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

Woke is white arrogance

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
967
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's an asinine word. Its meaning is -- in totality -- "stuff liberals say and think, that I don't like."

This is precisely correct. A long long long time ago, minorities used the word to describe white people who had the capacity for empathy. It has long since been culturally misappropriated by the right to denigrate the left. And for all of it's uses, I've never once seen any white person sporting their "I'm Woke" t-shirts. This guy in the video probably still has books of stamps so he can pay his bills with checks in the mail.

aa

Any term for any group formed around a new idea or a group in opposition to a majority, often starts out as an insult by their enemies to disparage them. They then appropriate it and make it into their own. There's a long history of this. "Gays" is one. "Impressionism" is another. "Sans Coulottes". "Conservatism" Whenever this isn't happening we need to ask ourselves why. The answer is typically that it's a fake minority position. It's more often a majority position, framed as a faux minority position, put into existence intended to preserve the status quo and allowing the powerful to stay in power. "Socialism" is one of these. "Nationalism". But these tend to be phased out

I suspect a reason woke has fallen out of favour among the wokes (ie social justice warriors) is because it doesn't seem to be so popular among blacks?

Zizek has a great example. The term "native American" is used by wokes as more respectful term for Indian. But "American" is a European term. The term Native American and Indian are equivalent and both imply that the Native Americans/Indians are lesser than the white immigrant population. Both terms are inherently racist. There's no shortage of Native American languages to pick words from. Perhaps one of those? But those won't catch on, because then the majority population wokes won't have a word, they understand, telling them how much more awesome they are than Native Americans.

Non Sequitur. 'Woke' was used by 'blacks' to describe then president Bill Clinton. It is now ONLY used by the out-of-touch right (and you) to denigrate people with empathy. The entirety of Zizek's monologue is to make himself feel better about himself for being white - albeit, NO ONE is saying he should feel bad about that, just that he also have empathy.

Keep providing examples of 'wokes' though. Paints you in a peculiar light.

aa
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,363
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Within Islamism and Wokism leadership is mostly just about parroting popular slogans while having policies utterly devoid of any substance. It's leaders are more concerned about just staying in power for its own sake rather than doing anything worthwhile with that power. They must surely know everything out of their mouth is disingenuous. At this point it's all utter fantasy.

Examples please. Are there Americans spouting "wokism" disingenuously to stay in power? Who are they, and what are examples of their wokist nonsense?

"Them". They are the ones doing it. For fuck's sake, haven't you been paying attention in this thread? "They" are being too "woke" and are evil because of reasons. It's so fucking simple I'm almost embarrassed for you that you don't get it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,700
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Non Sequitur. 'Woke' was used by 'blacks' to describe then president Bill Clinton.
I did not know it was used that long ago. I recall first mass use of the word was during the Ferguson riots, when those who promulgated the "hands up" and "gentle giant" lies about Michael Brown were calling themselves "woke".

It is now ONLY used by the out-of-touch right (and you) to denigrate people with empathy.
It was not about denigrating people with empathy, but about denigrating idiots participating and supporting anti-police riots like those in Ferguson.
It has expanded to denigrating all sorts of left-wing idiots.

albeit, NO ONE is saying he should feel bad about that

That's basically the cornerstone of the Actually Existing Critical Race Theory.
For example:
Virginia college says white men and heterosexuals are ‘oppressors’

That sort of nonsense is peak "woke". Wokeism isn't about empathy at all.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,700
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I've heard vanishingly few seriously using "woke" as anything but a slur. To me, that's what it is, what it has always been: a slur, farmed from black vernacular originally used as a compliment.

It was used earnestly in 2014 among #BLM rioters in Ferguson and elsewhere.
For example this screed by the radical feminist rag "Jezebel"
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

Jezebel said:
The band of trigger-happy chickens running the Ferguson Police Department finally released the name of the officer who gunned down unarmed 18-year-old Mike Brown. But we can't let one halfassed gesture of goodwill erase what has happened in the past week. We need to stay angry, and stay woke.
He may have been technically "unarmed" but he attacked the officer, and if he managed to overwhelm him, he could have easily armed himself. That's why both the local grand jury and Obama's DOJ found the shooting was justified.
The Ferguson Police Department is now trying to paint Mike Brown as a robbery suspect in order to justify his shooting. Yes, they are trying to give grounds for riddling the body of an unarmed 18 year-old with bullets. Trying to suggest that because he may have tried to steal a box of cigars, he deserved to die.
He wasn't being "painted as a robbery suspect", he actually robbed a convenience store. But that's not why he died. He died because he attacked a police officer.
What the hell reason do you have for releasing the footage or discussing that information in the context of this case when it had absolutely nothing to do with his death?
1. The family and the sycophantic media were pushing the false "gentle giant" narrative hard. It is a good thing
2. The robbery was most likely not coincidence, but what caused Brown to attack Wilson.

