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

Leaving woke culture and God

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

We were not even talking about the government banning or muzzling speech. We were discussing whether private trophies or arenas could and would be named after certain individuals, given the content of their off-court behavior. So this matter of bringing government into it is irrelevant and a red herring.

Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
The part of the discussion I was participating in was about whether Margaret Court Smith should be honored by various factions of the sport of tennis, and having an arena named after her. Those are private matters. That was where I entered the discussion.

I emphasized also that it is a very separate matter of having the government involved and hypothetically saying she was not allowed to express her views. When people keep saying that she was not "allowed" or did not have the "right" to speak her mind, that terminology conflates the 2 very different concepts.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

We were not even talking about the government banning or muzzling speech. We were discussing whether private trophies or arenas could and would be named after certain individuals, given the content of their off-court behavior. So this matter of bringing government into it is irrelevant and a red herring.

Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.
I'm with you. Private organizations can set their own criteria. The only problem I have is with the dishonesty in the criteria for the award. If wokeness is a criteria then the award should be for the outstanding woke athlete. If being white is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding white athlete. If being black is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding black athlete. If being heterosexual is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding heterosexual athlete. etc. etc. However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

In this case they should announce that they want to name the stadium after a woke athlete, not necessarily the most outstanding athlete.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

With no exception? How about if the person was a child rapist?

No, asking that question does not imply that I think being a child rapist is equivalent to being "woke" at all. I am simply pointing out that there may be exceptions to that universal statement you just made, quoted here. There may be cases where, no matter how outstanding the athlete's performance on the field, there is some potential off the field grotesque behavior which may override it. Which constitutes which, and to which degree each is given priority, is a subjective determination. You are also making a subjective determination at the same time you are criticizing others for doing the same though.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

With no exception? How about if the person was a child rapist?

.
Damn dude... you do love your strawmen. In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field. I suppose he could compete in some prison league, if there is one, and be recognized as outstanding (better athletically than the murderers and other felons in the league) by that prison league.

In the real world, anyone that is in the arena competing should be in consideration for recognition by the organization that manages the events. If by the organization's rules, someone is ineligible for recognition then they would have been ineligible to compete on the field.
 
Last edited:

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
In war we don't give a fuck about what opinions a soldier has, as long as he's shooting the enemy. Succeeding on the job should be what counts.
Then we profoundly disagree, and I think you are more of a danger to a free society than myself, though it should be understood that in either case it is making mountains out of molehills.

Yes, we do. But I don't think it's a minor issue. The way fascism works is that we stack the deck for certain groups, effectively blocking segments of the population from social advancements or awards. We only acknowledge the successes of certain people. Roosevelt didn't acknowledge Jesse Owen winning the 1936 Olympic medal springs to mind. My ex wives family is Jewish and is from Budapest. They're an upper middle class family. It's by putting these kinds of pressures on them that her family has now left Hungary. It's entirely due to political pressures. Worth noting that while given it his best shot, Hitler failed to remove her family from Hungary, back in the day.

This stuff isn't trivial. When governments put pressure on a population to encourage the expression of certain beliefs it kills discussion. Impopular opinions are left to fester in the shadows and it leads to extremism and political instability. I think you are naive not to see the inevitable result of the policy.

I think we also very much disagree about how "safe" pandering German and Italian fascists all through the 20's and 30's turned out to be. No, fluffing the dick of people who want to take freedoms away from others does not make us all more free, just because they define themselves as a minority or as unpopular. It makes them more free at everyone else's expense.

And no one has "banned" anyone from anything. Getting an award is a reward, but not getting an award (or not having a sports arena named after you) is not a punishment. It's just what most people do most of the time. Did you really grow up in such a lap of luxury that you think you are owed special golden stars for every damn thing you do?

No one has suggested taking away the woman's trophies that she won for particular matches and the like. She won those fair and square. At issue is a civil accolade, and one that they don't just give out to anyone who passes by.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field.

