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

Woke is white arrogance

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Okay, everyone. It's time we figured out exactly what 'Woke' means because we now have at least 4 definitions being used.

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

Anyone want to submit another definition or refine one of the above?

None of these are mutually exclusive. You could just put these together into just one definition. They all fit nicely to the one idea Zizek puts forward.

edit: I feel this may need to be mentioned. But you can be aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice without being woke.

In my opinion woke is a power tactic among the priviliged to use a feigned concerned for marginalised groups as a tool with which to score points and gain status among progressives. The problem with the intersectional story is that, if you are privilged, in any way, you can't help but be an oppressive patriarchal racist. So the only way for the woke priviliged to gain status is by being the wokest.

It's an amazingly cynical power tactic. Because by trying to gain status, they are actively continuing to displace minorities from positions of influence and status. Ie doing exactly that which they say they're trying not to. It's like a party where supermodels have invited a regular girl and tries to convince her that what matters for being a model is what's on the inside. And all the other supermodel girls emphatically nod in agreement.

I think woke is fundamentally the wrong way to think about how to deal with mitigating privilige. I think it's important to acknowledge that nobody is going to willingly let go of privilege, if they can help it. The only priviliges we've ever manage to break is either privliges where it's a benefit to everybody by breaking them, or with the use of force.

Men getting higher salaries than women is not a privilige men are going to let go of. White owned properties being worth more than black properties is nothing whites are willingly going to collaborate in breaking if it'll mean they'll lose money. If enough women think it's icky to share bathrooms to transgendered they won't be welcome. Whites and men dominating the public discourse is not going to stand back to give room for blacks and women. We need to acknowledge that it's a free and unequal market of ideas that we all just need to do what we need to do and get ahead in life. Those priviliged are going to use their privilige to get ahead. That's always going to happen. Nothing will change that. And vocal wokes are just proving that.

To me wokes add nothing of value. They're just pure toxicity. They promote nothing but division and a world of fake smiles. They're not working towards for what they say they're working for. It's all just disingenuous. They may be sincere. But their actions give them away.

Yes, the world is unfair. That sucks. But wokes will never make the world more fair. They're project is just one huge tremendous waste of time and energy.

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,320
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The "woke" never do.

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.

No, that's just my point. It's bizarre to demand that everybody learns the intricate specialized terminology for every marginalized group. You're just wrong. The word use might be indicative of what tribe the person saying it belongs to. But maybe not. You don't know.

I'm not transsexual. But I do know people who are. Yes, it's more than one. If I can't figure out the correct terminology to signal that I'm an ally then I'm not the problem. No, it's not about caring. It's not a competition of who is the best ally or who is the most empathic. If using the wrong word makes you put people into the evil box then transexualism is a proxy. Then you don't really care about transexuals. You just like hating people and creating division. If that's the case then it's just an ego trip of sitting on a high horse passing judgement. It's the joy of taking down blasphemers and watching them burn. Nothing about it is progressing or productive. It's woke.

It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

Here's an annecdote. I have one ftm transgendered friend who I've known through his transition. Not a close friend. But we regularly meet at random parties and hang out. Whenever I'm drunk I continually call him she. I know that hurts his feelings. But I'm drunk. I don't do it on purpose. I got to know him as a woman. He's always going to be a woman in my mind. To think of him as a him I need to make an active effort. Which is completely out the window (and my brain) as soon as I drink.

He's never corrected me on it. I don't know why. I know how it affects him simply based on his body language when I get it wrong.

The reason I think he has never corrected me is because he's not a sociopath. Me getting it wrong (when I drink) doesn't make me an asshole. He keeps being my friend. So he clearly is willing to see past it.

And in spite of knowing several transgendered (and transvestite) people I never think of trans men as men, and trans women as women. It doesn't matter how much makeup they're using. I always need to make an active effort not to get it wrong. Making an active effort in going against my basic linguistic programming is hard work for my brain. Especially at parties, when there's so much going on around me.

