersectionality, the study of how conflicting systems of privilege and oppression interact, or Marxism, a class-based theory of economic exchange.

I think you belong to the cult of woke she left. Isn't that so?

The highlighted part gives you away. Why would anybody do that? Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane. We are all just trying to get through life with some joys along the way. Buddha was right, life is mostly pain. For everybody. If you think your life is so much more awesome than other people's that you feel compelled to lift the less privilged up, you need to get off your high horse, because you'll just look foolish perched that high on it.

The only thing a consciousness of your social position within a framework of structural inequalities, and as such to be vigilant and guarding one's own against the instruments of oppression can lead to is virtue signalling. Making other people think that you are guarding one's own privilige against the instruments of oppression, but you are really not. It can only lead to lies and deceit.

Marxist analysis and understanding how structural power works in society (and corrupts everything) is enlightening. But to try to embody it, ie beiing woke, is thinking that you are somehow above the system, and can see it from the outside. Wokeness is thinking that you are above the influence of the structural power. That is crazy talk. It's so narcissistic. Of course you're not. You are never going to fully understand your social position within a framework of structural inequalities. That's something we can finagle out with statistical analysis years after the fact. It works in many subtle ways, most of them invisible to the people in it. Structural oppression is like market forces. If you ban drugs, all you're doing is raising the price of drugs while not putting a dent in access to drugs. Wokeness works the same way. You are deluding yourself if you think your wokeness will make any impact on structural opression. You are not God. Get off your high horse

 

[Politesse]

The highlighted part gives you away. Why would anybody do that? Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane. We are all just trying to get through life with some joys along the way. Buddha was right, life is mostly pain. For everybody. If you think your life is so much more awesome than other people's that you feel compelled to lift the less privilged up, you need to get off your high horse, because you'll just look foolish perched that high on it.

You think pretending to be suffering while sitting atop a pile of money makes you look less foolish?

As for "limiting oneself on behalf of the less privileged" I have no idea what you are concretely referring to. I still have the same social position whether or not I acknowledge that I do.

There's definitely an irony buried in your conviction that I am on a "high horse", while also giving me an infantilizing lecture on how the real world works. Who is talking down to whom, here? I didn't insult you, you insulted me. But I am supposedly the one causing offense?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The highlighted part gives you away. Why would anybody do that? Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane. We are all just trying to get through life with some joys along the way. Buddha was right, life is mostly pain. For everybody. If you think your life is so much more awesome than other people's that you feel compelled to lift the less privilged up, you need to get off your high horse, because you'll just look foolish perched that high on it.

You think pretending to be suffering while sitting atop a pile of money makes you look less foolish?

Why would it be a pretense? Why would it make me look foolish? It's obviously true. It's a pretty uncontroversial statement. While wealth leads to all manner of increased options in life, being rich is also a new set of stresses and problems. Which is completely ignored by the "patriarchal oppression" jargon. The whole thing with claiming there's a patriarchal oppression while the suicide rate is higher for men than women. If being on top of a power hierachy is supposed to be such a barrel of laughs, why the higher suicide rate? There's something in the woke story that doesn't add up.

As for "limiting oneself on behalf of the less privileged" I have no idea what you are concretely referring to. I still have the same social position whether or not I acknowledge that I do.

This

"To be conscious of your social position within a framework of structural inequalities, and as such to be vigilant and guarding one's own against the instruments of oppression."

The less privilged always want to climb the privilige hierarchy. Woke didn't introduce that concept. What woke introduces is that the priviliged must take a step back in order for the less priviliged to have a fighting chance. Which is an absolutely idiotic concept, which I hope I don't need to explain why it's dumb.

There's definitely an irony buried in your conviction that I am on a "high horse", while also giving me an infantilizing lecture on how the real world works. Who is talking down to whom, here? I didn't insult you, you insulted me. But I am supposedly the one causing offense?

Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

Woke is infantilizing. It infantilizes everybody. The priviliged are supposed to be passive to encourage the less privilige to be activated. But they need to stay underprivilged to have earned the position of taking initiative. So they have the incentive to stay passive. Everybody is a passive child that needs society to take care of them and respect their feelings.

 

[Politesse]

While wealth leads to all manner of increased options in life, being rich is also a new set of stresses and problems. Which is completely ignored by the "patriarchal oppression" jargon. The whole thing with claiming there's a patriarchal oppression while the suicide rate is higher for men than women. If being on top of a power hierachy is supposed to be such a barrel of laughs, why the higher suicide rate?

Becoming woke to your real social situation can and should include an analysis of how social inequality harms everyone involved, not just the supposedly disadvantaged. However, pretending the inequality isn't there (and that is the effect of labeling and dismissing anyone who dares to criticize our economic system as a "Woke Marxist") will not diminish any of those effects. Not on the wealthy, not on the poor. That said, I don't think the Woke discourse was ever meant for the advantaged in the first place. You are right that white middle class folks have ulterior motives in applying the label to themselves, if they do. The term has little meaning in their context.

Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

Woke is infantilizing. It infantilizes everybody.

So you can dish it out, but you can't take it. If you have a concrete argument to make against some action I have taken or not taken, I'm interested to hear it. If it's just that some things I wrote "sounded Woke", whatever that means to you, I'm not offended but I will ignore you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

Woke is infantilizing. It infantilizes everybody.

So you can dish it out, but you can't take it. If you have a concrete argument to make against some action I have taken or not taken, I'm interested to hear it. If it's just that some things I wrote "sounded Woke", whatever that means to you, I'm not offended but I will ignore you.

How are you not woke? In what way aren't you, do you think?

 

[Politesse]

Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

Woke is infantilizing. It infantilizes everybody.

So you can dish it out, but you can't take it. If you have a concrete argument to make against some action I have taken or not taken, I'm interested to hear it. If it's just that some things I wrote "sounded Woke", whatever that means to you, I'm not offended but I will ignore you.

How are you not woke? In what way aren't you, do you think?

What chains of oppression do I have to break? My sexuality, I suppose. But the woke discourse was always primarily aimed at the examination of race. I am not hostile to the idea of staying woke, I definitely think that people should be conscious of the structures of their society. But white people who call themselves woke are irritating at best, and often end up working against the wellbeing of those they claim to champion. This is not because being woke is bad, but because their conduct is disingenuous. You claim that such people are inherently "limiting themselves" but that has not been my experience; certainly, I am not planning to step down from my teaching position any time soon. And I do not see many other people giving up their own positions of power and privilege either. What exactly did this woman supposedly give up to become "woke"? Most people do not have the willpower to permanently cede their social position on behalf of another. This is nothing to be proud of, but it is so.

 

[southernhybrid]

This conversation needs a bit of levity. So here's my favorite definition of "woke". I got it right out of the urban dictionary.

"The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue."

I personally hate the word woke, and that definition pretty much says it all.