What social movements do not contradict themselves in theory and practice? — praxis

Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above??

no need to think critically — praxis

I’ve given 10 times more analysis to chew on here than you have. WTF is this insult for?

No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. I’ve said that ten times. So just because you don’t like my criticism, and just because you won’t critique most of what I’m saying, doesn’t mean you have any idea of my willingness to think critically.

Equity is good, racism and sexism are bad, traditional values need to be updated…those all seem good in principle. — DingoJones

Equity is good.
Racism and sexism are bad.

I, a conservative traditional person, agree.
(Of course I do.)

I also agree that liberalism is the greater teacher of us these things. Although republican conservatives fought to preserve the union when they abolished slavery of black and other people, it was another liberal idea, like the US constitution was a liberal idea. Lots of good liberal ideas.

But that isn’t woke. Woke is liberalism turned into something else.

Woke thinks equity means girls and boys are the same (just social constructs).
Woke thinks equity means we need more black Board members in corporate America.

Woke doesn’t see the different between equality before the law (fairness), and equal capability of identity groups. Just because in the pool of all Hispanics there are many great doctors, it doesn’t mean we need there to be more Hispanic doctors. Woke is all confused on the priorities. Quotas, affirmative action - these are born of woke’s idea of equity, and are actually racist and sexist (just with a reversing effect). Fine if you want to think equity means affirmative action, but don’t tell me affirmative action isn’t a kind of racism. That type of contradiction is woke.

And woke didn’t invent ‘racism is bad.’ Liberals didn’t even invent that. The Catholic (means “universal”) Church had more do with introducing to human history the notion of opposing tribalism and racism than the enlightenment did. By the time of the enlightenment and birth of modern liberalism, there were already beloved saints coming from every corner of the planet.

I know of too many black Americans and Hispanic or Asian Americans who could care less about the notion of ‘systemic racism.’ They agree with me. Racism really isn’t everywhere. Woke thinks it is…but it just isn’t.

Added: the woke are the ones keeping racism alive, along with the seven or eight actual white supremacists.

Racism is real. Don’t get me wrong. It’s bad. Don’t get me wrong. But I didn’t learn this from woke arguments. And woke solutions are even worse than their assessment of woke supposed problems, if you ask me.

Do you think concern with systemic racism is onto something good? — praxis

No.

Are you actually a lawyer? — praxis

Dude - I am not writing a brief. I am just talking. Woke social justice contradicts itself in theory, and in practice.

Either the feminists or the trans are wrong. They can’t both be right. But any definition of woke I’ve seen provides no means to adjudicate that dispute.

Your argument … relies on equivocation of the term “woke,” — praxis

We need a working definition of woke to debate equivocation between two definitions.

I have been all about “what is woke”. Show me the equivocation.

In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. Is he just crazy? Oddly, he was raised in a family situation that Kirk celebrated, and even graduated from a religious school. Did society fail him or is it biological? — praxis

Everything new comes from somewhere. The kid is responsible for what he thinks and does too.

Are we not each individuals, responsible for our own lives and actions? Or do we have to look beyond the person for whatever caused that person’s actions?

“Family situation that Kirk celebrated.”

I don’t know why it is relevant to say “that Kirk celebrated”. So if someone thinks the military needs to practice shooting accurately, and then the military loses a battle, should we rethink whether it is important that they shoot accurately?

Because the shooter came from a traditional Kirk-supported family, do we really have to wonder what is wrong with the traditional family? Or might there be something more particular to the specific kid involved?

Whatever was good about the shooter’s upbringing can still be good for people. Just certainly not good enough for a kid who thinks it is ok to murder someone like that because his disagreed with him.

I’m sure his parents are destroyed, unless they are psychotic as well. Their traditional lives are over.

Woke debaters don’t debate with conservatives. If they can’t crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot.
— Fire Ologist

Kirk disproves this claim. Shortly before his assassination I watched several videos of him debating Cambridge students. I think he used every logical fallacy known to man. — praxis

Ok. That’s fair. If that is what you found. A fallacy is a fallacy. A fallacy knows no political party or ideology. We’d have to take each debate one by one to point out the fallacies to show how the leftist out-debated Kirk. I’ve seen some of those

That said. If we broaden this to debates between any conservative and any woke liberal, there are times when the woke side can’t debate well. In many of those cases, instead of admitting they need to rethink their position, they just shrug off the whole debate, learn nothing, avoid self-reflection, do not improve their argument, go ad hominem and write off their opponent as hopelessly lost to immoral irrationality. My point is, from my experience, the woke liberals do this A LOT. And usually they don’t even need to lose the debate - they just need to be challenged and they get indignant. A lot.

Woke in principal may not be problematic but there IS a version of it that is problematic and those DO have something to do with certain tenets of woke ideology. — DingoJones

:up:

I would love it if anyone around here could make the case on behalf of the woke.

My friends, what is not problematic about woke in principle? Anyone list one thing?

I think woke’s fetishizing of “implicit bias” is onto something good (just over reified). Implicit bias needs to be dealt with. That is my best attempt at saying something positive about wokeness.

But this is why I pushed us to come ip with some sort of definition of woke for all of us. As far as I can tell everything woke touches is infected and decays. Knowledge of the notion of implicit bias is not enough to justify so much woke destruction.

A perfect example of woke’s infectious nature: The way the Trans rights folks (woke) are angry with the Feminists (also woke), and vice versa. They are both correct about themselves according to woke and yet they are both wrong about each other according to woke. And so they fight each other, decaying themselves and each other, due to wokeness.

funding cut — Mijin

That just means the taxpayers aren’t going to be forced to pay for whatever the college wants to say and promote. It has zero impact on freedom. If Columbia’s professors had balls and really believed in their fascist ways towards conservatism, they would say screw the money. And just rely on their $14 billion dollar endowment to tide them over during hard times. This is adolescent whining - the tone of the modern university.

3,100 arrests of Palestine protestors — Mijin

I’m sure you are right about some improper arrests. Point one out. Who was arrested for speech?

But do you think all 3,100 people didn’t commit any crimes and they were all just arrested for speech? Were all of them charged with crimes? Did all of them get convicted? Show me a specific case of impropriety and I agree with you. But 3100 seems like a small number to me. Why are white liberals in America concerned about Palestine anyway? Is every killing of civilians all the same, or is torturing and kidnapping civilians of any value in an assessment of who needs justice?

“divisive concepts” such as systemic racism, critical race theory (CRT), and gender ideology" — Mijin

I agree, those things are divisive, and just wrong. They are woke, and I like the idea of the End of woke. But if you like them, don’t sign up. Teach them for free if they are important to you. Funding cuts from the federal government have zero to do with free speech. I only care about the freedom from government coercion, not some sort of lack of financial support. Are the Feds telling anyone what to say or think, or what not to say or think? No. The feds are telling them what the federal government is not going to pay someone to say or think. That is a totally different issue than rights and justice and oppression. That is a teenager whining that daddy won’t pay his bus fare or give him lunch money to go play activist with his friends.

Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” (2022), expanded in 2024–2025, bans CRT-related content in both K–12 and public university curricula. — Mijin

I’d have to look into the specifics of how the law bans content.

You may be right here that this is Orwellian. I’ll let you do the homework though for now.

Because you may be wrong.

We are talking about kids K-12. These are almost entirely minors. Ok? Kids.

Does the woke act get specific enough to restrict speech about “white men are bad” and talk about penises being cut off, or that Daddy wears a dress and that is just as good as Mommy - and bullshit fantasy theories revolutionizing sexuality foisted upon little fricking kids??

The government is allowed to curtail speech based on time and place. You can say “we need to be free to have sex with anyone and everyone we want as long as we all consent” among adults - but you can’t teach that to 9 year olds. Parents need to be allowed to control the state curricula.

But if this law is not well written, it is Big Brother fascism and you are right. Look it up if you are worried Florida is up to no good. I’m not worried. Speaking to other people’s kids is different and should be regulated. And let’s see what happens with any challenges to the law in court.

audit universities accused of “Marxist indoctrination.” and again, withdraw funding from “divisive race or gender ideologies.” — Mijin

Again, so raise your own money to indoctrinate Marxism and white supremacy conspiracies and that girls can have penises or whatever. In America the government can’t stop you. Doesn’t mean the government needs to help you.

