The Fundamentals of Woke

[Cognisant]

I think the most fundamental assumption of woke ideology is that definition is oppression, because definitions create distinctions, which serve to impose limits on their twisted interpretation of “libertarianism” which is basically “I can do whatever I want”. It’s the ideology of entitled brats, an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility and personal accountability, and for those in power a blank cheque for corruption.

Hado cannot tell me that what someone identifies as isn’t what they are, he cannot agree with me that the definition of a woman is the attributes of a woman, basically he doesn’t know what a woman is because he’s woke and that ideology does not allow him to know what a woman is.

Kora forgoes a functional definition in favour of a definition based on function, that a chair is a chair because we sit on it, and accordingly a man is a man because he inhabits the gender role of man. I had to think about that for a while, it’s quite clever, I would agree that since an infertile man is still a man that therefore an FtM person who successfully inhabits the gender role of a man is therefore, functionally, a man.

However, this works for me only because I understand gender roles, to me being a man isn’t just looking like a man, it’s performing the role of a man in society and I understand what that role is, I understand men and women are different and necessarily must have different privileges and responsibilities to perform their roles.

This understanding is anathema to the woke ideology.

The woke understanding is that gender is an entirely superficial social construct, that it exists because we say it exists and only because we say it exists, accordingly there are no gender roles, just the social construct of gender roles. This is a classic woke semantic bait-and-switch, because if gender is a mere social construct (hence one gender can become the other by merely identifying as such) then gender roles are equally meaningless, thus “inhabiting the gender role” has no qualifiers.

Meaning a FtM person is “functionally” a man… because they say so.

Kora I’ll concede that you’re not woke, if you can explain to me the responsibilities of the female gender role, and because I’m nice I’ll give you a hint: they correspond to the privileges.

 

[Black Rose]

In evolutionary terms, Babies gave women a distinct personality and men a distinct personality. i.e. pregnancy makes women act and be a certain way.

Men then can be super aggressive as long as they keep the woman safe.

And the woman can be super empathic as a default.

Currently, I come across as someone empathetic where I remember that in 2018 the computer program IBM Watson said I was a 40-year-old female INTJ - really I was a 30-year-old male ENFP. That distinction makes things intuitively odd. I know computer programs don't do the best job but it is something to consider.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[Black Rose]

That is hard to say cog.

I was not criticizing men.

Nor am I trans, and I like girls.

I think that trans persons really do feel their gender is wrong.

I do not feel like the wrong gender but I do feel sometimes effeminate.

I do not believe in the oppression narrative. Not that people do not have a hard time but that it is not based on some group at the top stopping people from succeeding. Normal men can have a hard time too.

The term aggression is not based on modern usage as I was just trying to say that in evolution men killed more animals than women because women needed to stay safe when pregnant and so men developed to be stronger in that way. Women need to be smarter in some other social and environmental ways as they are vulnerable and need to keep the fetus safe.

 

[BurnedOut]

still fighting on gender identities lol

 

[Puffy]

still fighting on gender identities lol

It's gotten worse actually XD

 

[Cognisant]

Would the peanut gallery kindly chew with their mouths closed?

Unless of course they have something of substance to say.

 

[Puffy]

Find something new to talk about, it's only the umpteenth thread on this topic, and maybe I'll give you some novel input. *goes back to chewing on cud*

 

[Cognisant]

So to be clear the sole reason for your participation in this thread is to derail it?

You know there's no limit on the number of threads right? Like if you want to talk about something else go make another thread, you don't have to occupy this one.

Heck if your threads are more interesting than mine then everyone will go there and I can sit in my corner and debate myself.

But you're not doing that, you're here, which tells me you don't actually care about a lack of variety, you're here for me specifically, I speculate I've said something that offends you but you're not quite sure how to debate me so you're just going to be a troll instead.

Bold strategy, let's see how it works out for you.

 

[Puffy]

So to be clear the sole reason for your participation in this thread is to derail it?

You know there's no limit on the number of threads right? Like if you want to talk about something else go make another thread, you don't have to occupy this one.

Heck if your threads are more interesting than mine then everyone will go there and I can sit in my corner and debate myself.

But you're not doing that, you're here, which tells me you don't actually care about a lack of variety, you're here for me specifically, I speculate I've said something that offends you but you're not quite sure how to debate me so you're just going to be a troll instead.

Bold strategy, let's see how it works out for you.

Not really Cog, as far as I can remember we haven’t exchanged for months. I show my sense of humour in threads all the time. Also I'm not woke or a radical leftist, I'm a straight white guy, so I'm not really in the target demographic to be offended by your posts.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

However, this works for me only because I understand gender roles, to me being a man isn’t just looking like a man, it’s performing the role of a man in society and I understand what that role is, I understand men and women are different and necessarily must have different privileges and responsibilities to perform their roles.

