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

Is it now forbidden to be wrong?

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?
Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>
No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?
That should absolutely be a valid topic of conversation at a university. Nothing good ever came from pretending that something doesn't exist and demanding that others do likewise.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
rnet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be
FDX8pnAX0AI6RKW

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...
So you know, you just openly admitted that you frequently watch videos where people wink and nod around discussions of rape. And not like, pornhub but people actually discussing raping people for real?

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.
This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody

It's also arrogant to the extreme. This can only come from a mind that thinks they're uniquely capable of understanding what is reprehensible. But what about all these other people, not as genius as me, they will be easily swayed. We must protect their delicate and sensitive minds.

This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

When it comes to porn its different, because the norm is to be a neurotic fucked up mess about sex. Since our sex negative culture (inherited from our Christian past) makes these things very hard to talk about. So porn is more likely to influence us negatively. But there's a simple fix to that problem? Stop shaming sluts, and stop with the sex negativity. If we embrace sex more and make porn something seen as normal and natural (rather than shameful) we can all have more honest conversations about what women (and men) actually enjoy during sex. So we don't need porn for our sex education. Which is the de facto situation now.

A related note. In Denmark prostitution is fully legal. I spoke to a Swedish prostitute living in Denmark. In Sweden buying sex is illegal. She had been invited to a sex workers conference in Sweden to talk. To talk about the differences. She had never before interacted with Swedish sex workers living in Sweden. So she didn't know much about the scene.

After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

We are all always better off from having open and honest conversations about everything. Especially the difficult subjects. It makes the stupid myths go away.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Which side is all about censoring curse words?
Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

Among Swedish racists the newspeak for immigrant is "kulturberikare". Which translates to "person bringing cultural enrichment". It's usually used when implying that immigrants are rapists. It slides right through all censorship or social media. But everybody understands what is implied when the term is used.

There's just no way to stop sarcasm.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

You need to be careful with the younger ones, but the older ones are fine.

To the extent there is a problem it's about background assumptions, not the acts themselves.

After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

I've never heard of it, either. Sex related or business related??
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

You need to be careful with the younger ones, but the older ones are fine.

To the extent there is a problem it's about background assumptions, not the acts themselves.

From the video violence research I saw I think the most serious find was that a child watching a kung fu movie will be more aggressive up to ten minutes after watching the video. Most will not be. The effect is not permanent nor cumulative.

Each of these moral panic outrages are followed by studies that show that the moral panic was unfounded.


After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

I've never heard of it, either. Sex related or business related??

They have courses for both. They have courses for anything a hooker could possibly need to train. They're also marketed towards laypeople. You don't need to be a hooker to attend. Anybody who wants a better sex life can and should go. It's both theoretical and practical. I have been to a few. For me personally it's been of limited use, since I became sexually active early and have been a total slut most of my life. I would have loved to learn this as a young man. It would have changed my life immensely, and most importantly would have made the women in my life happier. But it was fun to attend.

I'm not an expert, nor particularly initiated, but as I understand this movement is American and came out of the remnants of the Osho/Baghwan movement from the 1970's. Today it's under the big tent of "Tantra". Which, a long time ago, stopped only being about Tantra or anything hippie or New Age. Now it's just a term we can use in polite society, which to the initiated, are tips and tricks on how to be a better partner and lover. It's developed now into a huge diverse multi-faceted movement with all kinds of perspectives and uses. Many of these courses are 0% woo. Plenty are quite sciency.

A lot of it is focused on teaching us to slow down, pay attention and to create emotional connection to those we have sex with. To be less focused on performance, and more on the needs of the other. And also needs of yourself. And also about being more playful and fun. a fun things about these courses is that it's like 90% women attending. If you're a gross unsexy incel and you really want to get laid, this place is heaven. Loads of super hot women will throw themselves at you. Because these workshops are supervised, in remote locations, are limited in time, and a super super super safe spaces it makes the women lose their inhibitions and anxieties and just go for it. Its worth going simply for the spectacle of seeing a bunch of randy women seemingly trying to rip the few attending men apart.

Today "tantric sex work" is a thing. You can just google it. A highly trained person (man or a woman) has sex with a customer. Sure, it is sex. But it is mostly a lesson in how to be a better lover. The prostitute is the teacher demonstrating how to please and be pleased. A lot of men who suffer from premature ejaculation or have trouble cuming can go to one of these and basically get a hand job. But it comes with a massage, a relaxing setting, a safe space, and a stated goal of improving a specific problem. It's more a lesson and therapy, than going for a quick wank. I haven't been to one of these yet. I have tried. But they tend to be very very busy. And it's not been my top priority. So I keep putting it off. So I can't talk from experience. But it seems like something every man should do. Those I know who have been have learned a lot about how their own penis works. And what man wouldn't want that? But since it's non-penetrative sex, these tend to fly under the radar of prostitution laws and can be found all over the world.

"Yoni massage". Don't be fooled by the name. it's 0% Woo and hippie. A lot of women don't like sex that much because they have had bad experiences and tend to tense up prior to intercourse. Making sex unnecessarily difficult. This is a hooker fingering a woman. It's all about making the woman relax about penetration, so she can enjoy having sex more. It can also be painful. Since a part of it, is literally to massage muscle knots inside the vagina and make them release. If a woman is very tight in her vaginal muscles, and has been over a long time, it can be extremely painful. And as with all massages, feels awesome afterwards.

Obviously sex work. But for whatever reason, this is fully legal everywhere, advertised openly and seems universally to NOT be seen as sex work. Quite baffling really. But it is what it is.

I have been to a yoni massage course, and it is a technique that I have mastered. I've done it on plenty of women I've been dating. I think it's something that every man, who loves their woman, should learn. Because she will be eternally grateful. If she's never done it before it'll make all sex she has afterwards more enjoyable. And what woman doesn't like that? And as the saying goes, "happy wife, happy life".

Another leg of the same movement is the men's/women's group movement. People meeting with their peers and honestly sharing about problems. If you've had a problem in your sex life nine out of ten times another man has had the same problem at some point. A lot of it is practical. Getting tips and tricks and being told about how other people overcame their difficulties helps you apply the same on you. It can be both sexual and for ones personal life. In mainland Europe it is practically mandatory for sex workers to be in hooker support groups. Where they do exactly this. In Germany and Holland it's often facilitated brothels they work at. My hooker friend have let me know that they make a lot of effort in taking care of the mental and physical needs of their staff.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,611
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
What were we talking about? I think I need a cold shower...
Yup, it's been derailed big time so please stop it.

If some would like the discussion to continue I can split to another thread.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,295
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?
Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>
No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.
Um, you accused me of "trying to play volunteer government censor". As you already know perfectly well, I was not trying to make it illegal to teach any particular domain of knowledge. The dispute that prompted your trumped-up accusation against me was over what things the government should be paying its employees to teach; for you now to insinuate that the dispute that prompted your trumped-up accusation was over whether it should be legal to teach those things is just you pulling a classic bait-and-switch.

Redefining "censorship" to mean not being paid to say something is exactly what you did. There are innumerable examples of left-wingers like you doing that. No doubt KeepTalking can find examples of right-wingers doing the same. Language abuse is a popular rhetorical tactic with wingers of all directions.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

You need to be careful with the younger ones, but the older ones are fine.

To the extent there is a problem it's about background assumptions, not the acts themselves.

From the video violence research I saw I think the most serious find was that a child watching a kung fu movie will be more aggressive up to ten minutes after watching the video. Most will not be. The effect is not permanent nor cumulative.

Each of these moral panic outrages are followed by studies that show that the moral panic was unfounded.

That I will agree with. By the time a kid is watching a kung fu movie it's not going to be a problem in that regard.

What I'm talking about is the background--we see a lot of complaints about this with pornography. Guys getting the expectation that sex just jumps to the main event.

I'm not an expert, nor particularly initiated, but as I understand this movement is American and came out of the remnants of the Osho/Baghwan movement from the 1970's. Today it's under the big tent of "Tantra". Which, a long time ago, stopped only being about Tantra or anything hippie or New Age. Now it's just a term we can use in polite society, which to the initiated, are tips and tricks on how to be a better partner and lover. It's developed now into a huge diverse multi-faceted movement with all kinds of perspectives and uses. Many of these courses are 0% woo. Plenty are quite sciency.

