• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Anti-wokeists are annoying

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I say this as someone that never cared a rodent's rectum either way, for or against, about the concept of "woke." I really never was on board with that particular movement because I have spent my adult life trying to get over being angry to the point of being self-defeating. Overall, I am naturally an irritable person that is easily moved to anger or tears, so I have spent my life trying to learn how to be less angry and less of a watering pot.

This is because I have a hypomanic personality, so I am like a powderkeg with legs every single day. I am nitroglycerine. It is harder than you think to stay pleasant when your natural impulse is to leap on someone and put them into a choke-hold just for playing their music too loudly. I do not like behaving like a maniac because it stresses me out, so I meditate, read books about philosophy, and carry around a cute stuffed animal with me to squeeze in order to put nice, pleasant thoughts into my mind. I spend the day looking for instances where someone has been polite to me, called me by my name, smiled at me, complimented my black lipstick, or even just made eye-contact, and over the course of the day, I run over the list in my mind so that, when someone decides to act like a douche-flute, I can restrain myself from knocking out that person's front teeth. Sometimes, I can even think of something nice that person has done in the same day. I have gone out of my way to try to cultivate a pleasant character as a counterpoint to my naturally manic and confrontational impulses. I have worked very hard to try to become a decent human being in spite of a naturally mercurial temperament that could otherwise make me seem to be vicious.

I usually do not like to promote anger because it is genuinely terrible for my health. However, there are times for taking the gloves off.

Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

Our politics were already ugly enough, but we're heading for choppy waters, ladies and gentlemen and you other characters. These losers are going to drag us into a dark age unless we come out with guns blazing. We need to have already been on it. Anti-wokeism is cancer, and we need to go straight for the paclitaxel without detour. The cancer has already metastasized. Alternative treatments will no longer work. It is time to start dumping in the poison.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,159
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I find kneejerk ideologues of any stripe very annoying. But I get that thinking is hard work, so mindless adherence to their ideology keeps the headaches at bay.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,496
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Are we asking if the wokeists need to wake up to the anti-wokeist threat? Of course.
Talk about annoying!
Guess we better do it though. Pretty soon any kind of waking up will go the way of the abortion, Anti-wokeists will be able to sue wokeists as well as anyone who awakens or helps awaken them, and collect ten grand for every awakening or awakening-assist.
We gotta wake up and put a stop to this!
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Are we asking if the wokeists need to wake up to the anti-wokeist threat? Of course.
Talk about annoying!
Guess we better do it though. Pretty soon any kind of waking up will go the way of the abortion, Anti-wokeists will be able to sue wokeists as well as anyone who awakens or helps awaken them, and collect ten grand for every awakening or awakening-assist.
We gotta wake up and put a stop to this!
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
New lipstick on an old pig. They used to call it "political correctness"...
Well then, if you don't like hearing the ideology being mocked for the self-congratulatory narcissistic echo chamber it is, I recommend you come up with a brand new self-congratulatory label for it and get its adherents to call themselves that. No doubt that will get it off the euphemism treadmill once and for all.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?
Anti-wokeists are not interested in criticizing the means, but they are only intent on undermining the ends.

I actually support what the "woke" people are trying to do, and I agree with their goals. However, there was a time when "woke" was a new and popular idea, and this was in the lead-up to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. At the time, I was worried that the use of angry messages might not be the right way to move forward. I worried that this could have what I call "thoroughly foreseen consequences." The way that they were doing it really caused me deep concern.

However, what anti-wokeists have done is to embrace the same means while trying to work in opposition to the same ends. They do not have a problem with the means, but they just have a problem with the ends. In my opinion, this is already turning into a disaster.

Anti-wokeism is worse because it is evil in both its means and its ends, rather than in its means alone.

When we normalize inflammatory rhetoric and ochlocracy, the consequence is that we undermine our democratic institutions. Ochlocracy invariably precedes tyranny because ochlocracy creates the climate of fear and chaos and confrontation that makes the populace believe that a tyrant is necessary and desirable.

Law and order are really friends of democracy and, ironically, of liberty. There are actually many different things that I mean by "law and order," though. For example, I am an atheist, so, from my point-of-view, it is science that brings order to my universe. It gives us a set of standards, which we can agree upon, for what constitutes truth and what does not, and because of that, there is no space for either of us to dominate or intimidate the other. We can either provide evidence for our views or not. It is not a contest of who is going to dominate the other, but is a contest of who has been better at following the rules.