And we all know that even if Mike Brown did steal those cigars, if he were white, he would still be alive right now.
Tell that to Daniel Shaver, Hunter Brittain, or any of the myriad white people shot by police. This is another "woke" lie: that black people are getting killed by police for no reason while white poeple can do what they want and are not shot.

Stay woke. [...] Stay woke. Stay woke. [...] Stay woke. [...] Stay woke. [...]Stay angry and stay woke.

So as you can see, the term "woke" certainly started out as something activists were saying for real. Of course, it has since been used pejoratively, and that works so well because it's such a silly-sounding word.

It is doubly offensive in this way to hijack the term, but when did that ever stop racists?
Just because it's a word made up by black activists does not make it "racist" to mock it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,700
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
When did "Woke" have to do with being offended. CRT/Woke is about systemic/unrealized process issues that take race into account negatively (ID recognition software, hiring processes), without it being recognized.

What's the problem with "id recognition software"? And hiring processes usually favor blacks because of so-called "affirmative action". Same goes for college admissions.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Okay, I have met a few people who might qualify as a "woke evangelist" but only one of them was truly annoying. Most would just bring up topics of their interest that happened in the recent news. The annoying one would get huffy if she encountered something that offended her sensibilities. But none of these people saw "wokeness" as a competition. None of them were striving to prove their superiority and only the annoying one would ever show condescension to others.

Dr. Zoidberg, maybe your issue isn't with wokeness. Maybe it's with some assholes in your personal life. Or maybe the wokeness you have a problem with is a regional issue which isn't quite the same wokeness as it exists in other places. (Or maybe I'm the aberration)

Either way, telling people that they are being assholes is fine by me. I still don't understand your aversion to it. This thread seems to be an indictment against "the woke" (as you see them) because you think they are arrogant assholes. But then you present your alternative philosophy that boils down to "nobody should bother the assholes, let them be dicks in peace and they might go away." It just doesn't make sense, and it contradicts the very premise of this thread which seems to be to let woke assholes know that (in your opinion) their efforts to eliminate assholes are the opposite of productive. But if you truly believed in letting assholes do their assholishness in peace, then where the hell did this thread come from?

An asshole can't address their dick behavior unless they become aware of it. That's why you posted this thread, and that's why woke people point out the failures of others to empathize.

I'm 100% ok with people being assholes. Nobody ever needs to be nice to me, or anyone. I'm super cool with being offended. Nobody should feel forced to invite anybody to any party.

My problem with woke is more along the lines of it being an existential threat to liberal values, democracy and western civilization. Which is a problem. If we have Trumpism on one side, ie a existential threat to liberal values, democracy and western civilisation on one hand and woke on the other, we might find ourselves in the same situation Turkey was in which led to Erdogan's power grab.
Trumpism is an Authoritarian / anti-democracy movement attempting to remove the rights of minorities, LGBT, and anything not them. Woke is noticing that house appraisers appraise white owned house higher than black owned ones. Comparing the two is ignorant as all fuck.

You want to extapolate the hypersensitive on the left across an entire movement whose scope is much deeper than 'being offended'. Where as Trump had his supporters in the Capitol Building waiting for the military to arrive and arrests Biden and Harris.

It's this attitude that terrifies me. Who gives a shit what authoritarian side you pick? Any authoritarian side should be avoided. And not understanding how woke pushes Trumpists towards authoritarianism is stupid. Hitler came to power because Germans were terrified of an impending (and very real threat) of a communist coup. They didn't vote FOR Hitler. They voted AGAINST communism.

Free expression and free speech is a corner stone of democracy. Once that goes, so does democracy.

Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,226
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.

How are you going to fight it, Dr. Zoidberg?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I've been woke. I've been in these circles. I know how the woke brain works from the inside.

I suppose you have a black friend who tells you that you aren't a racist as well?

Get the fuck outta here with "I used to be woke."