 

[Cognisant]

Stop linking me this video, I know some people are born intersex, I've said so in the past, the fact that she exists has nothing to do with gender roles. The only point you've proven is your own lack of understanding.

Now getting back on topic, I find this really interesting:

Spoiler

As I've also said before for the average person who doesn't think much about moral philosophy their understanding of morality is informed by the fiction they consume and accordingly people tend to reject fiction that they don't agree with on a moral basis.

We love to cheer for an anti-hero but they're still heroic in contrast to some greater evil, if it is just a bad person doing bad things we expect to see their downfall, not for the story to treat them as a hero.

This philosophy of unfettered freedom is mask-off woke ideology.

 

[BurnedOut]

I don't even know how gender identitied actually affect heterosexuals in any substantial way in day to day interactions when you are just concerned more about food, shelter, friends, intoxications, general access to goods and materials. As far as i am concerned, all these is just the media and politicians creating smokescreens so that we don't care about the economy and unemployment. That is how it works in india. The more ideologies like wokeism gain traction, the lesser is the focus on things that actually matter like inflation

 

[Cognisant]

As far as i am concerned, all these is just the media and politicians creating smokescreens so that we don't care about the economy and unemployment. That is how it works in india. The more ideologies like wokeism gain traction, the lesser is the focus on things that actually matter like inflation

You are absolutely right.

Identity politics shouldn't be a thing and I remember a time in the late 90s and early 2000s when it wasn't, sure things might not have been perfect, there was still racism, sexism and intolerance for LGBTQ+ people but for the most part people were tolerant, or perhaps more accurately nobody gave a damn.

We didn't have to, it didn't matter, it didn't intrude upon our lives.

In June the lobby of my workplace had giant flags hanging on the walls like it was the fucking Reichstag during Nazi Germany. I don't really watch movies anymore because everything has to be subversive, everything has to push the new agenda.

I remember as a teen watching the Rocky Horror Pictureshow with friends and politics and drag queen storytime and kids being brainwashed and sterilized couldn't have been further from our minds, it was just a fun campy movie. None of us were gay or trans, we didn't have to be back then entertainment was for everyone, the movie never disparages anyone for their race, gender or whatever.

I want to go back to those days, I want the insanity to stop, I wish I could just ignore it and it'll all go away, but it's not going away. Remember the satanic panic, back when Christianity could just not leave everyone alone, they when had to constantly try to inject their beliefs into entertainment, education, laws and policy? That's what woke is now, it's exactly the same, constantly moralizing (pushing their own twisted morals) and if you give them an inch they take a mile.

Don't worry I'm pretty much spent, I said everything I needed to say in the OP of this thread and I can see the tide is turning on the culture war, which is not to say this is all over, no I expect like the Christians before them the woke will go down kicking and screaming and they'll never totally go away.

But the regime will change and I'm sure whatever comes next will be equally stupid.

 

[BurnedOut]

Any movement in the pre-social media era did not look like a goddamn cartoon and the gravity of the situation was acknowledged and the only ones fighting change where the ones who were legitimately going to lose their domination. For example, consider battling child marriage, talaq system, lack of inheritance laws for women, no voting rights for communities and environmental destruction. The fights were legendary enough to make their mark in human history but whatever the fuck that you are talking about - wokeism - it's just some kind of meme infecting people who don't hold any stake in it apart from somehow mooching off financially. I agree there is blatant propaganda and mangling of what 'justice' means but identity politics is far from being a comedy show of ideologies like the fucking joke today's influencers who target children and preteens.

 

[Cognisant]

Any movement in the pre-social media era did not look like a goddamn cartoon and the gravity of the situation was acknowledged and the only ones fighting change where the ones who were legitimately going to lose their domination.

How about we discuss this in my thread about immigration, I'd love to know your thoughts about the situation that's unfolding in the UK.

I agree there is blatant propaganda and mangling of what 'justice' means but identity politics is far from being a comedy show of ideologies like the fucking joke today's influencers who target children and preteens.

The internet cannot be made safe, so I think it's a matter of bad parenting.

I'm not defending the predators, I'm just saying we all know they're out there, it's nothing new, so I think parents have a duty to either supervise their kids or teach them about stranger danger.

 

[BurnedOut]

The internet cannot be made safe, so I think it's a matter of bad parenting.