20 states (e.g., Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, and North Dakota) have passed or proposed laws restricting how colleges teach race, privilege, and history. — Mijin

State funded colleges and universities? Or all of them? If all of them, the laws are a problem. If state funded, be brave my anxious friend.

do you appreciate now why the 1% figure — Mijin

Yes because you are including acts like the above as equivalent to physically shutting down speech with force. Unless all of those 3100 people were not arrested for trespass, assault, impeding lawful process, noise violations, failure to obtain a permit, and other crimes, even that isn’t a threat to free speech.

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”. — praxis

Ok I take that back. How about all 50 other points?

mindlessly parroting — praxis

That’s is insulting, right? I mean yeah, I like parrots and yeah I’m pretty stupid, but you don’t really need to make this point here.

You think there is any hate or rage speak on the left somewhere else? You think I can’t find AOC screaming hate?

My point is - who cares about hate from the right or the left.

What is the substance of their political views and efficacy of their policy solutions?

Ignore the hate. It’s what conservatives must do to engage in a discussion with a liberal, because liberals hate racists and fascists and all conservatives are racists parrots.

Do you see? Screw the hate. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is when people stop talking for any reason. Who cares if you think Charlie Kirk was a hater. That’s psychology and hidden dog whistle bullshit. What did he say and do right on the surface, right before your eyes. What matters is he was killed for talking.

Woke debaters don’t debate with conservatives. If they can’t crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot.

Decide on whatever topics/issues; work out who to vote for accordingly; if none found, then figure out if second best is good enough, or if there are additional concerns to take into account; ... — jorndoe

That’s how I hold a discussion, how I debate.

But then we have to elect leaders. Then we have to pick a platform (pick a team) and play fair to make a final selection of elected official.

Someone (Goldwater?) once mentioned that politics involves compromise. — jorndoe

Compromise is the result.

Extremists don’t debate.
Extremists don’t compromise.
The teams are always there on election night.

And yet other woke doctrinaires think you are doing 'good work'? Sigh. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah - that is weird to me too. Out of nowhere - fist bumps, like we reached peace in the Middle East.

But if you are blind, you can't see, no matter how urgent the images.

That ten minute effort of mine represents more evidence than I've seen from you this entire thread. — Jeremy Murray

:up:

That took me ten minutes — Jeremy Murray

Those added to my examples too. Too many examples of woke stifling, or just unjustly responding to, speech.

And what is happening in the UK is unbelievable to me. The loss of free speech and incarceration of violators (who say shit the government doesn’t like) is way more real and tangible and more dangerous for more people than things like trans rights issues or even racism in the US. The average woke person has no idea of the harm they are doing.

a black man who has condemned wokeness as racist, a 'tyranny of low expectations'. I really enjoy listening to him in conversation with Glenn Loury — Jeremy Murray

Right. Is that the one when they are speaking about Thomas Sowell? I think I heard of Loury. But yes, people talking. Not as a black man or whatever identity box. Not as a victim pointing at oppression. Just as men. I will check that out, thanks.

self-appointed priestly caste. — Jeremy Murray

It may be that the woke thinks they are always right, but it’s certain that they think right wingers are always wrong. I mean a bit of both maybe.

Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech
— Fire Ologist

Loads of people got fired for social media posts that were hostile to Kirk in the wake of his murder. — Jeremy Murray

I was saying what the Government did in response to Kirk, they only arrested the one person. They got serious about antifa now, but no one rounded up (and we’ll see what comes of that).

But there was an intervening event regarding those who seemed hostile to Kirk being fired. No one was fired for being leftist or because of their political views, or even for hating Kirk. They were fired for being pigs about a murder.

Mind you, I’m sure many people just made stupid mistakes and deserved a chance to apologize and move on, so I agree there may have been some injustice in the firing of many of those people.

But that said, all of that firing was in the private sector, and people get fired for all kinds of reasons. It’s not the same free speech issue as government action against people for speech, as in the UK, soon in California (although I bet the law will be struck down, because speech laws make no sense…).

(Though the incessant us-versus-them thing is getting old.) — jorndoe

That seems to be the nature of politics. But I agree. It’s next level now.

The trick is to pick your team and then play fair, be an example, with respect for the game both sides want to play. We have to play together to play at all.

The woke team got too greedy. They assumed too much. It backfired into Trump. Trump made a new team called MAGA, made of all the people the woke team shit on, shouted down, beat up, shot at, hated, called racist, called sexist, called fascist - team Trump is full of people fed up with being called bad for basic things, like being white, or being a man, or being conservative, or being a believer in God.

Woke took advantage, and went to far with the poor Trans people (who are all pawns now).

I hope it is ending.

What needs to be saved in the demise of woke is liberalism and progressivism. And it will be saved even if woke truly ends (which I doubt).

——

Here is a weakness on the left, and evidence of how it has been hyjacked by its extreme woke elements: the left thinks working together with republicans is losing to them, because republicans are subversive (and just always bad). So woke can’t even try to cooperate with them. It’s why the only unified message of the democrats is “we must fight and resist Trump”. They never have positive ideas, just plans to subvert all things hateful by republicans (which is everything republican haters say!).

So Dems can’t just show common sense and reasonableness. If a conservative idea is a good one (like let’s not over sexualize children or chop off their body parts), the left still can’t even entertain the idea. Even if it is common sense. And unable to use republican “totalitarian”…common sense… it leaves them to have to work with nonsense so often.

And this is why delusion works to answer questions and calm woke nerves. As long as the language opposes conservative language, the argument is assumed to be sound enough and the facts are good enough. No need to question woke authority or logic or validity. And anyone who questions it can be dismissed. This is their main tactic - dismissal of debate. That is fascist, if you ask me.

I want to raise the sombrero cartoon again, because I think it is such a good way to see woke things more clearly.

The left sees the cartoon and see that a white guy like Trump and his team of evil doers is making a joke of a sombrero and Mexican stuff. The left assumes this is so racist they can be indignant, and call Trump out. That has to be racist, right? Everyone with any moral scruples will have to agree - Trump is a pig for mocking his opponents like that.

But are they really indignant for Mexicans or Mexican-American immigrants? Is anyone really so offended that the cartoon does more harm than good? Trump is always called Hitler - given a funny mustache and
all. And this image is used to smear all republicans who agree with anything Trump. So what’s the harm in giving Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer a cartoon hat so republicans can laugh at them? And make it a sombrero, because they pretend to love illegal immigrant Mexicans so much. :grin: Guaranteed the people who are laughing the most are LEGAL Mexican American immigrants, many of whom love Trump because they love America.

The woke don’t know what is important and what is not. According to the woke, the cartoon is about a white man using the poor downtrodden Mexican to make fun of someone. Well I’m sure many Mexicans hear that from the woke left and think - screw you too - “we aren’t downtrodden, and your policies suck, and why are you falling for such a silly provocation with your pretend outrage for me who isn’t outraged at all - I think it’s funny too!”?

The woke left calls a silly joke “hate speech” and wants to give the government the power to fine and/or arrest people who say things that might “offend” a “protected class”.

They are wrong about what is racist, and wrong about what to do with “racist” speech. And if such racist speech was finally stoppable by the good government policies, all we would be stopping is a few laughs. It’s not offensive enough to warrant “say it to my face” bullshit from Jeffries. He seems self-important. And too woke for the current moment.

This is an example of their weakness - they see oppression where it does not exist and their solutions for oppression stink anyway.

The Dems keep blowing opportunities to take back the narrative. Jeffries should have laughed. Dummy. He was too worried he’d further offend the seven Mexicans who were upset (3 of whom will still vote for Trump). Because he doesn’t know how to handle racism (if it was even racist to make the cartoon.)

——

I haven’t even suggest that “there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points” — praxis

Maybe not nothing, but you certainly don’t make much of all I’m saying.

@DingoJones assessment that you over simplify and to simply categorize me doesn’t seem far off to me.

It is insulting to say I’m just parroting talking points, you know that right? Dingo was just trying to help, because I think he saw this too.

It would be kinder if you would just assume I am telling you what I think in good faith, my own observations (which is all I am doing), and just talk about it, or tell me what you think.

I mean, I could say you sound like woke propaganda and misinformation too, but instead, I assume you are a thoughtful person, like me. Just wrong a lot. :razz:

The point is the left is way, way better at hate. Hate is an important ingredient to leftism.

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”. Rage isn’t hate. But the democrat candidate for attorney general in Virginia was caught fantasizing and texting about the death of republican rivals and piss on their graves.

My point is, your point about MAGA using Kirk to hate monger is just so inconsequential. Kirk was shot. I’m sure the shooter bumped into some woke hate. What about woke hate? Anything there?

Forget it…

Do you also deny — praxis

Do you deny the Left hates MAGA?