You display a total ignorance of what it means to be woke. You can't even show us examples of "woke" people, only examples of people bitching about woke people. I have no idea what you think you were, but it sure as hell wasn't "woke" as I have ever known it to be.

Aha, yes, make those you disagree with into a paper thin stereotype so you don't need to engage your brain, but can dismiss it outright. Well done.

Everybody who doesn't agree with you isn't a racist. You need to try a bit harder than that.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,477
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.

How are you going to fight it, Dr. Zoidberg?

I hear if you refuse to fight racism it goes away.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.

How are you going to fight it, Dr. Zoidberg?

The war on drugs was a failure because you can't declare war on a social problem. There's no evil enemies to defeat. There's no cabal of evil racists that we can take down, which will bring the glory of racial equality. There's a myriad of ways life can be unfair. The problem with structural racism is that non-racist people perpetuate racism even if they're actively trying not to. If we myopictly focus on one dimension of unfairness we're only making the world as a whole more unfair. Simple solutions to complicated problems are doomed to fail.

There's lessons we can learn from the various socialist experiments in western Europe.

Sweden and Denmark succeeded very well in creating a society with a high degree of social mobility (which is the problem you're really trying to solve). Perhaps take in some lessons learned from them?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.

How are you going to fight it, Dr. Zoidberg?

I hear if you refuse to fight racism it goes away.

That's not what either me or Zizek is arguing for. And if you think that you're not paying attention to the arguments. I think woke perpetuates racism. It makes the problem worse.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,477
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
I hear if you refuse to fight racism it goes away.

That's not what either me or Zizek is arguing for. And if you think that you're not paying attention to the arguments. I think woke perpetuates racism. It makes the problem worse.

There are at least two definitions of 'woke' being used in this thread.

One definition is 'aware of and concerned about social issues such as racism and social justice'. A second one is 'smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice '.

Neither one of those things perpetuates racism.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I hear if you refuse to fight racism it goes away.

That's not what either me or Zizek is arguing for. And if you think that you're not paying attention to the arguments. I think woke perpetuates racism. It makes the problem worse.

There are at least two definitions of 'woke' being used in this thread.

One definition is 'aware of and concerned about social issues such as racism and social justice'. A second one is 'smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice '.

Those two can define the same person but from two different perspectives.

Neither one of those things perpetuates racism.

Martin Luther King jr was concerned about members of the black community embracing a victim identity, stopped trying to improve their lives and sat back bitterly blaming white oppression for their lack of success in life. While it being true that blacks are victims of white oppression, embracing victimhood is self defeating. King understood it was an ideological dead end and a self destructive behaviour that will never help the black community.

The key to genuinely help and lift any marginalized group is to make self empowerment possible. Ie not to help them. Just stop being a hindrance.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
. You can't even show us examples of "woke" people,

How about this hyper-woke excuse for a 1/4-back?
(snipped pic of Colin Kaepernick)

Kaep is so woke, I doubt he has taken so much as a nap since 2014!

Ok, I would consider Colin Kaepernick to be woke. So let's examine his character and/or words, and then contrast that with what you have said about the woke in this thread. Remember, we are talking about a football star who lost his job for standing up (or rather kneeling) against perceived injustice. In speaking about it, he has said, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.”

How do you square that woke individual with the following statement:

I only shame people for trying to use social pressure to kill free expression. To use bullying tactics to silence dissent. I think it's evil. Woke is basically a version of, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the antithesis of progress and liberal values.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ok, I would consider Colin Kaepernick to be woke. So let's examine his character and/or words, and then contrast that with what you have said about the woke in this thread. Remember, we are talking about a football star who lost his job for standing up (or rather kneeling) against perceived injustice. In speaking about it, he has said, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.”

How do you square that woke individual with the following statement:

I only shame people for trying to use social pressure to kill free expression. To use bullying tactics to silence dissent. I think it's evil. Woke is basically a version of, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the antithesis of progress and liberal values.

Not everybody against racism is woke. Lots of people against racism hate woke. Like me. Your comment is of the type "why do you hate children?"

I can say that if one of the richest people in Sweden would talk about the need to stop unfairness against people like him, Swedes would have a problem with that. There's something lost in the cultural translation. We think rich people shouldn't be complaining about anything. Worst possible ambassador for this issue.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,549
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Free expression and free speech is a corner stone of democracy. Once that goes, so does democracy.
Oh, you are still stuck calling people the n-word. I'm talking about the whole systemic racism thing, the stuff that actually impedes blacks from greater success in the US.

Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist.
Interesting, because all you seem to care about is protecting the rights of people to the n-word, and aren't (ever?) saying we need to address the systemic issues. Rather you just equate people to Nazis because you think they are worried about the n-word, when their larger worry is unarmed people getting killed by police, housing disparities, hiring disparities that are so engrained in our society, we (white people) don't even notice it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,193
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Ok, I would consider Colin Kaepernick to be woke. So let's examine his character and/or words, and then contrast that with what you have said about the woke in this thread. Remember, we are talking about a football star who lost his job for standing up (or rather kneeling) against perceived injustice. In speaking about it, he has said, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.”

How do you square that woke individual with the following statement:

I only shame people for trying to use social pressure to kill free expression. To use bullying tactics to silence dissent. I think it's evil. Woke is basically a version of, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the antithesis of progress and liberal values.

Not everybody against racism is woke. Lots of people against racism hate woke. Like me. Your comment is of the type "why do you hate children?"

I can say that if one of the richest people in Sweden would talk about the need to stop unfairness against people like him, Swedes would have a problem with that. There's something lost in the cultural translation. We think rich people shouldn't be complaining about anything. Worst possible ambassador for this issue.

You're correct: you do have the right to use racial insults and to direct them at whoever you wish.

But you also will face consequences for doing so. You could get fired or shown the door in a restaurant or bar. You could lose friendships. You could face your own hailstorm of verbal abuse in return from not just your target. Obviously, it's wrong for someone to physically assault you over calling them a bad name. It's also illegal and that fact will stop a lot of people from punching you or worse. But it won't stop everybody and eventually you'll get punched or worse. You won't get much sympathy from anybody for providing the attack.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,869
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Martin Luther King jr was concerned about members of the black community embracing a victim identity, stopped trying to improve their lives and sat back bitterly blaming white oppression for their lack of success in life. While it being true that blacks are victims of white oppression, embracing victimhood is self defeating. King understood it was an ideological dead end and a self destructive behaviour that will never help the black community.
Evidence: {}

That seems like what some right-wingers say about him -- right-wingers have been trying to appropriate him ever since the 1960's, when it became evident that their side lost the moral battle.

He did not say that one should meekly and quietly accept every bad thing that one suffers, including being denied lots of rights and opportunities. That's the sort of thing that right-wingers say, though they exempt themselves from that stricture.

Instead, he was an activist, someone who pushed for ending troublesome legal and social features. He was far from alone, of course.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Ok, I would consider Colin Kaepernick to be woke. So let's examine his character and/or words, and then contrast that with what you have said about the woke in this thread. Remember, we are talking about a football star who lost his job for standing up (or rather kneeling) against perceived injustice. In speaking about it, he has said, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.”

How do you square that woke individual with the following statement:

I only shame people for trying to use social pressure to kill free expression. To use bullying tactics to silence dissent. I think it's evil. Woke is basically a version of, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the antithesis of progress and liberal values.

Not everybody against racism is woke.

I never said they were, but we both agree that Colin Kaepernick is woke, and that is who we are talking about now.

Lots of people against racism hate woke. Like me. Your comment is of the type Your comment is of the type "why do you hate children?"

Which comment would that be? How is my contrasting the character and words of Colin Kaepernick with your comment about the woke in any way similar to asking someone "why do you hate children?"

Honestly, it's like you are commenting on an entirely different post there.

I can say that if one of the richest people in Sweden would talk about the need to stop unfairness against people like him, Swedes would have a problem with that. There's something lost in the cultural translation. We think rich people shouldn't be complaining about anything. Worst possible ambassador for this issue.

So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it, and that is your problem with him? I thought it had something to do with being woke.

Do you feel that rich and famous people should not use their position to attempt to call attention to perceived injustice? Not even at the cost of their livelihood? I think putting it all on the line to bring awareness to the injustice one perceives makes one a pretty damn good ambassador for that issue.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,226
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist. That only leads to more racism. Once you start tipping the scales in any groups favour society will re-adjust to compensate, ie get more racist.

How are you going to fight it, Dr. Zoidberg?

The war on drugs was a failure because you can't declare war on a social problem. There's no evil enemies to defeat. There's no cabal of evil racists that we can take down, which will bring the glory of racial equality. There's a myriad of ways life can be unfair. The problem with structural racism is that non-racist people perpetuate racism even if they're actively trying not to. If we myopictly focus on one dimension of unfairness we're only making the world as a whole more unfair. Simple solutions to complicated problems are doomed to fail.