I accessed the internet without bounds in the early 2000s as a child because I was simply more adept at it. My parents never monitored my internet usage. But again, that was not an era of blatant propaganda on social media like in this era. I stumbled on all kinds of stuff, the dark web, legit CP, gun websites, gore videos, you name it

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm done with this stuff. Cog, please refrain from talking about me especially if you're going to misrepresent me. No I'm not going to argue, I don't want to participate anymore.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I don't even know how gender identitied actually affect heterosexuals in any substantial way in day to day interactions when you are just concerned more about food, shelter, friends, intoxications, general access to goods and materials. As far as i am concerned, all these is just the media and politicians creating smokescreens so that we don't care about the economy and unemployment. That is how it works in india. The more ideologies like wokeism gain traction, the lesser is the focus on things that actually matter like inflation

the cake certainly is a lie

 

[Cognisant]

x.com

x.com

 

[Cognisant]

The more ideologies like wokeism gain traction, the lesser is the focus on things that actually matter like inflation

Wait isn't it the socialists who have a spending problem?

The Australian Labour party certainly likes to splash cash around to buy votes and then cries poor when we ask them to put more funcing into social housing.

I don't a 50c bus fare or $1000 rebate off my power bill, I want the cost of housing to go down and that cannot happen while inflation is out of control.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I think the most fundamental assumption of woke ideology is that definition is oppression, because definitions create distinctions, which serve to impose limits on their twisted interpretation of “libertarianism” which is basically “I can do whatever I want”. It’s the ideology of entitled brats, an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility and personal accountability, and for those in power a blank cheque for corruption.

Hado cannot tell me that what someone identifies as isn’t what they are, he cannot agree with me that the definition of a woman is the attributes of a woman, basically he doesn’t know what a woman is because he’s woke and that ideology does not allow him to know what a woman is.

Kora forgoes a functional definition in favour of a definition based on function, that a chair is a chair because we sit on it, and accordingly a man is a man because he inhabits the gender role of man. I had to think about that for a while, it’s quite clever, I would agree that since an infertile man is still a man that therefore an FtM person who successfully inhabits the gender role of a man is therefore, functionally, a man.

However, this works for me only because I understand gender roles, to me being a man isn’t just looking like a man, it’s performing the role of a man in society and I understand what that role is, I understand men and women are different and necessarily must have different privileges and responsibilities to perform their roles.

This understanding is anathema to the woke ideology.

The woke understanding is that gender is an entirely superficial social construct, that it exists because we say it exists and only because we say it exists, accordingly there are no gender roles, just the social construct of gender roles. This is a classic woke semantic bait-and-switch, because if gender is a mere social construct (hence one gender can become the other by merely identifying as such) then gender roles are equally meaningless, thus “inhabiting the gender role” has no qualifiers.

Meaning a FtM person is “functionally” a man… because they say so.

Kora I’ll concede that you’re not woke, if you can explain to me the responsibilities of the female gender role, and because I’m nice I’ll give you a hint: they correspond to the privileges.

Would you propose that gender roles have been static across cultures and throughout history?

 

[Cognisant]

Name me one culture where women went to war and the men stayed home.

Name me one culture where women tilled the fields and herded animals while the men stayed home to look after the kids. And it wasn't a case of a super misogynistic society (like Islam) putting women to work because they have to do what the men tell them to. Also "looking after the kids" in that scenario... suffice to say there's been a lot of inbreeding in that part of the world and let's dwell on it no longer.

Speaking of looking after the kids I can think of one culture where men become the primary caregivers, that's ours right now, usually because the parents are divorced and the mother wasn't suitable for custody or they're still married and she's... sigh I actually know a couple like this irl and it is incredibly depressing. The wife is a useless sack of shit, absolute 110% bogan and the husband won't divorce her because he thinks she'll take everything and the kids. Meanwhile the kids are growing up to be fat toothless bogans too because that basically live off whatever sugary garbage their mother is eating and because she doesn't work, they spend the most time with her, so their heads are full of her self-entitled bogan nonsense.

Name me one... now I'm just too depressed to continue.

In summary I'm sure if you're a pedant you can find examples of cultures where the role of women is different or there's very little difference in the roles, but for the most part women deal with the at home stuff and men are the ones who go out and do things.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Name me one culture

just skip to the part where you make a policy recommendation

 

[fractalwalrus]

Name me one culture where women went to war and the men stayed home.

Name me one culture where women tilled the fields and herded animals while the men stayed home to look after the kids. And it wasn't a case of a super misogynistic society (like Islam) putting women to work because they have to do what the men tell them to. Also "looking after the kids" in that scenario... suffice to say there's been a lot of inbreeding in that part of the world and let's dwell on it no longer.

Speaking of looking after the kids I can think of one culture where men become the primary caregivers, that's ours right now, usually because the parents are divorced and the mother wasn't suitable for custody or they're still married and she's... sigh I actually know a couple like this irl and it is incredibly depressing. The wife is a useless sack of shit, absolute 110% bogan and the husband won't divorce her because he thinks she'll take everything and the kids. Meanwhile the kids are growing up to be fat toothless bogans too because that basically live off whatever sugary garbage their mother is eating and because she doesn't work, they spend the most time with her, so their heads are full of her self-entitled bogan nonsense.