That's sure a change in meaning! I have always understood tantric sex to be about avoiding ejaculation.

A lot of it is focused on teaching us to slow down, pay attention and to create emotional connection to those we have sex with. To be less focused on performance, and more on the needs of the other. And also needs of yourself. And also about being more playful and fun. a fun things about these courses is that it's like 90% women attending. If you're a gross unsexy incel and you really want to get laid, this place is heaven. Loads of super hot women will throw themselves at you. Because these workshops are supervised, in remote locations, are limited in time, and a super super super safe spaces it makes the women lose their inhibitions and anxieties and just go for it. Its worth going simply for the spectacle of seeing a bunch of randy women seemingly trying to rip the few attending men apart.

In other words, practical sex ed, not actually prostitution-related. While the subject matter is a good idea I would want a class where you bring your partner, I'm utterly not into sex with a stranger.

"Yoni massage". Don't be fooled by the name. it's 0% Woo and hippie. A lot of women don't like sex that much because they have had bad experiences and tend to tense up prior to intercourse. Making sex unnecessarily difficult. This is a hooker fingering a woman. It's all about making the woman relax about penetration, so she can enjoy having sex more. It can also be painful. Since a part of it, is literally to massage muscle knots inside the vagina and make them release. If a woman is very tight in her vaginal muscles, and has been over a long time, it can be extremely painful. And as with all massages, feels awesome afterwards.

Why would the name imply woo? It's just a word borrowed from another language to avoid the negative connotations.

Obviously sex work. But for whatever reason, this is fully legal everywhere, advertised openly and seems universally to NOT be seen as sex work. Quite baffling really. But it is what it is.

I think the difference is whether the objective is simply orgasm or not.

As for fully legal everywhere.....I tried a search locally. Looking locally for tantric massage hit #1 the website has the prices as "recommended tribute"--nope, he's operating outside the law. Specifically looking for classes or workshops I'm some pages in and haven't seen anything the US.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

That I will agree with. By the time a kid is watching a kung fu movie it's not going to be a problem in that regard.

What I'm talking about is the background--we see a lot of complaints about this with pornography. Guys getting the expectation that sex just jumps to the main event.

Sure. But let's identify the correct problem. Is it porn? Or is it the fact that we have a Christian, sex negative culture, that leads to porn often being the only available education on sex. If we starve a population on general information, but give easy access to an extreme version of information, the extreme version of information is going to get spread more. It's an incredibly easy problem to fix. Be less sex negative. Not to slut shame. Tolerate public nudity. Also... the more sex negative we are, the more sexually fixated a culture will be. That's just basic human psychology. If we want to make people relaxed about sex we need to make sex something to be relaxed about. Not a big deal.

Me personally if a woman won't have sex with me on the first date I assume she's not attracted to me. There's no second date. That's not because of pornography. That's because life has taught me that women who have sex on the first date are more likely to be more fun and rewarding long term partners. It's a question of personality and chemistry.

A lot of guys like to be a manly caring man and take care of his anxious and insecure woman. For those guys, I'm sure not having sex on the first date, is the way to go. Because those women need more reassurances until they are won over. But I'm not attracted to women like that. I like strong, powerful women, who have their shit together, and who know what they want and take it. I don't want a woman to need me for anything other than sex and moving the occasional sofa. It's just a matter of preference. That's just my taste in women.

But it could be worse. Let's be happy we're not living in a Muslim majority country. Those guys are sex negative off the scales. An extremely unhealthy culture around sex IMHO.

I'm not an expert, nor particularly initiated, but as I understand this movement is American and came out of the remnants of the Osho/Baghwan movement from the 1970's. Today it's under the big tent of "Tantra". Which, a long time ago, stopped only being about Tantra or anything hippie or New Age. Now it's just a term we can use in polite society, which to the initiated, are tips and tricks on how to be a better partner and lover. It's developed now into a huge diverse multi-faceted movement with all kinds of perspectives and uses. Many of these courses are 0% woo. Plenty are quite sciency.

That's sure a change in meaning! I have always understood tantric sex to be about avoiding ejaculation.

Brace yourself for another long post.

This network of relationship and sexuality courses is a new world. 20 years ago you would have been correct. These tantric courses were only for New Age hippies who had all manner of esoteric cooky beliefs. The course leaders back then were guys that had participated in the 1970'ies hippie cults, had hibernated right through the 1980'ies, re-emerged in the 1990'ies as New Age guru's, having switched from reaching enlightenment to self-help. But essentially doing the same thing. The difference at in the late 90'ies they had 30 years of experience having worked on free sexuality and open relationships. At this point they had very little illusions left. They had learned the hard way, what was bullshit and what worked. No, open relationships isn't for everyone. This was all happening in conjunction with another major shift in culture.

At the end of the 90'ies (thanks to the gay pride movement) came a general cultural shift towards and more open, tolerant and sexually relaxed culture in the west. This is when porn became normalised. Normal people were increasingly curious about exploring sexuality in a safe, sane and consensual way. They started joining in. This rise of interest led to a slew of books being published (based on the experiences of the old hippies mentioned above). Works like The Ethical Slut, More than Two, The Way of the superior man, No more Mr Nice guy, Screw the Roses send me the thorns... its a very very long list of books. These all have in common to teach spineless bleeding heart hippies to man up and fuck her woman well OR teach knuckle dragging rigid manly men who cum after 30 seconds, to become more attentive and sensitive lovers. These books all came with courses, organized by the authors or those affiliated. It was (and is) a movement.

Around 2010 came courses that made a clean break with the hippie past. This led to stuff like The Game and pickup artistry. We can discuss the ethics of these courses. But they did work. They did help men have consensual sex with women. Or courses more geared toward women "The New Tantra" (ie not tantra). And a huge variety of semi hippie semi sensible groups and retreats.

But this is is evolution of the same movement. It's still evolving. But it's here to stay and will only mature over time and become normal and acceptable. I mean.. EVERYBODY has had issues and problems with their sex life. Every man has failed to get a hard on at an inopportune moment. I think every woman has found herself having sex in a way she wasn't at all ok with. These are super basic issues every human being requires help and guidance with, and our Christian heritage society has let us down. There is help for everybody to get more in love and in tune with their own bodies. And other people's bodies :)

So basically, 20 years ago you would have been correct. Today it's all different.

But I should be very open an honest about that I haven't explored this world much at all. I've been to a couple of courses. All were great. But geared toward less experienced people. It was still good. So what I've managed to pick up, is just bits and pieces here and there. I'm NOT an expert. I have read all these books mentioned though. The Ethical Slut should be mandatory reading to every human. It's basically about how to treat lovers with respect and how to avoid playing games with them. Which is difficult when hormones and passions are raging.



A lot of it is focused on teaching us to slow down, pay attention and to create emotional connection to those we have sex with. To be less focused on performance, and more on the needs of the other. And also needs of yourself. And also about being more playful and fun. a fun things about these courses is that it's like 90% women attending. If you're a gross unsexy incel and you really want to get laid, this place is heaven. Loads of super hot women will throw themselves at you. Because these workshops are supervised, in remote locations, are limited in time, and a super super super safe spaces it makes the women lose their inhibitions and anxieties and just go for it. Its worth going simply for the spectacle of seeing a bunch of randy women seemingly trying to rip the few attending men apart.

In other words, practical sex ed, not actually prostitution-related. While the subject matter is a good idea I would want a class where you bring your partner, I'm utterly not into sex with a stranger.

There's all varieties. Some are shady as fuck. Some have a more clinical vibe. There's any and all varieties. Most of these are geared toward bringing your own partner. But I advise against that. You have all manner of fucked up dysfunctional patterns with your partner. Those are exceedingly difficult to break. It's way easier to pay a professional, (who will never be a threat to your relationship) to give you lessons 1:1, and give you a totally different idea of how sex can be experienced. It's way more educational.

