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

Leaving woke culture and God

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's an interesting video about a woman on how she became a very active activist for social justice warrior causes and then lost faith in the cause, and is now an activist against it.

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

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

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

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

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

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,489
When I was doing my undergrad I lived with and spent time around people who were much further left than me. From my observation some of the sentiments expressed did come across as quasi-religious - if we can just defeat patriarchy, racism, and capitalism then we'll have no more problems and we can live in peace. Peace being the central factor that most belief systems are aiming for.

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

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

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

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,489
It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

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

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

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It likely does occur more often in Atheists, because Christians are already solving the same problems with a different belief system.

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

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

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

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

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

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,489
It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's hard to say. I'd say most people are predisposed to follow the culture they're surrounded by, and if it doesn't work for them they usually seek out one that does. I like pulling the concept of energy into it - if patriarchy is the reason I'm unsuccessful than I don't have to work to become successful, if everything is God's plan than my lack of success is how things are supposed to be. This allows people to maintain their sense of self while expending minimal effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

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

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,489
Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

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

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Hard materialist explanations for life are often wielded as weapons against minority groups, so atheism and "woke" seem like a curious but not impossible combination to me. It seems like reclaiming African traditions or unique African variations on Christianity would be a more likely direction for a person to go when exploring and trying to subvert the circumstances of subjugation. But then, religion has also been used to exploit and abuse, and atheism is inherently non-partisan at least in theory.

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

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

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Ah. Not what it means here, then.

So what does it mean there?

I like this video on it

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

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

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ah. Not what it means here, then.

So what does it mean there?

I like this video on it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The highlighted part gives you away. Why would anybody do that? Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane. We are all just trying to get through life with some joys along the way. Buddha was right, life is mostly pain. For everybody. If you think your life is so much more awesome than other people's that you feel compelled to lift the less privilged up, you need to get off your high horse, because you'll just look foolish perched that high on it.
You think pretending to be suffering while sitting atop a pile of money makes you look less foolish?

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The highlighted part gives you away. Why would anybody do that? Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane. We are all just trying to get through life with some joys along the way. Buddha was right, life is mostly pain. For everybody. If you think your life is so much more awesome than other people's that you feel compelled to lift the less privilged up, you need to get off your high horse, because you'll just look foolish perched that high on it.
You think pretending to be suffering while sitting atop a pile of money makes you look less foolish?

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


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

This

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

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

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

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
While wealth leads to all manner of increased options in life, being rich is also a new set of stresses and problems. Which is completely ignored by the "patriarchal oppression" jargon. The whole thing with claiming there's a patriarchal oppression while the suicide rate is higher for men than women. If being on top of a power hierachy is supposed to be such a barrel of laughs, why the higher suicide rate?
Becoming woke to your real social situation can and should include an analysis of how social inequality harms everyone involved, not just the supposedly disadvantaged. However, pretending the inequality isn't there (and that is the effect of labeling and dismissing anyone who dares to criticize our economic system as a "Woke Marxist") will not diminish any of those effects. Not on the wealthy, not on the poor. That said, I don't think the Woke discourse was ever meant for the advantaged in the first place. You are right that white middle class folks have ulterior motives in applying the label to themselves, if they do. The term has little meaning in their context.

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

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

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Well, isn't that convenient. There's no way to criticise your position that doesn't insult you. Sounds a lot like how woke argumentation works.

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

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

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,990
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This conversation needs a bit of levity. So here's my favorite definition of "woke". I got it right out of the urban dictionary.

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

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

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Here's an interesting video about a woman on how she became a very active activist for social justice warrior causes and then lost faith in the cause, and is now an activist against it.

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

She sounds like quite the reactionary moron hunting for a dogma a label to define herself so that she doesn't have to ever actually think or become self aware.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Here's an interesting video about a woman on how she became a very active activist for social justice warrior causes and then lost faith in the cause, and is now an activist against it.

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

She sounds like quite the reactionary moron hunting for a dogma a label to define herself so that she doesn't have to ever actually think or become self aware.

Don't worry, I'm sure she's recovered from that now. :D The latest one is always the last one, eh?
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,351
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
This conversation needs a bit of levity. So here's my favorite definition of "woke". I got it right out of the urban dictionary.

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

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

Or the modern version of divide and conquer if it is being used by the top end of society

EsG2-qMUwAIUkFQ.jpeg

EsKl8DTUwAEEn2Q.jpeg

However some good part of this came from the bottom of this movement



great comments for the video.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This conversation needs a bit of levity. So here's my favorite definition of "woke". I got it right out of the urban dictionary.