However, science is only one example of the many different ways that we attempt to bring law and order to our universe. I only state that as an example because I want to distance myself from the idea that the laws imposed by the government are the only source of law and order. I would deny that. In fact, I think that the unwritten laws of society are really more important than the written laws of the government.

I agree with what the "woke" people were trying to do, which is to try to make our society more just. In my opinion, the best way to do that is to follow the normal practices that are involved in appealing to society for a remedy. The American Civil Rights Movement might have started with violent protests, but when those failed, many of their leaders established the concept of peaceful protest. This could include sit-ins, "freedom rides," and other means of making a clear demonstration of dissatisfaction with the status quo while adhering to rules of conduct.

Well, such a code of conduct is important because it proves, to people in your society, that you can follow a code of conduct at all. It proves that you can keep your followers under control. It proves that you can be trusted to keep your word. If you say, "no matter how tense a situation gets, we will not resort to violence" and your followers comply with that consistently, then you are proving that your words have power. You are proving that you are able to govern them, and you are proving that they will follow you. Because you prove this power, you also succeed at winning over the confidence of society. You also give society hope that if they do renegotiate the social contract in order to give you better terms, then you can be trusted to hold up your end of the deal.

Therefore, it is very powerful to establish rules and limitations of conduct and to get your people to follow those rules and act only within those limitations.

Rules give you the power to resist unjust power.

I would still want to do what "woke" is trying to do, but we ought to rethink it with a superior sense of organization and with more strict rules regarding how aggressive people are allowed to be in the name of that movement. I would still want to awaken people to the reality of injustice because injustice, in our society, is a visceral reality for me. However, I see the proof that we can establish a new order, which actually makes people feel safe and understood, as necessary if we are going to overthrow an old order that is unjust.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?
Anti-wokeists are not interested in criticizing the means, but they are only intent on undermining the ends.

I actually support what the "woke" people are trying to do, and I agree with their goals. However, there was a time when "woke" was a new and popular idea, and this was in the lead-up to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. At the time, I was worried that the use of angry messages might not be the right way to move forward. I worried that this could have what I call "thoroughly foreseen consequences." The way that they were doing it really caused me deep concern.

However, what anti-wokeists have done is to embrace the same means while trying to work in opposition to the same ends. They do not have a problem with the means, but they just have a problem with the ends. In my opinion, this is already turning into a disaster.

Anti-wokeism is worse because it is evil in both its means and its ends, rather than in its means alone.
I have a problem with the wokeists' means. When you assert that anti-wokeists don't have a problem with their means, are you making a no-true-Scotsman argument that I'm therefore not a true anti-wokeist because it takes more than being against wokeism to be anti-woke? Or are you using "anti-wokeists" as your shorthand for "my personal archetype of the typical anti-woke person" and don't mean to be making a universal claim about all anti-wokeists? Or are you accusing me of lying? Are you claiming that I personally do not have a problem with their means and claiming I personally have embraced the same means as theirs? If that's what you're alleging, post your evidence against me, Ms. "If I can be said to have any ideology, then that ideology is the notion that empirical evidence is necessary for any truth claim about any topic whatsoever."

I agree with what the "woke" people were trying to do, which is to try to make our society more just.
That does not appear to me to be their goal, though it does appear to be how they see themselves. They appear to me for the most part to be deeply tribal thinkers. It's in the nature of tribalists to equate "more just" with having their ingroup get whatever they feel is owed it, and to have justice for members of their outgroup not show up on their moral radar. A society created in the image of their moral senses might well be one they perceive as more just, but it would not actually be more just.

In my opinion, the best way to do that is to follow the normal practices that are involved in appealing to society for a remedy. The American Civil Rights Movement might have started with violent protests, but when those failed, many of their leaders established the concept of peaceful protest. This could include sit-ins, "freedom rides," and other means of making a clear demonstration of dissatisfaction with the status quo while adhering to rules of conduct.
By "established the concept", are you referring to their having cribbed the concept from Gandhi, who in turn cribbed it from Thoreau?