Demanding that anybody ever gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO. It's political correctness gone mad. And don't get me started on all the queer identities. IE CIS-people wanting to get in on the transgendered specialness action so they invent a plethora of ridiculous identities that they demand others respect. I don't have a problem with people experimenting with identity. As far as I'm concerned, that's what being young is all about. What's rediculous is the degree wokes demand that we respect it and use their chosen pronouns. That is dumb IMHO.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Still the same definition. Just different aspects of that same definition.

In your last post you said:

None of these are mutually exclusive. You could just put these together into just one definition. They all fit nicely to the one idea Zizek puts forward.

Then you contradicted yourself by saying:

edit: I feel this may need to be mentioned. But you can be aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice without being woke.

So the awareness and concern are irrelevant. They are not what makes someone 'woke'. Therefore, in your view, definition 1 doesn't belong on that list because it doesn't define the term.

That leaves

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Which means only arrogant white people seeking status via expounding on the topic of social justice, and correcting people when they mislabel others, are 'woke'.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Anecdote after worthless anecdote.

Sane people understand this latest insanity called "woke" is more meaningless posturing and politics from the right that has no ideas to help anyone but the most rich and is opposed to any idea that might actually help someone.

We compare anecdotes from the right with the widespread insanity on the right over the last election, treason at the Capitol, and a deadly pandemic.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,320
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In your last post you said:

None of these are mutually exclusive. You could just put these together into just one definition. They all fit nicely to the one idea Zizek puts forward.

Then you contradicted yourself by saying:

edit: I feel this may need to be mentioned. But you can be aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice without being woke.

So the awareness and concern are irrelevant. They are not what makes someone 'woke'. Therefore, in your view, definition 1 doesn't belong on that list because it doesn't define the term.

That leaves

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

Which means only arrogant white people seeking status via expounding on the topic of social justice, and correcting people when they mislabel others, are 'woke'.

I don't think I contradicted myself. You can't remove being "aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice". That's an integral part of the definition IMHO. If you leave that out you might as well be describing a neo-nazi. I think you need all of the bullets.

It's possible to bring attention to an important social issue without doing anything meaningful to fix it. Wokes are going through motions (I'm sure they sincerely believe will work). But it's just an ego inflating act.

I'm sure Christians sending thoughts and prayers sincerely think they're helping others. But we all know it's just something they say to feel good about themselves while doing nothing. I think woke psychology works in a similar way.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
If I were you, I'd be insulted to be confused with me. On the other hand, I was honored to be confused with you.

I think one thing I have learned from this thread is that there is quite a bit of white arrogance floating around that has nothing to do with being "Woke".

It appears I mistook both of you for KeepTalking.
You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom

Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
You will find that "woke" is just the latest term from the insane right
It's actually a term from the insane left. It was started by people like this Jezebel writer in the aftermath of Ferguson insurrection.
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I read the article and that is inaccurate.
In the lecture, which was presented to Baltimore-based American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work in June, Hook quoted a South African philosophy professor, Terblanche Delport, who has written about White people committing suicide in South Africa, before further discussing the comments and arguing "there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."
That does not mean that White people committing suicide can be an ethical act.

In fact, the Fox news item goes to later to report
After reading the quotes, Hook said, "I want to suggest that psychoanalytically we could even make the argument that there was something ethical in Delport’s statements."
which makes it clear that Hook was not advocating what you claim.

Furthermore, Professor Hook is not interested in "the castration of whiteness". From your link
"I think that Delport took his White audience to the threshold of a type of symbolic extinction … he took them to a proposed end of whiteness," Hook said, adding that Delport "offered his White audience the opportunity to" contemplate "the castration of whiteness."
It is clear that the phrase "the castration of whiteness" is Professor Delport (who is in South Africa and who was speaking to a South African audience about South Africa).

Your entire response is a complete misrepresentation of the content of your linked article.

Imagine that, Fox News sensationally misrepresented a story, and Derec, who is totally not a conservative, took that misrepresentation even further so he could own us libs good.