There's lessons we can learn from the various socialist experiments in western Europe.

Sweden and Denmark succeeded very well in creating a society with a high degree of social mobility (which is the problem you're really trying to solve). Perhaps take in some lessons learned from them?
So when you say "we're not going to effectively fight it", that's a bit dishonest - you don't believe it should be fought at all, effectively or otherwise?

I certainly agree that "simple solutions to complex problems are doomed to fail", but so are non-solutions, and you have offered none.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,835
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I personally don't care who is or is not woke and what it all means. I only care that I & anyone for that matter can live life in peace. If anyone unlawfully takes that away from us in any shape or form I expect the justice system to do its damn job. When it doesn't no one should be surprised to see people like Woke-Kaepernick popping up. The dude stood up for BLM and since then it's been all over the news and picked up steam. That's what he set out to do and it worked. But instead of looking at the issues it became about dumbass rioters, looters & defunding the police. Then Mr. Floyd lost his life (amongst many others of all races) and folks just shrug and say, that's an exception and continue the focus on a bunch of asshole rioters, looters, the stupid phrase "defund the police" and now this woke crap.

Meanwhile, on the police force, their word is still gold. Fear for their life is mainly all they need to say and no charges are filed if they can avoid doing so by all means necessary. It's only after "woke folk" start flipping gums and the media (for profit) seeks ratings that the police will consider any charges. But whatever, the police interact hundreds of millions of times a day with people and nothing bad happens so they should be allowed to fuck up. Right?

Let's talk more about these woke folk.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
5,132
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He'd already been paid multimillions. He doesn't have to do anything. He's rich. But Kaep wasn't fired. He prefers not to play football for the salary offered.
Tom
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Free expression and free speech is a corner stone of democracy. Once that goes, so does democracy.
Oh, you are still stuck calling people the n-word. I'm talking about the whole systemic racism thing, the stuff that actually impedes blacks from greater success in the US.

Yes, structural racism is a thing. It sucks. But we're not going to effectively fight it by forcing people to stop being racist.
Interesting, because all you seem to care about is protecting the rights of people to the n-word, and aren't (ever?) saying we need to address the systemic issues. Rather you just equate people to Nazis because you think they are worried about the n-word, when their larger worry is unarmed people getting killed by police, housing disparities, hiring disparities that are so engrained in our society, we (white people) don't even notice it.

I never mentioned the n-word. That was all you.

So what's your plan making all that change? Getting people fired for calling a transexual the wrong pronoun isn't going to help fix any of that?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The war on drugs was a failure because you can't declare war on a social problem. There's no evil enemies to defeat. There's no cabal of evil racists that we can take down, which will bring the glory of racial equality. There's a myriad of ways life can be unfair. The problem with structural racism is that non-racist people perpetuate racism even if they're actively trying not to. If we myopictly focus on one dimension of unfairness we're only making the world as a whole more unfair. Simple solutions to complicated problems are doomed to fail.

There's lessons we can learn from the various socialist experiments in western Europe.

Sweden and Denmark succeeded very well in creating a society with a high degree of social mobility (which is the problem you're really trying to solve). Perhaps take in some lessons learned from them?
So when you say "we're not going to effectively fight it", that's a bit dishonest - you don't believe it should be fought at all, effectively or otherwise?

I certainly agree that "simple solutions to complex problems are doomed to fail", but so are non-solutions, and you have offered none.

Of course I think we should fight racism. My problem with woke is that it promotes racism. It IS racism. Even though its defenders think they're fighting racism. It's deluded white savior nonsense imho.

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
There’s also the “emperor’s new clothes” aspect of wokeness, where it’s socially important to pretend that bullshit is substance; as only the smart and wise are supposedly able to see the clothes. Modern art is a good example of this.

