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

Anti-wokeists are annoying

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
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.

It’s more of an observation than an argument.
People dislike their political opponents for views that most don't actually hold.

FRyXlp4akAER4rU

 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What insipid drivel.
Of course not every Trump voter is a malicious, ignorant moron. And not everyone who recognizes Trump as a malicious ignorant conman is a defund-the-police socialist BLM leftist.
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
The polarity is because of the urgency that democracy be preserved, not dismantled by the right. I don't even have to say "extreme right" any more in that context, because overthrowing democratic elections is now the center plank of the Republican platform.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
So did everybody (in battleground states at least) who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home because they thought Hillary was a warmonger, not left enough and that if they can't have Bernie, they will take their ball and go home.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
So did everybody (in battleground states at least) who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home because they thought Hillary was a warmonger, not left enough and that if they can't have Bernie, they will take their ball and go home.
The whataboutism is getting very thin, here. "Sure, I voluntarily voted for a would-be dictator we first met on reality TV, along with half the country. We knew what he was, and invited him in on purpose. But a small curtain of independents failed to vote his largest opponent for various principled reasons. Aren't they the real threat?"

No.

They are not.

Trump voters are very obviously the threat.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
So did everybody (in battleground states at least) who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home because they thought Hillary was a warmonger, not left enough and that if they can't have Bernie, they will take their ball and go home.
Yeah, those people did help Trump get elected at the margins. The Republicans, however, were the vast majority of support for Trump.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

If you genuinely hate them it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Explain who it is that you hate, if you would.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

If you genuinely hate them it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Explain who it is that you hate, if you would.
Tom
People who purposefully take another person's complaints or observations out of context in order to make them appear stupid or foolish for political or partisan gain.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

If you genuinely hate them it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Explain who it is that you hate, if you would.
Tom
People who purposefully take another person's complaints or observations out of context in order to make them appear stupid or foolish for political or partisan gain.

Like post #54?
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

If you genuinely hate them it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Explain who it is that you hate, if you would.
Tom
People who purposefully take another person's complaints or observations out of context in order to make them appear stupid or foolish for political or partisan gain.

Like post #54?
Tom
Ummm, no. That'd be perfectly in context with what Derec said.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I'm still more interested in what Sigmathezeta has to say.

Who it is that she genuinely hates and why.
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
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.

I think you got an answer back up thread.
Bomb#20 is woke about woke.

This really isn't that difficult to understand.
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
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.
No.
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me. Therefore you have some additional criterion for being "anti-woke" in addition to being against woke. That's a classic no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

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

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
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.
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me. Therefore you have some additional criterion for being "anti-woke" in addition to being against woke. That's a classic no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Now, will you stop trying to drag me into a pointless argument you are apparently having with someone else?
Now will you stop beating your wife?
I'll point out that I would say people who describe themselves as anti-woke describe themselves, however much they try to say "this but not that" when "this" is a member of "that", as anti-intellectual.

The real question is not "does bilby think bomb is anti-intellectual" but rather "does bomb describe themselves as anti-woke".

It's not bilby's fault when someone else insults themselves. Bilby is merely pointing out the fact that the insult is being leveled, and by Bomb himself no less.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
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.

It’s more of an observation than an argument.
Funny sort of observation -- neither you nor Hermit ever actually observed a person say what the cartoonist made his caricature of a political opponent say. What we've all observed over and over is ideologues preaching to their choirs by putting words in the opposition's mouth.

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.
It’s more of an observation than a persecution complex -- most defenders of wokeism are observed to behave very tribally.

Incidentally, you quoted me out of context -- there was an antecedent to the effect of "If you are accusing me of being anti-intellectual" that you snipped out. Bilby has clarified that he wasn't, making the above question moot; but if he had been accusing me of that then my hypothesis would have probably been spot on.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
he wasn't... but if he had been accusing me of that then my hypothesis would have probably been spot on.
So, in other words, you were wrong.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,684
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me.
No, I didn't consider you in any way for even an instant. I had no intentions regarding including or excluding you from anything I said. You formed no part of any decision making process on my part.

My post was not about you, did not involve you, and was in no way related to you. You never crossed my mind.

Oddly, a considerable fraction of my life involves the complete absence of consideration of your existence.

Your false dichotomy is missing the distinct possibility that sometimes I might not take you into account at all, when expressing my opinions. Even to the extent of not caring one whit whether you have a differing opinion to mine on the definition of a word or phrase.

That your definition of 'anti-woke' includes you, does not necessarily imply that mine does; Or that anyone else's does. I am not seeking to agree with you, disagree with you, praise you, or insult you; I am not interested in you at all.

Now will you please stop trying to drag me into a dispute I have zero interest in?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
🤣
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
 

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'm still more interested in what Sigmathezeta has to say.