Do you deny hatred from the left is behind all of the protests and assaults and deaths and billions in property destruction these past 5 plus years in America? No leftist hatred on the streets of Portland today?

anti-leftist hate mongering — praxis

Hate mongering, like wearing a red hat (punched in the face), or a shirt with an American flag (ripped off and beaten), or holding a vigil and burning some candles (stomped on and pissed on).

MAGA “hate mongering” like that? So scary when those MAGA folks monger that hate.

During the summer of Floyd a woman was murdered for saying “all lives matter”.

What a joke.

:up:

Are you saying leftists don't hate the Maga?

Not what I was asking. — praxis

What is your point? Tell me how it really is.

I am not Maga. Never was. I had to vote for Trump because.... Biden/Harris had no ideas, not a clue.

I never used social media. Right after Kirk was murdered, I first downloaded Instagram. I don't have twitter or facebook or TikTok accounts. Barely use LinkedIn. When I watch the news, I put on CNN until I can't stand it, then I watch Fox, until I can't stand it. I get my news from all over the place. I mostly think politics is a burden. I'm pursuit of happiness focused. And that comes from engaging with those in need and building a business for all of my employees.

But now young men are getting shot for political speech, and many others are celebrating it. So I said enough with holding my tongue. I think a few million others are saying the same thing. Around the country and around the world. The left's paper thin reasoning and rhetoric just isn't going to fly anymore.

Trump putting sombrero's on Hakeem Jeffries is monumental. The only people offended by that are the ones who are losing the arguments. They aren't offended because of its racism (although they of course say that bullshit). They are offended that Trump refuses to learn from them how to behave.

Woke-type ideology has been leading Western cultural changes since the 1980's. Woke peaked under Obama and spawned the Trans rights movement. (Trans rights ironically cause the woke to begin eating its tail, as Trans people pose big problems for woke homosexual policies, and woke feminist policies, as well as for basic security for children). Wokeness became untenable. And the right finally reacted. That was 2016 with Trump's victory over Clinton.

Now, the deep trench wokness dug of our culture is full of mud. Now the left is more outraged than ever, and less rational. Now people sympathetic to the left shoot people more often than they used to.

I think the world is realizing that only half of its population even wants to be free. Only half of the population really wants to be responsible for their own lives. The rest, the lefties, want government to take care of them and protect them (even from mean words and haters!). The left has been gaslighting about their interest in equal rights for all people. They don't give a shit about all people. They only care about the half that don't want freedom.

Any evidence of the injustices and suppression of free speech and free assembly that you're saying is a significant problem on the left, right now. — Mijin

Right wingers want to talk ideas at a university (you know, a university, where ideas are talked about and minds are supposed to be challenged). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maga-debate-group-at-tennessee-state-university-escorted-off-campus-after-chaos-erupts/ar-AA1NeoqB
And the media calls it "escorted off" - meaning threatened, bullied and scared into running for their lives.

Normal left tactics. When faced with someone who wants to....talk ideas, the left screams "hate speech" when they don't like those ideas. It's the policy of at least 95% of our universities to bow to left-leaning student temper tantrums. They are too scared of the woke mob, and more to the point, they don't know what to do even if they wanted to stop such nonsense. They are incapable of saying "sit down and listen and learn" to flakey college kids. They fear such behavior is fascist and authoritarian, when screaming mobs are actually fascist and authoritarian. So my example of injustice and suppression of speech is, today's university system. Right wingers need not ask to speak. Until Kirk was shot of course, now some of them feel embarrassed, but continue to misunderstand what their policies have built at the university. Today's university is just a re-education camp to anyone who doesn't pay attention. So that is teachers using the authority of their positions to tell millions of conservative thinkers (who are children looking for guidance) to keep quiet. Don't dare to say "my pronoun is obvious to anyone with half a brain." That's hate, and bad, and must be silenced, and you should be ashamed of yourself for all of the evil thoughts that must accompany such a statement. So just shut up. Try to be conservative on a college campus today. You will know what chilling is.

California legislation to force censorship. https://cabassa.substack.com/p/newsom-to-sign-bill-that-could-censor.
The law is intended to "prohibit discrimination, violence, intimidation, or coercion based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration status." In other words - it is trying to push woke ideology and silence the right. So only discrimination based on those things? How about unprotected characteristics, like, being a white man, or having a conservative ideology? And does "Christianity" count as a religion?? Any consistency to be expected Gavin??? Who gets to be judge of what gender is, what religion is, what race means...??
It won't fly in America. Watch. Totally Orwellian. Like in the UK, where laws like this land individuals in jail for saying mean words that hurt people's feelings. Utterly weak. The left wants to give the government all of the power, but then scream its the end of freedom when conservatives win elections - how about we just keep the government out of regulating speech?
So that is spot on legislation, giving enforcement power to the government, to tell whoever they want to shut up because the current government happens to think their ideas are "dangerous". This type of legislation is the beginning of the end of freedom.

The left doesn't see government power as a threat to freedom. They just see government power in the hands of republicans as a threat to freedom. That's incoherent and illogical.
How about government power in the hands of anyone? Let's not let the government regulate our speech.

How about when the FBI investigated parents who said they didn't like woke school curriculum shoved in their kids faces? https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/whistleblowers-the-fbi-has-labeled-dozens-of-investigations-into-parents-with
Sounds pretty big brother to me.

How about when the IRS targeted conservative organizations? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-irs-policy-targeting-conservative-group/ar-AA1NKVNs
Our government isn't allowed to judge winners and losers. We get to do that at the ballot box. The IRS can stick their opinions up their ass, which is what the court said.

This is government action chilling speech, and its not right wing dude. And it's not for nothing. The UK and Europe are in real trouble when it comes to freedom of speech and assembly. The US has become the last man standing for free speech. The left in America aren't helping. At all.

______

The FCC and Jimmy Kimmel thing was bad. Really bad. That is government abuse that chills speech.

Pam Bondi saying "there is free speech, but then there is hate speech" was utterly woke bullshit. Pam was wrong there too.

Trump's free speech threats: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5519888-trump-free-speech-threats/

Most of it is rhetoric (not law), and legal battles that we will have to see how it plays out. I agree, it is chilling.
But the press needs to watch their sources and their opinions - there has to be some check on the "press" and that check is lawsuits for defamation and fraud.

I agree Trump promotes threats to free speech, and so Trump can create a danger to freedom. He needs to be closely watched and managed (like, what politician doesn't?). But I don't believe he is doing anything that our system cannot handle.

Don't worry. He won't be president in 2029.

The left wants to change the system - Newsom's law is an example of that. Mamdani's socialism is an example of that. They want to give the government too much power. Trump is abusing the power the government already has. Trump shows us the weakness of the controls we citizens have over our current governmental officials. If we give the government an inch, people like Trump (and the FBI and IRS under Biden) can take it a mile.

But the left's solution is.....give this government more power to silence people.

Like Gavin Newsome, in the name of "misinformation" and "hate speech" the answer is more power to the government and keeping right-wing voices silent. Fucking brilliant. Poor California. Such a mess.
______

that's hilarious. — Mijin

It's also true. But ok.

____

EDIT ADDED:

All of Trump's talk about the "enemy within" and the deployment of troops to handle Democrat states, and statements like he "hates democrats" - that is all seriously bad shit. But there are extremist enemies within the US (some of whom are left wing). So it is matter of how Trump applies force; it is not simply bad because he even thinks there are "enemies within" (because there always have been). "Enemies" is a strong word though. Need to watch this play out a bit more to call it "fascist" though. It might be better called "law enforcement."

You know a definition of a war zone is a place where there are 4 deaths per 100,000 people. That often describes our big cities. The Democrats aren't dealing with crime. The only cities where murder rates are down are cities where murders are not being counted the same anymore. There is danger coming from the left my friend.

Do you believe Kirk’s killer was a leftist? — praxis

I believe he thought Charlie Kirk was a fascist. So yeah, probably. But it’s not important. The shooter wasn’t playing politics anymore was he? If you think he was playing politics, then you need to know if he was leftist or not. He wasn’t a white supremacist, was he?

I believe the people who celebrated Kirk’s death were on the left. They were playing politics. Using death as a statement.
I don’t believe we should curtail their speech. I just believe they are sick or being immoral. And utterly stupid about how politics in a free society is supposed to work.

So you’re just denying it. — praxis

That the right hates leftists? I’m not denying that. What’s not to hate? I’m saying who cares? Besides children at recess on the school yard. “Stinky pants hater!”