I know a woman in Amsterdam. She works as a domina. But she only dominates dominant men. Her job is to show dominant men how women like to be dominated. The point of her sessions is to teach these guys how it is to receive what they are accustomed to dishing out. So they get better at it.


"Yoni massage". Don't be fooled by the name. it's 0% Woo and hippie. A lot of women don't like sex that much because they have had bad experiences and tend to tense up prior to intercourse. Making sex unnecessarily difficult. This is a hooker fingering a woman. It's all about making the woman relax about penetration, so she can enjoy having sex more. It can also be painful. Since a part of it, is literally to massage muscle knots inside the vagina and make them release. If a woman is very tight in her vaginal muscles, and has been over a long time, it can be extremely painful. And as with all massages, feels awesome afterwards.

Why would the name imply woo? It's just a word borrowed from another language to avoid the negative connotations.

Good point. I retract my statement and agree.


Obviously sex work. But for whatever reason, this is fully legal everywhere, advertised openly and seems universally to NOT be seen as sex work. Quite baffling really. But it is what it is.

I think the difference is whether the objective is simply orgasm or not.

As for fully legal everywhere.....I tried a search locally. Looking locally for tantric massage hit #1 the website has the prices as "recommended tribute"--nope, he's operating outside the law. Specifically looking for classes or workshops I'm some pages in and haven't seen anything the US.

Ok. I thought it was fully legal everywhere. My bad. But before long, I'm sure it will be.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

What I'm talking about is the background--we see a lot of complaints about this with pornography. Guys getting the expectation that sex just jumps to the main event.

Sure. But let's identify the correct problem. Is it porn? Or is it the fact that we have a Christian, sex negative culture, that leads to porn often being the only available education on sex. If we starve a population on general information, but give easy access to an extreme version of information, the extreme version of information is going to get spread more. It's an incredibly easy problem to fix. Be less sex negative. Not to slut shame. Tolerate public nudity. Also... the more sex negative we are, the more sexually fixated a culture will be. That's just basic human psychology. If we want to make people relaxed about sex we need to make sex something to be relaxed about. Not a big deal.

You are completely missing my point--I'm not talking about sex on the first date, but the absence of foreplay. The background, not the foreground.

Me personally if a woman won't have sex with me on the first date I assume she's not attracted to me. There's no second date. That's not because of pornography. That's because life has taught me that women who have sex on the first date are more likely to be more fun and rewarding long term partners. It's a question of personality and chemistry.

A lot of guys like to be a manly caring man and take care of his anxious and insecure woman. For those guys, I'm sure not having sex on the first date, is the way to go. Because those women need more reassurances until they are won over. But I'm not attracted to women like that. I like strong, powerful women, who have their shit together, and who know what they want and take it. I don't want a woman to need me for anything other than sex and moving the occasional sofa. It's just a matter of preference. That's just my taste in women.

But it could be worse. Let's be happy we're not living in a Muslim majority country. Those guys are sex negative off the scales. An extremely unhealthy culture around sex IMHO.

It's not merely a matter of insecure. Not all of us are up for sex with near strangers.

That's sure a change in meaning! I have always understood tantric sex to be about avoiding ejaculation.

....

So basically, 20 years ago you would have been correct. Today it's all different.

Looks like I should pay more attention to it. I had filed it as woo and didn't realize the name now applied to something very different.

There's all varieties. Some are shady as fuck. Some have a more clinical vibe. There's any and all varieties. Most of these are geared toward bringing your own partner. But I advise against that. You have all manner of fucked up dysfunctional patterns with your partner. Those are exceedingly difficult to break. It's way easier to pay a professional, (who will never be a threat to your relationship) to give you lessons 1:1, and give you a totally different idea of how sex can be experienced. It's way more educational.

If you're up for sex with strangers I see your point.

Obviously sex work. But for whatever reason, this is fully legal everywhere, advertised openly and seems universally to NOT be seen as sex work. Quite baffling really. But it is what it is.

I think the difference is whether the objective is simply orgasm or not.

As for fully legal everywhere.....I tried a search locally. Looking locally for tantric massage hit #1 the website has the prices as "recommended tribute"--nope, he's operating outside the law. Specifically looking for classes or workshops I'm some pages in and haven't seen anything the US.

Ok. I thought it was fully legal everywhere. My bad. But before long, I'm sure it will be.

I think you're overestimating our government. The Republicans are utter morons about anything related to sex. Even when the Democrats are in power something that radical isn't going to happen.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

What I'm talking about is the background--we see a lot of complaints about this with pornography. Guys getting the expectation that sex just jumps to the main event.

Sure. But let's identify the correct problem. Is it porn? Or is it the fact that we have a Christian, sex negative culture, that leads to porn often being the only available education on sex. If we starve a population on general information, but give easy access to an extreme version of information, the extreme version of information is going to get spread more. It's an incredibly easy problem to fix. Be less sex negative. Not to slut shame. Tolerate public nudity. Also... the more sex negative we are, the more sexually fixated a culture will be. That's just basic human psychology. If we want to make people relaxed about sex we need to make sex something to be relaxed about. Not a big deal.

You are completely missing my point--I'm not talking about sex on the first date, but the absence of foreplay. The background, not the foreground.

I think you are creating an illusion of a glorious past and a good ol¨days where people knew how to behave sexually. I find the idea that men, before porn, in a time where domestic abuse was seen as normal were any better at foreplay than men are now. I'm willing to put good money on that back in the day, it was worse.




That's sure a change in meaning! I have always understood tantric sex to be about avoiding ejaculation.

....

So basically, 20 years ago you would have been correct. Today it's all different.

Looks like I should pay more attention to it. I had filed it as woo and didn't realize the name now applied to something very different.

Be warned though. There's a lot of hippies still. You need to sift through a lot of bullshit to get to the good stuff. And having seen the evolution of this up close, I am absolutely convinced the sensible part of the tantric movement will grow exponentially, until it dwarves the woo hippies. I'm also convinced that the sensible part of the this movement will get sick and tired of being associated with the hippies and will rebrand. At some point. But we're not there yet.

With the risk of repeating myself, the core of this movement is the same for the woo and the sensibles. It's just a question of removing the magical language (and passive aggressively). It's all about slowing down, pay attention to your partner, start with low risk areas (ie don't go straight for the genitals), once sex has started don't fuck with the goal to achieve orgasm. Take your time. It's also a lot about talking before and after sex, sharing feelings, experiences. Training us to set boundaries. Not just women. Men fucking suck at accepting that they don't need to be up for everything. It's ok as a man to say they're not ok with something. If women think men handle rejection badly. Just wait until men start setting boundaries and watch the psychological meltdown of the women. It's incredibly educational to do this in a group. To literally see that other men are struggling with similar things. Or that when you do this thing, it's not just your women who doesn't like it, no woman likes it. Afterwards just sitting in a ring and comparing notes is extremely educational. It can be shredding for ones ego and self image. But the guys who get really bad news, also really really need to hear it. People also often suck at asking for consent in a sexy way. Either people "just go for it" (great potential to fuck it up) or they ask as if it's about signing a contract. The art of playfully getting a partner to agree to something without killing the vibe is an art that needs to be practiced.

At this point, our culture is so starved for good information on this and training that it's still incredibly low hanging fruit. And these organisers are making a shit tonne of money leading workshops. It's already a mass movement. This is NOT going to go away.



There's all varieties. Some are shady as fuck. Some have a more clinical vibe. There's any and all varieties. Most of these are geared toward bringing your own partner. But I advise against that. You have all manner of fucked up dysfunctional patterns with your partner. Those are exceedingly difficult to break. It's way easier to pay a professional, (who will never be a threat to your relationship) to give you lessons 1:1, and give you a totally different idea of how sex can be experienced. It's way more educational.

If you're up for sex with strangers I see your point.

Good point. We all need to start digging where we stand.

I know plenty of people are, fundamentally, monogamous in their outlooks. I'm not. But I respect it.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,673
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.
(b) Spreading anit-Semitism and White Supremacist lies IS a big problem in today's America, and is likely to lead literally to the breakdown of democracy. Newspapers didn't publish bullshit letters to the editor. Facebook and Youtube also have the right — some would say obligation — not to facilitate partisan lies.