So is a lot of Zizek's meta-postmodernism philosophizing.

on a different, but related note, I myself don't like the virtue signalling aspect of wokeness, or the ad hominem aspect--because you are a------ [fill in the blank] you are probably/ certainly a bigot, and couldn't possibly understand in any meaningful way.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,021
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He'd already been paid multimillions. He doesn't have to do anything. He's rich. But Kaep wasn't fired. He prefers not to play football for the salary offered.
Tom
I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

My apologies for having gotten it wrong. Not sure if it was media spin, or my fickle memory. I did not bother to look it up when making my reply, so my fault either way. Thanks for jogging my memory.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He was blackballed by the NFL, no team was even willing to work him out, much less offer a contract. I did hear that the XFL offered a contract, so maybe that is what you are referring to regarding no one willing to pay him enough. The XFL paid their quarterbacks a pittance, and then folded before finishing a single season, and if my memory does not fail me again, a lot of the players dod not get paid.

Regardless, this is a bit of a derail, and I don't really intend to pursue it any further, but I get why you chimed in with the correction.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I don't know if I've heard Zizek before, but that was tough to listen to. When he debated Jordan Peterson, it must have been like Sylvester the Cat vs. Kermit the frog.

Sorry if this has been said many times already.
a Trump Zizek "debate" would be pricelessly absurd--I'd pay into the high 2 figures to see 90 minutes or so.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
It's an asinine word. Its meaning is -- in totality -- "stuff liberals say and think, that I don't like."

This is precisely correct. A long long long time ago, minorities used the word to describe white people who had the capacity for empathy. It has long since been culturally misappropriated by the right to denigrate the left. And for all of it's uses, I've never once seen any white person sporting their "I'm Woke" t-shirts. This guy in the video probably still has books of stamps so he can pay his bills with checks in the mail.

aa

Any term for any group formed around a new idea or a group in opposition to a majority, often starts out as an insult by their enemies to disparage them. They then appropriate it and make it into their own. There's a long history of this. "Gays" is one. "Impressionism" is another. "Sans Coulottes". "Conservatism" Whenever this isn't happening we need to ask ourselves why. The answer is typically that it's a fake minority position. It's more often a majority position, framed as a faux minority position, put into existence intended to preserve the status quo and allowing the powerful to stay in power. "Socialism" is one of these. "Nationalism". But these tend to be phased out

I suspect a reason woke has fallen out of favour among the wokes (ie social justice warriors) is because it doesn't seem to be so popular among blacks?

Zizek has a great example. The term "native American" is used by wokes as more respectful term for Indian. But "American" is a European term. The term Native American and Indian are equivalent and both imply that the Native Americans/Indians are lesser than the white immigrant population. Both terms are inherently racist. There's no shortage of Native American languages to pick words from. Perhaps one of those? But those won't catch on, because then the majority population wokes won't have a word, they understand, telling them how much more awesome they are than Native Americans.

He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Following your logic I should want more educated people since I am highly educated.

There is a big difference between educated and indoctrinated. MAGA supporters who unconditionally believe the election was stolen are the latter.

Yes, you have put your finger on the communication problem here.
@RVonse is highly indoctrinated, part of which involves maintaining ignorance of facts the run counter to the indoctrination. Another part is that he mistakes watching "rather long videos" from the My Pillow crackhead guy for education.
Belief that the election was stolen despite a complete and utter lack of evidence of fraud, belief that Rudi found anything incriminating on "Hunter's laptop" ... and at least a half dozen other counter-factual beliefs evinced by RV, can only arise from exposure to right wing propaganda, and insulation from factual sources.

There's not much that can be done about it. In the famous words of Mae West, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

That's Dorothy Parker, not Mae West.
Since penis size seems to have come up in this thread, let me quote a west line inquiring about the possibility of a "woke" penis: "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,430
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
My apologies for having gotten it wrong. Not sure if it was media spin, or my fickle memory. I did not bother to look it up when making my reply, so my fault either way. Thanks for jogging my memory.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He was blackballed by the NFL, no team was even willing to work him out, much less offer a contract. I did hear that the XFL offered a contract, so maybe that is what you are referring to regarding no one willing to pay him enough. The XFL paid their quarterbacks a pittance, and then folded before finishing a single season, and if my memory does not fail me again, a lot of the players dod not get paid.

Regardless, this is a bit of a derail, and I don't really intend to pursue it any further, but I get why you chimed in with the correction.

It's not a derail, it's a sign that the spinmeister TomC needs to wake a little from his fantasyland world and ponder why he feels the need to extenuate a race-based wrongdoing.
What would Zizek say about Colin K.?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,194
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He'd already been paid multimillions. He doesn't have to do anything. He's rich. But Kaep wasn't fired. He prefers not to play football for the salary offered.
Tom
I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Yes, there were many players in his position that were offered contracts with worse records than Kaep.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,226
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Of course I think we should fight racism.
How? How do you fight racism without offending Nazis?