The head of the FCC said "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" and Jimmy Kimmel was suspended. — RogueAI

1. That was wrong of the FCC and he was rebuked. (It wasn’t just Ted Cruz who rebuked him. That says it all.). So I agree it was chilling speech, but he was rebuked.
2. Kimmel was suspended for a week. (That says Kimmel wins the speech battle.)

This all happened right before our eyes - no shady government corruption, just stupidity on behalf of the FCC.

It all played out the way it should. We should keep an eye on the FCC for sure, but what else is new?

You don't think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election? — RogueAI

Steal? By sending insurrectionists off to the Capital? No, that is stupid.
By messing with state delegates? Maybe he tried to work the system with every ounce he could muster. Maybe he pushed all limits. But steal? How do you take actions in court and appeal delegates, all in public view, etc as “theft”? Any improprieties are done in the light of day. Which is why he stepped down when he had to step down. This is hardball people. Was Al Gore trying to steal the election in 2000? No he wasn’t either.

Do you think Jan 6th happens if Trump doesn't give that speech right beforehand? — RogueAI

I never heard the speech so I don’t know. I think the fact that it is a question and the answer is not plain as day speaks volumes. Maybe fools all see what they want to see, as they always are foolish - like anyone who thought Trump was hoping people would storm the Capital so they stormed the Capital, and like anyone who thinks Trump wanted to stay in office by force.

It doesn't concern you that Trump talks about running in 2028? — RogueAI

No, it concerns me (a little) that people don’t realize he’s messing with them. So silly.

I could see Trump trying to amend the constitution so he can run - but it will never happen.

So gullible.

It’s like the sombreros on Hakeem and Schumer mean Trump is racist. So silly.

Or that he wanted to suspend the Constitution to reinstate himself? — RogueAI

Trump stepped down from office in 2020.

Trump will not run in 2028. Trump will not be president after 2028. Period. If I’m right, do you think the left and the media who are currently worried about this rethink anything? And I’m definitely right about this.

There are way bigger threats to democracy in the US besides Trump messing with gullible lefties.

The hatred for Trump blinds people. And when Trump is gone, the hate will live on and breathe strong against whoever takes his place - and we’ll get more conspiracy theories about elections and white supremacy and whatever else is easiest flavor of BS the media can push. Guaranteed that whoever takes Trumps place will be worse than Trump in the eyes of the media. The media thinks Trump is stupid and just an egomaniac. So if the next person looks smart at all, now they’ll be an evil genius - worse than Trump if you can imagine that! And we’ll see all of the same threats to democracy coming from them. Such tired BS.

I have asked you multiple times, at least half a dozen times now, for evidence. — Mijin

Evidence of what woke is? Are you serious?

Or evidence of how Trump is not a fascist - you want me to prove a negative, with positive evidence? My proof Trump is not a fascist is the fact that he stepped down from office in 2020 all while he seems to have believed the election was stolen from him.

You are the one who needs to prove how woke isn’t a thing. How woke isn’t all over the university system.

Pick your pronouns - that’s of the essence of woke.

You don’t need to climb back in here. I tagged you because I didn’t want to use your name here without you knowing it. I had to reference you because @Athena didn’t see the context. That’s all.

Happy to discuss things, but we should slow down.

Evidence of what specifically do you think I haven’t addressed 12 times?

The US stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Church. Christian Nationalism is the result. Christian Nationalism and its fight against evil favors fascism. That authority over the people that is made necessary by the people's evilness, according to Christian mythology — Athena

Ok, so that sounds like woke propaganda.

Since when did Americans think the US government should control the content of the education of our children? That’s not smart. Government can be assholes, so why would we give them the power to select the curriculum for our children? Liberals want a strong Dept of Education. Repubs don’t. That way control over textbooks gets closer into the hands of the parents.

So it is not republicans who would ever say that the “US stopped educating for good moral judgment.” Republicans say that parents got lazy and trusted the government’s public schools to educate their kids and the public schools, infected by wokeness, have lost all moral authority.

No one is advocating “moral training be left up to the Church.” The Church is how parents train their own kids. But it is up to the parents.

But we see how parents do in school board meetings when they just want their kids to be left out of the delusional world of woke ideology.

I agree Church must keep its distance from the state, and the state must remain agnostic to any religion. So do most conservatives. But being a loud and proud Christian who loves his country… why not? whoop-de-do for you. I don’t see anything solid behind Christian Nationalism. Loving God and country is one thing (a good thing); but somehow incorporating Christianity into government, that’s a caliphate. That’s not republican.

Christian’s fight against evil is also called, having a heated argument. Fascism and Christ are incompatible. Just worry about regular fascism. The notion of Christian Nationalism is more woke propaganda.

It amazes me how ill people think of Christians, even though it’s always been that way since Christ was hung on a cross. America was partially formed to escape persecution for saying “Christ”. Christians have always been at the helm of the country. I don’t think Christian Nationalism is anything more than patriots who happen to be Christian.

Maybe we can chill out people. Christians aren’t a real enemy. Nor are they fascists. Any fascist is too concerned about earthly power to have any real understanding of Christian “mythology” as you put it.

I don’t see how the word “woke” would function as a “scare word”
— Fire Ologist

You don't think well-meaning Christians are alarmed by the evil spreading across the country? You don't have a problem with the government having more power to control the decisions regarding your children than the people living in your school district? — Athena

@Mijin was saying woke is just a word used to scare people. That woke is not a real thing. I disagree with that.

I’m saying if woke wasn’t a real thing, it wouldn’t function to raise fear like it does. But it is real. Obviously. I agree woke policy is some dreadful crap. Not just for Christians, but for freedom, and peace, and community. And of course for children. The school system is an utter mess because of “what is woke”.

your skewed view of reality shaped by MAGA propaganda on display — praxis

Why not just comment on what I say and not conjecture about where you think it comes from? (Probably because you think anything that even sounds like it comes from MAGA has to be wrong/evil/beneath your dignity.)

It’s an objective fact that there were no riots or protests in response to Kirk’s assassination, isn’t it? (Maybe the FCC and Trump are suppressing all those right wing fascist riot stories?)

Kirk was murdered. Leftists responded (saw the bright side, if not celebrating death). Rightists responded (mostly with prayer and inspiration to engage in more speech).
Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech (and the shooter was not rounded up because of his views - but because of the bullet he put in a man’s neck)? Any businesses trashed and robbed? Any police stations burned to the ground? Any cities like Portland Oregon full of right wing protestors?

Any such thing as woke propaganda and a skewed view of conservatives? Is it even possible that sound bites don’t tell the whole story?

anti-leftist hate mongering was monumental, — praxis

It was? Monumental? Not enough safe spaces for you in the US? Seriously? Where did you get that - what shapes your opinion? Anything skewed or exaggerated there?

Another word for hate mongering is, speaking.

Maybe just make the better argument and be brave in the face of such monumental hate mongering.

You realize the left and progressive democrats are the ones who propose laws limiting and punishing free speech. Not the right. (Bondi was an idiot.)
And this thread is about the left, not the right - it’s about the end of woke.

The point is - who are the real fascists who openly celebrate assassination, who hate argument and dialogue with their opposition, who ironically want to control “hate speech” (which is just speech) with law and policy, who protest violently, causing damage, destruction and death…?

If there is an End of Woke, it will be because progressive liberals will not self-assess their ideology.

And they continue to misunderstand the moment.

Nothing but forgiveness, aye? — praxis

Yes, Forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss. Just not on the left’s narrow limiting terms.

Look, I know and love many leftists. Truly. That doesn’t mean I have to tell them they aren’t totally delusional and full of shit. I love them. I respect them. I make sure to be humble and respectful. I avoid politics. But if they ask me about their politics, I make sure they know the way they see things is messed up - utterly contradictory and inconsistent, full of half-truths (which are also known as lies), and just bad ideas.

Massive division sown and reaped by the left - along with politically driven assault and killing, attacks on basic institutions like the police and free speech, and utter destruction and chaos in our cities. That’s on the left. That’s, in part, due to woke ideology.

Again, there is plenty of stupidity and lies and contradiction to point out about the right. But this thread is about the End of Woke. And leftism needs to be evaluated in the open air. Enough with the cancelation of opponents to stupid leftist bullshit.

And It’s not inherent to progressive liberalism that someone else be silenced or canceled or killed, and it’s not inherent to liberalism that their solutions are unworkable; but today it often looks that way and if we keep ignoring it, we have every reason to fear more killings.

