Woke is white arrogance

[DrZoidberg]

Of course I think we should fight racism.

How? How do you fight racism without offending Nazis?

I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist

"My" solution? I've never said any of the nonsense you spew about "Woke" people, nor have I ever described myself with that term.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.

Make up your mind

 

[DrZoidberg]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

As far as sources for his philosophical views, he also doesn't need that. He is a Lacanian. But he's done enough work, and introduced enough unique thought now, to stand on his own.

Wokes often try to dismiss him on moral grounds. But it's obvious (to me) that it's intellectual laziness. Following Zizeks trains of thought requires actual effort and usage of brainpower. Kneejerk reactions and feelings is much easier. So wokes often go with that. But there's no thinking going on. If you want to dismiss him, you'll have to actually make an effort. Sorry about that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.

Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

 

[Jarhyn]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.

Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

That's the thing. Here, Dr Zoidberg is using a language not his own, appropriating words not his own to describe what people are or aren't.

"Woke" is not ever something appropriate for any person of any empowered or privileged group to bestow or cast upon any other such person.

It's a compliment you MAY get for exercising empathy in a situation wherein an individual with relatively little privilege in the situation identifies that.

To then be privileged and then sling it around is arrogance and ignorance.

It is as inappropriate as a priest calling themselves a "medicine man" merely because they are a holy man of their community. It just isn't a correct usage of the term, and is obviously quite offensive to anyone who actually understands

 

[DrZoidberg]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.

Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

I don't understand your point? The opposite of woke isn't being an asshole in perpetuity. To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that. That doesn't make me superior to those using the term "Indian". I'm cool with people saying "Indian". Or "Nigger". Or whatever. I don't use the use of those terms to denigrate someone or judge them to be bad people. That's the difference.

I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[TomC]

So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He'd already been paid multimillions. He doesn't have to do anything. He's rich. But Kaep wasn't fired. He prefers not to play football for the salary offered.
Tom

I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

What's the problem with "id recognition software"? And hiring processes usually favor blacks because of so-called "affirmative action". Same goes for college admissions.

I don't know about ID software, other than the fiasco with Wii and Apple's facial recognition systems not being able to see black people. Which is just plain laziness on the part of the developers who didn't bother to test their systems on anyone who was dark skinned.

Hiring processes don't favor blacks. Yes, in some cases, affirmative action may assist some minorities... but in order for that to happen they have to make it through the resume screening process first. And that process still tends to disfavor minorities and women.

College admissions, yes, somewhat. It varies by college, but to the extent that some colleges define target demographic distributions, it could be a factor.

Have you watched any TV commercials lately? If you didn't know any better you would assume blacks are about 70% of the population. When in reality, its more like 13%. I doubt its an accident that the actors auditioning for and being hired for the spots just happened to be black. I think what's actually happening is advertisers are trying to outwoke each other, and we've gotten to sorta absurd levels of wokeness.

Oh, so now corporations doing what they usually do (everything is for profit) is woke because they are hiring more black people in advertisements? It's also possible that the majority of American's (mainly white people) actually want to see more black people represented thus driving such a response from corporations to do so for profit not for woke. Since when did companies switch from the for-profit platform to for woke anyway? In your head only it seems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

I don't understand your point?

The "woke" never do.

To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that.

I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.

For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.

 

[Politesse]

I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.

So we should call out racist strutures and policies? What the hell is your problem then? More importantly, what the hell is your plan? You unleash angry bile on anyone who does the actual work of treying to untangle systemic racism and accuse them of complicity in the rise of Nazism, but you advance no plan or strategy of your own.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.

My god, logic is actually dead.

No, thinking that your arguments against a largely imaginary foe are stupid as hell do not mean I'm arguing for your largely imaginary foe.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom

Thank you for the long-winded version of "I believe it but I don't know it". The naivete that all 26 teams
independently assessed a healthy first string quarterback as unworthy of even an offer for a 2nd or 3rd string quarterback is truly heart-warming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom

So the NFL settled with him over his claim, just for the heck of it. Look, the guy was a decent QB, who played for an awful 49ers team. Plenty of worse QBs have made decent careers in the NFL. The only issue was some teams were nervous that shit stains like Trump wouldn't drop it! In the EPL, teams are all bending knees before the start of the game (they don't play the national anthem), and the Earth didn't stop spinning. In the US, endless whining was made by Trump. They didn't want endless attacks on social media drowning out the NFL season.