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

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

Or the modern version of divide and conquer if it is being used by the top end of society

View attachment 31479

View attachment 31480

LOL. And the reason so many gays hate Pride
 
Last edited:

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,626
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This conversation needs a bit of levity. So here's my favorite definition of "woke". I got it right out of the urban dictionary.

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

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

Or the modern version of divide and conquer if it is being used by the top end of society

View attachment 31479

View attachment 31480

However some good part of this came from the bottom of this movement



great comments for the video.


I had always thought the term "progressive stack" was a mocking and/or pejorative term invented by the anti-SJW crowd. I didn't think they actually used it on themselves. :hysterical:
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I had always thought the term "progressive stack" was a mocking and/or pejorative term invented by the anti-SJW crowd. I didn't think they actually used it on themselves. :hysterical:

These leftist loonies have become what used to be a conservative caricature of the left. They have become a joke.

It seems like the left will never learn the lesson from history that if you lift up a group and give them power they will exploit it... just like... you know... the capitalists we complain about. It's so dumb
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,626
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Uh, we don't hate Pride, we hate soulless attempts to cash in on it. The first Pride was a riot.

My understanding of the disdain for Pride by many in the gay community is that it tends to promote the stereotype of gays being people who (for example) want nothing more than to wear assless leather chaps and tight rainbow tank tops and make out with their partner in public. Whereas it seems most gay people don't really care about any of that and just want to have the same rights and priveliges as everyone else, and live their lives as a normal member of their community. There could also be some Pride fatigue going on after all these years.*

*Reminds me of an old Simpsons episode when there was a Pride Parade in town and a couple of flamboyantly dressed, dancing gay guys sang, "We're here, we're queer...get used to it!!". Lisa shouted back, "We are used to it. You do this every year! One of the guys pipes back, "Spoiled sport".
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Ah. I don't mind, because I see the inherent connection between the two necessary sides of Pride. I have the freedom to live a quiet life with my boyfriend in a little apartmewnt in a suburb, because other people braver than myself were there, queer, and made people get used to it. And I think if there were no Pride, there would be a danger of a slow slip into oblivion, apathy, and piece-by-piece erosion of rights as has happened with the Civil Rights Movement of much the same era. We have to stay visible, relevant, and loud. No rtight was ever granted or kept for free.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Uh, we don't hate Pride, we hate soulless attempts to cash in on it. The first Pride was a riot.

My understanding of the disdain for Pride by many in the gay community is that it tends to promote the stereotype of gays being people who (for example) want nothing more than to wear assless leather chaps and tight rainbow tank tops and make out with their partner in public. Whereas it seems most gay people don't really care about any of that and just want to have the same rights and priveliges as everyone else, and live their lives as a normal member of their community. There could also be some Pride fatigue going on after all these years.*

*Reminds me of an old Simpsons episode when there was a Pride Parade in town and a couple of flamboyantly dressed, dancing gay guys sang, "We're here, we're queer...get used to it!!". Lisa shouted back, "We are used to it. You do this every year! One of the guys pipes back, "Spoiled sport".

But it doesn't promote that stereotype. If anything it promotes the stereotype that gays are like most people. Have you seen a gay pride parade? Most gays in it are boring as fuck. That's why everybody cheers so much at the leather men in assless chaps or the flaming queens risking life with walking in those high heels.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's another example of woke craziness

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55765514

There's an outcry that Australia's greatest tennis player, a job that requires zero brainpower or thought, is getting the nations greatest honour. I hate this shit. She's not being honored for her opinions. She's being honoured for her ability to hit a ball over a net. Who gives a shit what her opinions is on anything? If we decide that sports results deserve being honored, then what's the problem with her unrelated opinions?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,945
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Evaluating the hitting of a ball over the net is much more in line with objective methods than are opinions. If we celebrate those who are best at something (an opinion by the way) it seems much more objective to evaluate her on her relative success in doing so than it does to celebrate a Communist in Communist times or a Nazi in Nazi times.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,626
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Uh, we don't hate Pride, we hate soulless attempts to cash in on it. The first Pride was a riot.

My understanding of the disdain for Pride by many in the gay community is that it tends to promote the stereotype of gays being people who (for example) want nothing more than to wear assless leather chaps and tight rainbow tank tops and make out with their partner in public. Whereas it seems most gay people don't really care about any of that and just want to have the same rights and priveliges as everyone else, and live their lives as a normal member of their community. There could also be some Pride fatigue going on after all these years.*

*Reminds me of an old Simpsons episode when there was a Pride Parade in town and a couple of flamboyantly dressed, dancing gay guys sang, "We're here, we're queer...get used to it!!". Lisa shouted back, "We are used to it. You do this every year! One of the guys pipes back, "Spoiled sport".