We freedom lovers, left and right, should all be able to come together in horror at Kirk’s murder, but today’s left hates the right way too much for that. The left refuses to see good in anything coming from the right. Period. And the left refuses to put partisanship aside to just console a wounded nation.

Kirk’s death should have been a unifying moment - but since 9/11 (which was a short left-right unifying moment), and these past 20 plus years, the division has metastasized, and it’s been packaged for consumption by both sides. So the possibility of the shallow but real unity we once were capable of, seems gone.

That is the real threat to democracy. All of the bad faith, clouding judgment, blinding us to basic facts.

what's happening in terms of authoritarian policies and freedom of expression — Mijin

Hmmm. :chin: Lots of things from lots of different directions. Did you see SB 771 in California? Fairly woke side fascist move. And a more concrete fascist move than anything Trump is doing. (Although it will be interesting to see if the law is enforceable or gets tossed by the courts….)

you stupid shit. — Mijin

Now that doesn’t really foster dialogue, does it.

dignified exit — Banno

:fist_bump: — Mijin

Might be too late…. But ok, bye.

I’m here if you want to talk….

As in this:

I think "woke" is a meaningless scare word.

I've already explained why in multiple posts — Mijin

You certainly said this. But I don’t think you’ve really explained why, or how.

I don’t see how the word “woke” would function as a “scare word” and galvanize the right, and elect a president, twice, without enough content to it to stir emotions. To me, that content is DEI initiatives, white college kids protesting for Palestine and for trans normativity, and against ICE and Jews and Tesla cars. That’s all democrat/woke actual stuff. Plenty of fascism and violence to go around, eh? It used to be scary. Now, as college debaters are murdered and the woke counts its blessings, and none of the MAGA fascists rioted or retaliated with anything but more forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss, we all can see the woke emporer has no clothes. Except he’s wearing a thong, and for some reason no one knows whether he was a boy or girl. (don’t worry, the wonderful media will get him/her/them a robe)

I may as well bid everyone goodday and bow out — Mijin

So “the End of Woke” brought you to the end of the conversation.

You did some nice work here. — Banno

:rofl: The bubble remains intact - shrinking though isn’t it?

what's happening in terms of authoritarian policies and freedom of expression. — Mijin

Ok.

I know Trump and Christians, and old white men are authoritarian and they hate free speech. Those arguments are loud and clear. If that is what you want to talk about, fine, but I am more interested in getting some clarity on how wokeness is authoritarian and quashes free speech.

But you don’t think wokeness is a functional term, nor do I think you care about any fascism coming from the left.

So maybe we should be done here, unless the authoritarianism that comes from the left is part of the discussion, on a thread with “woke” in the title.

the people most against "woke", have used it to mean just about anything from why we lost Vietnam to vaccine mandates. You're not interested in discussing that — Mijin

Yes I am. That discussion requires some sort of working definition of “woke” - that is how one could demonstrate how, for instance, the Vietnam thing sounds stupid. How can we say “it’s stupid to think we lost the Vietnam war because of wokeness” without some general framework for what wokeness is?

I think you want to disagree with me no matter what.

Recall @NOS4A2 on the free speech thread. You and me agreed there - Nos was not making sense. He has a strange notion of freedom and determinism as these relate to speech and choice and action.

But here on this thread, I can tell NOS has no fondness for woke ideology. I bet it is because woke ideology is so authoritarian and so destructive of freedom and free speech. So I agree with much he says here.

But you don’t seem to see any fascism coming from left/progressive/woke - you seem to be more interested in showing how “woke” is a strawman (which undercuts the entire OP) and more interested in showing how the right spreads fascism.

Nothing wrong with that. You could just say “yeah I guess that is what I’m doing” - but I’m sure you don’t think I have it right…

I’m not trying to hyjack the thread. I’m trying to take careful steps - to build, together, some agreement on what “woke” means. This sounds like a good starting point to me.

You can’t admit “woke” means anything clear at all? No boundaries at all encompassing what is woke?

I never thought it was so controversial. If I say “girls can do everything boys can do” - that aligns with woke. If I say “girls cannot do everything boys can do” - that doesn’t sound woke to me.

So an interesting discussion is how oppression might be found by the woke mob yelling at anyone who won’t confess that girls can do everything boys can do. Whether you see this or agree with this, or not, seems relevant to the thread.

A second discussion is how oppression might be found by Trump preventing girls from doing stuff because they just cant do what boys do even if they wanted to…. But this second discussion isn’t really about woke anymore is it. Unless you are arguing “lower standards for girls in the navy is woke, and keeping girls out of the SEALs is oppressive.

We should at least talk about the left along with the right (if we need to talk about the right at all). On this thread.

BTW - I can see you have real concerns about Trump and what appears to be happening in the US. Is there any way to address your concerns without hearing out the concerns of right wing thinkers?

Don’t we all need to hash this shit out?

We really can’t find anything to agree on at all? Like whether there is a such thing a wokeness? You really don’t see woke as anything other than a right wing strawman? You never hear left-leaning people use the word? I think the left coined the term around 2010. I just think that it is obviously - wokeness is a real thing influencing thought, action and governmental policy. It’s hyper liberalism, focused on power struggles involved in racial and sexual identity.

Woke ideology gives us a lot to think about. I’ve said from the beginning, analysis of implicit bias is important for one’s own free-thinking and for communities to more humbly stay together and overcome fear, ignorance and stupid hate. But woke ideology also gives us some self-defeating, crappy policies - like the incoherent and impossible to fairly implement DEI policies.

wokeness as treating race, sex, and power as the most important factors in all choices, — praxis

How about, ‘race sex and power as among the top factors’?

Seems like you are basically agreeing with me.

most who identify with or are labeled as “woke” simply emphasize awareness of systemic inequities alongside other concerns — praxis

“Systemic” - we should work that concept into the working definition. That’s a good point.

It also reduces wokeness to “behavior and ideas” tied to progressive liberals and DEI initiatives, reflecting a common conservative critique rather than a neutral or self-described meaning. — praxis

It’s not a critique if you like DEI. Woke is what it is - it is a left-leaning value system. That isn’t a critique.

in practice, “woke” is a broader, contested term rooted in social awareness, not just a partisan ideology. — praxis

How broader? Wokeness came from the left. But it stands alone as well. Its roots are not the issue. Does it have any value for all people of all partisan flavors or not? Is it good for anyone to, as you say, “emphasize awareness of systemic inequities” or not?

And come to think of it, if we add the concept of “systemic inequities” to the working definition, instead of just any inequities, that “systemic” focus might push wokeness close to being rooted in liberal leftism than even my definition. The left is always more interested in systems and groups than it is individuals and particulars.

But it doesn’t make sense for you to say to me that “been influenced by divisive rhetoric” when, 1) you have no way of knowing how I came up with my definition, and 2) you are showing signs of basically agreeing with it.

You sound like, if you wanted to help someone with a working definition of woke, you would be integrating some of the same concepts as I did. Which makes total sense to me, because I, and those spewing “divisive rhetoric,” didn’t invent woke - we just live with it.

And the term “divisive rhetoric” sounds like something you picked up “rather than seeing things as they truly are.”

You can be reluctant to agree woke has to do with systemic inequities involving race, sex and power, but you are still agreeing with me. What is so bad about just agreeing with me?

You are talking about revising and supplementing my working definition, not tossing it. So your judgments of how wrong I am sound contradictory.

a dozen pages of whining — Mijin

I’m pretty sure you are whining about me, more than I’m whining about woke. I’m not whining. If you were in the room with me, it wouldn’t sound like whining or complaining. So that’s dumb to keep saying.

the more relevant points, like all the infringements on free speech — Mijin

How is that more relevant than what I am trying to talk about on a thread call “The End of Woke”? I don’t think you are concerned about the ways the woke seek to control and limit free speech, so how is it “more relevant”?

that are orders of magnitude worse than any of the claims of what "woke" has done — Mijin

Right, you want to talk about something else. Not what woke has done. That’s some other thread. Like maybe a thread about how Trump is fascist is some other thread.

can you please address some of the more relevant points — Mijin

That is my line. You stole my line.

constantly shifting) — Mijin

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.
— Fire Ologist — Fire Ologist

Let’s start over.

"fascist" as encouraging violence — Mijin

A new topic. Avoids the issue.

It’s ok to call someone fascist. If they are fascist. But get us back on track.

You really need to deal with this:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s what people are saying when they say “woke”.

You are just wrong and delusional if you think woke is just a word. It’s modern American left ideology. It’s what I said above.

Make an argument. That is about the topic of the thread. Assume everyone knows I am a despicable person - who gives a shit?