Name me one... now I'm just too depressed to continue.

In summary I'm sure if you're a pedant you can find examples of cultures where the role of women is different or there's very little difference in the roles, but for the most part women deal with the at home stuff and men are the ones who go out and do things.

Well, to be a pedant, the lowest hanging fruit of research I can gobble here on the subject of women in warfare would suggest that there were societies which permitted women into the warrior class. What I cannot provide evidence for is a society where women were solely the individuals who went to war absent male counterparts. The Sarmatians and Scythians are believed to have used women extensively in war.

I must not be participating extensively in our current culture if it is indeed true that men become the primary caregivers of children today at higher rates than women (you did not imply this as I read it, but instead were suggesting that men are merely able to become primary caregivers of children, not that this has been normalized widespread) and this isn't surprising because it has been a while since I have had to wash grass stains off of my shorts. My last viewing of the statistics on the matter I saw suggested that women more often get custody than men, but it probably has been a while since I have seen the data, and I will look it up later. I do know anecdotally, that, I have talked to someone online who was distraught because he believed the courts were unfair to men and awarded women custody of children more often. All this actually does suggest that there are different expectations for men and women in society if they are treated differently before the law and before the opinions of others who try to correct their perceived misbehavior with tactics such as social exclusion.

So, if we have acknowledged that differing expectations for different genders (or sexes, depending upon which one of these categories one believes these exist to address), exists, the next question is, why is this the case?

 

[BurnedOut]

Statistically women are much more miserable in all facets of life. I have a health dataset which proves the same, just gotta take one indicator such as anemia and you'll see how fucked women are.

But I guess i finally understand cog's point after i guess a year and half after debating with him. His real gripe lies with the absolute underrepresentation of men in miserable circumstances and the media's and politics' continuous misinformed propaganda of men being the perps while the truth is more often than not, not every man benefits from patriarchy or has to pay the price rather quickly at some point.

If this is what you think, i completely support you because you are neither the first nor the last to be laughed at when you bring up those points. I always thought feminism and wokeism is about egalitarianism but it's reverse-discrimination at this point

 

[Cognisant]

Statistically women are much more miserable in all facets of life. I have a health dataset which proves the same, just gotta take one indicator such as anemia and you'll see how fucked women are.

Absolutely we're in a mental health crisis and women are the epicenter of it, I'd even go so far to say what's causing so many men to disengage and/or kill themselves is women's mental illness.

Men exist to serve the needs of women, men want to make women happy, a men's self esteem heavily depends upon what women think of them.

Modern society systemically advantages women over men and tells women that they ought to be self sufficient, that they ought to be independently successful, that they don't need no man. Some succeed and then get frustrated that they can't find a real man because all the men in their life are either less successful than them, or not interested in them. Those that don't succeed (the majority) feel like they've been set up to fail (which is true) and blame men for systemically disadvantaging them, which is objectively not true.

Success is measured by comparing ourselves to others, we cannot all be above average, that's just not how averages work. Further more women who try to be better men than actual men are fighting an uphill battle and even if they succeed the effort is going to cost them, I'm talking years of training and effort.

The sick joke being that no straight man (who isn't a man-child) needs a woman to look after him, rather they want a woman to look after, ideally one that's young and pretty and nice to him. The suit wearing successful 36yr old lawyer is actually less attractive to men because she's successful, because she doesn't need a man in her life, she is the man in her life. And even if a man is impressive enough to out-man her, why bother? She's not going to be grateful.

What's driving modern women insane is that they simultaneously want to be more successful than their man but they also want a man who is more successful than them, and the more successful a woman is the more likely it is that she thinks this way.

Consequently men feel strongly discouraged to strive and succeed, because that's taking success away from women, but also if they're not successful enough no woman wants them, but even if they are she's going to have a problem with it.

Men want women to be happy and the woke mind virus has made that all but impossible, and if women cannot be happy and men's happiness is contingent upon making a woman happy... well then I guess the only winning move is not to play.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[scorpiomover]

I don't even know how gender identitied actually affect heterosexuals in any substantial way in day to day interactions when you are just concerned more about food, shelter, friends, intoxications, general access to goods and materials.

Identity politics shouldn't be a thing and I remember a time in the late 90s and early 2000s when it wasn't, sure things might not have been perfect, there was still racism, sexism and intolerance for LGBTQ+ people but for the most part people were tolerant, or perhaps more accurately nobody gave a damn.

We didn't have to, it didn't matter, it didn't intrude upon our lives.

You both might be interested in this: I was in my 20s during the 90s, and was in university in the mid-90s.

1) In theory, what you are saying would be accurate. In practice, during the 90s, there was a lot of "gay villages" in cities like New York and Manchester, anywhere where there was a Pride festival, and a lot of TV programmes like "Queer as folk", showing how gay men could interact with other gay men without ending up in major conflicts and violence. The result was a gay community in lots of cities. If an LGBT moved to a new city, he could go to the nearest gay village, and get friends.