But it doesn't promote that stereotype. If anything it promotes the stereotype that gays are like most people. Have you seen a gay pride parade? Most gays in it are boring as fuck. That's why everybody cheers so much at the leather men in assless chaps or the flaming queens risking life with walking in those high heels.

Well, I first heard about the stereotyping issue from a rather prominent gay talk show host in the Bay Area (Karel) a few years ago, who didn't like the Pride Parades for that reason. That sort of took me by surprise, actually. Being a straight guy, I don't have really have an opinion on that, which is why I said it was my understanding. I haven't been to a Pride Parade (I'm sort of crowd phobic, and not big on parades in general), but our local TV news stations in the Bay Area always show video clips which feature the more outlandish characters. I guess a handful of male Peacocks in bloom get more TV viewership points than a bunch of boring sparrows. So, perhaps its the media's fault for their selective editing that this stereotype is still prominent in the public's eye.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Preface: I have not been closely following this thread, so may be misunderstanding much of the back-and-forth. This one post here though caught my eye.

Here's another example of woke craziness

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55765514

There's an outcry that Australia's greatest tennis player, a job that requires zero brainpower or thought, is getting the nations greatest honour.

As a tennis player/watcher/fan myself, I am confused by that statement. Tennis playing requires zero brainpower or thought? It is a sport that consists of athleticism and strategy.

I hate this shit. She's not being honored for her opinions. She's being honoured for her ability to hit a ball over a net. Who gives a shit what her opinions is on anything?

Many people. Someone who is being revered as an icon or a role model should be someone that the sport community can be proud of. Not just for their athleticism/skill at the sport itself, but also their off-court contributions and personal grace. People who exhibited embarrassing or morally repugnant behavior should have that taken into consideration when they are being decided on, to be honored by the sport and athletes and fans.

Several years ago, Sean Spicer (Trump's first press secretary) was on the TV show "Dancing With The Stars" and while he was a good enough dancer, my reaction was "so what? He made a living lying to the public. Who gives a shit how good or bad his moves are?" People's morals and character should be a factor in whether or not they are given awards, even if the awards are not explicitly for morals and character.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Preface: I have not been closely following this thread, so may be misunderstanding much of the back-and-forth. This one post here though caught my eye.

Here's another example of woke craziness

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55765514

There's an outcry that Australia's greatest tennis player, a job that requires zero brainpower or thought, is getting the nations greatest honour.

As a tennis player/watcher/fan myself, I am confused by that statement. Tennis playing requires zero brainpower or thought? It is a sport that consists of athleticism and strategy.

I hate this shit. She's not being honored for her opinions. She's being honoured for her ability to hit a ball over a net. Who gives a shit what her opinions is on anything?

Many people. Someone who is being revered as an icon or a role model should be someone that the sport community can be proud of. Not just for their athleticism/skill at the sport itself, but also their off-court contributions and personal grace. People who exhibited embarrassing or morally repugnant behavior should have that taken into consideration when they are being decided on, to be honored by the sport and athletes and fans.

Several years ago, Sean Spicer (Trump's first press secretary) was on the TV show "Dancing With The Stars" and while he was a good enough dancer, my reaction was "so what? He made a living lying to the public. Who gives a shit how good or bad his moves are?" People's morals and character should be a factor in whether or not they are given awards, even if the awards are not explicitly for morals and character.

What makes you think she doesn't have morals? She seems to have very high moral standards. Just different standards from you or me. Doesn't she have a right to express her differing views? Are we really so sensitive that we can't stand celebritys that don't endlessly repeat the PC dogma? Do we really want a world where all discussions are dead and are replaced by brain dead PC regurgitations?

Why do you feel so threatened by that she doesn't agree with you?

I play tennis. The amount of strategy involved is less than your average board game. Nah, a highly skilled drooling idiot could do it.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
As a tennis player/watcher/fan myself, I am confused by that statement. Tennis playing requires zero brainpower or thought? It is a sport that consists of athleticism and strategy.
I play tennis. The amount of strategy involved is less than your average board game. Nah, a highly skilled drooling idiot could do it.
I'm utterly unqualified to hold an opinion on this dispute; that said, have you considered the possibility that some people play the game more strategically than others?

Roger Federer as Religious Experience
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,493
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
As a tennis player/watcher/fan myself, I am confused by that statement. Tennis playing requires zero brainpower or thought? It is a sport that consists of athleticism and strategy.
I play tennis. The amount of strategy involved is less than your average board game. Nah, a highly skilled drooling idiot could do it.
I'm utterly unqualified to hold an opinion on this dispute; that said, have you considered the possibility that some people play the game more strategically than others?