Really, I would expect nothing else at this point.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You will find that "woke" is just the latest term from the insane right
It's actually a term from the insane left. It was started by people like this Jezebel writer in the aftermath of Ferguson insurrection.
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

I was on the board of the local NAACP around twenty years ago. I don't remember it being used.

I probably first heard it from PJ. He was what I initially understood as a "social justice warrior". A black guy, very active socially, and not just on race issues. Affordable child care, voter registration, he was a staunch supporter of the Gay/Straight Alliance from the very beginning. He and I argued about all kinds of stuff, and he's also why I wound up on the NAACP.

I considered him Woke in the positive sense. The concept has been around a while, way before Ferguson. But I don't think it was much used until about then. It honestly seemed to me that a bunch of posers took it over. People who don't do much but talk. But, boy, when they get a chance to demonstrate their Wokeness by being mean to someone "ignorant and bad", like Zoid, they are thrilled to demonstrate their smug self righteousness.
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
If I were you, I'd be insulted to be confused with me. On the other hand, I was honored to be confused with you.

I think one thing I have learned from this thread is that there is quite a bit of white arrogance floating around that has nothing to do with being "Woke".

It appears I mistook both of you for KeepTalking.
You Wokesters all sound alike.
Tom

Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.

It's kind of a hoot, reading a Wokester complain about other people "throwing aspersions all over the place".
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

Here's an annecdote.
Anecdote? Here is one, you already said you were amenable to correction.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
It is not woke.

You aren't going to be put into an evil box by a woke person you have just met for using the wrong term or pronoun. You will likely get a gentle correction with a smile. Likely even the next time or two you use it, as long as it seems apparent that you are not doing it deliberately and with an intent to offend. Your trans friends already know you, and are aware of your proclivities. If they are not offended by your deliberate and repeated use of offensive language regarding their identity, then count yourself lucky that you have such good friends that are willing to overlook your being an asshole.

Why do I need correcting?

I never said you need correcting. I only said that you likely will be gently corrected if you make a mistake like that regarding someone you just met.

Here's an annecdote. I have one ftm transgendered friend who I've known through his transition. Not a close friend. But we regularly meet at random parties and hang out. Whenever I'm drunk I continually call him she. I know that hurts his feelings. But I'm drunk. I don't do it on purpose. I got to know him as a woman. He's always going to be a woman in my mind. To think of him as a him I need to make an active effort. Which is completely out the window (and my brain) as soon as I drink.

He's never corrected me on it. I don't know why. I know how it affects him simply based on his body language when I get it wrong.

The reason I think he has never corrected me is because he's not a sociopath. Me getting it wrong (when I drink) doesn't make me an asshole. He keeps being my friend. So he clearly is willing to see past it.

And this is very clearly not an example of what I was talking about. You were not doing it deliberately with an intent to offend. Your friend likely knows that. You also note that you can see that it hurts thier feelings when you do so, therefor, it is also possible that they see the realization that you hurt their feelings when you did so, and that unspoken understanding between friends is all that is necessary to make it no big deal.

And in spite of knowing several transgendered (and transvestite) people I never think of trans men as men, and trans women as women. It doesn't matter how much makeup they're using. I always need to make an active effort not to get it wrong. Making an active effort in going against my basic linguistic programming is hard work for my brain. Especially at parties, when there's so much going on around me.

Do you think that your inebriation at a party should make you immune from criticism if you appear to be deliberately offending other party goers?

Demanding that anybody ever gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO.

That seems like a very non-specific demand, I will take it that you actually meant "Demanding that everyone always gets chosen pronouns right is bizarre IMHO."

I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

It's political correctness gone mad. And don't get me started on all the queer identities. IE CIS-people wanting to get in on the transgendered specialness action so they invent a plethora of ridiculous identities that they demand others respect. I don't have a problem with people experimenting with identity. As far as I'm concerned, that's what being young is all about. What's rediculous is the degree wokes demand that we respect it and use their chosen pronouns. That is dumb IMHO.