The subject is the end of woke. So do you think that means the end of a meaningless scare word? Is that what you see going on in America?

You have said it's not clearly defined, you stupid shit. — Mijin

But is the question whether “woke” is clearly defined? That’s what you want to talk about. Without pointing to any definition at all!

I am trying to show you there is something there that exists and can take on a definition. Dummy.

I’m trying to define it.

You are saying it isn’t a thing; and, it is not a clearly defined thing. ??? That’s incoherent. Is woke a thing? If so, what is it?

Move the ball.

I am assuming it’s a thing because it convinced a country to put a felon in the presidency to beat it up and tear woke policy down. “Make America Asleep and not Woke again”. MAANWA. I am guessing that is no help to you. All while it vaguely happens before your very eyes.

You just won’t talk about it. No self-reflection or self-assessment. You are like a kid with his hands over his ears yelling “waaa waaaa - I can’t hear you when you say ‘woke’ waaaa waaaa.”

Nice strategy. It’s not like I gave you volumes of material you can use to make an actual point that might interest someone.

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

Key words you would be better served to address:

Behavior and ideas
Awareness
Inequities
Race, sex
Power
Diversity
Inclusion
Left-leaning

Those are all part of any idiot’s understanding of wokeness or appropriate use of the word “woke”.

despicable — Mijin

Don’t be a baby. Put your big boy pants on. You can always refute something I said that matters.

Woke is consistently picking the wrong priorities.
Woke is focusing on who is talking not what they are saying.
Woke is never having to say sorry.
Woke is never having to say “woke”.

If you can’t say something substantive, I will assume deep down you are convinced of the wisdom of my working definition and that you will be supporting JD Vance for president in 2028 (if Trump hasn’t set up his dictatorship in time of course - and he isn’t shot in the head).

this boogieman — Mijin

Nicely done. No such thing as woke. No way to define it. It doesn’t mean anything. Got it.

Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists. Whatever you do, don’t talk about liberal progressive ideology with a conservative.

Does “hate has no home here” mean you hate Donald Trump? I’m pretty sure it does. So woke.

How about pick a definition and work on it with me. Let’s coin a new term “woke” right now:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s a start. Revise it for us. Anything to add to the conversation besides times people say “woke” that confuses you. (If you see ‘the president calling losing in Vietnam due to woke’ makes a “mess” out of woke, you must see something besides a boogieman, otherwise why didn’t you pick trans children’s book readings or affirmative action as part of the mess of woke?)

You lose over and over with me. Nothing I’ve said has been addressed let alone refuted.

The only reason the woke don’t like the word “woke” anymore is because Trump and the right use the word.

AI verdict: — praxis

Just because someone else (whatever a “MAGA” is??) sounds like me has nothing to do with the content of what I said. Maybe “maga” is right about woke! Sis yay for me for getting it right like AI said. My sense of woke seems to have impressed enough people to throw the democrats out of the presidency, the senate, the house, Florida. The best response the democrats have had to the anti-woke rhetoric is to shoot guns. And call people names. And avoid discussion. And bleed voters. And disappoint polls.

Keep up the good work.

You’ve given me a lot to think about…

Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed — praxis

Ok.

How?

woke" to mean at least a dozen different things — Mijin

What’s wrong with that? The thread must have two dozen viable senses of “woke” at this point.

Like anything else, crystal clear definitions are hard earned, if earned at all.

But isn’t it disingenuous to say that just because a definition is vague, the thing it seeks to define does not exist?

Whether you ever use the word “woke” or not, I don’t really understand denying “woke” fits certain things/actions/ideas. As if you haven’t heard the word more than enough time these past 6-plus years - from the universities to the media and into our politics “woke” is clearly some specific usage.

Is maga any easier to define than woke? It isn’t.

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Ok, I’ll try.

Before just dropping another definition, allow me to give you the context out of which I see “woke” has emerged.

I go back to the at least the 1960’s (could go further first) and point out the anti-Vietnam War western baby-boom generation - rebellion glamorized in music and for the first time the movies and then the press, but mostly in protests against government oppression, and rich man’s oppression, and then male oppression of women and white oppression of colored.

These grievances became more pointed and sharp, as feminism started to really win the conversation - Although they failed to enact an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), women like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem represented a new place for women in political and corporate stages.

And the Civil Rights Act brought to the conversation grievances based on race, creed, and sex. Separately the Supreme Court told the states that they could not make any laws about abortion until later in the pregnancy. This becomes important later, because it cements a wedge between religion and the political left.

So having some sense of the things and happenings just mentioned above are necessary background to see “woke” emerge. The big items above are grievance (glamorized rebellion and protest), and substantive items like race (MLK, Black Panthers, Malcom), creed (abortion rights and the notion of “potential” life) and sex (highlighting equality through feminism).

Each of these items has its own contexts and much of that goes far back before the 60’s. The philosophy in the Universities was firmly post-modern, going back in all directions but mostly through Continental deconstructionists and existentialists to the enlightenment humanists…

Out this, CRT came to be in the early 1990’s (I’m sure I have the dates wrong but the dates don’t matter).

And eventually we had some slightly firm concepts like these:
- male dominated patriarchical structure of society
- white colonial geo-political hegemony
- capitalism enabling the powerful to keep their power
- systemic oppression of non-male, non-white, and just generally inequitable systemic power relations.

Based on the dominance of rich, white westerners, the oppressive systems that have been instituted must be torn down, or replaced.

The term “politically correct” is a term that was used in exactly the same way as the word “woke”. Except not all politically correct ideas were left-leaning (most were); whereas possibly all woke ideas are left-leaning.

The left clarified something more specific than just politically correct.

The “correctness” of the woke is baked right into wokeness. In this way wokeness, like political correctness, is like a soft moralizing, comfortably sounding in speeches like a sermonizing.

(None of this is necessarily bad, by the way. I haven’t gotten into anything bad about wokeness so far. Any shortcomings you might find above do not render wokeness impotent, if there are any…)

By the end of the Obama Presidency, wokeness was formally a thing.

Woke ideas addressed the above areas the right way, and such politically correct action stated to be called “woke” enough to where I first saw the word.

So we could write a book on the climate and environment out of which “woke” came to particularize something. But let’s get back to the question:

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.

Is it supposed to be a gotcha — praxis

Absolutely not. That would require me to be speaking in bad faith. So thanks again for that assumption.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive.

Sorry for the length of the post! — Jeremy Murray

Me too! :razz:

Possible World Series opponents, — Jeremy Murray

Toronto? Yes indeed! Hope so for both of us!
And Schwenksville - that’s crazy! Been there myself. That’s the home of the annual Philly Folk Festival, for 60 plus years now.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - underneath it all when being honest - most adults are just people, and do share a few basic values.
But also, looking only surface deep at each other (which wokeism promotes with its focus on race and physical identity), people easily become reluctant to notice what we share in common. We all give in to fear and ignorance and tribalism too easily, and it becomes too hard to offer humility and respect (and the left chastises any show of respect for the other side). So any shared values we might identify never get a chance to help us come together.

Systems oppress, — Jeremy Murray

Yes - this is ingrained. And although systems do limit us, oppress is the wrong word. So it is irrational to reify the insight that “systems oppress” as wokeism does. For people who think simply that systems oppress, what is not admitted or dealt with is this: when systems are toppled, new systems emerge, so we can’t just say “systems, like oppression, are always bad, and must never take hold”. We need to make good systems, not no systems. There will always be systems and hierarchies, and the powerful and the weak. Period. We need to grapple with that, not imagine it doesn’t exist and shoot for toppling all systematizers. We are all adherence to system. Period. So let’s get to work on a good one, not blindly topple all of them.

This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. And I agree. The “vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough.” One man’s good vibe is another man’s vague confusion. This is the problem with consensus based conclusions generally. Reliance on a consensus to ground authority doesn’t work as soon leadership conflicts with itself ans our leaders live to do, and also as soon as the populous is split 50/50, which it is. There is no moral authority. Too often, no one even wants to identify a consensus. They just want to shout louder and see if the loudest one wins the day. And consensus changes with the wind, as it has for female athletes and gay people, thanks to the new trans consensus.