BTW, "leftist agenda" is a good example of a propagandizing shibboleth. Liberals seek peace, prosperity, safety, opportunity for all, and a happy future. But QOPAnon uses the phrase as proxy for "leftists" pretending nanobots are vaccines, demanding that 23 different bathroom types be installed in public facilities, and wanting to use police for target practice.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.

I think there's a core of truth in the conservative critique of the left/woke. But they go so overboard that we on the left can easily shoot down their dumb arguments But they aren't completely insane.

(b) Spreading anit-Semitism and White Supremacist lies IS a big problem in today's America, and is likely to lead literally to the breakdown of democracy. Newspapers didn't publish bullshit letters to the editor. Facebook and Youtube also have the right — some would say obligation — not to facilitate partisan lies.

I think stopping white supremacist propaganda and thinking that will stop Nazism and anti-semitism is misguided.

I think white supremacism is simply a heritage from the Age of Colonialism when white people ruled the whole world. If we tell ourselves the story that white people ruling the world was a result of white people being superior then it fits a lot of the available data. The solution to this problem is the west being less dominant. As industrialism and IT penetrates into more countries the domination of the west will wane. That's just a matter of time and is an irreversible process. So we need to do nothing to fix this. Yes, it sucks for brown people now. But the things that happened in history happened. These events generate explanatory theories. It doesn't matter how wedded you (or me) are to your pet theory against White Supremacy. That's just because you and me have made a different story based on the data.

I think Anti-semitism is simply a side effect of the domination of Christianity (and Islam). As long as these two religions are big lots of people will hate Jews. I think this is unfixable. But historically this has been the situation. I don't think it matters how much it says in the Bible to turn the other cheek. All you need is a fraction of Christians not getting the full picture. Some of them will hate Jews. I think anti-semitic propaganda is neither here nor there.

It's think is dangerous to think that ideas spread based on dosage. As if the more we hear something the more we believe it. That's not how explanatory stories work


BTW, "leftist agenda" is a good example of a propagandizing shibboleth. Liberals seek peace, prosperity, safety, opportunity for all, and a happy future. But QOPAnon uses the phrase as proxy for "leftists" pretending nanobots are vaccines, demanding that 23 different bathroom types be installed in public facilities, and wanting to use police for target practice.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,479
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.
It does make "woke" irrelevant though. We are waging heated discussions, people getting threatened over things that aren't actually happening. People are getting elected to office and legislation is being passed to stop CRT in public schools or defeat the lie that is Covid-19 or the steal of the 2020 election. The "woke", has engaged little public policy. In fact, the "Woke" can in part be lumped in with the War on Xmas and CRT and Covid-19 as either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up. You continually insist that Woke is some sort of slippery slope, where as the right-wing is fully engaged in so many conspiracy theories they led a quasi-riot that required Congress to be evacuated.

Censorship should be done sparingly, and it can't be allowed to drive an agenda. The reality is that Woke is terribly toothless and relative to the alt-right, wholly irrelevant and powerless.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.
It does make "woke" irrelevant though. We are waging heated discussions, people getting threatened over things that aren't actually happening. People are getting elected to office and legislation is being passed to stop CRT in public schools or defeat the lie that is Covid-19 or the steal of the 2020 election. The "woke", has engaged little public policy. In fact, the "Woke" can in part be lumped in with the War on Xmas and CRT and Covid-19 as either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up. You continually insist that Woke is some sort of slippery slope, where as the right-wing is fully engaged in so many conspiracy theories they led a quasi-riot that required Congress to be evacuated.

Censorship should be done sparingly, and it can't be allowed to drive an agenda. The reality is that Woke is terribly toothless and relative to the alt-right, wholly irrelevant and powerless.

It's not so much that I think woke is a slippery slope. I think any stage on that slope is terrible. I think the idea of woke is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to pure evil. Even if the slope isn't slippery, woke still needs to be destroyed. It's nothing but a corrupting force that ruins everything it touches. It's great if it only ruins things a little bit. But why should we put up with anything being ruined because of woke?

Woke replaces genuine progress with empty symbols and posturing. I believe woke is an obstacle if we want to fight racism, sexism and homophobia. The more woke, the less progress.

I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change. And woke allows us to swim in the sea of virtue and goodness. Wokes believe they are fighting the good fight against racist, sexism and homophobia. They are nothing if not passionate. They remind me of evangelical Christians, equal in their passion, fighting for Jesus, conservative values in order to bring peace, love, understanding and a warm cuddly blanket of safety. Yes, they're absolutely deluded. Just like wokes.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change
So, openly combatting racism = supporting racism.


Whining about "freedom" whenever racism is called out = leading the charge against it.


Just curious, did you get your degree in public relations from the George Orwell International Finishing School? Or is it just Opposite Day where you are?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,479
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.
It does make "woke" irrelevant though. We are waging heated discussions, people getting threatened over things that aren't actually happening. People are getting elected to office and legislation is being passed to stop CRT in public schools or defeat the lie that is Covid-19 or the steal of the 2020 election. The "woke", has engaged little public policy. In fact, the "Woke" can in part be lumped in with the War on Xmas and CRT and Covid-19 as either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up. You continually insist that Woke is some sort of slippery slope, where as the right-wing is fully engaged in so many conspiracy theories they led a quasi-riot that required Congress to be evacuated.

Censorship should be done sparingly, and it can't be allowed to drive an agenda. The reality is that Woke is terribly toothless and relative to the alt-right, wholly irrelevant and powerless.

It's not so much that I think woke is a slippery slope...
You argue it all the time!
I think any stage on that slope is terrible. I think the idea of woke is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to pure evil. Even if the slope isn't slippery, woke still needs to be destroyed. It's nothing but a corrupting force that ruins everything it touches. It's great if it only ruins things a little bit. But why should we put up with anything being ruined because of woke?

Woke replaces genuine progress with empty symbols and posturing. I believe woke is an obstacle if we want to fight racism, sexism and homophobia. The more woke, the less progress.

I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change. And woke allows us to swim in the sea of virtue and goodness. Wokes believe they are fighting the good fight against racist, sexism and homophobia. They are nothing if not passionate. They remind me of evangelical Christians, equal in their passion, fighting for Jesus, conservative values in order to bring peace, love, understanding and a warm cuddly blanket of safety. Yes, they're absolutely deluded. Just like wokes.
That's great. The whole house is on fire and you are standing in the front yard telling the fire department that their hose is going to damage a bush if they continue being so reckless.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.
It does make "woke" irrelevant though. We are waging heated discussions, people getting threatened over things that aren't actually happening. People are getting elected to office and legislation is being passed to stop CRT in public schools or defeat the lie that is Covid-19 or the steal of the 2020 election. The "woke", has engaged little public policy. In fact, the "Woke" can in part be lumped in with the War on Xmas and CRT and Covid-19 as either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up. You continually insist that Woke is some sort of slippery slope, where as the right-wing is fully engaged in so many conspiracy theories they led a quasi-riot that required Congress to be evacuated.

Censorship should be done sparingly, and it can't be allowed to drive an agenda. The reality is that Woke is terribly toothless and relative to the alt-right, wholly irrelevant and powerless.

It's not so much that I think woke is a slippery slope...
You argue it all the time!
I think any stage on that slope is terrible. I think the idea of woke is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to pure evil. Even if the slope isn't slippery, woke still needs to be destroyed. It's nothing but a corrupting force that ruins everything it touches. It's great if it only ruins things a little bit. But why should we put up with anything being ruined because of woke?

Woke replaces genuine progress with empty symbols and posturing. I believe woke is an obstacle if we want to fight racism, sexism and homophobia. The more woke, the less progress.

I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change. And woke allows us to swim in the sea of virtue and goodness. Wokes believe they are fighting the good fight against racist, sexism and homophobia. They are nothing if not passionate. They remind me of evangelical Christians, equal in their passion, fighting for Jesus, conservative values in order to bring peace, love, understanding and a warm cuddly blanket of safety. Yes, they're absolutely deluded. Just like wokes.
That's great. The whole house is on fire and you are standing in the front yard telling the fire department that their hose is going to damage a bush if they continue being so reckless.