Who it is that she genuinely hates and why.
Tom
1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:

a) a public speaking club that meets in a church, although the people that go there are diverse,​
b) several incredibly geeky book clubs, mostly sci-fi, which is an incredibly libertarian subculture,​
c) one small farmers and crafters market, and most indie farmers are either conservative or libertarian,​
d) a few small zoosexual groups, which range from liberal socialists to libertarians to right-wing conspiracy nuts,​
and e) a local jogging group led by a local businessman that is also a libertarian.​
I am NOT part of some "woke movement." I keep diverse company, mostly people that are quite amazingly libertarian. I self-identify as a "moderate anarchist" half-joking but also half-seriously, and while there are some things that I would like to change about people's behavior toward me, I tend to think that I am more likely to achieve that change by making friends and being nice to people than by imposing my will upon them. I believe that vulnerability is powerful. It's been working, too.

While I aspire to some of the same goals as the woke movement, I have also taken a unique approach that I think is more effective. That approach is directly inspired by the kinds of people that I spend most of my time around. My friends are people that would do just about anything for you just because it was important to you, but if you think you are going to pressure them into doing something against their will, then you are making a serious mistake.

Therefore, I resent being called "woke." My goals might be the same, but how I actually behave is very different.

2) People that have appropriated the one thing about the woke movement that I believe is wrong, which is the hysterical and angry tone, while being against the things about the woke movement that I actually agree with.

Sometimes, members of the woke movement accuse you of holding beliefs that you really don't just because you have an individualistic and nuanced view. For example, some members of the woke movement were saying falsely that the Confederate monuments were all mass-produced in one year as a reaction to the American Civil Rights movement, and I pointed out that the real history is really more complex and confusing. Well, as far as those people were concerned, that meant that I was totally convinced that black people were inferior and that I was totally on-board with the alt-right racist agenda. When I protested, "Uh, no, I am not," I got called a troll for supposedly saying things just to get reactions out of people. The fact that I really agreed with the important part of their views and that I just happened to know a few petty historical details that they didn't know never even registered on their radar.

However, there are plenty of "anti-woke" cretins that are doing the same exact shit. If you are not a member of their particular tribe, then they brand you as a "wokester" or whatever stupid term they have been using, lately. They don't want to hear a nuanced view. They want you to give lip-service to their own counter-ideology. They have adopted everything that was problematic about the "woke movement" while not even having the same noble goals as the "woke movement." They are not just "bad means," but they are also "bad ends."

On one side are the Bolsheviks, but while I agree that there is a need to do something to improve the situation of the industrial workers and the peasants, I disagree with the idea that the right way to do it is to live under the jack boot of an authoritarian communist regime. On the other side of me is Nazi Germany, though, and they really make no pretense of benevolent motives.

I am Nestor Makhno. When both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis asked him and his nation to truckle, his response was to invent this thing:

1651873482580.png

That has "no, thank you" written all over it.

To all authoritarian pieces of crap of every possible stripe, take your jack boot, and shove it up your ass.

Not no but HELL, NO.
 
Last edited:

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Someone needs to say it: anti-wokeists are getting to be incredibly annoying. I have come to genuinely hate them.

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:

a) a public speaking club that meets in a church, although the people that go there are diverse,b) several incredibly geeky book clubs, mostly sci-fi, which is an incredibly libertarian subculture,c) one small farmers and crafters market, and most indie farmers are either conservative or libertarian,d) a few small zoosexual groups, which range from liberal socialists to libertarians to right-wing conspiracy nuts,and e) a local jogging group led by a local businessman that is also a libertarian.I am NOT part of some "woke movement." I keep diverse company, mostly people that are quite amazingly libertarian. I self-identify as a "moderate anarchist" half-joking but also half-seriously, and while there are some things that I would like to change about people's behavior toward me, I tend to think that I am more likely to achieve that change by making friends and being nice to people than by imposing my will upon them. I believe that vulnerability is powerful. It's been working, too.

While I aspire to some of the same goals as the woke movement, I have also taken a unique approach that I think is more effective. That approach is directly inspired by the kinds of people that I spend most of my time around. My friends are people that would do just about anything for you just because it was important to you, but if you think you are going to pressure them into doing something against their will, then you are making a serious mistake.

Therefore, I resent being called "woke." My goals might be the same, but how I actually behave is very different.

2) People that have appropriated the one thing about the woke movement that I believe is wrong, which is the hysterical and angry tone, while being against the things about the woke movement that I actually agree with.

Sometimes, members of the woke movement accuse you of holding beliefs that you really don't just because you have an individualistic and nuanced view. For example, some members of the woke movement were saying falsely that the Confederate monuments were all mass-produced in one year as a reaction to the American Civil Rights movement, and I pointed out that the real history is really more complex and confusing. Well, as far as those people were concerned, that meant that I was totally convinced that black people were inferior and that I was totally on-board with the alt-right racist agenda. When I protested, "Uh, no, I am not," I got called a troll for supposedly saying things just to get reactions out of people. The fact that I really agreed with the important part of their views and that I just happened to know a few petty historical details that they didn't know never even registered on their radar.

However, there are plenty of "anti-woke" cretins that are doing the same exact shit. If you are not a member of their particular tribe, then they brand you as a "wokester" or whatever stupid term they have been using, lately. They don't want to hear a nuanced view. They want you to give lip-service to their own counter-ideology. They have adopted everything that was problematic about the "woke movement" while not even having the same noble goals as the "woke movement." They are not just "bad means," but they are also "bad ends."