But if he was the greatest ever athlete in the sport, he should still be given honors and awards, and not be removed from the Hall of Fame or have their name removed from the name of the trophy, yes? Even if he was also in prison at the same time? If you would disqualify him, then you are committing the very sin you are arguing against in this thread---considering their off field behavior when it comes to granting honors and awards.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field.

But if he was the greatest ever athlete in the sport, he should still be given honors and awards, and not be removed from the Hall of Fame or have their name removed from the name of the trophy, yes? Even if he was also in prison at the same time? If you would disqualify him, then you are committing the very sin you are arguing against in this thread---considering their off field behavior when it comes to granting honors and awards.

If Hicham El Guerrou is ever found to have been a child rapist then his world record speed for running the mile would remain in the record books because it is a record. He would not be admired for his personal life but the record would stand. Who knows, he could well have some personal beliefs that would disgust you but that doesn't change the fact that the world record that he holds is real. Some angelic runner that doesn't beat his record could be noted as the fasted non-child rapist but not as the fasted miler.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Bingo. Exactly.

In the case of Margaret Court Smith, for instance, she also is being acknowledged as a great tennis player on the court. That is a separate matter of whether awards or arenas should be officially named after her.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
If Hicham El Guerrou is ever found to have been a child rapist then his world record speed for running the mile would remain in the record books because it is a record. He would not admired for his personal life but the record would stand. Who knows, he could well have some personal beliefs that would disgust you but that doesn't change the fact that the world record that he holds is real. Some angelic runner that doesn't beat his record could be noted as the fasted non-child rapist but not as the fasted miler.
If that record stands whether or not he is admired or even accepted by society, why do you insist that he also needs to have a stadium named after him? No one has so much as suggested removing Court's sports accomplishments from all of history. The only controversial thing are the special public honors given and named for her, beyond the sport.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Bingo. Exactly.

In the case of Margaret Court Smith, for instance, she also is being acknowledged as a great tennis player on the court. That is a separate matter of whether awards or arenas should be officially named after her.
Then sports arenas should never be named after any person because we never know what would be discovered about their personal life in the future?
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Holy non sequitur, skepticalbip. No, that is not an implication. Instead, we can grant awards and honors to people as far as we know who performed greatly in the sport and also honorably off the field. If later we do find out that they were domestic abusers, serial killers, cheated at the sport, et al then those awards and honors can be revoked. It does not at all imply they should not be given in the first place though.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?
The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete.

Which is the same thing you would do. You also would disqualify an athlete from being honored and awarded if you discovered they were engaged in egregious and horrible behavior off the field, as subjectively determined by you.

Others have different subjective values from yours, but the same principle guides both---if they were a great player and appeared to be a great person, they are eligible. If they were later discovered to be morally revolting, they would be disqualified.

Discussing this with you is completely going in circles. You keep criticizing others for engaging in the same behavior you are engaging in yourself. You just call it a different label, like "woke" or "PC," but the principle remains the same.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?
The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

Strictly single-issue voter, are you?
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?
The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.
Then you didn't read very carefully. What I object to is the way the PC police work at trying to destroy the reputation of and to deny any honor to anyone they don't think is woke enough. It has even evolved into the current hate filled "cancel culture". Honor those who they think agree with them... no problem. Destruction of anyone that doesn't meet their 'standards' is just sick.

Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.
I'm with you. Private organizations can set their own criteria. The only problem I have is with the dishonesty in the criteria for the award. If wokeness is a criteria then the award should be for the outstanding woke athlete. If being white is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding white athlete. If being black is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding black athlete. If being heterosexual is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding heterosexual athlete. etc. etc. However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

In this case they should announce that they want to name the stadium after a woke athlete, not necessarily the most outstanding athlete.