That's not a criticism. Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.

Rules give you the power to resist unjust power.
Yup. Rule of law is the bedrock on which stand all the myriad ways the modern world is better than the middle ages.

However, I see the proof that we can establish a new order, which actually makes people feel safe and understood, as necessary if we are going to overthrow an old order that is unjust.
If you'd like people to believe the order you're going to establish will make them feel understood, a good first step would be to exhibit enough self-control to resist your impulse to misrepresent them.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,449
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
New lipstick on an old pig. They used to call it "political correctness"...
Well then, if you don't like hearing the ideology being mocked for the self-congratulatory narcissistic echo chamber it is, I recommend you come up with a brand new self-congratulatory label for it and get its adherents to call themselves that. No doubt that will get it off the euphemism treadmill once and for all.
Who describes themselves as either "woke" or "politically correct"? This has nothing to do with how people self-identify, it's just political rhetoric. Please note that in the OP's entirely correct history of the term "woke" it described a state of awareness, not a political tribe to belong to.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
New lipstick on an old pig. They used to call it "political correctness"...
Well then, if you don't like hearing the ideology being mocked for the self-congratulatory narcissistic echo chamber it is, I recommend you come up with a brand new self-congratulatory label for it and get its adherents to call themselves that. No doubt that will get it off the euphemism treadmill once and for all.
Who describes themselves as either "woke" or "politically correct"?
Nowadays? Hardly anyone, since doing so is just begging to be mocked for it. But you can't expect people to forget that sort of thing right away. And of course just because an insufferable twit stops using the word "woke" for his views doesn't mean he stops broadcasting that he feels he's a superior life form in a higher state of awareness than his fellows.

This has nothing to do with how people self-identify, it's just political rhetoric. Please note that in the OP's entirely correct history of the term "woke"
I lost you. What the heck do you see in the OP that looks to you like a history of the term, entirely correct or otherwise?

it described a state of awareness, not a political tribe to belong to.
The implication being that those who didn't agree with some opinion of the speaker's were in a state of unawareness, asleep at the wheel. Just like "politically correct", the term is a way of patting oneself and those who agree with oneself on the back. Both terms originated among leftists who used them to describe views they approved of. Of course they got ridiculed for it. Thank the gods that that whole business of atheists calling ourselves "Brights" never really caught on.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,764
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
New lipstick on an old pig. They used to call it "political correctness", and it had fuck all to do with anything real or useful then, either.
What, are we going to skip the "social justice warrior" bullshit cunts like Dennis Prager and Michael Knowles was peddling?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,449
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
How bad things have gotten: Yesterday I saw a social media post decrying the upcoming Apple TV documentary series Prehistoric Planet as "Woke Bulshit" because it depicts tyrannosaurids (correctly) as being covered in downy feathers and raising young. Or, as they put it, "insulting traditional masculinity".

I guess if you're anti woke, even girl dinosaurs have to be aggressively male-presenting, to the point of shaving their heads and eating their young.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,496
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?

By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?

By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
Yes. The entire idea of stampeding people in order to make people afraid of the stampede is the real problem, and the anti-wokeists are doing nothing to stop the stampeding, only trying to stampede people in another direction, this time with me in the way but still to the detriment of the herd itself.

I want to see a more disciplined movement but that would take a total change in what social media we use. We would need a social media that rewarded discipline and order and teamwork, not just being a crowd-follower.

The podcast network is I think a great example. Podcasts are imperfect, but they are also a system of social media that rewards teamwork and forethought and production quality. It rewards people that think. Any fool could create one, but only an organized team or a particularly creatively talented individual could create one that attracted any substantial number of devoted followers.

I don't mean just listening to them but also taking part in them. Joining in the creative process actually gives you a chance to think through what you are going to say and think about how it will be received, and having a team doing it with you actually gives you the experience of getting feedback before putting your opinions out there.

Just skip all other social media, and listen to good group podcasts, not talking heads, for most of the week, and on the weekend if you are lucky enough to have one, get involved with one with some of your friends so that you can have that experience of trying to create an atmosphere that people want to be a part of. It is really great for your health.