On one side are the Bolsheviks, but while I agree that there is a need to do something to improve the situation of the industrial workers and the peasants, I disagree with the idea that the right way to do it is to live under the jack boot of an authoritarian communist regime. On the other side of me is Nazi Germany, though, and they really make no pretense of benevolent motives.

I am Nestor Makhno. When both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis asked him and his nation to truckle, his response was to invent this thing:

1651873482580.png


That has "no, thank you" written all over it.

To all authoritarian pieces of crap of every possible stripe, take your jack boot, and shove it up your ass.
So the answer is both:
Not no but HELL, NO.
Yes, but no...

I can't say I'm surprised.

You can't explain why you genuinely hate these people, or why, without paragraphs and paragraphs about what is really important.
You.
Tom
 

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

In 50 words or less, could you explain what you mean by the term "anti-wokeists"?

1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:

a) a public speaking club that meets in a church, although the people that go there are diverse,b) several incredibly geeky book clubs, mostly sci-fi, which is an incredibly libertarian subculture,c) one small farmers and crafters market, and most indie farmers are either conservative or libertarian,d) a few small zoosexual groups, which range from liberal socialists to libertarians to right-wing conspiracy nuts,and e) a local jogging group led by a local businessman that is also a libertarian.I am NOT part of some "woke movement." I keep diverse company, mostly people that are quite amazingly libertarian. I self-identify as a "moderate anarchist" half-joking but also half-seriously, and while there are some things that I would like to change about people's behavior toward me, I tend to think that I am more likely to achieve that change by making friends and being nice to people than by imposing my will upon them. I believe that vulnerability is powerful. It's been working, too.

While I aspire to some of the same goals as the woke movement, I have also taken a unique approach that I think is more effective. That approach is directly inspired by the kinds of people that I spend most of my time around. My friends are people that would do just about anything for you just because it was important to you, but if you think you are going to pressure them into doing something against their will, then you are making a serious mistake.

Therefore, I resent being called "woke." My goals might be the same, but how I actually behave is very different.

2) People that have appropriated the one thing about the woke movement that I believe is wrong, which is the hysterical and angry tone, while being against the things about the woke movement that I actually agree with.

Sometimes, members of the woke movement accuse you of holding beliefs that you really don't just because you have an individualistic and nuanced view. For example, some members of the woke movement were saying falsely that the Confederate monuments were all mass-produced in one year as a reaction to the American Civil Rights movement, and I pointed out that the real history is really more complex and confusing. Well, as far as those people were concerned, that meant that I was totally convinced that black people were inferior and that I was totally on-board with the alt-right racist agenda. When I protested, "Uh, no, I am not," I got called a troll for supposedly saying things just to get reactions out of people. The fact that I really agreed with the important part of their views and that I just happened to know a few petty historical details that they didn't know never even registered on their radar.

However, there are plenty of "anti-woke" cretins that are doing the same exact shit. If you are not a member of their particular tribe, then they brand you as a "wokester" or whatever stupid term they have been using, lately. They don't want to hear a nuanced view. They want you to give lip-service to their own counter-ideology. They have adopted everything that was problematic about the "woke movement" while not even having the same noble goals as the "woke movement." They are not just "bad means," but they are also "bad ends."

On one side are the Bolsheviks, but while I agree that there is a need to do something to improve the situation of the industrial workers and the peasants, I disagree with the idea that the right way to do it is to live under the jack boot of an authoritarian communist regime. On the other side of me is Nazi Germany, though, and they really make no pretense of benevolent motives.

I am Nestor Makhno. When both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis asked him and his nation to truckle, his response was to invent this thing:

1651873482580.png


That has "no, thank you" written all over it.

To all authoritarian pieces of crap of every possible stripe, take your jack boot, and shove it up your ass.
So the answer is both:
Not no but HELL, NO.
Yes, but no...

I can't say I'm surprised.

You can't explain why you genuinely hate these people, or why, without paragraphs and paragraphs about what is really important.
You.
Tom
*puffs a small smoke-ring*

FYIAD.

Don't mean to brag, don't mean to boast
But I'm a six-course meal and you're just burnt toast

In my opinion, the world needs more so-called "narcissism." We need more people that are willing to assert their individual, nuanced opinions rather than looking to stupid echo-chambers to figure out how to think.

We need people to get the fuck off of Twitter and start making actual friends again. We need people to start going to see live music again, so they can learn by example from people that have pride enough in themselves to go up on stage and say what they believe, even if the crowd just might actually tell them they suck if they are having a bad night.

You are Generation Snark, Tom. You are yesterday's news. You were cool in the 2000's, but it is 2022. You are getting old, and you have not aged well. Snark has not aged well. Snark has aged like milk, and it started to stink a long time ago.

Generation Snark was supposed to be an antidote for a culture that had become "too narcissistic." They saw the MySpace generation as evidence that the country had become infested with narcissists. The Snarksters therefore started this anti-individualist crusade, and they were going to bring the human race to a "new stage of enlightenment" where the people were going to act as a "global hive mind."