I don't think so. To use your metaphor. The house is on fire and Wokes show up spraying gasoline on the fire while bragging about how great they are at putting out fires. They're not helping.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,479
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion....

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.
Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda....
I agree, partially, with Dr. Z on this matter. I think his mantra "It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend" has merit. Where it goes too far is
(a) The censorship we're speaking of is not as commonplace as right-wingers imply. Instead, trolls like Hannity or Carlson seize on every instance they can find, exaggerate it, and use it to bamboozle more and more Americans.

But this is a dangerous position.

I think we can all agree that the conservative position is wrong and hysterical. Nobody is trying to cancel Christmas. CRT isn't being taught in schools. Nobody is legally forced to use people's chosen pronouns. These facts alone doesn't make woke harmless.
It does make "woke" irrelevant though. We are waging heated discussions, people getting threatened over things that aren't actually happening. People are getting elected to office and legislation is being passed to stop CRT in public schools or defeat the lie that is Covid-19 or the steal of the 2020 election. The "woke", has engaged little public policy. In fact, the "Woke" can in part be lumped in with the War on Xmas and CRT and Covid-19 as either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up. You continually insist that Woke is some sort of slippery slope, where as the right-wing is fully engaged in so many conspiracy theories they led a quasi-riot that required Congress to be evacuated.

Censorship should be done sparingly, and it can't be allowed to drive an agenda. The reality is that Woke is terribly toothless and relative to the alt-right, wholly irrelevant and powerless.

It's not so much that I think woke is a slippery slope...
You argue it all the time!
I think any stage on that slope is terrible. I think the idea of woke is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to pure evil. Even if the slope isn't slippery, woke still needs to be destroyed. It's nothing but a corrupting force that ruins everything it touches. It's great if it only ruins things a little bit. But why should we put up with anything being ruined because of woke?

Woke replaces genuine progress with empty symbols and posturing. I believe woke is an obstacle if we want to fight racism, sexism and homophobia. The more woke, the less progress.

I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change. And woke allows us to swim in the sea of virtue and goodness. Wokes believe they are fighting the good fight against racist, sexism and homophobia. They are nothing if not passionate. They remind me of evangelical Christians, equal in their passion, fighting for Jesus, conservative values in order to bring peace, love, understanding and a warm cuddly blanket of safety. Yes, they're absolutely deluded. Just like wokes.
That's great. The whole house is on fire and you are standing in the front yard telling the fire department that their hose is going to damage a bush if they continue being so reckless.

I don't think so. To use your metaphor. The house is on fire and Wokes show up spraying gasoline on the fire while bragging about how great they are at putting out fires. They're not helping.
No, that isn't metaphorical at all. The comparison would be a bunch of Wokes showing up and saying that the house didn't have any solar panels, too large an energy footprint, and not enough minorities and women in the fire department. IE, their impact would not be noticed. Meanwhile, the alt-right started the fire because they thought a pizzeria committing awful things to children existed in the building because they read about it from Q-Anon.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I think you are creating an illusion of a glorious past and a good ol¨days where people knew how to behave sexually. I find the idea that men, before porn, in a time where domestic abuse was seen as normal were any better at foreplay than men are now. I'm willing to put good money on that back in the day, it was worse.

Might be something to that, but there is plenty of information floating around now for those who will look.


Looks like I should pay more attention to it. I had filed it as woo and didn't realize the name now applied to something very different.

Be warned though. There's a lot of hippies still. You need to sift through a lot of bullshit to get to the good stuff. And having seen the evolution of this up close, I am absolutely convinced the sensible part of the tantric movement will grow exponentially, until it dwarves the woo hippies. I'm also convinced that the sensible part of the this movement will get sick and tired of being associated with the hippies and will rebrand. At some point. But we're not there yet.

Definitely. I still find plenty of the old woo.

With the risk of repeating myself, the core of this movement is the same for the woo and the sensibles. It's just a question of removing the magical language (and passive aggressively). It's all about slowing down, pay attention to your partner, start with low risk areas (ie don't go straight for the genitals), once sex has started don't fuck with the goal to achieve orgasm. Take your time.

Definitely. I can't even understand a guy with the goal of orgasm. Getting there faster doesn't make it any better, why not enjoy the getting there?

It's also a lot about talking before and after sex, sharing feelings, experiences. Training us to set boundaries. Not just women. Men fucking suck at accepting that they don't need to be up for everything. It's ok as a man to say they're not ok with something. If women think men handle rejection badly. Just wait until men start setting boundaries and watch the psychological meltdown of the women. It's incredibly educational to do this in a group. To literally see that other men are struggling with similar things. Or that when you do this thing, it's not just your women who doesn't like it, no woman likes it. Afterwards just sitting in a ring and comparing notes is extremely educational. It can be shredding for ones ego and self image. But the guys who get really bad news, also really really need to hear it. People also often suck at asking for consent in a sexy way. Either people "just go for it" (great potential to fuck it up) or they ask as if it's about signing a contract. The art of playfully getting a partner to agree to something without killing the vibe is an art that needs to be practiced.

At this point, our culture is so starved for good information on this and training that it's still incredibly low hanging fruit. And these organisers are making a shit tonne of money leading workshops. It's already a mass movement. This is NOT going to go away.

If they're making a shit ton of money it means more organizers are needed.

Good point. We all need to start digging where we stand.

I know plenty of people are, fundamentally, monogamous in their outlooks. I'm not. But I respect it.

Even without another relationship in the picture to make monogamy relevant there's also the issue of how well you need to know someone to be comfortable having sex with them.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change
So, openly combatting racism = supporting racism.


Whining about "freedom" whenever racism is called out = leading the charge against it.


Just curious, did you get your degree in public relations from the George Orwell International Finishing School? Or is it just Opposite Day where you are?

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change
So, openly combatting racism = supporting racism.


Whining about "freedom" whenever racism is called out = leading the charge against it.


Just curious, did you get your degree in public relations from the George Orwell International Finishing School? Or is it just Opposite Day where you are?

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
That is entirely opposite to the actual definition of "woke"; a woke person, by definition, is a person who has become conscious of their situation in a way that immediately demands change, and both personal and interpersonal evolution. When a fluent AAVE speaker says to "get woke", they do not mean "sit on your ass".
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change
So, openly combatting racism = supporting racism.

How are they combating racism? I can't see it happening. Creating racially defined separatist safe zones deepen racial divides. Continually drawing a focus to race can only perpetuate it. I think the only way to kill racism is to stop making it a thing. The world is full of ethnic groups who integrated into the culture around them and stopped being seen as the other. Wokes are keeping alive differences by continually picking at it, like we pick at a wound to prevent it from healing.


Just curious, did you get your degree in public relations from the George Orwell International Finishing School? Or is it just Opposite Day where you are?

It's not a question of opposite. It's a question of engaging in a bullshit theatrical project instead of fixing the actual problem.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I believe the only reason woke exists is because it's easy. We can keep the racism, sexism and homophobia. Nothing needs to change
So, openly combatting racism = supporting racism.

How are they combating racism? I can't see it happening. Creating racially defined separatist safe zones deepen racial divides. Continually drawing a focus to race can only perpetuate it. I think the only way to kill racism is to stop making it a thing. The world is full of ethnic groups who integrated into the culture around them and stopped being seen as the other. Wokes are keeping alive differences by continually picking at it, like we pick at a wound to prevent it from healing.


Just curious, did you get your degree in public relations from the George Orwell International Finishing School? Or is it just Opposite Day where you are?

It's not a question of opposite. It's a question of engaging in a bullshit theatrical project instead of fixing the actual problem.
All you ever do is apologize for racists and angrily defend their "rights", yet you have the unmitigated gall to say that the people who reformed this country's legal system from the top down, are reforming policing, are ending discriminatory housing practices loophole by loophole, and are creating spaces for black folks in higher education against immense institutional inertia are doing "nothing" to combat racism? I think you must know that this is a fat load of bullshit. You're not offended by social action because you're afraid it it will "divide people", you're just offended by it.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I think you are creating an illusion of a glorious past and a good ol¨days where people knew how to behave sexually. I find the idea that men, before porn, in a time where domestic abuse was seen as normal were any better at foreplay than men are now. I'm willing to put good money on that back in the day, it was worse.