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist
"My" solution? I've never said any of the nonsense you spew about "Woke" people, nor have I ever described myself with that term.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What's the problem with "id recognition software"? And hiring processes usually favor blacks because of so-called "affirmative action". Same goes for college admissions.

I don't know about ID software, other than the fiasco with Wii and Apple's facial recognition systems not being able to see black people. Which is just plain laziness on the part of the developers who didn't bother to test their systems on anyone who was dark skinned.

Hiring processes don't favor blacks. Yes, in some cases, affirmative action may assist some minorities... but in order for that to happen they have to make it through the resume screening process first. And that process still tends to disfavor minorities and women.

College admissions, yes, somewhat. It varies by college, but to the extent that some colleges define target demographic distributions, it could be a factor.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,472
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Of course I think we should fight racism.
How? How do you fight racism without offending Nazis?

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist
"My" solution? I've never said any of the nonsense you spew about "Woke" people, nor have I ever described myself with that term.

In fact, I'm inclined to interpret it as "every white person who uses the term "woke" or brings it up regularly for whatever reason is quite pointedly arrogant".

"Woke" was, is, and shall likely remain to the rest of us an occasional compliment received pointedly for showing empathy rather than arrogance
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,640
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What's the problem with "id recognition software"? And hiring processes usually favor blacks because of so-called "affirmative action". Same goes for college admissions.

I don't know about ID software, other than the fiasco with Wii and Apple's facial recognition systems not being able to see black people. Which is just plain laziness on the part of the developers who didn't bother to test their systems on anyone who was dark skinned.

Hiring processes don't favor blacks. Yes, in some cases, affirmative action may assist some minorities... but in order for that to happen they have to make it through the resume screening process first. And that process still tends to disfavor minorities and women.

College admissions, yes, somewhat. It varies by college, but to the extent that some colleges define target demographic distributions, it could be a factor.

Have you watched any TV commercials lately? If you didn't know any better you would assume blacks are about 70% of the population. When in reality, its more like 13%. I doubt its an accident that the actors auditioning for and being hired for the spots just happened to be black. I think what's actually happening is advertisers are trying to outwoke each other, and we've gotten to sorta absurd levels of wokeness.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Of course I think we should fight racism.
How? How do you fight racism without offending Nazis?

I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.

I think your "solution" makes the world more racist
"My" solution? I've never said any of the nonsense you spew about "Woke" people, nor have I ever described myself with that term.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.

Make up your mind
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes. Their offence carries no weight for his behaviour. Only in the woke world do people bend over backward in order not to offend various groups.

As far as sources for his philosophical views, he also doesn't need that. He is a Lacanian. But he's done enough work, and introduced enough unique thought now, to stand on his own.

Wokes often try to dismiss him on moral grounds. But it's obvious (to me) that it's intellectual laziness. Following Zizeks trains of thought requires actual effort and usage of brainpower. Kneejerk reactions and feelings is much easier. So wokes often go with that. But there's no thinking going on. If you want to dismiss him, you'll have to actually make an effort. Sorry about that.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,549
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.
Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,472
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.
Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

That's the thing. Here, Dr Zoidberg is using a language not his own, appropriating words not his own to describe what people are or aren't.

"Woke" is not ever something appropriate for any person of any empowered or privileged group to bestow or cast upon any other such person.

It's a compliment you MAY get for exercising empathy in a situation wherein an individual with relatively little privilege in the situation identifies that.

To then be privileged and then sling it around is arrogance and ignorance.

It is as inappropriate as a priest calling themselves a "medicine man" merely because they are a holy man of their community. It just isn't a correct usage of the term, and is obviously quite offensive to anyone who actually understands
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,510
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
He's supposed a scholar, but he can't even name his source--like TRump pulling stuff out of his butt--same with the black scholars Zizek ostensibly and ostentatiously refers to; BTW, this is his form of virtue signalling in this video.

He doesn't need a source. The examples stands on it's own. It's not argument from authority (the authority of the offended party). It's argument from internal logical consistency. It doesn't matter whether his native American friend (who he may have made up) really prefers the term Indian or not. Anyone can follow the logic of the statement.