Everybody moved over to the new social media, and on the new social media, you are nobody unless you are a carbon copy of everybody else or at least of their ideal self. On the new social media, people congregate in swarms, and if you even dare have something about yourself that makes you different in the wrong way, the mob will turn on you and tear you down. You have no choice but to get good at reproducing someone else's style because if you do something that is genuinely original and unique, you will get destroyed for it.

We need to bring back the performers. We need to bring back the virtuosos. We need to bring back the rock gods. The generation of arena rock was really the last generation that actually produced anything that was worth having.

The so-called "hive mind" that Generation Snark promised us has finally come! It's alive! It's alive! It's also a load of utterly stupid bullshit. It is a mass marketed insane asylum that reduces people to the least common denominator and makes them ashamed to actually have any individual character at all.

This kind of absolute dumpster fire is what happens when you create a culture that punishes individualism and which condones terrorizing anybody that is not fortunate enough to have a tribe to support them.

That is what Generation Snark brought us, Tom, and it is time to acknowledge that Generation Snark was a failure.
 
Last edited:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me.
No, I didn't consider you in any way for even an instant. I had no intentions regarding including or excluding you from anything I said. You formed no part of any decision making process on my part.
That's nice; but "Do you mean me?" is not the same question as "Were you considering me in any way even for an instant when you said what you said?". Since you read the former question as if it were the latter question, you really haven't answered the former.

When Bob audibly says "The Jews are money-grubbing skinflints.", and his coworker two desks away whom he had not considered in any way overhears and says "Do you mean me?", and Bob says, "Oh, no, I didn't mean you, Carl.", that doesn't actually mean he didn't mean Carl. Carl is one of the elements of the set of people Bob meant.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
🤣
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me.
No, I didn't consider you in any way for even an instant. I had no intentions regarding including or excluding you from anything I said. You formed no part of any decision making process on my part.
That's nice; but "Do you mean me?" is not the same question as "Were you considering me in any way even for an instant when you said what you said?". Since you read the former question as if it were the latter question, you really haven't answered the former.

When Bob audibly says "The Jews are money-grubbing skinflints.", and his coworker two desks away whom he had not considered in any way overhears and says "Do you mean me?", and Bob says, "Oh, no, I didn't mean you, Carl.", that doesn't actually mean he didn't mean Carl. Carl is one of the elements of the set of people Bob meant.
This is not an analogically applicable scenario in the least.

Bilby said something specific and true: anti-woke persons are anti-intellectual.

They backed this up with an effective and valid argument.

Bilby did not call you "anti-woke", nor anti-intellectual, you did it to yourself.

If you have a problem with some mutable element of what you say you are (your ostensible positions on wokeness), you have it within your power to be not-that.

And now you pulled a Godwin.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
🤣
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.

You asked a hypothetical question based on the faulty supposition that another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2020 outcome, and I answered it in kind.

FWIW I wouldn’t blame any of the Dem voters for lack of success getting Uncle Duck Dynasty to turn away from Cheato, but for lack of effort? Yes, some of them. They should have known like tens of millions of Americans did, that the Rethuglicans had nominated a dangerous incompetent buffoon, put aside the acrimony toward Hillary borne of RW propaganda and responded to the immediate urgency of the situation. Now democracy hangs in the balance.

Thank the nonexistent gods that RW extremists are so stupid that they just pissed off about 70% of the electorate, giving Dems a breath of hope for November despite all the GQP cheating.
 

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.
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
🤣
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.

You asked a hypothetical question based on the faulty supposition that another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2020 outcome, and I answered it in kind.

FWIW I wouldn’t blame any of the Dem voters for lack of success getting Uncle Duck Dynasty to turn away from Cheato, but for lack of effort? Yes, some of them. They should have known like tens of millions of Americans did, that the Rethuglicans had nominated a dangerous incompetent buffoon, put aside the acrimony toward Hillary borne of RW propaganda and responded to the immediate urgency of the situation. Now democracy hangs in the balance.

Thank the nonexistent gods that RW extremists are so stupid that they just pissed off about 70% of the electorate, giving Dems a breath of hope for November despite all the GQP cheating.
A wise man once said, "you should never attribute to stupidity that which is better explained by a short-sighted lack of principles."

*bows as a gong sounds in the distance*

My opinion is that the Democrats have made a serious mistake by making the party inhospitable for people that have moderate libertarian views. I could be said to have such views, although I also support the progressive tax, big medical research, big aerospace, big green-tech, and big education. Besides that, I tend to have rather libertarian views, and I prefer living in a laid-back kind of culture. I do not even think that regulation does as much to protect the planet, in the long-run, as spending money on new green technology and working to make solar and wind cheaper and more efficient. Regulations can be overturned in one sour election. New technology is hard to get rid of once it has been developed, ideas being hard to kill.