The place where social media goes wrong is when people act like a disorganized, unthinking mob. It's a big problem. A disorganized society tends to be highly vulnerable to authoritarianism. The consequences of disorder are unpleasant, so when a tyrant promises to bring order to people's existence, they are quick to truckle just for relief. A more organized society really tends to be resistant against tyranny.

Well, forms of social media like podcasts, online book club meetings, in-person book club meetings, organized run clubs that tend to reward people that are consistent and disciplined, anything social that has organization and discipline built into how it runs is substantially better than the relative chaos of platforms like Twitter, which is just an ugly turf-war that never ends.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Thank the gods that that whole business of atheists calling ourselves "Brights" never really caught on.
You’ve used this example before and it does seem fitting here. People who cloak themselves with self-fellating titles are usually insufferable pricks.
 
Last edited:

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies." This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis. The real problem was not that it was evil in their own eyes, but they became acutely aware that others saw them as evil. It was very confusing.

Just adopting the label "Not Evil" was seen as a challenge and an insult. There really wasn't much room to maneuver. The best they could manage was, "You want to be treated special and you're not special, so there."

The natural response is, "When did treating others with courtesy and respect become special treatment?"

Now the poor neocon is confronted with a lesson they failed to absorb in preschool.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,404
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
How bad things have gotten: Yesterday I saw a social media post decrying the upcoming Apple TV documentary series Prehistoric Planet as "Woke Bulshit" because it depicts tyrannosaurids (correctly) as being covered in downy feathers and raising young. Or, as they put it, "insulting traditional masculinity".

I guess if you're anti woke, even girl dinosaurs have to be aggressively male-presenting, to the point of shaving their heads and eating their young.
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,449
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
How bad things have gotten: Yesterday I saw a social media post decrying the upcoming Apple TV documentary series Prehistoric Planet as "Woke Bulshit" because it depicts tyrannosaurids (correctly) as being covered in downy feathers and raising young. Or, as they put it, "insulting traditional masculinity".

I guess if you're anti woke, even girl dinosaurs have to be aggressively male-presenting, to the point of shaving their heads and eating their young.
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Can you blame them? The ability to read is so elitist, insulting, and pretentious!
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies."
:picardfacepalm:

This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis.
What separates you from every other tribal chauvinist ever is that those people were all just imagining that their outgroups were all cartoon villains, whereas, in contrast, your outgroup really are all cartoon villains.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Oh for the love of god. Endlessly reciting the memes of a condescending self-righteous self-congratulatory three-valued-logic-believing echo chamber does not make a person an intellectual. You of all people know better than anyone that the greater part of the woke are imbeciles who regardless of how much formal education they received never learned how to think. If they were the intellectuals they style themselves as then they would not oppose nuclear power.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?

By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
That would not make a person who wants a plague on both houses non-anti-woke; it would simply make him both anti-woke and anti-anti-woke. This would seem to imply he's anti-himself, but it all works by the power of no-true-Scotsman. A person who calls down a plague on both X and anti-X defines himself as non-anti-X by redefining "anti-X" to have some additional criterion over and above being anti X -- perhaps, for example, the occupation of some make-believe "anti-X house" that he imagines whichever other anti-X persons he wishes to disparage are living in.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,404
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Oh for the love of god. Endlessly reciting the memes of a condescending self-righteous self-congratulatory three-valued-logic-believing echo chamber does not make a person an intellectual. You of all people know better than anyone that the greater part of the woke are imbeciles who regardless of how much formal education they received never learned how to think. If they were the intellectuals they style themselves as then they would not oppose nuclear power.
I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals.

Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual.

Whether their opponents are partly or even mostly innocent of the charge of being clever and well informed is not of any particular relevance; It's a characteristic of anti-intellectual positions that they need not be well reasoned or based in facts.

City supporters don't beat up United supporters because they think the United supporters scored the winning goal that knocked City out of the cup; They don't imagine that their victims are even competent football players.
 