It's hard to measure though. If you decide never to attend a stadium who rejected naming itself after the greatest athlete. Since we all agree that at least one stadium should have the name. How would you know which stadium chose to take that choice. Since there's zero cost not to name a stadium after a specific person, then it has zero cost for them to be woke. while they can gain points for being woke. So woke wins. It's the same logic behind trying to prove God doesn't exist.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.

According to your subjective standards. The subjective standards of others are different, and they disagree.

Also, absolutely nothing is stopping you from honoring either/both of them. You can privately send them cards, publicly name your own awards and arenas after them, etc. You completely have that right. Some other private entities also have similar rights, and they made a different calculation than you about how they want to exercise theirs.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.

According to your subjective standards. The subjective standards of others are different, and they disagree.
Yeah, that's true. But then there is no way to discuss anything with people who think that anyone who has a worldview that differs from their own is evil and must be destroyed. Reality is that there are intolerant people. Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
"evil and must be destroyed"? Where and why do you keep coming up with these strawmen, again and again? Saying that we do not name this trophy or arena because we reject your views after you is NOT the same as saying "you are evil and must be destroyed."

Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.

Some of them can indeed see a difference, but note that the difference is one of size and scope. The principle remains. There are indeed instances where you would also note an athlete's performance on the field and recognize their great ability, while also deeming them unworthy of certain other honors because of their off the field behaviors.

When I use the child rapist example, it was not to equate the 2 scenarios as you mistakenly read. It was to expose the flaw in your argument---when in one breath you say that only on the field achievements should matter. Then in the next breath you take a different approach and effectively say "Well, yeah, okay in certain cases their off the field behaviors should be taken into account too." Which is the exact same thing you criticize others for doing.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.

Some of them can indeed see a difference, but note that the difference is one of size and scope.
So you agree with my point? You see them as different only in scope, not as completely different classes. This is the same nonsense as a vegan who sees using milk and/or eggs as the same but only different in scope as genocide.

You see not being woke as evil (but a bit less evil than child rape) and the vegan sees using milk or eggs as evil (but a bit less evil than genocide).

But then maybe you are also a militant vegan so also think using milk or eggs really is evil, only different is scope from committing genocide.
 

Brian63

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
1,549
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker/atheist/humanist
So you agree with my point? You see them as different only in scope, not as completely different classes.

It can be any variety, and not change the relevant point. If you want to establish your own trophies and arenas, you can decide who to name them after. Other people can do the same too.

If you name a trophy after someone who you think was the GOAT of your sport, and then you later learn they were also a serial killer on the side, you can disassociate that trophy from that athlete. If some fan comes after you and says "Hey skepticalbip, you are being woke and PC and are acting like a mob for doing that!" then how would you react? Would you think that person is making a strong or weak point?
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,370
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.

Bill Tilman, a far more successful American tennis player than Ashe, and apparently even a media star for awhile (according to Wikipedia) would be a name too far for you, I suspect. A convicted child molester--no amount of great tennis would validate an honour to them without bringing a stain to the honouring body. But a persistent homophobic bigot--no stain at all on the honouring body.

As a gay man and a tennis fan, I am divided on post-career honours to Maggie C S, who has used to fame to speak out against gay and lesbian rights, cause me to look askance at the bodies that honour her, and think twice about dealing with them. But I can't quite feel totally outraged.

What I find appalling on this forum is the handwaving away of concerns about a famous person's public bigotry as being "woke". Maggie C. S. has a public record as a very successful tennis player and also a public record as a bigot.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbla...gar-tv4s-storserie-fejk-fran-borjan-till-slut

One of the biggest TV production in Swedish history is a documentary about a number of historical Swedish queens. Based on the work of Kristina Sjögren, who is not an historian. She's a lecturer in gender studies. Sweden's leading historian (and a professor) slams it as nothing but lies. Her defense is that women's stories have been silenced throughout history so it's ok to make up stuff. But she's made up pretty major things, like what government Sweden had at times. And the political situation around Europe. Major fuck-ups. The series had 900 000 viewers, (out of a population of 10 million).