Might be something to that, but there is plenty of information floating around now for those who will look.

I had read all those books and blogs before attending these workshops. Attending these workshops, my big wakeup call is that those books are almost useless. These are all practical skills. It's about feelings and creating emotional bonds. It's about having a sexual experience with a healthy well balanced person who has embodied these skills. I think that's the only way these kinds of things can be taught. When it comes to sex, our teachers are our lovers. In a sexually dysfunctional and neurotic culture only dysfunctional and neurotic patterns are taught and repeated. We're emotional beings. While we are capable of intellectualizing and talking about this rationally. We're not rational beings. Certainly not when we're having sex. That's actually the thing that is good about New Age. Since it is 100% anti-intellectual, it's a good vehicle for training this. Within New Age, if it feels right it is right. Which is great to practice when engaging in self pleasuring. Most people don't even know how to masturbate in a healthy way. There's courses even on that. And they are great.

Reading is a fundamentally intellectual activity. Sex is not. Translating an intellectual concept you are reading into an emotionally grounded activity is very very hard. Most people fuck up the basics. Most people who read about tantra, just don't get it. They often think the exercises are cringy and embarrassing.



With the risk of repeating myself, the core of this movement is the same for the woo and the sensibles. It's just a question of removing the magical language (and passive aggressively). It's all about slowing down, pay attention to your partner, start with low risk areas (ie don't go straight for the genitals), once sex has started don't fuck with the goal to achieve orgasm. Take your time.

Definitely. I can't even understand a guy with the goal of orgasm. Getting there faster doesn't make it any better, why not enjoy the getting there?

Men do it because it's a binary receipt of being a successful lover. There's a fundamental difference in how women and men feel valued and valuable. To oversimplify it, women are loved and valued for who they are. Men are loved and valued for what they can do. The masculine role is one of performance. The feminine role is that of creating excitement and being exciting. It's not 100%. Women can take on the masculine role. And men can take on the feminine role. In healthy sexual play people play around with this and it goes back and forth. But men will gravitate toward the masculine, and women the feminine.

It's not that men are intrinsically bad lovers. It's more a question of nature having created two different genders with conflicting needs and desires in order to make the sex more interesting. I think the conflict is by design. It creates and interesting and fun tension. Or should be interesting and fun. At least if you accept it and play around with it.



It's also a lot about talking before and after sex, sharing feelings, experiences. Training us to set boundaries. Not just women. Men fucking suck at accepting that they don't need to be up for everything. It's ok as a man to say they're not ok with something. If women think men handle rejection badly. Just wait until men start setting boundaries and watch the psychological meltdown of the women. It's incredibly educational to do this in a group. To literally see that other men are struggling with similar things. Or that when you do this thing, it's not just your women who doesn't like it, no woman likes it. Afterwards just sitting in a ring and comparing notes is extremely educational. It can be shredding for ones ego and self image. But the guys who get really bad news, also really really need to hear it. People also often suck at asking for consent in a sexy way. Either people "just go for it" (great potential to fuck it up) or they ask as if it's about signing a contract. The art of playfully getting a partner to agree to something without killing the vibe is an art that needs to be practiced.

At this point, our culture is so starved for good information on this and training that it's still incredibly low hanging fruit. And these organisers are making a shit tonne of money leading workshops. It's already a mass movement. This is NOT going to go away.

If they're making a shit ton of money it means more organizers are needed.

That's why I am 100% convinced this is a world that is going to explode. I'm also 100% sure that in the near future attending sex courses in order to be better lovers is going to be culturally normalized and near obligatory for anybody hoping to keep a partner around. The fact that well trained lovers are better lovers and are therefore better at keeping partners will create a cultural push towards this.

The writing is on the wall. It's hard to overestimate how quickly this movement is expanding. We're already flooded with garbage shit tantric teachers teaching dodgy nonsense to clueless hippies. The reason they stay in business is because the basic skill level in society is so low. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation is rife in these communities. Why? Well, because a psychopath who learns these skills and gives women the best sex and earth shattering mindblowing orgasms is going to be able to keep women, desperate for good sex, around no matter how much they treat them like shit. How do we stop these guys? It's super simple. We educate the healthy and well balanced guys. So they're just as good at pleasing women as these tantric predators. And that is what is happening now.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
All you ever do is apologize for racists and angrily defend their "rights", yet you have the unmitigated gall to say that the people who reformed this country's legal system from the top down, are reforming policing, are ending discriminatory housing practices loophole by loophole, and are creating spaces for black folks in higher education against immense institutional inertia are doing "nothing" to combat racism?

I think you have me confused with somebody else. For example, the civil rights movement was necessary. I'm a huge fan. I fully support this black police officer.


I hope his boss is fired. I wish Satan appears and creates hell, just so this guy can burn in it. This isn't a white officer having a civil conversation and sharing his opinions about the intricacies of racial policies. This is just straight up racist harassment. You do know the difference I hope? it's not hard.

Wokes seem unable to separate uncomfortable honest conversations with racist harassment. We should all be able to tell the difference. But wokes don't seem to be able to.

A good analogue is the issue of rape and how we talk about that. Everybody agrees rape is wrong. Everybody also agrees that sometimes there's miscommunication between people. Wokes have relentlessly been pushing towards erasing any blurred line. To the point where any woman feeling bad after having had sex was probably raped. Well, that's not workable. The truth is, (obviously) that sometimes we don't really know. How socially transgressive and rapey was the guy? What's the difference between being rapey and taking initiative? Where does the line go? We can't have zero tolerance because then we've outlawed men taking any kind of sexual initiative. And nobody wants that. Not even dominas.

Wokes are extremists. They're black and white thinkers who are unable to see nuance. It kills any possibility at having open and honest conversations



I think you must know that this is a fat load of bullshit. You're not offended by social action because you're afraid it it will "divide people", you're just offended by it.

The only way we will only solve any problems is to allow people to speak freely and share whatever is in their minds. No matter how uncomfortable it might make the people around them or who it offends. That's true for anything and everything in our society. Nothing good has ever come from hiding the truth. Woke is only and all about policing what language we use. It's only about preventing people from saying potentially racist things.

Very little offends me. I'm also not particularly motivated by fear. Compared to any other point in history we are currently living as close to utopia as I think it's possible to get. While we have problems. We have less problems today than we've ever had before in history. If we made it this far, and we managed to build this society, I'm convinced we'll be fine. In fact, I think it most likely will continue to get better. In the big picture, I think wokes are an annoying blip in history and they will go away soon.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,773
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

Ok. So what? It's also ok to lie.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
So what? OK... I will rob your house... if I get caught I will say it is my house... you can try to prove me wrong...and if you succeed.. then so what... I was just wrong is all. No crime for just being wrong about that being my house as I remove all of my items from it... oh, I guess I mean your items... cut me a break!
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,499
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

Ok. So what? It's also ok to lie.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
So what? OK... I will rob inhabit your house... if I get caught am challenged I will say it is my house... you can try to prove me wrong...and if you succeed.. then so what... I was just wrong is all. No crime for just being wrong about that being my house as I remove all of my items from it... oh, I guess I mean your items... cut me a break!
FIFY, welcome to neolibertarianism.
It's all ME all the time, 24/7/365. My only responsibility is to do what I want.
If I lie and you don't like it, you need to work on your feelings!
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There is a difference between being wrong and being deceptive. i.e. lying.

Ok. So what? It's also ok to lie.

Facebook should be equated with sitting in a bar talking shit. It's not the font of truth.
So what? OK... I will rob inhabit your house... if I get caught am challenged I will say it is my house... you can try to prove me wrong...and if you succeed.. then so what... I was just wrong is all. No crime for just being wrong about that being my house as I remove all of my items from it... oh, I guess I mean your items... cut me a break!
FIFY, welcome to neolibertarianism.
It's all ME all the time, 24/7/365. My only responsibility is to do what I want.
If I lie and you don't like it, you need to work on your feelings!