As far as "Duck Dynasty," something like that was my upbringing. The so-called "woke" outlook works great for a transgender black girl that grew up in the heart of Brooklyn, had a really accepting family, and went to a nice school. When I was a transgender teenager, my world looked a lot like something between Duck Dynasty and Swamp People, and besides that, I had a collection of sci-fi and fantasy literature from dates ranging from the 1800's to the then-present-day. Well, what if you are a transgender girl from that kind of background, and you get rejected by other transgender people for repeating something that came out of the mouth of your Duck Dynasty dad?

I am therefore very sensitive to that kind of intersectionality, and it's part of why I think that "woke" methods are not very useful. Uptight and inflexible approaches to political correctness are not very useful when that kind of complex intersectionality comes into play. What works better, in my experience, is a more flexible, less punitive, and simpler sort of system that gives people room to grow.

Encouraging people to be sensitive should not be done by punishing them for making mistakes. You teach people to be more sensitive through vulnerability. Rather than criticizing people or insulting their intelligence for saying the wrong things, it is much more productive to tell them honestly how insensitive words make you feel. Rather than taking insensitive language as grounds for hostility, make a sincere expression of personal emotion based on a sense of trust that that person just might give a crap.

I see the "woke" outlook, on the other hand, as based on anger and judgment. At one time, I sounded like someone off of Duck Dynasty because that really was extremely close to how I was raised. I can still make a duck call with my hand, and yes, I know how to do that whistle thing off of The Last of the Mohicans because my father taught it to me when I was four. I literally grew up swimming in the same water as giant alligators, and it was nothing to me to see an 8-footer trotting through my back yard. When people talk shit about people that come from that background, they could be talking about a transgender girl that comes from that background. If you insult those people by treating them as if they can never deserve to be members of your society, then you are putting that transgender girl into an awkward situation, for one thing, and you are also insulting her because she is one of them.

Mind you, I then proceeded to have a Jewish boyfriend from New York City for 5 years, and after we broke up, I moved in with a highly educated historian that had spent his life dealing with diverse politicians from both parties. After he died, I got married to shell-shocked first generation Cuban-American that grew up in 1980's South Beach and went to college in New York City while living in Hell's Kitchen, which was also where he had a brief but interesting career as a journalist and socialized with various social elites and literati, but too much access to too many different kinds of drugs kind of messed him up. I am a little more worldly and better groomed, by now. That was not true 20 years ago, and even the past 20 years has not erased the fact that I know what it is like to be ignorant by no fault of my own. That is why it makes me deeply uncomfortable when people are getting judged for being ignorant or not up-to-date.

We can fix the whole thing by switching from a system that is based on anger and outrage to a system that is based on trust and vulnerability. I agree with what political correctness/wokeness is designed to do. I agree with the purpose. I think it's a great purpose and a meaningful purpose. However, I think there is a better way to do it than the approach that has been trendy for the past half a generation.

Am I making any sense at all?
 
Last edited:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
We can fix the whole thing by switching from a system that is based on anger and outrage to a system that is based on trust and vulnerability.
Step 1:
Get rid of mis/disinformation so trust can be establish without being misplaced.
Step 2:
Forget it. Step 1 is impossible.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
🤣
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.

You asked a hypothetical question based on the faulty supposition that another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2020 outcome, and I answered it in kind.
Not a faulty supposition. (Except for the 2020 bit, which wasn't my supposition.) Another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2016 outcome. You're talking about people influencing their friends and relatives, which you argue correlates with who they vote for. It might at that, but correlation does not equal causation. Their votes would have had no effect.

(Plus which, an awful lot of CA Trump voters don't know anyone in a swing-state who's influenceable. They didn't help Trump get elected.)
 

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.
We can fix the whole thing by switching from a system that is based on anger and outrage to a system that is based on trust and vulnerability.
Step 1:
Get rid of mis/disinformation so trust can be establish without being misplaced.
Step 2:
Forget it. Step 1 is impossible.
That is a barrier, yes. I have nevertheless been able to overcome it by more carefully curating my acquaintance and holding onto good people when I do find them.

If you are a highly sensitive minority group with seriously complex intersectionality, then you have two options for getting along in modern society: you can give up on shallow, low-investment social contexts (don't even download Twitter), or you can spend a tremendous amount of money on psychiatric care, counseling, and self-help courses. The first strategy is cheaper.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
That is a barrier, yes. I have nevertheless been able to overcome it by more carefully curating my acquaintance and holding onto good people when I do find them.
You may have overcome what the problem represents to you personally, but the system that is based on anger and outrage still predominates.
 

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.
That is a barrier, yes. I have nevertheless been able to overcome it by more carefully curating my acquaintance and holding onto good people when I do find them.
You may have overcome what the problem represents to you personally, but the system that is based on anger and outrage still predominates.
In social contexts that are low-investment, this will remain the case.

I think that the new invitation-only platforms might be a remedy, but we will see.
 

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.
By the way, have I mentioned that low-investment social platforms are cancer? By "low-investment," I mean time-investment.

The sorts of people that would rather read a list of content-free quips than a book are as useless as the proverbial tits on a boar.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,684
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
By the way, have I mentioned that low-investment social platforms are cancer? By "low-investment," I mean time-investment.