Last edited:

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies."
:picardfacepalm:

This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis.
What separates you from every other tribal chauvinist ever is that those people were all just imagining that their outgroups were all cartoon villains, whereas, in contrast, your outgroup really are all cartoon villains.
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies."
:picardfacepalm:

This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis.
What separates you from every other tribal chauvinist ever is that those people were all just imagining that their outgroups were all cartoon villains, whereas, in contrast, your outgroup really are all cartoon villains.
There is nothing cartoonish about villains who dump out water left for people crossing a desert(for their own good, of course), or think turning firehoses on people attempting to register to vote is a proper use of taxpayer funded resources. They didn't feel this is baddie behavior, since the damage was inflicted on other tribes, and that's okay.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,496
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
There is nothing cartoonish about villains who dump out water left for people crossing a desert(for their own good, of course)
… unless they’re part of your in-group.
Then the characterization serves to minimize the atrocity.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,308
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
How about we start with "a plague on both your houses" and proceed from there? Just an idea. I am not attached to it.
"A plague on both your houses" implies a plague on the woke house. How do you figure you can advocate a plague on the woke house without thereby qualifying as anti-woke?

By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
That would not make a person who wants a plague on both houses non-anti-woke; it would simply make him both anti-woke and anti-anti-woke. This would seem to imply he's anti-himself, but it all works by the power of no-true-Scotsman. A person who calls down a plague on both X and anti-X defines himself as non-anti-X by redefining "anti-X" to have some additional criterion over and above being anti X -- perhaps, for example, the occupation of some make-believe "anti-X house" that he imagines whichever other anti-X persons he wishes to disparage are living in.
Or that the person considers there to be three positions rather two. Woke/anti-Woke/neither.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
That would not make a person who wants a plague on both houses non-anti-woke; it would simply make him both anti-woke and anti-anti-woke. This would seem to imply he's anti-himself, but it all works by the power of no-true-Scotsman. A person who calls down a plague on both X and anti-X defines himself as non-anti-X by redefining "anti-X" to have some additional criterion over and above being anti X -- perhaps, for example, the occupation of some make-believe "anti-X house" that he imagines whichever other anti-X persons he wishes to disparage are living in.
Or that the person considers there to be three positions rather two. Woke/anti-Woke/neither.
To be neither woke nor anti-woke is to be neutral, or to be pro-woke but see them as allies rather than as sharers of one's ideology. In neither case would one wish a plague on their house.
 
Last edited:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies."
:picardfacepalm:

This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis.
What separates you from every other tribal chauvinist ever is that those people were all just imagining that their outgroups were all cartoon villains, whereas, in contrast, your outgroup really are all cartoon villains.
There is nothing cartoonish about villains who dump out water left for people crossing a desert(for their own good, of course), or think turning firehoses on people attempting to register to vote is a proper use of taxpayer funded resources. They didn't feel this is baddie behavior, since the damage was inflicted on other tribes, and that's okay.
Oh for the love of god. Do you even know what a neocon is? Do you sincerely believe Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Paul Wolfowitz dumped out water left for people crossing a desert and/or indicated that turning firehoses on people attempting to register to vote is a good idea, or are you just saying that because you hate them? What's cartoonish is your demonization of the people you make up nonsense about because they're in an enemy tribe so you think that makes it okay.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Oh for the love of god. Endlessly reciting the memes of a condescending self-righteous self-congratulatory three-valued-logic-believing echo chamber does not make a person an intellectual. You of all people know better than anyone that the greater part of the woke are imbeciles who regardless of how much formal education they received never learned how to think. If they were the intellectuals they style themselves as then they would not oppose nuclear power.
I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals.

Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual.
Okay, let's back this up a bit. I don't know whom you have in mind when you say "the anti-woke", but the OP started this thread as part of her reaction to this post, which she also reacted against in-thread, in posts #139, #143 and #146. So from context, it's pretty clear that whom the OP had in mind when she said "Anti-wokeists" was me, and people like me. I am certainly anti-woke. Woke ideology is just political correctness on steroids, and it inherits from its parent ideology the characteristic of needing to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.

So given that context, I have to ask. Do you mean me? Are you accusing me of being anti-intellectual?

If you are, can you produce any evidence that I'm anti-intellectual, or are you just hate-mongering against me because I'm in your outgroup?

Contrariwise, if you don't mean me, then what in your view does a person need to do besides be against wokeism in order to qualify as a true anti-woke?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,377
Location
Ignore list
Woke ideology is just political correctness on steroids, and it inherits from its parent ideology the characteristic of needing to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.
My take on political correctness differs somewhat from yours

Political-correctness.jpg


and woke is not derived from it. Its origin is entirely unrelated. This has been pointed out more than once in previous posts in this or the other thread on the topic.