Contrast that with the destruction of pubs in every town as the local unofficial community centres where everyone met to make and see friends, and there's been a big problem of lonliness, depression and social anxiety amongst men in general.

2) Meeting new partners

In addition, the gay villages were the perfect place to meet a new partner, as progrmmes like "Queer as folk" portrayed LGBT men as being quite reasonable about potential partners.

Contrast that with the way that male-female relationships have been portrayed in the media since the 1960s, as if they are a constant battle, and almost not worth bothering with.

Also, consider the promotion of "bad boy vs nice guy" culture, which consistently suggested that for straight men to have a decent relationship, they actually had to be abusive to women, or have no relationship at all.

3) Competency at work:

In most TV shows, LGBT men were mostly portrayed as being capable people but a bit weird in comparance to their peers.

When we contrast that to how straight men were portrayed in entertainment media, whether it be Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin and Quagmire in Family Guy, Al Bundy in Married with Children, there's been a consistent portrayal of the straight married man as being extremely incompetent, a lousy father and a worse husband.

4) Summary:

In contrast to what happened with the general population, it becomes clear that LGBT were being encouraged to be friends with each other, to co-exist in ways that made it easier to meet partners, and to generally be perceived as being a better employee that be better to employ for the high-paying jobs.

But none of this was being mentioned by the LGBT movement or the Left, and the LGBT issues were being made about wedding cakes and bathrooms, which resulted in even the anti-LGBT being focussed on non-issues.

 

[The Grey Man]

This post was occasioned by your thread on "Heroism", but since this is the thread in which you discuss what is really fundamental to 'wokeism,' I'm putting it here.

I think the most fundamental assumption of woke ideology is that definition is oppression, because definitions create distinctions, which serve to impose limits on their twisted interpretation of “libertarianism” which is basically “I can do whatever I want”. It’s the ideology of entitled brats, an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility and personal accountability, and for those in power a blank cheque for corruption.

Yes, fundamental to woke ideology is a kind of metaphysical voluntarism or epistemological pragmatism that says that language is not an instrument for communicating truth, but a tool of social oppression or liberation. Implicit in this sort of relativism is denial of everything in the human person which transcends the individual qua interchangeable social unit, including especially the denial of the competence of the human intellect to know absolute truth and reliably categorize things by distinguishing their immutable natures. Of course, woke ideologues do not hesitate to sort people into the categories of 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' and, paradoxically, their reduction of the person to a featureless corporeal unit furnishes a blank canvas on which the spiritual part of the soul is free to project whatever 'identity' it wants, perhaps cutting off or disfiguring those parts of the body which do not conform to its neo-Gnostic self-definition; but, precisely because they view language purely as a practical tool and therefore recognize no important difference between truth and lies or between sincerity and hypocrisy, they are able to live with these glaring inconsistencies. In fact, there is no limit to the absurdities that a man will tolerate who denies absolute truth or, what amounts to the same, denies his own ability to know it; and, since what is absurd in theory is harmful in practice, there is no limit to the wicked deeds and unjust policies he will support. Thus do those who complain the most loudly about oppression become the worst oppressors of all.

It is remarkable that you call wokeists 'libertarians' in the sense that they believe that they can do whatever they want. That they are able to combine ruthless authoritarianism with lawless liberalism is due to the diabolical mixture of Luciferian self-exaltation and Satanic denigration of humanity that characterizes their ideology, which can be traced to the devil-worshipper Karl Marx. Materialism, which came of age in the nineteenth century, has indirectly contributed to the spread of this evil by suppressing alternatives, including both rationalistic philosophy in the style of Kant and Descartes, which still maintains a precarious belief in human intelligence and its subordination to reality, and traditional religious beliefs. But that's another story.

It is no secret to those who have read my recent posts that I am here to propagate traditional Catholic Christianity, and I would prefer to focus on the positive aspect of my message; but to also present the negative aspect seems necessary to show people both what Western civilization has lost by rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church and what the Church offers today given the increasingly obvious perversity and decadence of 'secular' society. You are not crazy. Wokelords are crazy. Their gaslighting and equivocation is both a sign and a defensive mechanism of the collective insanity that has taken possession of them. They are not only enemies of the Cross of Christ, but enemies of humanity who have seared their consciences by consenting to inquity.

"And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11).

The Catholic Church gives sanity: traditional Catholics are, for the most part, not crusading zealots like me, but simply normal people—not normal in the sense of a 'fitting in' which so often leads to perdition, but normal in the sense of conforming to natural norms, values and standards of right and wrong which are not chosen or 'identified with' by us, but which are imposed on us by a reality that can be known but not mastered, and that both constrains us and frees us by enabling us to live in harmony with what is. Traditional Catholics marry for life and raise children: this may seem like a small thing, but it is really quite significant given the assaults on family life that are getting worse every day. At this rate, traditional Catholics may soon be the last sane people on earth! Pray the Rosary every day, it will change your life!