I only see those people asking others not to be deliberately offensive in their use of pronouns. On the other hand, I do think it is a good idea to try to be respectful of others unless and until they give you reason not to. I do not think that a simple ask to use the proper noun they prefer, the pronoun they prefer, or a gender neutral pronoun really gives one that reason.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson. It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

I was on the board of the local NAACP around twenty years ago. I don't remember it being used.

I probably first heard it from PJ. He was what I initially understood as a "social justice warrior". A black guy, very active socially, and not just on race issues. Affordable child care, voter registration, he was a staunch supporter of the Gay/Straight Alliance from the very beginning. He and I argued about all kinds of stuff, and he's also why I wound up on the NAACP.

I considered him Woke in the positive sense. The concept has been around a while, way before Ferguson. But I don't think it was much used until about then. It honestly seemed to me that a bunch of posers took it over. People who don't do much but talk. But, boy, when they get a chance to demonstrate their Wokeness by being mean to someone "ignorant and bad", like Zoid, they are thrilled to demonstrate their smug self righteousness.
Tom

Perhaps it was not in wide use in your area. I can assure you that where I live, I have been exposed to it for decades.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
Wikipedia article said:
By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware',[12] especially in a political or cultural sense.[6]​ The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley, describing the appropriation of African American slang by white beatniks.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Wow, your just throwing aspersions all over the place, aren't you.

I might suggest you tend to your own backyard.

It's kind of a hoot, reading a Wokester complain about other people "throwing aspersions all over the place".
Tom

"Wokester"? Where? I do not consider myself "woke", although I consider "woke" a compliment.

I was the third person in this thread you decided to call out as being something of a bad person (paraphrasing) in this thread. I have done no such thing, at least not intentionally. I did make a post that may have been construed that way, but when it was pointed out to me via another channel, I quickly apologized and tried to make my original intent clear.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom
Without evidence, there is no reason for anyone to accept your claim of fact.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I don't think I have ever heard of a "woke" person making that demand, but maybe I missed it. Can you provide a quote?

I certainly can.
Although the most pointed would involve TFT members and moderation, so I won't.
Tom

This board has a quote function for a reason. Any post that has not been deleted by the mods can certainly be quoted. If there is an issue where the original quote requires moderation, the mods will edit the subsequent quote as well.

Also, if it is only the most pointed, then feel free to provide a less pointed one. Whatever you feel qualifies works for me, it doesn't even have to be limited to TFT, feel free to provide examples from elsewhere.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
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

false dichotomy. And somewhat arrogant.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant 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.

Sounds just like Trump and his "jokes".
BTW Zizek is a supporter and fan of that long deceased Freudian con and fraud Lacan--so yeah, i want to dismiss him.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Yes. Does not change the fact that the professor is a self-hating racist.



Why should white people, but not anybody else, have to give up their identity?
Let's try this on for size: "The only way then for black people to become part of America (or Europe) is to not exist as black people anymore."

If the goal is to dismantle white supremacy, and white supremacy is white culture
How is this not a racist statement?

… then the goal has to be to dismantle white culture and ultimately white people themselves.

An inherently racist statement. Note that they are not saying to dismantle the concept of race. No, they are singling out white people for "dismantlement". That is racist.

The professor finds merit in the view that the concept of 'whiteness' must cease to exist in order for it to no longer be a barrier to white people's full integration in Africa. There's no self hatred in that. But if you think there is, are you proposing that as a definition of 'woke'?

It is completely self-hating and racist, as is his violent language about "castration of whiteness". That you defend this shows how extreme you yourself are on race issues.

What about the peoples of Asia, of Pacifica, the indigenous peoples of the Americas, etc? Where does he include them in his scheme of global improvement?
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Anecdotes to attack principles.

The tactic of the dishonest lockstep right.

if an anecdote is accurate, and it contradicts the "principle", the principle is at fault, and it is an example of bias and/ or intellectual laziness to suppose otherwise. One cannot simply handwave an anecdote away by pointing out it is an anecdote.
I have seen this again and again in my nearly 70 years of existence. The principles of fundamentalist Christianity, the principles of Freudianism, the principles of Marxism, the principles of laissez-faire capitalism, for example, all clung too by true believers or wishful thinkers despite contradictory anecdotes.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Anecdotal and meaningless.