Roger Federer as Religious Experience

I didn't say there's no strategy in tennis. Only that the strategy required doesn't require genius. Certainly not to a degree where we give medals for it. She's not getting a medal for her great tactical skill or thought at all.

The mental part of athletic performance is interesting. Making oneself that dedicated and single minded is impressive. But will not help you in figuring out the big things in the world.

But even so, even if she had been a politician who had done something impressive she still has to be allowed to have whatever opinions we has.

We don't take down statues of Churchill even though he was a white supremacist. He's still worth being honoured imho
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
What makes you think she doesn't have morals?

Why did you ask a loaded question, and also be so presumptuous as to think you know what I think? You could have taken a better approach and asked me what I think, rather than putting words in my mouth which do not accurately reflect my views.

She does have morals, as do people who have different morals. But so what? It comes down to a judgment call on how to proceed. Some people’s morals are more bigoted than others, some are more altruistic than others, some are more fascist than others, some are more charitable than others, etc. Let’s not put all morals on the same playing field.

Doesn't she have a right to express her differing views?

Yes. That is a complete strawman and red herring fallacy wrapped up into one. Nobody was suggesting that she does not have a right to express her opinions. The issue under discussion is whether or not she should additionally be honored, given the (what some consider to be) grotesque content of her views. Don’t the sporting event organizers also have a right to determine who they decide to give special honors to?

Are we really so sensitive that we can't stand celebritys that don't endlessly repeat the PC dogma?

So it is considered “PC dogma” to not be a bigot, like she is.

Do we really want a world where all discussions are dead and are replaced by brain dead PC regurgitations?

No. But that is not what this is about either.

Why do you feel so threatened by that she doesn't agree with you?

Why do you again ask a loaded question? You could first ask if I feel threatened. If I confirm that I do, then you can ask why. Instead though, you made the unwarranted assumption that I do feel threatened by her views, and that is false. I find her views bigoted, but the sensation of “threatened” never applied to me.

I play tennis. The amount of strategy involved is less than your average board game. Nah, a highly skilled drooling idiot could do it.

Well. Please tell that to every player, coach, commentator, organizer, and trainer who has ever worked in professional tennis. I have a strong hunch that they will disagree with you.

I didn't say there's no strategy in tennis. Only that the strategy required doesn't require genius.

DrZ, you are rewriting history right before our very eyes. You had said (quoting you word for word here): “…Australia's greatest tennis player, a job that requires zero brainpower or thought,…”

So yes, you said there is no brainpower or thought. Strategy requires brainpower and thought, so by consequence you are saying there is no strategy.

I recall that in WWE professional wrestling, when the wrestler Chris Benoit was found dead, there was a tribute paid to him by the organization at the next event. In the days that followed, it was discovered that he had actually murdered his own wife and child, before killing himself. The owner of the WWE (Vince McMahon) then gave a public announcement basically stating that Benoit’s name would never be spoken of again in any kind of honorable mention. That seems an appropriate response. It is fine for an entity to want to disassociate to varying extents from people that engage in disgraceful behavior, whether it be for ethical and/or business reasons.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
... snip ...

Someone who is being revered as an icon or a role model should be someone that the sport community can be proud of. Not just for their athleticism/skill at the sport itself, but also their off-court contributions and personal grace. People who exhibited embarrassing or morally repugnant behavior should have that taken into consideration when they are being decided on, to be honored by the sport and athletes and fans.
... snip ...
But my understanding is that she was not being awarded as a role model for her "correct" position on social issues. She was being awarded for her excellence in playing tennis. This would be an award based on an objective measurable accomplishment not on complying with ever changing social attitudes.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,626
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Yup. A good recent example is Barack Obama. He was clearly anti-gay marraige early in his political career, and in fact, it was only about 10 years ago that he changed his mind and supported it. Was he supporting a "morally revolting view" on gay rights in 2008? Should we call him a bigot, topple his statues and scrub his name off street signs, despite the positive things he accomplished?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,138
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"? When are they deciding, this year, five years ago, twenty years from now? What is considered "revolting" is constantly in flux in a society and, even at a given time, not agreed to by all. This is why I consider the current "cancel culture" to be a rather absurd, self indulgent exercise. There are some who want to "cancel" old icons like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because some of their social views and actions are contrary to what is today considered "politically correct". Even Gandhi is up for being "canceled". He didn't think much of blacks.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Yup. A good recent example is Barack Obama. He was clearly anti-gay marraige early in his political career, and in fact, it was only about 10 years ago that he changed his mind and supported it. Was he supporting a "morally revolting view" on gay rights in 2008? Should we call him a bigot, topple his statues and scrub his name off street signs, despite the positive things he accomplished?