No, you don't need to work on anything. You're allowed to be as offended as you like.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,326
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
That is entirely opposite to the actual definition of "woke"; a woke person, by definition, is a person who has become conscious of their situation in a way that immediately demands change, and both personal and interpersonal evolution. When a fluent AAVE speaker says to "get woke", they do not mean "sit on your ass".

The problem is their actions are more about virtue signaling than actually doing something useful.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
That is entirely opposite to the actual definition of "woke"; a woke person, by definition, is a person who has become conscious of their situation in a way that immediately demands change, and both personal and interpersonal evolution. When a fluent AAVE speaker says to "get woke", they do not mean "sit on your ass".

The problem is their actions are more about virtue signaling than actually doing something useful.
Who? Not anyone who makes the news for doing something, which is generally who the conservatives are outraged about on any given day.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

Lol. No. But it is symptomatic of wokism, and how the word "offended" is starting to lose all meaning. There's nothing in my posts that have anything to do with me being offended. What I object to in wokism is it's Maoistic tendencies. How it's bullying and abuse, just like within the Jehova's Witnesses you have to join in on the theatre or you will be cast out. I'm for gun regulation because it's saves lives. Not because guns offend me.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?

I don't think you are evil. But I think you are doing evil. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg

“With or without woke, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes woke.”

The social mechanic of Maoism has popped up many times throughout history and whenever it become mainstream it's ended in disaster. It's seductive. Policing what people say is super easy. It's super easy to be on the front line being a crusader against (perceived) evil. But the moment people stop speaking freely they're not communicating at all. Which robs us of tools to solve any social problem, and makes the society extremely easy to control by whoever sits on the power. It was in Calvinist Geneva, Revolutionary France, Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, ISIS etc. It seems to be distressingly easy for any society to get sucked into this ideological maelstrom.

I don't want to be alarmist. I don't think woke will take over. I think it's power is already waning. I think we've had free speech and liberal democracy for too long in the west. But a huge problem with Maoist movements is that it creates a reaction, a social resistance movement. Let's call them conservatives. They can be exceedingly dangerous. I think Trump is a good example. Or Boris Johnson. They're just as dumb and simplistic as the wokes, and are also on a crusade. But a worse crusade. These two polar opposites feed each other. The more one side grows, the more the other side grows.

That's my problem with woke. It's not about me being offended.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

Lol. No. But it is symptomatic of wokism, and how the word "offended" is starting to lose all meaning. There's nothing in my posts that have anything to do with me being offended. What I object to in wokism is it's Maoistic tendencies. How it's bullying and abuse, just like within the Jehova's Witnesses you have to join in on the theatre or you will be cast out. I'm for gun regulation because it's saves lives. Not because guns offend me.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?

I don't think you are evil. But I think you are doing evil. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg

“With or without woke, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes woke.”

The social mechanic of Maoism has popped up many times throughout history and whenever it become mainstream it's ended in disaster. It's seductive. Policing what people say is super easy. It's super easy to be on the front line being a crusader against (perceived) evil. But the moment people stop speaking freely they're not communicating at all. Which robs us of tools to solve any social problem, and makes the society extremely easy to control by whoever sits on the power. It was in Calvinist Geneva, Revolutionary France, Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, ISIS etc. It seems to be distressingly easy for any society to get sucked into this ideological maelstrom.

I don't want to be alarmist. I don't think woke will take over. I think it's power is already waning. I think we've had free speech and liberal democracy for too long in the west. But a huge problem with Maoist movements is that it creates a reaction, a social resistance movement. Let's call them conservatives. They can be exceedingly dangerous. I think Trump is a good example. Or Boris Johnson. They're just as dumb and simplistic as the wokes, and are also on a crusade. But a worse crusade. These two polar opposites feed each other. The more one side grows, the more the other side grows.

That's my problem with woke. It's not about me being offended.
Ah, I see. So if I fear that your perspectives will lead us into fascism, that means I'm not "being offended" either?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

Lol. No. But it is symptomatic of wokism, and how the word "offended" is starting to lose all meaning. There's nothing in my posts that have anything to do with me being offended. What I object to in wokism is it's Maoistic tendencies. How it's bullying and abuse, just like within the Jehova's Witnesses you have to join in on the theatre or you will be cast out. I'm for gun regulation because it's saves lives. Not because guns offend me.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?

I don't think you are evil. But I think you are doing evil. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg

“With or without woke, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes woke.”

The social mechanic of Maoism has popped up many times throughout history and whenever it become mainstream it's ended in disaster. It's seductive. Policing what people say is super easy. It's super easy to be on the front line being a crusader against (perceived) evil. But the moment people stop speaking freely they're not communicating at all. Which robs us of tools to solve any social problem, and makes the society extremely easy to control by whoever sits on the power. It was in Calvinist Geneva, Revolutionary France, Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, ISIS etc. It seems to be distressingly easy for any society to get sucked into this ideological maelstrom.

I don't want to be alarmist. I don't think woke will take over. I think it's power is already waning. I think we've had free speech and liberal democracy for too long in the west. But a huge problem with Maoist movements is that it creates a reaction, a social resistance movement. Let's call them conservatives. They can be exceedingly dangerous. I think Trump is a good example. Or Boris Johnson. They're just as dumb and simplistic as the wokes, and are also on a crusade. But a worse crusade. These two polar opposites feed each other. The more one side grows, the more the other side grows.

That's my problem with woke. It's not about me being offended.
Ah, I see. So if I fear that your perspectives will lead us into fascism, that means I'm not "being offended" either?

I don't think you know what the word "offended" means. It's not applicable in this context.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

Lol. No. But it is symptomatic of wokism, and how the word "offended" is starting to lose all meaning. There's nothing in my posts that have anything to do with me being offended. What I object to in wokism is it's Maoistic tendencies. How it's bullying and abuse, just like within the Jehova's Witnesses you have to join in on the theatre or you will be cast out. I'm for gun regulation because it's saves lives. Not because guns offend me.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?

I don't think you are evil. But I think you are doing evil. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg

“With or without woke, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes woke.”

The social mechanic of Maoism has popped up many times throughout history and whenever it become mainstream it's ended in disaster. It's seductive. Policing what people say is super easy. It's super easy to be on the front line being a crusader against (perceived) evil. But the moment people stop speaking freely they're not communicating at all. Which robs us of tools to solve any social problem, and makes the society extremely easy to control by whoever sits on the power. It was in Calvinist Geneva, Revolutionary France, Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, ISIS etc. It seems to be distressingly easy for any society to get sucked into this ideological maelstrom.

I don't want to be alarmist. I don't think woke will take over. I think it's power is already waning. I think we've had free speech and liberal democracy for too long in the west. But a huge problem with Maoist movements is that it creates a reaction, a social resistance movement. Let's call them conservatives. They can be exceedingly dangerous. I think Trump is a good example. Or Boris Johnson. They're just as dumb and simplistic as the wokes, and are also on a crusade. But a worse crusade. These two polar opposites feed each other. The more one side grows, the more the other side grows.

That's my problem with woke. It's not about me being offended.
Ah, I see. So if I fear that your perspectives will lead us into fascism, that means I'm not "being offended" either?

I don't think you know what the word "offended" means. It's not applicable in this context.
I have never known what you people mean by "offended". It seems to be thrown around as a sort of insult, like the other person is simply too emotional as opposed to having a serious objection.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Very little offends me.
That is one of the most preposterous things you've ever written. Nearly half your output on this forum has been to complain to others about how "the Wokes" - a largely imaginary conspiracy of all the people who say or believe things you don't like- have done to offend you lately. Including this thread.

Lol. No. But it is symptomatic of wokism, and how the word "offended" is starting to lose all meaning. There's nothing in my posts that have anything to do with me being offended. What I object to in wokism is it's Maoistic tendencies. How it's bullying and abuse, just like within the Jehova's Witnesses you have to join in on the theatre or you will be cast out. I'm for gun regulation because it's saves lives. Not because guns offend me.

I'm one of the evil Wokes, of course, in your estimation. Hell, TomC thinks I'm the actual devil. Yet, I ask, how many threads have I started just to complain about people who upset me?