In other words, the teams took the wrong stand. Kaepernick's protest couldn't really have been much more laid back ad non-assuming.

The nerve of the man bringing politics into sports... umm.... during the national anthem.

 

[ZiprHead]

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

As far as sources for his philosophical views, he also doesn't need that. He is a Lacanian. But he's done enough work, and introduced enough unique thought now, to stand on his own.

Wokes often try to dismiss him on moral grounds. But it's obvious (to me) that it's intellectual laziness. Following Zizeks trains of thought requires actual effort and usage of brainpower. Kneejerk reactions and feelings is much easier. So wokes often go with that. But there's no thinking going on. If you want to dismiss him, you'll have to actually make an effort. Sorry about that.

Why does this remind me of the right-wing phrase "An armed society is a polite society"?

 

[TomC]

I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom

Thank you for the long-winded version of "I believe it but I don't know it". The naivete that all 26 teams
independently assessed a healthy first string quarterback as unworthy of even an offer for a 2nd or 3rd string quarterback is truly heart-warming.

Thank you for condensing the problem into such a short post.

You completely ignored the real issue and focused on the victim status of a super rich, good looking, celebrity who agrees with you.

What Kaep was worth as a quarterback I have no idea. I think everyone like him is grossly overpaid. It's as bad as CEO pay. Maybe he could have returned, demoted a bit, to football. I dunno.

But he brought his personal issues to the field. In a way that negatively impacted corporate profits. He deliberately alienated a huge chunk of NFL consumers. Those consumers buy the tickets and watch the commercials and pay ridiculous money for swag that makes NFL profitable. Subtracting his damage to profitability from his value as a player probably left him a net liability.

You may not care about any of this. Neither do I, if NFL went away completely I wouldn't know about it until someone told me. But the bottom line remains Kaep made a choice. It cost the teams a lot of money. Kaep has never pretended he wouldn't do it again. He doesn't need a job. I doubt he'll ever be willing to play for the NFL again.

Because, as an asset to team profits, he's not worth much. Maybe less than nothing. That doesn't matter to you, apparently because you've got your Woke blinders on.


Tom

 

[TomC]

So the NFL settled with him over his claim, just for the heck of it.

Lots of deep pocketed people settle frivolous claims because it's better for business to do so than fight.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

Remember, Zizek ... doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

Is Zizek an Ayn Rand fan? Are you, Dr. Z?

 

[Politesse]

Is Zizek an Ayn Rand fan? Are you, Dr. Z?

A Randian socialist? That'd be a new one. If you want to understand Žižek, you need to read Hegel, not Ayn Rand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the NFL settled with him over his claim, just for the heck of it.

Lots of deep pocketed people settle frivolous claims because it's better for business to do so than fight.
Tom

Deep pocketed people kept Josh McCown (98 TD / 70 INT / 79.7 rating) employed as a QB for nearly two decades, and his stats were never remotely on level with Kaepernick (72 TD / 30 INT / 88.9 rating).

 

[Gospel]

Not to mention why they'd think it better for businesses to settle than fight if they are right. The American people would support their fight and poor a shit ton of money into the NFL as a result. They were wrong and wanted it to go away as fast as possible is my thoughts.

 

[TomC]

So the NFL settled with him over his claim, just for the heck of it.

Lots of deep pocketed people settle frivolous claims because it's better for business to do so than fight.
Tom

Deep pocketed people kept Josh McCown (98 TD / 70 INT / 79.7 rating) employed as a QB for nearly two decades, and his stats were never remotely on level with Kaepernick (72 TD / 30 INT / 88.9 rating).

I have no idea how your response might be relevant to my post.

Who is Mr McCown? Did he file a lawsuit against the NFL? Was he Wokester who thought his personal issues deserved air time, paid for by his employer?
Tom

 

[blastula]

Remember, Zizek ... doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

Is Zizek an Ayn Rand fan? Are you, Dr. Z?

Above all, Zizek and DrZ are both hottakeists.