The sorts of people that would rather read a list of content-free quips than a book are as useless as the proverbial tits on a boar.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment. ;)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
By the way, have I mentioned that low-investment social platforms are cancer? By "low-investment," I mean time-investment.

The sorts of people that would rather read a list of content-free quips than a book are as useless as the proverbial tits on a boar.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment. ;)
Honestly, this is why I exited Twitter too.

I can't imagine how hard it was for Sigma on there... There's a HUGE call-out/block/dox culture on Twitter and they target those whose sexualities are, while ethical, immediately border a vast grey/black area, and sometimes evil manages to sneak in through those nearby cracks and hides among their community, compounding the issue.

I know this because I'm also a member of such a sexual minority, though I manage mine with adult humans and safewords and roleplay.

Sometimes we act like dogs.

Sometimes we act like rapists and rape victims.

Sometimes we act like children.

But Oh. My. God.

No matter what kind of relationship or consent exists in your life, there are folks who will use it's strangeness and cultural ignorance to kinkshame on Twitter.
 

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.
By the way, have I mentioned that low-investment social platforms are cancer? By "low-investment," I mean time-investment.

The sorts of people that would rather read a list of content-free quips than a book are as useless as the proverbial tits on a boar.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment. ;)
Honestly, this is why I exited Twitter too.

I can't imagine how hard it was for Sigma on there... There's a HUGE call-out/block/dox culture on Twitter and they target those whose sexualities are, while ethical, immediately border a vast grey/black area, and sometimes evil manages to sneak in through those nearby cracks and hides among their community, compounding the issue.

I know this because I'm also a member of such a sexual minority, though I manage mine with adult humans and safewords and roleplay.

Sometimes we act like dogs.

Sometimes we act like rapists and rape victims.

Sometimes we act like children.

But Oh. My. God.

No matter what kind of relationship or consent exists in your life, there are folks who will use it's strangeness and cultural ignorance to kinkshame on Twitter.
I have never been on there, thankfully. I already have a mercurial temperament, and I am already hotheaded enough as it is. I do not need a computer program that is deliberately designed to turn people into lunatic extremists.

As for my deviance, when I tell people about it, they tend to get a really exaggerated idea of how much of a thing it is. In practice, I am very nearly asexual, and I mostly like to snuggle. I have had a few odd experiences in my life, though.

The reason why I like that community is really that my aquaintance with that community started when they were at rock-bottom. What happened was that the whole community spent generations doing everything wrong that a minority group could possibly do if they want to survive and be accepted, and things got grim for them very fast back in 2018 and 2019. These people, including I, have to walk a much finer line just to get received with the faintest civility, but that has been beneficial to me learning the right way to deal with people that do not understand me. I have to work harder to get smaller results, but when I apply the same lessons elsewhere in my life, they are powerful.

Right now, the LGBTQ community has social goodwill to burn. This is a perilous situation for us because, just like someone with more money than they are used to having, there is going to be that temptation to spend it so frivolously that we might end up with less than we had before the windfall.

I am hoping to learn something valuable from a more obscure community that is building from nothing. What I have learned, so far, is that you cannot get people to believe that you are not scary or dangerous by shouting at them. The idea that you can is actually kind of stupid. If you shout at people and threaten them, then that makes them afraid of you, and the fact that people are afraid of you is usually the source of your problem. Therefore, if you add problem to problem and get more problem, then you should not feel surprised.

Knowing this does not mean that I never get angry. I am hotheaded; make no mistake. However, knowing that this is a handicap in my temperament, rather than a strength, has been useful to me. I have been getting better at working around it.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
But yeah, Twitter is a vector for Tweetstorms, storms of Twitter users that nucleate against targets on the basis of a perception limited in complexity to a mere tweet.

The whole thing is gross and I don't think it's really possible to touch it without some of the ick sticking back.

It comes from the same place as all the kneejerk reactions of ignorant teens and early 20's, and which some folks don't grow out of.
 

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.
But yeah, Twitter is a vector for Tweetstorms, storms of Twitter users that nucleate against targets on the basis of a perception limited in complexity to a mere tweet.

The whole thing is gross and I don't think it's really possible to touch it without some of the ick sticking back.
That is why I keep talking about the difference between barbarism and anarchy. Some people think that barbarism is just another word for anarchy, but according to Immanuel Kant, they are wrong.

"Anarchy" means that command, which is given force by the capacity to punish, is not the primary means of organizing a society. It does not mean that that society is disorganized. A society can be organized in other ways. There is no such thing as a "perfect anarchy" because you can only succeed at getting everybody to live that way if you can make everybody in a society perfectly aware of their self-interest in getting along with each other and cooperating together. Getting just a few people to have such an enlightened perspective is hard. This does not mean that it is a bad thing for us to aspire to it. One way that we can aspire to it by teaching people that they really have a rational self-interest in living together in peace and cooperating to get things done.