I don't think you are evil. But I think you are doing evil. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg

“With or without woke, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes woke.”

The social mechanic of Maoism has popped up many times throughout history and whenever it become mainstream it's ended in disaster. It's seductive. Policing what people say is super easy. It's super easy to be on the front line being a crusader against (perceived) evil. But the moment people stop speaking freely they're not communicating at all. Which robs us of tools to solve any social problem, and makes the society extremely easy to control by whoever sits on the power. It was in Calvinist Geneva, Revolutionary France, Soviet Union, Islamic Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, ISIS etc. It seems to be distressingly easy for any society to get sucked into this ideological maelstrom.

I don't want to be alarmist. I don't think woke will take over. I think it's power is already waning. I think we've had free speech and liberal democracy for too long in the west. But a huge problem with Maoist movements is that it creates a reaction, a social resistance movement. Let's call them conservatives. They can be exceedingly dangerous. I think Trump is a good example. Or Boris Johnson. They're just as dumb and simplistic as the wokes, and are also on a crusade. But a worse crusade. These two polar opposites feed each other. The more one side grows, the more the other side grows.

That's my problem with woke. It's not about me being offended.
Ah, I see. So if I fear that your perspectives will lead us into fascism, that means I'm not "being offended" either?

I don't think you know what the word "offended" means. It's not applicable in this context.
I have never known what you people mean by "offended". It seems to be thrown around as a sort of insult, like the other person is simply too emotional as opposed to having a serious objection.

What I mean is that the wokes are trying to create a world where nobody ever is offended. Being offended isn't seen as something the offended person needs to find a way to deal with themselves. It's seen as something the rest of society has a responsibility to stop. The problem with it is that all the power is given to the offended party. People like power and are incentivized to become offended and thereby get power. It creates an inflation of offence and victimhood.

Not to mention that it's dumb. Being offended is a feeling. Feelings aren't rational. There's no way to rationally design a society to prevent something that doesn't comply to logic. People get triggered and have emotional meltdowns for all manner of strange reasons beyond anybody's control.

Wokes are also offended by proxy. A white person telling another white person how horribly racist something said is. The first white person isn't offended. But thinks that their imaginary black friend should be, so goes apeshit on the forums denouncing them. Now this behaviour is bizarre, because it requires nobody to actually be offended. People are adjusting their behaviour to protect nobody's feelings. It's a pointless behaviour. It's also sad. Because it's obviously just white people feeling left out of being a victim so they do what they do best, steal the spotlight from black people, and are doing what racists always have been doing, being mean to black people.

I never said wokes are offended by people being conservatives. They might be. But that's neither here nor there. I also don't think the problem is that the odd conservative might be offended by liberals being liberals.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,768
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
No joke; I am in complete awe of your imagination, DrZoidberg. You'll give me some warning before these wokists starting rounding us up right?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No joke; I am in complete awe of your imagination, DrZoidberg. You'll give me some warning before these wokists starting rounding us up right?

My examples are only the most extreme ones. I'm in no way afraid that we will end up like in Maoist China. That's not what I am afraid of. It's a question of degree. The main problem with woke is that any degree is bad. There's no dosage of woke that is beneficial to society. It's pure poison at any amounts. The less woke the better IMHO.

My examples are just that. They're examples of how the psychological mechanic works on a society. They're also examples of what happens when this type of thinking is allowed to take control of a government. But I don't think we're at any risk of that happening. That's not what I'm saying or why I mentioned them. But they are illustrative.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,479
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
That is entirely opposite to the actual definition of "woke"; a woke person, by definition, is a person who has become conscious of their situation in a way that immediately demands change, and both personal and interpersonal evolution. When a fluent AAVE speaker says to "get woke", they do not mean "sit on your ass".

The problem is their actions are more about virtue signaling than actually doing something useful.
No, he is saying woke is leading down the road to 20th century European fascism.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I think what he's saying is that woke is far more about virtue signaling than actually doing anything. It's like my objection to the various climate agreements--virtue signaling without doing much of anything but trying to shut up the people pointing out the problem.

Not to mention that it rather actively condones racism against the standards.
That is entirely opposite to the actual definition of "woke"; a woke person, by definition, is a person who has become conscious of their situation in a way that immediately demands change, and both personal and interpersonal evolution. When a fluent AAVE speaker says to "get woke", they do not mean "sit on your ass".

The problem is their actions are more about virtue signaling than actually doing something useful.
No, he is saying woke is leading down the road to 20th century European fascism.

Well... not actual fascism. But more fascistic. Stuff like Trump and Boris Johnsson. I think those movements are partly a reaction against woke.

If you become more intolerant your ideological opponent will necessarily have to become more intolerant to survive. If you want your ideological opponent to listen to you and change, you have to be open to listening to them and have a mindset where you to can be changed.
 

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.
Articles like this worry me:


In a free society people have to be allowed to disagree and have arguments about stuff. Like we do on this forum. It's got to be allowed to be a climate change denier. I'm not. But I don't want my mere layman's opinion to be etched into stone (ie made law). That would be a terrible development IMHO.

Facebook has no responsibility for anything. They're under no obligation to protect us from ourselves. In fact, if we forbid dumb people from speaking, we all become dumber. The brain is like any muscle. It needs exercising. If we ban bullshit, we will lower resilience to the inevitable bullshit that does manage to slip through the cracks.

I don't like the way the article is formulated. I fear we're sliding into a world of well-meaning totalitarian censorship. A world without lies is soma in Brave New World.
It is Facebook's freedom of speech to flag such content as being dubious.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,460
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The OG fascists absolutely sold themselves as being the last desperate stand against multiculturalism, race mixture, socialism, and religious tolerance. The term "woke" had not yet come into being, but I'm sure they would argue they were "forced" to do what they did by the progressives in their own society, and they absolutely interpreted any and all criticism as persecution. Hence Mein Kampf as opposed to Mein Seig. If people pressing for tolerance and equality make you panic, you will always feel like you are under siege, and you will always have someone to blame for the "necessity" of your own actions in response.

But the truth is, no one forces you to be intolerant.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,768
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Well... not actual fascism. But more fascistic. Stuff like Trump and Boris Johnsson. I think those movements are partly a reaction against woke.
You have an extremely fucked up view on how causality works if you think spoiled geriatrics who have spent a lifetime with entitlement because of their families are a product of the rise wokeness since 2014.

If you become more intolerant your ideological opponent will necessarily have to become more intolerant to survive. If you want your ideological opponent to listen to you and change, you have to be open to listening to them and have a mindset where you to can be changed.
This is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint. The woke trying to compromise with cunts is exactly the reason things are how they are today. I honestly can't imagine how better off the United States would be today if the Obama used their obvious majority and told the Tea Party to shut the fuck up instead of "trying to reach across the aisle". I wish Kevin Rudd would have done something similar the instant Australian conservatives magically valued "fiscal responsibility" again the second those fuckheads lost power. It's also adorable that you still believe that right wingers/conservatism (pick a label) is still somewhat ideological and not completely tribal.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,273
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well... not actual fascism. But more fascistic. Stuff like Trump and Boris Johnsson. I think those movements are partly a reaction against woke.
You have an extremely fucked up view on how causality works if you think spoiled geriatrics who have spent a lifetime with entitlement because of their families are a product of the rise wokeness since 2014.

If you become more intolerant your ideological opponent will necessarily have to become more intolerant to survive. If you want your ideological opponent to listen to you and change, you have to be open to listening to them and have a mindset where you to can be changed.
This is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint. The woke trying to compromise with cunts is exactly the reason things are how they are today. I honestly can't imagine how better off the United States would be today if the Obama used their obvious majority and told the Tea Party to shut the fuck up instead of "trying to reach across the aisle". I wish Kevin Rudd would have done something similar the instant Australian conservatives magically valued "fiscal responsibility" again the second those fuckheads lost power. It's also adorable that you still believe that right wingers/conservatism (pick a label) is still somewhat ideological and not completely tribal.

Now you are pretending like I said that woke is the ONLY reason for Trump and Brexit. I did not. Try again.
 
Top Bottom