Here we have a real widespread problem:

Poll: Two-thirds of Republicans still think the 2020 election was rigged

https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html

deflect, deflect

Pointing out the difference between a rare individual the right does not understand on the left and millions of clearly deluded dangerous people on the right is not a deflection.

It is putting things in perspective.

Something crazies on the right don't like.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Anecdotes to attack principles.

The tactic of the dishonest lockstep right.

if an anecdote is accurate, and it contradicts the "principle", the principle is at fault, and it is an example of bias and/ or intellectual laziness to suppose otherwise. One cannot simply handwave an anecdote away by pointing out it is an anecdote.
I have seen this again and again in my nearly 70 years of existence. The principles of fundamentalist Christianity, the principles of Freudianism, the principles of Marxism, the principles of laissez-faire capitalism, for example, all clung too by true believers or wishful thinkers despite contradictory anecdotes.

General conclusions cannot be made from rare anecdotes.

And when the rare anecdotes are actually looked at all you have are misunderstandings on the part of sheep on the right.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,734
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Anecdotes to attack principles.

The tactic of the dishonest lockstep right.

if an anecdote is accurate, and it contradicts the "principle", the principle is at fault, and it is an example of bias and/ or intellectual laziness to suppose otherwise. One cannot simply handwave an anecdote away by pointing out it is an anecdote.
I have seen this again and again in my nearly 70 years of existence. The principles of fundamentalist Christianity, the principles of Freudianism, the principles of Marxism, the principles of laissez-faire capitalism, for example, all clung too by true believers or wishful thinkers despite contradictory anecdotes.

General conclusions cannot be made from rare anecdotes.

And when the rare anecdotes are actually looked at all you have are misunderstandings on the part of sheep on the right.

Well, to be fair, it has to be frustrating when none of the things people accuse you of have true symmetry, and you're just being shitty, but you don't want to have to stop.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
General conclusions cannot be made from rare anecdotes.

And when the rare anecdotes are actually looked at all you have are misunderstandings on the part of sheep on the right.

Well, to be fair, it has to be frustrating when none of the things people accuse you of have true symmetry, and you're just being shitty, but you don't want to have to stop.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Today there is no symmetry.

You have rare crazies on the left and millions of crazies on the right.

The right has moved off the spectrum. It is not a political party with any goals. It is just a servant to the desires of wealth that has no morality or concern for society as a whole.

The right is filled with anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers.

It is more than deluded. It is literally killing people.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,718
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
He quietly knelt during the national anthem.

Anybody who has a problem with it is a sick hyper-authoritarian scumbag.

And now the NFL doesn't want to pay him enough to get him to play.

I don't care about any of this. It's the Wokesters who seem upset. I see them as the sick hyper-authoritarian scumbags. YMMV
Tom

The NFL blackballed him because almost all the owners are old white men.

His problem was that he played politics instead of just football. Any controversial message would have been a problem no matter where the owners stood on that position.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
This, to me, is kinda the exemplar of Woke.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr6LYC-xpE[/YOUTUBE]

It's sorta like this:

f704e459d5d7c03e9c6c32cf32a0ce1d.jpg


And is perhaps, best explained by this:

E7nCpTEWYAMdq8Z
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
The NFL blackballed him because almost all the owners are old white men.

His problem was that he played politics instead of just football. Any controversial message would have been a problem no matter where the owners stood on that position.

He wasn't playing politics. He was playing football. He expressed an opinion quietly and respectfully. It was an opinion the rightwingers didn't want to hear so they raised a huge stink and scared off potential employers.

Kaepernick knew going down on one knee during the anthem was likely to result in some pretty stiff consequences up to and including the end of his career, which is why he's admired for having courage as well as convictions. What I'd like to know is, is he woke?