Barbarism is really like too much force in too many people's hands. It is like everybody has the ability and the inclination to use force. Everybody thinks that the only way that they can get what they want or to feel safe is to make others afraid of them. This is a situation where people are walking around with guns strapped to their backs and where you cannot really trust anybody. In those situations, you are not really free. If you are afraid to walk into certain neighborhoods because you could get murdered or raped, then you are not free. If you have to wear "neutral gang colors" just to go to the grocery store, then you have submitted to wearing a uniform, and do not pretend otherwise. It is distributed and unpredictable tyranny, but barbarism is still tyranny.

What you see on Twitter is barbarism. It does not matter if the rules technically allow you to say something. You probably have skeletons in your closet or details about your life that could be used to persecute you, so if you happen to offend someone that has a large amount of influence, then that person has the ability to punish you by turning the mob against you. The more things that can be used against you, the more effective that punishment is. Because you fear that punishment, you obey that person.

You truckle, even if you never intended to truckle. You get into the habit of hiding things about yourself. You live a lie. You pretend to believe things you don't. You retweet call-outs because doing so helps you build social clout that you can use to protect yourself later, but regardless of your justification for obedience, you obey all the same. You meekly do what you are told, and you do it for so long that the thought of doing otherwise scares you. You have not said anything you really believed in a long time. That is what barbarism turns you into.

It is barbarism. It is distributed tyranny, but it is still tyranny.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Their votes would have had no effect.
Bald faced, unsupported assertion noted.

Your assumption was faulty from go.
“Did you vote mom?”
“Not yet, but I like Mr Trump because he says what he means. Are you voting for him?”
“No, mom, I voted for Ms Clinton because Mr Trump is a sexual predator and a conman…”
”WHAT?! He’s SO handsome!”
[long heartfelt discussion ensues]

You can pretend such conversations “never happen” but they do.
Not enough to keep the wannabe dictator out of the whitehouse, but if more people in non swing states had pleaded with their swing state relatives, who knows? You don’t.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,344
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Their votes would have had no effect.
Bald faced, unsupported assertion noted.

Your assumption was faulty from go.
“Did you vote mom?”
“Not yet, but I like Mr Trump because he says what he means. Are you voting for him?”
“No, mom, I voted for Ms Clinton because Mr Trump is a sexual predator and a conman…”
”WHAT?! He’s SO handsome!”
[long heartfelt discussion ensues]

You can pretend such conversations “never happen” but they do.
Not enough to keep the wannabe dictator out of the whitehouse, but if more people in non swing states had pleaded with their swing state relatives, who knows? You don’t.
Moreover, all votes even n Caifornia, that did not express repudiation then added to the damage that was done because they felt the adoration of milions more. A more lopsided vote would have changed the tenor, and that owuld have been valuable. So, IMHO, their (California Trump voters) votes WOULD have had a mitigating effect on the disaster that was his presidency if those votes had not been given to Trump.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Their votes would have had no effect.
Bald faced, unsupported assertion noted.
You cutting out a paragraph of argument, quoting only its concluding sentence as though the conclusion had been posted without the argument, and inventing out of whole cloth an accusation that the conclusion had been a bald faced unsupported assertion, noted. Don't act like a jackass.

Your assumption was faulty from go.
“Did you vote mom?”
“Not yet, but I like Mr Trump because he says what he means. Are you voting for him?”
“No, mom, I voted for Ms Clinton because Mr Trump is a sexual predator and a conman…”
”WHAT?! He’s SO handsome!”
[long heartfelt discussion ensues]

You can pretend such conversations “never happen” but they do.
I pretend nothing of the sort; I merely point out that such a conversation can have an effect on the election but this in no way implies that a vote does. Which part of "correlation does not equal causation" did you not understand when you were snipping it out?

Also, you can pretend that such conversations happening means if a Trump voter had instead decided not to vote for Trump then she would also have morphed into a pro-Clinton activist, but that's an unsupported assumption.

Not enough to keep the wannabe dictator out of the whitehouse, but if more people in non swing states had pleaded with their swing state relatives, who knows? You don’t.
I didn't claim such pleading wouldn't have helped. You're the one making the positive claim -- your argument amounts to claiming that voting for Trump stopped them from pleading with their swing state relatives on Clinton's behalf. That's of dubious plausibility. What most likely stopped them from pleading with their swing state relatives on Clinton's behalf was that they didn't like Clinton.

Moreover, all votes even n Caifornia, that did not express repudiation then added to the damage that was done because they felt the adoration of milions more. A more lopsided vote would have changed the tenor, and that owuld have been valuable. So, IMHO, their (California Trump voters) votes WOULD have had a mitigating effect on the disaster that was his presidency if those votes had not been given to Trump.
:consternation2:
It wouldn't have mitigated a bloody thing. What on earth have you seen in the last six years to make you suspect Trump ever gave a rat's ass about anyone's opinion but his own? If you imagine losing California 3-to-1 would have made him less convinced he had the mandate of Heaven than losing us 2-to-1, you haven't been watching the same narcissist as the rest of us.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's a black homeless woman who hates woke.