 

[fractalwalrus]

Yes, fundamental to woke ideology is a kind of metaphysical voluntarism or epistemological pragmatism that says that language is not an instrument for communicating truth, but a tool of social oppression or liberation.

From the standpoint of an observer, all one would have to do to determine if language could be used to communicate truth is determine if it has ever done this. Also, to determine if it has ever been used for liberation or oppression, one would also need to observe if it has ever been used for this purpose. There are probably many other purposes for language that I could list here, so what if the issue here is simply that one has narrowed their scope as far as seeing what language is actually capable of achieving? Hyperfocus on specific aspects, if you will.

Of course, woke ideologues do not hesitate to sort people into the categories of 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' and, paradoxically, their reduction of the person to a featureless corporeal unit furnishes a blank canvas on which the spiritual part of the soul is free to project whatever 'identity' it wants

Hmmmm.... there may be a tendency for some to see oppression where it does not necessarily exist, but should we toss out the concept of oppressor and oppressed entirely? Are there no historical instances of serious oppression that one could point to in history? What about with the Catholic Church and how it was sometimes treated in certain countries (Mexico during the Cristero War, for example)? I'm sure the priesthood must have felt pretty oppressed then (even if they may not be to that extent today).

Thus do those who complain the most loudly about oppression become the worst oppressors of all.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would highly doubt that the Caesars of Rome were complaining about oppression when they were cracking down on early Christianity or Judaism. You may be able to argue that Stalin or Mao or someone else in that cadre were complaining about oppression, but I don't think all of the world's great oppressors were doing this. I could make a huge laundry list of these oppressors, but I will refrain. I'll ask another question, should we ignore the cries of all of the oppressed because they could one day become the worst of all oppressors? What about Frederick Douglas, or the cries of the Irish Catholics as the Protestants oppressed them?

this may seem like a small thing, but it is really quite significant given the assaults on family life that are getting worse every day.

People are still having families. If you really want to know why families break up, then you can find this info out and it has little to do with "being woke." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202407/the-6-leading-causes-of-divorce

If you want to know why people are delaying having children, this data is available as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashley...elaying-having-children-due-to-their-careers/

 

[The Grey Man]

Yes, fundamental to woke ideology is a kind of metaphysical voluntarism or epistemological pragmatism that says that language is not an instrument for communicating truth, but a tool of social oppression or liberation.

There are probably many other purposes for language that I could list here, so what if the issue here is simply that one has narrowed their scope as far as seeing what language is actually capable of achieving? Hyperfocus on specific aspects, if you will.

I think this is more than a 'what if.' Wokeists have indeed narrowed their scope to hyperfocus on the practical aspect of language, ignoring the alethic aspect.

Of course, woke ideologues do not hesitate to sort people into the categories of 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' and, paradoxically, their reduction of the person to a featureless corporeal unit furnishes a blank canvas on which the spiritual part of the soul is free to project whatever 'identity' it wants

Hmmmm.... there may be a tendency for some to see oppression where it does not necessarily exist, but should we toss out the concept of oppressor and oppressed entirely?

No, nor have I ever suggested such a thing. Read the text you quoted and you will not find in it the slightest indication of a desire to do away with the concept of oppression. You are reading my posts and not just looking for frivolous reasons to object to them, right?

Thus do those who complain the most loudly about oppression become the worst oppressors of all.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would highly doubt that the Caesars of Rome were complaining about oppression when they were cracking down on early Christianity or Judaism. You may be able to argue that Stalin or Mao or someone else in that cadre were complaining about oppression, but I don't think all of the world's great oppressors were doing this.

Stalin and Mao are far from being far-fetched examples of oppressors, to say the least. In fact, I think we can justly say that they were "the worst oppressors of all" in their respective social environments. Have all oppressors claimed to be champions of the oppressed? No, but, again, I have never suggested such a thing. Only the worst oppressors are wicked enough to call themselves the liberators of precisely whom they oppress.

this may seem like a small thing, but it is really quite significant given the assaults on family life that are getting worse every day.

People are still having families. If you really want to know why families break up, then you can find this info out and it has little to do with "being woke." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202407/the-6-leading-causes-of-divorce

I have said that wokeists are insane. It does not follow that all who are insane and desire the destruction of the family, which is the foundation of society, are wokeists. In fact, there are plenty of 'conservatives' who rightly oppose transgenderism, but see nothing wrong with no-fault divorce (legalized in Canada in 1986) or even gay marriage (2005) because they are so out of touch with reality that they lack any criteria for discerning between right and wrong other than their visceral desire to 'fit in.' Experience shows us that even people who used to be against gay marriage or transgenderism are now fine with it because it has been 'normalized.' Such 'conservatism' is clearly nothing more than a less advanced stage of wokeism, with its tacit materialistic denial of the human person and our ability to know essences and truths that do not change according to our appetites.