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.

It's sad when a population is so deluded.

Worth noting is the story of another documentary, in Norway. It came out in 2010. Up to that point Sweden and Norway were very similar when it came to feminism and woke. Then the main channel of state television in Norway allowed one alternative documentary to give a bit more of a balanced picture. Hjernevask. In the documentary experts on gender and biologists are interviewed about gender. This is actual experts on gender, not lecturers in gender studies. Over night gender studies in Norway dies and all of their lecturers are forced to move to Sweden and continue their work there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

In Sweden this nonsense of one sided leftist state sponsored propaganda is allowed to continue. There's no attempt to create any kind of debate, or opposing sides. It's all one sided.

There's a sharp divide between those educated and able to, on their own, read foreign media and those who aren't educated and just swallow what they're told by the government. I can't see this ending well.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,648
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden
Is that woke or just flat out false. I'm tired of reading people complaining about nutty liberals as some sort of new thing when there have always been nutty liberals.

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.
In the US, we have to be very careful in watching documentaries on channels like National Geoographic, Discovery, History, Animal Planet due to the gross exaggeration, pulp science, and flat out false claims made or appear to make. That isn't woke, it is ratings. So documentaries not being so documentary... and even nature shows clearly being over edited for drama is something that is becoming endemic in television. This is something that needs to stop... but it is hardly a "woke" liberal disease that has spread all over.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden
Is that woke or just flat out false. I'm tired of reading people complaining about nutty liberals as some sort of new thing when there have always been nutty liberals.

The problem is that the nutty liberals are in power. This was labelled as a documentary. Not as a "drama documentary", or "based on a true story". It's also on mainstream television, and one of the most well funded and high profile documentaries ever made in Sweden. While I'm for anybody doing anything and a multitude of opinions being voiced. So I'm not against nutty liberals telling their story. The problem is that it's completely one sided. We only get the nutty liberal version in Sweden.

Another example is our national gallery. So that's all the most famous paintings through Swedish history, they all have informative plaques next to them explaining what it's about. Last year it was decided to replace them all with plaques informed by gender studies. Loony fringe feminism has been elevated to state ideology. And no other perspectives are allowed in public communication from the state. Since Sweden is a socialist country the majority of the media is state financed, or heavily state financed. It's a problem.

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.
In the US, we have to be very careful in watching documentaries on channels like National Geoographic, Discovery, History, Animal Planet due to the gross exaggeration, pulp science, and flat out false claims made or appear to make. That isn't woke, it is ratings. So documentaries not being so documentary... and even nature shows clearly being over edited for drama is something that is becoming endemic in television. This is something that needs to stop... but it is hardly a "woke" liberal disease that has spread all over.

That's a fair point. When Swedes watch stuff on National Geographic or the History channel (both show American shows only) we tend to assume it's bullshit. But as soon as something is from Sweden we give it more dignity. I hadn't thought of that. But it's totally how Swedes think. It's weird.

To quote a Swedish documentary filmmaker I spoke to at a party, "only idiots get informed by documentaries. Smart people read books"
 

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,793
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Super evil transhumanist communist
If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,282
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

"Easy To Be Hard"

How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

Especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd
How about a needy friend
I need a friend
 

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,793
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Super evil transhumanist communist
If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.

If being disingenuous makes me an evil Communist, then I would rather be an evil Communist!
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

It's not actually a Three Dog Night Song, though they did cover it. It's from the musical Hair originally. Sheila is a debutante, slumming it with a group of free lovers she runs across while on break from school at NYU. Berger is an free spirit who de facto leads the group around, so of course she goes right to him, since whoever's in charge must surely owe her attention. But not twenty minutes of show time after they start hanging together, she starts complaining that he pays too little attention to her, too much to all the other people in the Tribe. You know, his already established friendships and projects, that she knew all about going in but now takes offense to. So she sings this whiny song which you have quoted. Sheila may genuinely think Berger is being cruel, but the truth is that she herself is acting like a demanding, entitled jerk, who has no good reason to feel slighted just a guy didn't drop everything to service her feelings exclusively. I mean basically, she's insisting on being allowed to run with the hippies, then whining that her new boyfriend is one. Get over yourself, you know? You don't get to tear apart other people's lives just because your ego is bruised by not being the queen of the world at the moment.