And what's with the "ideology" bit?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
My take on political correctness differs somewhat from yours

Political-correctness.jpg
There's nothing like making up the arguments of both sides of a debate for guaranteeing a rhetorical win for whichever side you favor.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,404
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Oh for the love of god. Endlessly reciting the memes of a condescending self-righteous self-congratulatory three-valued-logic-believing echo chamber does not make a person an intellectual. You of all people know better than anyone that the greater part of the woke are imbeciles who regardless of how much formal education they received never learned how to think. If they were the intellectuals they style themselves as then they would not oppose nuclear power.
I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals.

Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual.
Okay, let's back this up a bit. I don't know whom you have in mind when you say "the anti-woke", but the OP started this thread as part of her reaction to this post, which she also reacted against in-thread, in posts #139, #143 and #146. So from context, it's pretty clear that whom the OP had in mind when she said "Anti-wokeists" was me, and people like me. I am certainly anti-woke. Woke ideology is just political correctness on steroids, and it inherits from its parent ideology the characteristic of needing to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.

So given that context, I have to ask. Do you mean me? Are you accusing me of being anti-intellectual?

If you are, can you produce any evidence that I'm anti-intellectual, or are you just hate-mongering against me because I'm in your outgroup?

Contrariwise, if you don't mean me, then what in your view does a person need to do besides be against wokeism in order to qualify as a true anti-woke?
I am responding to what is written in this thread. I am not interested in a spat you may or may not be having with another poster.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
How bad things have gotten: Yesterday I saw a social media post decrying the upcoming Apple TV documentary series Prehistoric Planet as "Woke Bulshit" because it depicts tyrannosaurids (correctly) as being covered in downy feathers and raising young. Or, as they put it, "insulting traditional masculinity".

I guess if you're anti woke, even girl dinosaurs have to be aggressively male-presenting, to the point of shaving their heads and eating their young.
You know trolls exist, right?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals.

Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual.
... So given that context, I have to ask. Do you mean me? Are you accusing me of being anti-intellectual?

If you are, can you produce any evidence that I'm anti-intellectual, or are you just hate-mongering against me because I'm in your outgroup?

Contrariwise, if you don't mean me, then what in your view does a person need to do besides be against wokeism in order to qualify as a true anti-woke?
I am responding to what is written in this thread. I am not interested in a spat you may or may not be having with another poster.
And I am not asking you to be interested in our spat. I'm responding to what is written in this thread by asking you to explain why you wrote that vicious bigoted stereotype about your outgroup that I quoted above. Were you libelously insulting me, or were you committing a no-true-Scotsman fallacy?
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There is an old principle of human behavior which states, "No man is evil in his own eyes," which is to say, everyone feels their behavior is justified by the circumstances.

This led to an inevitable clash when sometime in the recent past, neocons realized, "We are the baddies."
:picardfacepalm:

This wasn't so bad, as they have been happy to be mean spirited and cruel, on a level which approached evil, and crossed that line on a regular basis.
What separates you from every other tribal chauvinist ever is that those people were all just imagining that their outgroups were all cartoon villains, whereas, in contrast, your outgroup really are all cartoon villains.
There is nothing cartoonish about villains who dump out water left for people crossing a desert(for their own good, of course), or think turning firehoses on people attempting to register to vote is a proper use of taxpayer funded resources. They didn't feel this is baddie behavior, since the damage was inflicted on other tribes, and that's okay.
Oh for the love of god. Do you even know what a neocon is? Do you sincerely believe Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Paul Wolfowitz dumped out water left for people crossing a desert and/or indicated that turning firehoses on people attempting to register to vote is a good idea, or are you just saying that because you hate them? What's cartoonish is your demonization of the people you make up nonsense about because they're in an enemy tribe so you think that makes it okay.
Okay, who did dump the water in the desert, and who did turn on the fire hoses?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,286
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Were you libelously insulting me, or were you committing a no-true-Scotsman fallacy?
No, I wasn't doing either of those things :rolleyesa:
That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:

Do you mean me?​

It's a simple yes or no question.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,995
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
New lipstick on an old pig. They used to call it "political correctness"...
Well then, if you don't like hearing the ideology being mocked for the self-congratulatory narcissistic echo chamber it is, I recommend you come up with a brand new self-congratulatory label for it and get its adherents to call themselves that. No doubt that will get it off the euphemism treadmill once and for all.
they could themselves the "Brights"?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,404
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Were you libelously insulting me, or were you committing a no-true-Scotsman fallacy?
No, I wasn't doing either of those things :rolleyesa:
That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:

Do you mean me?​

It's a simple yes or no question.
No.