He's not considered white in American culture, wasn't being arrogant or overbearing, and appears to be very sincere. He only seems to fit the first definition of 'woke' but according to DrZoidberg the first definition isn't definitive.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
This, to me, is kinda the exemplar of Woke.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr6LYC-xpE[/YOUTUBE]

It's sorta like this:

f704e459d5d7c03e9c6c32cf32a0ce1d.jpg


And is perhaps, best explained by this:

E7nCpTEWYAMdq8Z

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

6. members of a group engaged in public shaming and mob violence
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
The NFL blackballed him because almost all the owners are old white men.

His problem was that he played politics instead of just football. Any controversial message would have been a problem no matter where the owners stood on that position.

How dare that black man have a political opinion!

Doesn't he know he is just supposed to dance and smile despite gross injustice and widespread racism in the police and "justice" system?

He quietly knelt.

If a person has a problem with it they are simply a disturbed racist on the side of widespread racism and part of the problem he was protesting.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
This, to me, is kinda the exemplar of Woke.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr6LYC-xpE[/YOUTUBE]

It's sorta like this:

f704e459d5d7c03e9c6c32cf32a0ce1d.jpg


And is perhaps, best explained by this:

E7nCpTEWYAMdq8Z

1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

6. members of a group engaged in public shaming and mob violence

The free speech problem on university campuses is likely in large part due to declining admission standards.

Cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of political tolerance

Cognitive ability was the single strongest predictor of political tolerance, with larger effects than education, openness to experience, ideology, and threat. The cognitively demanding nature of tolerance judgments was further supported by results showing cognitive ability predicted tolerance best when extending such tolerance was hardest.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
The free speech problem on university campuses is likely in large part due to declining admission standards.

Cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of political tolerance

Cognitive ability was the single strongest predictor of political tolerance, with larger effects than education, openness to experience, ideology, and threat. The cognitively demanding nature of tolerance judgments was further supported by results showing cognitive ability predicted tolerance best when extending such tolerance was hardest.

woke

/wōk/


1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

6. members of a group engaged in public shaming and mob violence

7. a dog whistle term used to disparage liberals protesting racism
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,110
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
He wasn't playing politics. He was playing football. He expressed an opinion quietly and respectfully.

He expressed an opinion at his place of work, while wearing his work uniform. He should have expressed his opinions (i.e. that police and prisons should be abolished etc.) on his own time.

which is why he's admired for having courage as well as convictions.
What "courage"? He was a spoiled multimillionaire and he never jeopardized that status.

What I'd like to know is, is he woke?
Yes, he is "woke".

He's not considered white in American culture,
Which is a big plus in woke circles.

wasn't being arrogant or overbearing, and appears to be very sincere. He only seems to fit the first definition of 'woke'

He also fits several planks of the working definition I offered.
Excessive involvement in his understanding of "social justice"? Check.
Twisted understanding of said "social justice"? He thinks robber and stabbist Mario Woods and cop-killer Wesley Cook are some kind of victims and that police and prisons should be abolished. So definite check.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,110
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Imagine that, Fox News sensationally misrepresented a story

Did not. The guy hates white people, as does the Afrikaner he approvingly quotes.

Note that the university (being a Catholic one) was only defending him stating that he did not mean the suicide (being against the Catechism) part literally. They did not even attempt to defend him on his anti-white racism, because they can't.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
The free speech problem on university campuses is likely in large part due to declining admission standards.

Cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of political tolerance

Cognitive ability was the single strongest predictor of political tolerance, with larger effects than education, openness to experience, ideology, and threat. The cognitively demanding nature of tolerance judgments was further supported by results showing cognitive ability predicted tolerance best when extending such tolerance was hardest.

woke

/wōk/


1. aware of, and concerned about, social issues such as racism and social justice

2. smugly arrogant, fatuous, and overbearing, especially when expounding on the topic of social justice

3. people who call out people who are too lazy to even try to remember correct names and terms aka Miss Manners wannabes

4. white arrogance

5. a cynical power tactic for gaining status.

6. members of a group engaged in public shaming and mob violence

7. a dog whistle term used to disparage liberals protesting racism

Yeah, the result of lower admission standards seems right.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,110
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Bullshit. The term was around for decades before Ferguson.