No. But if he had owned slaves, or ordered a genocide, my answer would be different. We should be cautious of who we deify through public memoriam.

I do not believe he should be "let off the hook" for his earlier beliefs either, they were bigoted. He is to be commended for his later acivity in this matter, but that doesn't mean we should forget that he waited until it was politically advantageous to suddenly discover those convictions. Politicians can be useful, but they are not your friends and they should never be trusted implicitly.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"?

All the people who get a vote in the matter. It has been overwhelmingly in favor of not granting Margaret Court Smith this honor.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Martina Navratilova has said much the same. She acknowledges that MCS was a great tennis player on the court. But her behavior off the court is bigoted, and that should not be ignored. The sport involves more than just running around hitting balls. It wants to draw in and inspire future generations of players, fans, etc. It is being part of a community and a culture.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
"Morally revolting views" is a subjective evaluation. "Serial killing" is objective, not subjective. Who is deciding what is "revolting"?

All the people who get a vote in the matter. It has been overwhelmingly in favor of not granting Margaret Court Smith this honor.

Anyone can recognize her abilities on the tennis court and that is what the award was for, nothing else. Someone not liking what she thinks does not change the objective fact that she was a damn good tennis player.

Martina Navratilova has said much the same. She acknowledges that MCS was a great tennis player on the court. But her behavior off the court is bigoted, and that should not be ignored. The sport involves more than just running around hitting balls. It wants to draw in and inspire future generations of players, fans, etc. It is being part of a community and a culture.
I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport. You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

If this really catches on then I guess that awarding sports titles will have to wait until a full background check of everything ever said, written, or done by the winner of an event is completed and approval given by all.

Should Rommel's military tactics be ignored and no longer be taught? After all he did hold some damned 'politically incorrect' views.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport.

That is a strawman misunderstanding. Her ability in the sport was a major calculation into whether or not she was being considered for the award. They were not picking random people off the street who never played tennis in their life.

The important point though is that they are not ignoring her overall morals and behaviors in life. If they are considered to be disqualifying enough by the people who get to choose, then she is not going to get the award.

You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

Yes. When those particular people set up tournaments or leagues or organizations, they are welcome to distribute awards however they like. It is not a perfect system. There will never, ever be a perfect system. We just have to use the least-worst system available to us. Just like how there is no such thing as a perfect government, a perfect economy, a perfect environment, etc. We should not let the lack of a perfect system prevent us from making progress though.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I find it rather weird that some assume that a sports award is about acceptance of one's social opinions rather than their ability in the sport.

That is a strawman misunderstanding. Her ability in the sport was a major calculation into whether or not she was being considered for the award. They were not picking random people off the street who never played tennis in their life.

The important point though is that they are not ignoring her overall morals and behaviors in life. If they are considered to be disqualifying enough by the people who get to choose, then she is not going to get the award.

You must be aware that there are no saints. I am sure that even Martina Navratilova has some views or said or done something in her life that some people would find terribly objectionable (those involved in the 'cancel culture' are dedicated to finding these things).

Yes. When those particular people set up tournaments or leagues or organizations, they are welcome to distribute awards however they like. It is not a perfect system. There will never, ever be a perfect system. We just have to use the least-worst system available to us. Just like how there is no such thing as a perfect government, a perfect economy, a perfect environment, etc. We should not let the lack of a perfect system prevent us from making progress though.
And, seeing that sports awards are about recognition of excellence in the sport, the "least-worse" system is to award those who excel in the sport without someone's subjective opinion of their social views. This is an objective measurement that even those who don't like the social views of the winner can agree is exceptional. Besides, in ten years, those who today don't like the social views may agree with those views or someone they agree with today they may disagree with in ten years.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,639
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
And, seeing that sports awards are about recognition of excellence in the sport,

Within limits, and that can be overridden if the person engaged in other immoral behavior or was an embarrassment or a dishonor to the sport by their personal conduct off the playing field. The sport wants to limit its association to that individual.

the "least-worse" system is to award those who excel in the sport without someone's subjective opinion of their social views.

Not sure why that should be adopted. Maybe someone wins the most tournaments in a year but also was an asshole both on and off the court, as determined subjectively by pretty much everyone else who interacted with that person. Their name being engraved onto arenas would be an ugly reminder, rather than an alluring or inspiring one.
 
Top Bottom