Your sympathies are clear, but for me, I'll take a Berger over a Sheila any damn day.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.

If being disingenuous makes me an evil Communist, then I would rather be an evil Communist!

But why say you are something you are not? Why claim you hold an opinion you don't support? I don't understand what you are taking a stand for?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

It's not actually a Three Dog Night Song, though they did cover it. It's from the musical Hair originally. Sheila is a debutante, slumming it with a group of free lovers she runs across while on break from school at NYU. Berger is an free spirit who de facto leads the group around, so of course she goes right to him, since whoever's in charge must surely owe her attention. But not twenty minutes of show time after they start hanging together, she starts complaining that he pays too little attention to her, too much to all the other people in the Tribe. You know, his already established friendships and projects, that she knew all about going in but now takes offense to. So she sings this whiny song which you have quoted. Sheila may genuinely think Berger is being cruel, but the truth is that she herself is acting like a demanding, entitled jerk, who has no good reason to feel slighted just a guy didn't drop everything to service her feelings exclusively. I mean basically, she's insisting on being allowed to run with the hippies, then whining that her new boyfriend is one. Get over yourself, you know? You don't get to tear apart other people's lives just because your ego is bruised by not being the queen of the world at the moment.

Your sympathies are clear, but for me, I'll take a Berger over a Sheila any damn day.

That film is awesome. But timing is a factor. It was made in the eighties during the punk, OPEC crisis, Reagan and Thatcher era. It was made by and for people who thought hippies were a joke. Being a hippie could not be less cool than when the film came out. Its a lovingly made satire. But it is a satire. The hypocrisy and rediculousness of the hippies is what the film makes fun of.

The funny thing is that hippies rarely understand they are being made fun of. They think it's a tribute to hippies. That's some skilled writing.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,282
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.
 

Tharmas

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2001
Messages
1,497
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Pantheist
I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

According to Wikipedia the musical was first performed in 1967. In my opinion, interpreting it as a crafty satire of the counter culture is a bit of a stretch.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

According to Wikipedia the musical was first performed in 1967. In my opinion, interpreting it as a crafty satire of the counter culture is a bit of a stretch.

The film and the musical are quite different in what they are trying to be.

The stage musical is mostly about using profanity on stage and being naked. Shock value. I think the story was secondary. That's why it became famous. The ambition level of the productions couldn't be more different.

But just like the film its made by people in the culture poking fun at themselves. They were NOT trying to glorify the culture. The difference is that when they made the film its made by and for ex-hippies rather than being made at the height of the culture. That makes it quite different.

A major difference is that what shocked people in 1967 was seen as competely harmless in 1980. The contexts change what it is trying to be.

I'm a spawn of hippies. I grew up in this shit
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

According to Wikipedia the musical was first performed in 1967. In my opinion, interpreting it as a crafty satire of the counter culture is a bit of a stretch.

The film and the musical are quite different in what they are trying to be.

The stage musical is mostly about using profanity on stage and being naked. Shock value. I think the story was secondary. That's why it became famous. The ambition level of the productions couldn't be more different.

But just like the film its made by people in the culture poking fun at themselves. They were NOT trying to glorify the culture. The difference is that when they made the film its made by and for ex-hippies rather than being made at the height of the culture. That makes it quite different.

A major difference is that what shocked people in 1967 was seen as competely harmless in 1980. The contexts change what it is trying to be.

I'm a spawn of hippies. I grew up in this shit

The music wasn't written to accompany the film (which most people see as vastly inferior to the stage production, if they've seen both).
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane.