I hate woke for the same reason she does. Anybody white knighting who isn't willing to sacrifice anything to help the people they're sticking up for are full of shit. That's what woke is.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I really hate woke because it has become nothing but a bloody label being tossed about in order to automatically devalue any level of a position.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,862
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
But every Trump voter helped Trump get elected and we will continue paying a huge price for a long time because of it.
So did everybody (in battleground states at least) who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home because they thought Hillary was a warmonger, not left enough and that if they can't have Bernie, they will take their ball and go home.
:confused2: What's your point? "Some liberals (stupidly) voted their conscience" seems a peculiar comeback, albeit true, for the true claim that "Every Trump voter is a criminal, bigot and/or moron."
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,309
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I really hate woke because it has become nothing but a bloody label being tossed about in order to automatically devalue any level of a position.

Isn't it more like the woke position is indefensible? When people are using strings of virtue signaling language that mean absolutely nothing (said by people who want to draw attention to various causes as if that alone fixes anything) and other people point out how the statements are completely hollow, and then the wokes get upset. They're just getting called out on their bullshit and have no comeback because they never had any substance to their position.

When an ideological paradigm becomes completely dominant in a culture (liberalism) then it needs to turn on itself in order to have something to keep fighting for. Aka, the revolution eats it's children. It brings to mind the vicious conflict in the early Byzantinian Christian church, iconoclasm. Is having pictures of saints and prophets sacred of blasphemy? a debate that emerged because ambitious bishops needed to have something they could use to outmaneuver the competition for power in the church. It risked ripping the empire apart. The debate only stopped because Christianity was getting steamrolled by Islam and needed to stop being stupid. This is where liberalism is now. We've run out of straight forward genuine causes to fight for. Instead of trying to fix real but hard problems to solve, we instead make up ridiculous problems. Simple narratives we can get behind, but which mean nothing in the big picture and will lead nowhere.

Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I really hate woke because it has become nothing but a bloody label being tossed about in order to automatically devalue any level of a position.
Isn't it more like the woke position is indefensible?
Like that, yes. You define that woke as anything that is indefensible, then when you call something woke, by default, it must be an indefensible position.
When people are using strings of virtue signaling language that mean absolutely nothing (said by people who want to draw attention to various causes as if that alone fixes anything) and other people point out how the statements are completely hollow, and then the wokes get upset. They're just getting called out on their bullshit and have no comeback because they never had any substance to their position.
People historically don't like being called vapid or hypocrites, especially when they are. This isn't new. But it is convenient to just call people woke so you don't actually have to address them.
When an ideological paradigm becomes completely dominant in a culture (liberalism) then it needs to turn on itself in order to have something to keep fighting for. Aka, the revolution eats it's children. It brings to mind the vicious conflict in the early Byzantinian Christian church, iconoclasm. Is having pictures of saints and prophets sacred of blasphemy? a debate that emerged because ambitious bishops needed to have something they could use to outmaneuver the competition for power in the church. It risked ripping the empire apart. The debate only stopped because Christianity was getting steamrolled by Islam and needed to stop being stupid. This is where liberalism is now. We've run out of straight forward genuine causes to fight for. Instead of trying to fix real but hard problems to solve, we instead make up ridiculous problems. Simple narratives we can get behind, but which mean nothing in the big picture and will lead nowhere.
Interesting. One sentence for a claim, then several sentences elaborating on an analogy, instead of the claim.
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.
America's democracy was almost stole by people that whine on about woke. Just saying.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
 

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
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
Well, I had what would now be called "woke" views before the word "woke" was being used, but I have my own reasons why. I grew up in a state where gay sex was a felony, and defense attorneys were still trying to use the "gay panic defense" in court, which is literally the defense, "My client was just so disgusted by the thought of such UNNATURAL sex acts that he was rendered temporarily insane. He really couldn't help himself." This was still going on in the 1990's. That is not something that I know because of an ideology. That is something I know because it was my life.

I am not sure that I like being called "woke" because it implies the assumption that I have only had the feelings that I have since the start of the woke movement. This would be a false characterization. I did not need to be "awoken" because I was never given a chance to fall asleep. I would be glad if I ever did have a real opportunity to rest, but that is not nigh.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling.
Indeed, anti-wokeism feels like it is as guilty of anything it accuses woke of being. Granted, that is an alt-right attribute for just about most things in life.
At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.
I'm not certain where we have already been, but it feels like A Time to Kill, and the Klan is coming back out... but in this case, a lot more klan out there than we thought.

This whole war against cancel-culture is remarkably hyperbolic. Yes, some liberals going over the edge, some get overly offended (not like some guy who doesn't want to answer a question about being pregnant... that is totally different!), some are too thin skinned. But the idea that they have much in the way of influence? So some guy goes off air for a little bit, refreshes the PR and is back. Meanwhile the anti-wokers want to pass are passing anti-LGBT legislation like it is 1920s Germany.

Yeah, Dr. Zoidberg isn't a Nazi, isn't part of the US alt-right movement. But Dr. Zoidberg is woefully ignorant of the alt-right movement and just how dangerous it is becoming in our country. The tendency of people like Dr. Zoidberg to commit a Moore-Coulter over social issues is extraordinary blind to the weight of influence the right-wing has over the left-wing, especially with the massive illegal swing that was created in the US Supreme Court.
 
Top Bottom