Now, will you stop trying to drag me into a pointless argument you are apparently having with someone else?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,496
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
are you just hate-mongering against me because I'm in your outgroup?
Sure looks like you wish that were the case. Persecution complex, much?
Outgroup outgroup outgroup ... oh me oh my.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,024
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Were you libelously insulting me, or were you committing a no-true-Scotsman fallacy?
No, I wasn't doing either of those things :rolleyesa:
That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:

Do you mean me?​

It's a simple yes or no question.
No.

Now, will you stop trying to drag me into a pointless argument you are apparently having with someone else?
I would say people are, in the use of the term "anti-woke" to describe themselves, is also describing themselves as anti-intellectual.

It has nothing to do with what you or I or bomb wish and everything to do with the facts you pointed out: that it is about people who wish to not be expected to think about things, and who wish to be free of the expectation of abnegation of certain wills, free of the expectation of restraint.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,453
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well that's hardly shocking, when you realise that much right-wing use of the word 'woke' is a derisive synonym for 'educated'.

Anti-wokeism is just anti-intellectualism dressed up in tribal posturing. It's in the same inglorious tradition as "book-learning" - the expression of the idea that knowing facts about reality is somehow suspect and corrosive to the fabric of society, while adhering to simplistic tribal myths without challenging them by exposure to complexity, nuance, or (heaven forbid) accuracy, is virtuous and protective of the community.
Oh for the love of god. Endlessly reciting the memes of a condescending self-righteous self-congratulatory three-valued-logic-believing echo chamber does not make a person an intellectual. You of all people know better than anyone that the greater part of the woke are imbeciles who regardless of how much formal education they received never learned how to think. If they were the intellectuals they style themselves as then they would not oppose nuclear power.
Just seems that the Venn Diagram between "anti-woke" and anti-intellectual "fuck Joe Biden" folk is fairly overlapped.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,453
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
How bad things have gotten: Yesterday I saw a social media post decrying the upcoming Apple TV documentary series Prehistoric Planet as "Woke Bulshit" because it depicts tyrannosaurids (correctly) as being covered in downy feathers and raising young. Or, as they put it, "insulting traditional masculinity".

I guess if you're anti woke, even girl dinosaurs have to be aggressively male-presenting, to the point of shaving their heads and eating their young.
You know trolls exist, right?
Yes. But it has become impossible to tell them from the alt-right.

After all, we had the anti-woke storming the US Capitol building because of an election that was "stolen" but never actually formerly challenged by Trump in court. I couldn't have made that up.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,308
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
By invoking an equal and opposite plague on the anti-woke house of course.
Plague 101.
That would not make a person who wants a plague on both houses non-anti-woke; it would simply make him both anti-woke and anti-anti-woke. This would seem to imply he's anti-himself, but it all works by the power of no-true-Scotsman. A person who calls down a plague on both X and anti-X defines himself as non-anti-X by redefining "anti-X" to have some additional criterion over and above being anti X -- perhaps, for example, the occupation of some make-believe "anti-X house" that he imagines whichever other anti-X persons he wishes to disparage are living in.
Or that the person considers there to be three positions rather two. Woke/anti-Woke/neither.
To be neither woke nor anti-woke is to be neutral, or to be pro-woke but see them as allies rather than as sharers of one's ideology. In neither case would one wish a plague on their house.
One can be neutral and feel that both extremes are nuts.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,496
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
One can be neutral and feel that both extremes are nuts.

Extremists say that too, even as they lay claim to high middle ground. The new Far Right consists of mass murderers, serial rapists and corrupt cops, while “centrists” are the Q-ball Election Fraud Seditious Conspiracy contingent.
 
Top Bottom