This quote is wild to me. "Why pull a lever that could save a life (that could help you build a shelter perhaps) when you might break a nail doing it?"

I consider this sociopathic behaviour.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane.

This quote is wild to me. "Why pull a lever that could save a life (that could help you build a shelter perhaps) when you might break a nail doing it?"

I consider this sociopathic behaviour.

You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
Nobody in their right mind would limit themselves on the behalf of the less privilged. That's insane.

This quote is wild to me. "Why pull a lever that could save a life (that could help you build a shelter perhaps) when you might break a nail doing it?"

I consider this sociopathic behaviour.

You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.

Not sure if your making an "is altruism real" argument here or something else.

Heather McGee, author of "Sum of Us" cites an example I want to raise here. In a nutshell, When segregation was abolished in the 50's, townships drained their public swimming pools instead of integrating. So no one swam. You can apply this to health care, better social safety nets, etc...

So yes, your argument is true for those you criticize as "woke" - they want a better society for themselves by improving it for everyone.

What many see as "virtue signaling", is more often than not someone attempting to speak out on behalf of a better society.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.

Not sure if your making an "is altruism real" argument here or something else.

Heather McGee, author of "Sum of Us" cites an example I want to raise here. In a nutshell, When segregation was abolished in the 50's, townships drained their public swimming pools instead of integrating. So no one swam. You can apply this to health care, better social safety nets, etc...

So yes, your argument is true for those you criticize as "woke" - they want a better society for themselves by improving it for everyone.

What many see as "virtue signaling", is more often than not someone attempting to speak out on behalf of a better society.
How, in the name of Odin, can they think that separating society into competing racial and/or sexual stereotypes and pitting them against each other is creating a better society.

I tend to think that the better society would be one where, as Dr. King put it, a society where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Instead, the woke culture's greatest curse and put-down is "you are a white male"... meaning evil scum. They assert that all white people are racists simply by virtue of being white. This woke mindset is taking us back to the 1950's segregation ideas with minorities in universities demanding racially separate dorms, separate study groups, separate graduation ceremonies, etc.
 
Last edited:

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.

Not sure if your making an "is altruism real" argument here or something else.

Heather McGee, author of "Sum of Us" cites an example I want to raise here. In a nutshell, When segregation was abolished in the 50's, townships drained their public swimming pools instead of integrating. So no one swam. You can apply this to health care, better social safety nets, etc...

So yes, your argument is true for those you criticize as "woke" - they want a better society for themselves by improving it for everyone.

What many see as "virtue signaling", is more often than not someone attempting to speak out on behalf of a better society.
How, in the name of Odin, can they think that separating society into competing racial and/or sexual stereotypes and pitting them against each other is creating a better society.

I tend to think that the better society would be one where, as Dr. King put it, a society where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Instead, the woke culture's greatest curse and put-down is "you are a white male"... meaning evil scum. They assert that all white people are racists simply by virtue of being white. This woke mindset is taking us back to the 1950's segregation ideas with minorities in universities demanding racially separate dorms, separate study groups, separate graduation ceremonies, etc.

The point of the example I used is to illustrate that the default of society is not racial harmony. People are judged by the color of their skin.

The answer isn't to homogenize culture.

What these horrible "woke" monsters want is society to be accepting of others' cultures and beliefs, but wish to address the issues that account for specific groups having negative outcomes on a generational level. We know that it's not a genetic thing, as it's been proven that there is more genetic variation between individuals of the same race as there are between races. So we know that the problem is social.

It's not "woke" people who are slicing and dicing up society - they are the one's acknowledging the deeply rooted racial inequity and want to do something to fix it. Again, it's not about making people the same so they are easy to govern, it's about creating a society where people can be who ever they want, practice whatever religion, etc...but without the inequity.

We know inequity exists because it's been studied and analyzed for decades.