Remember, Zizek isn't woke. He doesn't care who is offended. He doesn't care how many Native Americans are or aren't offended by his jokes.
Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

I don't understand your point? The opposite of woke isn't being an asshole in perpetuity. To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that. That doesn't make me superior to those using the term "Indian". I'm cool with people saying "Indian". Or "Nigger". Or whatever. I don't use the use of those terms to denigrate someone or judge them to be bad people. That's the difference.

I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
5,132
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
So Colin Kaepernick was rich when he took a knee and was fired over it,

This did not happen. I understand how the media spun it. But it simply didn't happen.

Kaep's contract ended and nobody was willing to pay enough to get him to sign. That's not the same as being fired.

He'd already been paid multimillions. He doesn't have to do anything. He's rich. But Kaep wasn't fired. He prefers not to play football for the salary offered.
Tom
I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,835
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
What's the problem with "id recognition software"? And hiring processes usually favor blacks because of so-called "affirmative action". Same goes for college admissions.

I don't know about ID software, other than the fiasco with Wii and Apple's facial recognition systems not being able to see black people. Which is just plain laziness on the part of the developers who didn't bother to test their systems on anyone who was dark skinned.

Hiring processes don't favor blacks. Yes, in some cases, affirmative action may assist some minorities... but in order for that to happen they have to make it through the resume screening process first. And that process still tends to disfavor minorities and women.

College admissions, yes, somewhat. It varies by college, but to the extent that some colleges define target demographic distributions, it could be a factor.

Have you watched any TV commercials lately? If you didn't know any better you would assume blacks are about 70% of the population. When in reality, its more like 13%. I doubt its an accident that the actors auditioning for and being hired for the spots just happened to be black. I think what's actually happening is advertisers are trying to outwoke each other, and we've gotten to sorta absurd levels of wokeness.

Oh, so now corporations doing what they usually do (everything is for profit) is woke because they are hiring more black people in advertisements? It's also possible that the majority of American's (mainly white people) actually want to see more black people represented thus driving such a response from corporations to do so for profit not for woke. Since when did companies switch from the for-profit platform to for woke anyway? In your head only it seems.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,549
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Dude! Check out this "woke" tool. Calling Indians "Native Americans", whatever that means.

I don't understand your point?
The "woke" never do.
Dr. Zoidberg said:
To my best information Native Americans prefer that term. Until I hear something different, I'm going with that.

Dr. Zoidberg said:
I had a discussion here, I can't remember with who, who had a problem with me using the "word" transexual and explained that only ignorant bad people used that term. The new approved term is "transgender". Or whatever it was. I can't remember. That's what I'm talking about.
For those playing at home, yes, same person said those quotes... in the same post... and appeared to be completely and utterly seriously unaware of the polar positions taken by said poster in those statements.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,226
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I don't care about people being offended. No matter their ideological affiliation. It's the price we pay for having free speech.
So we should call out racist strutures and policies? What the hell is your problem then? More importantly, what the hell is your plan? You unleash angry bile on anyone who does the actual work of treying to untangle systemic racism and accuse them of complicity in the rise of Nazism, but you advance no plan or strategy of your own.

Now you have just contradicted yourself. If you argue against me, you are arguing for the opposite.
My god, logic is actually dead.

No, thinking that your arguments against a largely imaginary foe are stupid as hell do not mean I'm arguing for your largely imaginary foe.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,021
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I agree he was not fired. But do you know if he was offered any contracts? I ask because Kaepernick accused the NFL of colluding to keep him from receiving an offer, and he and the NFL ended up settling his lawsuit.

Full Disclosure:
I couldn't care less about football. I live in central Indiana and couldn't name the head coach of the Colts. When someone asks me some opinion on football I often respond, "Football? Is that the brown pointy one or the big orange one?"

As far as I know, there were never any talks serious enough to qualify as an offer. However, all the teams having the same opinions about his value isn't the same as being black balled. Considering the astronomical salary he had been getting, would he consider an offer of a lousy $1M/year seriously? Hard to say.

But at the time, when he was big news, some football pundits were opining that he wasn't likely to get a new contract anyway. His performance just didn't justify his salary. Even people who supported his political stance were suggesting that the on field behavior was to change the focus from his stats to his political issues. I'm not claiming to know, but I read things like it a lot.

Tom
Thank you for the long-winded version of "I believe it but I don't know it". The naivete that all 26 teams
independently assessed a healthy first string quarterback as unworthy of even an offer for a 2nd or 3rd string quarterback is truly heart-warming.
 
Top Bottom