The Ferguson insurrectionists did not invent it, but they certainly popularized it. Before then, it was an obscure term, but with the Ferguson riots, it exploded in use.

It was only after Ferguson that the right wing latched onto it and decided to turn it around and make it an insult against anyone on the left with whom they do not agree on social issues.

You are missing a step here. Between the term being an obscure one and it being one used to ridicule the lunatic left, it was taken up by black extremists rioting in Ferguson, which led to it becoming a well-known word.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

Nope. With you. The way you tell it, it was the so-called "right wing" that took up an obscure term from the 60s to ridicule the far left, instead of the "right wing" taking up a term that was already taken up by far-left Ferguson rioters and their supporters.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,298
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
He expressed an opinion at his place of work, while wearing his work uniform. He should have expressed his opinions (i.e. that police and prisons should be abolished etc.) on his own time.


What "courage"? He was a spoiled multimillionaire and he never jeopardized that status.

What I'd like to know is, is he woke?
Yes, he is "woke".

He's not considered white in American culture,
Which is a big plus in woke circles.

wasn't being arrogant or overbearing, and appears to be very sincere. He only seems to fit the first definition of 'woke'

He also fits several planks of the working definition I offered.
Excessive involvement in his understanding of "social justice"? Check.
Twisted understanding of said "social justice"? He thinks robber and stabbist Mario Woods and cop-killer Wesley Cook are some kind of victims and that police and prisons should be abolished. So definite check.

You have offered no evidence he thinks those things, only your own suppositions.

I'm not going to derail this thread into discussion of Mario Woods. But I will remind you of our previous discussion in which you kept repeating why you thought Woods deserved to be shot but were utterly unable to say when it became necessary for the cops to shoot him. Believing that people should not be needlessly shot isn't a twisted understanding of social justice, it's the regular straightforward kind.

Anywy, wrt Kaepernick, thank you for stating your opinion that he is 'woke'. I wonder what you think makes his involvement in #BLM excessive, seeing as how he's black and can reasonably be supposed to believe his life matters.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,904
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
This thread has cemented my belief that being against "wokeness" is a really fucking pathetic hill to die on. Good luck with your outrage.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,110
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That sounds like you're saying there is no actual definition.

No. I am saying that it is not trivial.

That makes the term a kind of dog whistle, doesn't it? The meaning can only be discerned by those who get the underlying message.

Wrong.


So someone who is involved with social justice issues but not 'excessively' so isn't woke?

Someone whose understanding of social justice issues isn't twisted but rather straightforward isn't woke either?

Right. Kaep may be a type specimen of woke. He is excessively involved - he was literally grandstanding - and his ideas are very twisted.

Do not think I have not noticed you ignored the rest of my post though.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
This thread has cemented my belief that being against "wokeness" is a really fucking pathetic hill to die on. Good luck with your outrage.

All of these seemingly random ideas and phrases are carefully constructed using focus groups to incite irrational anger.

The total sheep on the right are played for fools everyday.

And never fail to prove they are the sheep their masters think they are.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
He expressed an opinion at his place of work, while wearing his work uniform. He should have expressed his opinions (i.e. that police and prisons should be abolished etc.) on his own time.

To me, this was the only real problem. There's plenty of behavior that's perfectly acceptable, just not at work. And if I understand correctly, at least some of the management changed their minds. At which point, my only real objection went away. I saw Kaep as more like a Christian that makes his work fellows uncomfortable by going on and on about Jesus and getting everyone Saved. It's an opinion he is free to hold, but not make it an issue in the office. Same thing here.

And the fact is, Kaep has the money, looks, and fame that could make him a huge draw. He could have raised conciousness with rallies and interviews and all kinds of stuff. Using the team was counterproductive. Hypocritical as it is, the same guys who'll go fetch beer and snacks during the anthem will be pissed off by someone on the field behaving in a disrespectful way.

This just isn't that hard to understand..
Tom
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
He expressed an opinion at his place of work, while wearing his work uniform. He should have expressed his opinions (i.e. that police and prisons should be abolished etc.) on his own time.