The author of the article you linked finds time to talk about "Moodiness" (allegedly the #5 cause of divorce) and "Irritating Habits" (#6), but he does not consider that one of the "Top Causes of Divorce" might be that society no longer knows, or cares to know, what marriage even is. When I say that traditional Catholics marry for life and raise children, I do not mean that they enter into a mere civil contract that can be nullified if it becomes inconvenient or allow their children to be formed by television and schoolteachers; I mean they enter into a lifelong bond for the purpose of preparing their potential children for the rigours of living in the world and to meet their own spouses. This is what normal people do—normal people in the true sense explained above.

 

[fluffy]

If you use the wrong words people can use that against you.

Woke is control of laungauge to take advantage. I would say it is because you don't like some one that you can be a lawyer against them in different settings. And why the Soviet Union fell into orwelian double thought.

Example would be in my life the ingoring of my attempt to prove something scientifically. The other person did not care about what genetics is but he could use words to prove a falsehood because the conclusion of what I was proposing could lead in his eyes to oppression. Soviets often said: this truth is the truth of the oppressor (to practice cybernetics it had to be changed as a word because it was a capitalist concept)

 

[fractalwalrus]

Wokeists have indeed narrowed their scope to hyperfocus on the practical aspect of language, ignoring the alethic aspect.

Wouldn't the alethic aspect still yield practical results for the truth seeker? Perhaps truth seeking is a facet of language's practical uses.

No, nor have I ever suggested such a thing. Read the text you quoted and you will not find in it the slightest indication of a desire to do away with the concept of oppression. You are reading my posts and not just looking for frivolous reasons to object to them, right?

I know that you did not state this, and I did read your post. I was merely positing a question, not trying to create a strawman here. If we can acknowledge that oppressors and oppressed have traditionally existed throughout history, then your contention would not be with the existence of these groups, but in who constitutes them.

I think we can justly say that they were "the worst oppressors of all" in their respective social environments. Have all oppressors claimed to be champions of the oppressed? No, but, again, I have never suggested such a thing. Only the worst oppressors are wicked enough to call themselves the liberators of precisely whom they oppress.

That would be hard to quantify. We could look at deaths under their reign, restrictions on civil liberties, how would we measure this and compare it to non-Marxist oppressors? In other words, what makes someone a "worst oppressor?"

It does not follow that all who are insane and desire the destruction of the family, which is the foundation of society, are wokeists.

It sure would not follow. However, I have heard some blame "wokeism" for the destruction of the family when it is a term that has only been coined relatively recently (which does not mean that it did not exist prior, merely that we did not use the term "woke" to describe it). Without a very specific definition of woke, it can be used as an umbrella term for any ideology that is the opposite of one's own.

Such 'conservatism' is clearly nothing more than a less advanced stage of wokeism, with its tacit materialistic denial of the human person and our ability to know essences and truths that do not change according to our appetites.

Here you appear to be implying that modern conservatives who allow certain things to be normalized are partially woke. What exactly is woke? Were the Greeks woke? If coming up with terminology to describe observable phenomenon in the world is woke (ie empirically observing that some men are less masculine and some women less feminine than others), then science is woke by that metric. Truth is woke. What is woke?

I mean they enter into a lifelong bond for the purpose of preparing their potential children for the rigours of living in the world and to meet their own spouses.

Sure, but such an arrangement can occur absent an actual state contract or religious ceremony. I can think of no barriers against a heterosexual couple from having children, raising them, and remaining together absent this contract. It is very possible, and it would seem that this contract is not a guarantor of this arrangement either (with divorce being an option). Even if divorce was not an option, how could one argue that it is in the best interest of the children to be in an abusive environment because one parent spiraled due to stressful circumstances, and decided to take their anger out on their family and turn to alcoholism, for example?

 

[fractalwalrus]

The other person did not care about what genetics is but he could use words to prove a falsehood because the conclusion of what I was proposing could lead in his eyes to oppression.

How do you know that they did not care what genetics was? Is it possible that misunderstandings of the world can lead to oppression?

Soviets often said: this truth is the truth of the oppressor (to practice cybernetics it had to be changed as a word because it was a capitalist concept)

Sometimes it went further than simple terminology with the Soviets. Early on, they rejected Mendelian genetics in part because they saw it as racist German ideology, but also because the party wanted to replace the prior intelligentsia with members of the working class. If you do this, sometimes you get whacky ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko .

Most people refuse to do their own research (or lack the time or ability to use proper sources) on matters of history and would rather listen to some unqualified person on YouTube with an opinion that magically falls in line with Western biases than actually take a look at what happened. Again, I do not support the Soviet Union. What I do support, is the attainment of precision in knowlwedge instead of "Mustache Man Bad," which lacks a nuanced understanding of history and social systems much the same way that "Orange Man Bad," does. Do I have the full truth? No, of course not. The more you poke around and gather evidence, the closer you get to it.

Anti-wokists have a tendency to ignore when the right is doing this, since they want to be the arbiters of truth. Their "immutable truths" are true because they say it. Like other authoritarians, they claim a monoply on truth and project this onto the other side. I'll welcome them to prove me wrong and be open to empirical observations that contradict their ideologies. Try asking a right-winger a question like "what is gender," and see what they say. Most convos that I have had about the topic will result in their assertion that biological sex and gender are the same thing. Ok, what word should we use to describe behaviors, then? How should the person who studies behavior account for men who like fluffy things and women who sweat and work with wrenches? They objectively exist, it isn't some concocted reality. To deny their existence, denies reality.

This is a YouTube rando, but most of what they say is backed in research:
I am more than willing to provide links to the studies on the authoritarian mindset.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Not all LGBTQ people are on board with all woke agenda.
Not all women are woke.
Not all women want to be progressive hippies pushing ideology.
No man is forced to be woke.
No woman is forced to be woke.
No one is telling anyone to marry a woke woman.

Woke is ideology that has no clear cut values and is politically and ideologically inconsistent.

We don't need to play stupid games.

If your problem is finding a partner that you like its not woke people fault.
If you disagree with woke people there is nothing wrong with that.
If you feel like woke does not represent your values you are in the majority of humanity.

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[fluffy]

How do you know that they did not care what genetics was? Is it possible that misunderstandings of the world can lead to oppression?

From months and months of interaction.

All they did was troll me.

I am never interacting with people of that manner ever again. Too much stress from someone who doesn't give a shit.

-

Yes I believe all persons have cognitive dissonance or places where their minds simply won't go. To protect the ego.

It is worse the further you go at the extremes left or right. This makes it difficult to talk to them. @Hadoblado called it ideological capture or entrenchment. It create high emotional tensions. People no longer think rationally. All they can think of is defeating there aponent.

I just think that it is worse from the left because the right does it overtly well the left does it covertly. You can at least see it in the open and avoid right wingers but the person on the left you cannot tell. They can subvert all manners of things via ideas. Psych warfare. That is why trolls make me very unsettled. Lead people in the wrong direction with cold calculating ruthlessness. False ideas have killed millions by people believing them. Often they start as resentful persons in achadamia with little power but then those people hate real learning in the institutions and corrupt it from within.

 

[The Grey Man]

@fractalwalrus It was rash of me to say that "Such 'conservatism' is clearly nothing more than a less advanced stage of wokeism, with its tacit materialistic denial of the human person", since wokeism adds to this denial the peculiar 'class war' theory of language I have already mentioned, which the conservatives, to their credit, reject. For the rest, I am again out of time to respond to this particular thread.

 

[fractalwalrus]

It is worse the further you go at the extremes left or right. This makes it difficult to talk to them. @Hadoblado called it ideological capture or entrenchment. It create high emotional tensions. People no longer think rationally. All they can think of is defeating there aponent.

If they only care about defeating an "opponent," and not an "idea," in an attempt to discard incorrect ideas and get closer to being less wrong, then they cannot be said to be honestly seeking after truth.

False ideas have killed millions by people believing them. Often they start as resentful persons in achadamia with little power but then those people hate real learning in the institutions and corrupt it from within.

This can happen. It would seem concentrated power and ego tends to get in the way of finding truth. It would be interesting to devise a solution to this issue. To bring up Sabine, again, I had watched a video of hers where she talks of why she does not trust scientists. A big part of the skepticism is in response to the incentive structures at play that have helped give rise to the "reproducibility crisis." While this crisis was largely contained to the softer sciences, it has, on occasion, hit the material sciences as well. Trust in empiricism does not necessarily imply trust in all empiricists, as humans tend to be flawed and such.

 

[fractalwalrus]

@fractalwalrus It was rash of me to say that "Such 'conservatism' is clearly nothing more than a less advanced stage of wokeism, with its tacit materialistic denial of the human person", since wokeism adds to this denial the peculiar 'class war' theory of language I have already mentioned, which the conservatives, to their credit, reject. For the rest, I am again out of time to respond to this particular thread.

Well, when does language move from being descriptive (ie Catholics being oppressed by an oppressor Protestant nation, for example) to being about stoking tensions? Can't descriptive language inadvertently stoke tensions, even if it is not the intention of the language's wielder to do so?