It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example. — Jeremy Murray

I agree. DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesn’t just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. Trump and his ilk are beneath reasonableness and worthy of contempt as evil doers. But as far as the positive proclamations of woke, that is now postmodern and amorphous, amenable only to posturing, confusion (often intentional confusion) and moral conflict. Total mess when the left runs things.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters. — Jeremy Murray

Don’t you think that describes the vast, vast majority of leftists? They are so certain a man like Kirk gets killed annd they are so certain they can celebrate it, and vilify any/all who show any sympathy for the dead man. It takes some kind of certainty to act they way. Celebrating victimization is supposed to be the type of oppressive behavior the left hates and seeks to redress. But they can’t see Charlie was a victim at all, despite the blood and the murder on a sunny day at a stimulus school for kids. They utterly blow the moral argument all of the time, utterly contradict any moral authority they think they have, and then, with zero self-reflection, they confidently act like the oppressors they are supposed to be resisting. Like affirmative action - it should be sour medicine at best, but instead, it is reverse racism to be celebrated for some reason.

Look, I obviously tend to be more harsh on the left than the right, because I’m conservative. (And have been brow beaten all my adult life.) But I think the conservative counter-argument to the wrongs the left have been perpetrating in the name of political correctness/wokism are much more relevant today than the more shallow fears and purported injustices the left wants to focus on. Many might not want to admit it, but the US, and really the world, is in a better place today since Trump took office. The biggest threat to the US today is the same as it has been for 20 years - Democrat policies. Conservative racism and fascism is simply put, bullshit. The left is full of too much obvious bullshit, and too many people already see it, too many have seen enough of it, and too many people are leaving the Democrat Party everyday the left does and says another stupid thing.

Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude. — Jeremy Murray

That is a problem. The left can’t tolerate true diversity. The left drops all balls they think matter, and never picks up the balls that actually do matter.

I will say, I have less fear of those who are certain. What bothers me is what such people do when their certainty is challenged. If you are certain, ok, but if someone disagrees with you, you can shut the opponent down, or you can engage and convince them of the truth you are so certain about. I just want engagement, and certainly not more shutting down and shouting down. Rational certainty is fine (and should indeed be rare). Emotionally driven certainty - makes for a terrible conversation.

It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity. — Jeremy Murray

Yes! And they have turned a blind eye towards their own self - they will not look in the mirror. The woke are now the most asleep among us. And it is a loss to all of us, and to healthy debate.

woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, but I wouldn’t say “may” - I’d just say “clearly”. How about gender, and children? How about women athletes? How about Jewish people? How about poor inner city folks? How about language - basic words are no longer supposed to have meaning. What does “woman” or “fascist” really mean anymore - when the examples they give of each are unrecognizable )or purposefully hollow)?

The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left. — Jeremy Murray

100%. Liberal thought gave us the US constitution and the modern nation-state. Liberal thought gave us more faith in science and reason. You have to have some liberal in you to be an artist, and art is vital. There is a lot more work to be done, and the creative spirit of liberalism is always going to be needed. So I fully agree here.

But the left is too greedy with power and control to risk humility and partnership with anyone who isn’t a parrot. The left would say my praise for the goods of liberalism are not enough, and so useless and shrug me off.

The left is destroying the good of liberalism, as it destroys everything it touches. In the name of sexual freedom, they promote and push chopping off body parts, and their reasoning is to “affirm gender” - so clearly irrational, or at least, chopping off adolescent body parts is valid as a debate topic. Except to a wokeist.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. — Jeremy Murray

I know you do. Which is why I appreciate your voice of reason here on the forum. And thanks for making sure I knew that - that is your good faith and honesty coming through, which I already knew (but thanks).

The media image of Maga is insane, and there are millions of idiots to choose from as examples of what is wrong with MAGA. That is a worthy analysis to undergo.

The caricature of the conservative is so deeply ingrained in western culture, it is easy to find people who appear to be just another redneck, Nazi republican. It it so clear, in the media, who the bad guys are, and they (we) are so vilified, that the constant browbeating fuels actual bad guys, the worst elements of Maga.

But if you look closer, there are tens of millions of folks like me. We are lumped in with the media boogeyman that is conservatism, and with MAGA. But most of us are slightly less ignorant, not the least bit fascist, and not interested in race or whatever adults want to do with other adults in their pants and skirts. The conservative (not MAGA) movement can think, and we see through the slogans and posturing and ridiculous ideas on both sides. (but due to the destructiveness of wokeism are focused on the left’s bad ideas). There are armies of black people, and immigrants and women who are firm, politically literate conservative thinkers. To us, MAGA is just a campaign slogan.

People just want to be proud of where they live and their country. It should be ok to want to make your country great. It shouldn’t immediate be distrusted by Americans.

Americanism and American culture (for Americans) is supposed to be a shared value. The left would never say that, and that alone is a problem. It’s not reality to think America is nearly as bad as the left says America is. It’s just not the case. Millions of immigrants understand that better than the Democrat party does.

That should give pause that the left never seems to take, even after a convicted felon who boasts about assaulting women wins election twice - that’s how wrong voters see the left and they won’t self-assess.

I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology. — Jeremy Murray

The vast majority of human beings have some conservative ideas and impulses. That doesn’t make everyone conservative. So any posters who think you are “a conservative” are not paying attention. I see you as more of a classic liberal. Like liberals were in the 1980s. Reagan was still called a Nazi then, but liberals had way more internal consistency (rationality) and way more respect and ability to debate back them.

Today’s left doesn’t tolerate debate with the right, and in the same breath they squander credibility as they shrink their tent, and leave reasonable people like you out.

There are a lot of people like you. The left has no tools or means to win you back because they don’t have to win arguments - they only have to indoctrinate youth and shout down opposition, and tear down institutions - that’s what victory is to them. Bad ideas masquerading as moral goodness defeating evil white Christian men.

But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad.

Cheers.

I am still looking for a way to actually connect on something (anything) with folks like @praxis and @Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS, while being so sure whatever I think IS NOT true, for some reason.

They want to take away all the cake from everyone, and eat it too.

But they must think I, a conservative who can actually find good things about Trump, I must like raping women, hurting trans people, and I must want to enslave all non-whites. That I am unreasonable, and willfully blind to facts. So I can’t really blame them for not actually treating me with any respect or honesty. They may not know it, but I wouldn’t debate with Hitler either, if that is what I thought about my opponent.

They may not want to admit, but we Westerners have a lot of good things in common with each other. We, and the culture that has been entrusted to us, is worth ironing out to include the left and the right.

The left needs to soul search and they are too prideful to do it.

How about this: MAGA wants to make things great again. Woke wants to make things great for the first time.

So let’s show guys like Trump and girls like AOC some respect and just make things great period. Together.

(But, I know, we are all too invested in fighting to take that shit seriously…). Such a shame.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own.
— Fire Ologist

I can understand different opinions. It’s not that difficult. — praxis

That is the closest you’ve come to just saying you are a progressive. I appreciate the openness.

You are right. What I said above was imprecise. I should say this instead: On many issues relating to political power, culture and human interaction, Progressives can’t fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism. — Jeremy Murray

Gotta admit, there are people who misjudge, and therefore abuse, the Kirk situation from both sides.

But the vast majority of people on the right see it as only tragic. But tragic for all sides. Bad for the country, and bad for liberty and peace, and for life itself. (The frickin guy bled from his neck to death for using a microphone at school.) Many on the left get the picture too. But not enough it seems.

This Kirk thing will be around for a while. This is like an MLK. The left doesn’t understand how browbeaten conservatives have been, because they are the last people to admit it.

Kirk is going to represent a new vocalization of conservative values, and a sort of last straw.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be labeled fascist, racist, sexist Hitler wannabes. Since President Nixon and the 1960s really.

I think the media will all be forced to show another side of conservatives and republicans. The media no longer can contain a more realistic image of the average conservative, hidden behind the caricature the progressive left wants to portray.

Kirk just doesn’t look like a racist sexist, person, and because the left won’t look at him, they are the only ones who can’t see that.

The irony is, it’s like the right has become woke - awoken to the need to deny being a racist, and repudiate the harmful folly of DEI, and speak the truth of proven traditions.

There are terrible things in the past, but those are all the left sees. And they make up new terrible things and boogiemen and want to talk about them as well - and all republicans always go in the same bucks the rest of th terrible things they only want to look at. At once, morally superior as they burn down everyone who is not monolithically with them.

No longer will that be the only conversation. Kimmel and Colbert, and many other screaming wokeists just don’t function like they used to.

If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no “blue wave” (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.

Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. Maybe someday…

The hand on the scale is wavering.

But the schools will have to turn around a bit, and that will be tough as that is really where leftism/ wokeism seems most comfortable, and apparently, bold and militant.

BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread. — Jeremy Murray

I didn’t think anyone was even following, so thanks for noticing the feeble effort. You are making a lot of sense to me as well.

government thing — jorndoe

Maybe, but I was talking about your average progressive Democrat. Not the government. (At least not currently.)