To me, this was the only real problem. There's plenty of behavior that's perfectly acceptable, just not at work.

You are speaking in generalities that may apply more to Average Joes working slave wages who are "at-will" employees, often being fired without cause. NFL players' employment has different features than Average Joe's employment, such as a negotiated contract. And because there is a negotiated contract, this makes the behavior in question a contractual, legal question, not a question about generalities that apply to Average Joes. The nature of the legal technicalities are quite off-topic for this thread, but to sum up THE OTHER THREAD devoted to this topic, Kaep's behavior did not violate his contract, but the management or owners did violate the contract and that is why Kaep ended up winning.

Hypocritical as it is, the same guys who'll go fetch beer and snacks during the anthem will be pissed off by someone on the field behaving in a disrespectful way.

When you find hypocrisy, you need to identify the consistency, not merely the inconsistency. In this case, it's not about disrespect--the idea of disrespect comes from the fact most of these guys are minorities showing they have rights, even if the anti-wokesters claim it is about something else, like KNEELING--but when bikers kneel for Trump, suddenly it's okay and not disrespectful or when Catholics kneel in church, that's not disrespectful--and that is why the consistency needs to be examined. There is a clear and consistent message about race but it goes beyond race where the Reich wing propaganda tries to create a wedge issue around an economic divide--the target is white people who have less economically. So not only do they want Kaep to look like an uppity jerk, they also want to create a narrative of spoiled white rich kids who have an easy life in college partying who are "the Woke." And it's also why they create narratives of the white suburbs living in fear of BLM coming to put graffiti on their houses and rape their women.

It should be very clear looking at the op that this wedge is being used because it makes "Woke" out to be a "white" thing. The "arrogance" is the elitism associated with a class narrative. That is what is consistent here.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You are speaking in generalities that may apply more to Average Joes working slave wages who are "at-will" employees, often being fired without cause. NFL players' employment has different features than Average Joe's employment, such as a negotiated contract.
Forgive my ignorance of sports contracts.
But I was given to believe that the team kept their contract until it ended. Then didn't renew or renegotiate. But they did pay him everything that they had agreed to pay. The contract was nearly over at the time Kaep started this.

Is that incorrect?
Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,733
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
This thread has cemented my belief that being against "wokeness" is a really fucking pathetic hill to die on. Good luck with your outrage.

All of these seemingly random ideas and phrases are carefully constructed using focus groups to incite irrational anger.

The total sheep on the right are played for fools everyday.

And never fail to prove they are the sheep their masters think they are.

Is it really all that different from "bolshevism", "politically correct", "liberal", and all the other terms they've used over the years to try and scare people into voting for them?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Imagine that, Fox News sensationally misrepresented a story

Did not. The guy hates white people, as does the Afrikaner he approvingly quotes.

Note that the university (being a Catholic one) was only defending him stating that he did not mean the suicide (being against the Catechism) part literally. They did not even attempt to defend him on his anti-white racism, because they can't.

Continuing to misrepresent the story after a thorough examination of how it was misrepresented is not helping your argument at all.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
The Ferguson insurrectionists did not invent it, but they certainly popularized it. Before then, it was an obscure term, but with the Ferguson riots, it exploded in use.



You are missing a step here. Between the term being an obscure one and it being one used to ridicule the lunatic left, it was taken up by black extremists rioting in Ferguson, which led to it becoming a well-known word.

The revisionist history is strong in you, Derec.

Nope. With you. The way you tell it, it was the so-called "right wing" that took up an obscure term from the 60s to ridicule the far left, instead of the "right wing" taking up a term that was already taken up by far-left Ferguson rioters and their supporters.

That's the way you do it when you totally aren't a conservative, eh? Just can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong.

I never said it was an obscure term, and where I come from it has been in constant use for those decades, gradually gaining more and more use as a compliment until the right-wing (I mean the totally not right-wing like Derec) noticed and had to turn it into a pejorative.
 
Top Bottom