Again, I used the example in the previous post to illustrate the cost of racism - racism that has been around loooong before "woke" culture.

Woke culture did not invent racism. They are pointing it out.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
How, in the name of Odin, can they think that separating society into competing racial and/or sexual stereotypes and pitting them against each other is creating a better society.

I tend to think that the better society would be one where, as Dr. King put it, a society where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Instead, the woke culture's greatest curse and put-down is "you are a white male"... meaning evil scum. They assert that all white people are racists simply by virtue of being white. This woke mindset is taking us back to the 1950's segregation ideas with minorities in universities demanding racially separate dorms, separate study groups, separate graduation ceremonies, etc.

The point of the example I used is to illustrate that the default of society is not racial harmony. People are judged by the color of their skin.
They are by racists. But most people are not racists although the woke culture is full of racists promoting racial stereotypes and racial strife.
The answer isn't to homogenize culture.

What these horrible "woke" monsters want is society to be accepting of others' cultures and beliefs, but wish to address the issues that account for specific groups having negative outcomes on a generational level. We know that it's not a genetic thing, as it's been proven that there is more genetic variation between individuals of the same race as there are between races. So we know that the problem is social.

It's not "woke" people who are slicing and dicing up society - they are the one's acknowledging the deeply rooted racial inequity and want to do something to fix it. Again, it's not about making people the same so they are easy to govern, it's about creating a society where people can be who ever they want, practice whatever religion, etc...but without the inequity.

We know inequity exists because it's been studied and analyzed for decades.

Again, I used the example in the previous post to illustrate the cost of racism - racism that has been around loooong before "woke" culture.

Woke culture did not invent racism. They are pointing it out.
Woke culture did not invent racism but it is certainly promoting it as they hold animosity and hatred for all members of one race and encourage others to also hate them.

If you hold to the currently accepted woke idea that all whites are racists then that is the definition of racism. It is odd how racists can not see themselves as racists, they "just know" that the group they have identified as the outgroup are inferior.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
If you hold to the currently accepted woke idea that all whites are racists

That's BS. Strawman. You are arguing against an imaginary enemy.

We are talking past each other here as well. I haven't come across people saying all white people are racist.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
If you hold to the currently accepted woke idea that all whites are racists

That's BS. Strawman. You are arguing against an imaginary enemy.

We are talking past each other here as well. I haven't come across people saying all white people are racist.

Is it that you know nothing of critical race theory or are you just pretending that you don't? I assumed you did since you have offered some of what it teaches.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.

Not sure if your making an "is altruism real" argument here or something else.

Heather McGee, author of "Sum of Us" cites an example I want to raise here. In a nutshell, When segregation was abolished in the 50's, townships drained their public swimming pools instead of integrating. So no one swam. You can apply this to health care, better social safety nets, etc...

So yes, your argument is true for those you criticize as "woke" - they want a better society for themselves by improving it for everyone.

What many see as "virtue signaling", is more often than not someone attempting to speak out on behalf of a better society.

If you want a better society by improving it for everyone you are improving it for yourself. So you are not sacrificing anything, which defeats your original argument. What you challenged was my statement that nobody will give up privileges if they risk losing something they care about having.

We live in a world of abundance. It wasn't long ago when we didn't. It has changed our behaviour. The cost of generosity has never been lower. But it still has a cost.

We now laugh at the silly township people draining the swimming pools. But I'd argue what sets them apart from the current woke is just the level of fear. The woke don't fear they risk losing anything by their talk. That's why they do it. We've developed intricate social games to keep poor people out. To allow us to say anti racist say but secure in the knowledge we're not likely to meet many.

My experiences is that today the left is a lot more racist than the right. The difference is that racist conservatives are honest about it. While the left is riddled with The racism of low expectations". They often treat anyone of colour as cultural tokens. Rather than real people.

But then again my experiences are from Sweden and Denmark. So hardly universal.
 
Top Bottom