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave — Trump

Sounds like a tough meeting for the top brass. I’m sure our military leaders can handle tough confrontations, don’t you think? That meeting inspired and emboldened, as much as it drew any petty outrage or fear, and as much as it annoyed the media-leftist-democrat (woke) complex. More good than harm done there, if you ask me.

“Outsider” is an odd term to use. — praxis

Why is that? There are many outsiders to leftist progressives. Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. (The right also uses identity politics - it’s a shitty tactic just as well. The right could screw up this moment easily with their own othering, but I’m still trying to talk about the woke left.)

Unintentionally (with no self awareness) progressives are the kings of othering and dehumanizing and shouting down the outsider (fascist! Racist! sexist rapist, Hitler, Nazi, hater, gestapo, republican, white man, deplorable, redneck (rural-flyover country) etc…). And outside the buckets, the left makes outsiders on a case by case basis too. Plenty of progressives and democrats in the 1980s were pro life, but not any more. If you think you are left but think abortion is killing a person, are you welcome to the Democrat party? Or if you think men and women are just different, you can’t be woke or left or progressive anymore. Today we no longer know if feminists are woke enough, because they seem to conflict with trans and general cutting edge sexist analysis.

Are you an American? I always find it strange how the entire WEIRD world seems to have imported the binary of Republican / Democrat. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, I’m an American. From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. The US’s Democrat/ Repub division of the political parties does seem to be fairly universal. There are all types of people on an individual basis, but generally, the left-leaning/progressive thinkers are Democrats here, and the right-leaning/conservative thinkers are republicans. All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. So the independent folks are being trampled by the left and turned away from the left. They have no where else to go but the Republican Party, and it helps republicans win elections.

the impact of woke is to silence the centre. T
— Jeremy Murray — Fire Ologist

That is really interesting. I heard an anecdote the other day that points to this same observation of yours.

This woman said she was probably 70% liberal/progressive, and 30% conservative. But she was a registered Independent. So she mostly disagreed with the republicans, and would argue with them constantly, but on the few issues where they could agree, they would be able to connect, and even bond. So in the end they generally got along dispute mostly disagreeing. But when she was with the democrats, the Dems didn’t care how much they agreed, they would shut her down and kick her out for not conforming on all issues.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own. Any outsider on any issue must be a facist/racist/sexist, and all of those who hold any opinion that opposes them, indicates to them a person who cannot be trusted on anything. Such people are to be feared, hated and silenced.

This is the left’s biggest problem - it’s become mob rule at its worst.

Hume's anthropology/psychology is what justifies his skeptical positions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could the same point be made by saying instead “Hume uses anthropology/psychology to justify his skeptical positions.”? This leaves open the question of whether his anthropology/psychology was any good to actually justify his skepticism.

But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience.
— Fire Ologist

I don't see how this helps. In virtue of what is Hume's introspection more right than those of pre-modern thinkers or modern phenomenologists, etc. such that we should dismiss their understanding of how the mind works and accept Hume's? Consider also the idea that the act of understanding is luminous (reflexive). Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection, but why ought we believe he introspects more correctly than his opponents? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t agree with Hume’s conclusions.

When I said “experience of our own mind being different than our sense experience” I was precisely referring to the fact of reflection in the mind (luminous understanding). Sense impression as a basis for all mental reflection is a great empirically based theory, but Hume was too enamored of this theory. Knowing the mind and ideas is just different than knowing a sense object. Knowing qua knowing is not merely knowing qua sensing. What the eye and brain do when seeing is analogous to what the mind does in itself when reflecting, but it’s only an analogy. From what I can tell, one needs a completely different mechanism (epistemology that involves essences) to explain reflection, not just one involving Hume’s faded recollections.

How do you mean Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection?

Hume didn’t explain habitualness. Hume didn’t satisfactorily explain whatever might make some habit more functional than another - he just asserted we had no way to know this. It’s great how the billiard balls moved the way he predicted, but he ultimately wasn’t talking about billiard balls when he made any predictions, since their existence and behavior were experiences of his sense perceptions, not experiences of any thing in the world on which these sense impressions were verifiably (justifiably) based.

How different is the picture Hume ultimately creates than the picture Plato creates of the man chained in the cave seeing shadows of things, but not seeing things? Plato just added the possibility of breaking free of the chains. And I would say, an act of reflection itself involves some break from the pre-reflective, chained self that seeks to know.

skepticism cannot be escaped if we accept the premises. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, ironically, makes experience something of a miracle.

He cannot know the reality of how the mind works for the same reason he cannot know causes in the classical sense, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain that further?

Maybe Hume just didn’t get into it? But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience. (I guess that is what Kant did.).

what makes them legitimate if they are not justified by reason? — JuanZu

Nothing. What makes the notion of “legitimate” coherent and applicable divorced from reason? Nothing.

If you believe as Hume does that constant conjunction has little or nothing to do with necessary connection, then belief in the necessary connection between two constantly conjoined things, is fancy, or practical for now, or whatever else you want to believe about it. It’s not actually true or actually legitimate.

Ask Hume, what do vivid impressions cause? He has to say “stop asking stupid questions.” But to “impress” is to transfer something, from one, to another. Light impresses itself upon my eyeballs. Do my eyeballs and the light cause anything? Or do I just constantly connect them to my “visions” out of habit (can’t say “force of habit” because “force” sounds like a cause)? He had to say that light and eyeballs don’t cause - causation is a figment of our minds. But for some reason he allows constant conjunction and “recurrent association” to be prior to a judgment of belief - like a cause is prior to some effect. (I guess if we just avoid using the word “cause” and stand on “recurrent” we can lift up a rational “conclusion” of “legitimacy” - without sounding as naive as people who still believe and say “cause” and believe they actually know something about the world.)

I agree with Hume that “cause” itself is a metaphysical concept. But I agree with Aristotle that metaphysical concepts, formal causes, exist - minds alone can sense or grasp or discern or understand or constitute, or believe them…

What the hell — Tom Storm

I find this cloying — Tom Storm

Nazis and the Communists — Tom Storm

Well mass murder and war are also venerable — Tom Storm

I’m guessing the above isn’t quite what you were trying to inspire? :joke:

I appreciate the spirit.

I think you are reifying empathy a bit much. “Collective consciousness” and the “heartbeat of Mother Earth” sound like a new religion. Is this what you meant to conjure up?

But I feel how big it all is too.

And I like these a lot:

Active Listening: Engage with others' perspectives, without judgment, to build understanding and trust.

Small Acts of Kindness: Offer help or a kind word to strengthen community bonds. Small kindness holds the very principles of giving without needing anything in return. (Smallest lesson in life have the biggest effects when learned). — RadicalJoe

I am listening to you there. And as an act of kindness, I’ll say, keep putting out the hopeful vibes brother.

Aren’t we lucky to be alive today? It’s too late for me - I will forever be grateful. I have great hope too. Let’s take all of the shit, and show what great works we can do with it!

Peace.

It appears to me that there are no coherent, shared moral principles around which Woke states can organize themselves that do not lead to increased polarization and a rejection of the local community in favor of a shared global community of values found on screens. — Jeremy Murray

I agree.

Too often any discussion platform becomes shout down, shut out, (even duck and seek cover it seems). Everyone is too comfortable with the polarization. We just throw the opposition into their appropriate, factually incorrect, buckets of deplorables and shout at them. All tribes do this.

No one wants to apply any self-awareness about how we exacerbate what we fear. We scream “fire fire!” while reaching for the gasoline.

There is so precious little good faith left between the sides. And it is not just extremists on both sides. It’s everyone. The line between Republican and Democrat is stark (woke securely on the progressive side, and conservatives squarely republican) like a border wall.

No one even sees or hears each other anymore. Or wants to.

I agree there are some coherent moral principles shared between the two sides. Like free speech is a good one. Everyone knows free political speech is an essential right. But instead of building on that shared principle, we’ve all been too demonized to trust anything the opposition says (in both directions). The conversation about free speech is “yeah, but you cheered when Kirk was shot!” Versus “yeah, but you cheered when the FCC shut down Kimmel!”

Another is due process before the law and fairness. We all agree on that.

And if people take a breath and say “I agree with you - how to do we come together with a consistent response to attacks on free speech?” It all falls to crap with “how could you possibly agree with me because of ten other grievances - I don’t trust you at all.”

No one takes an argument from the other side at face value.

And our politicians are playing a game to score points with their bases in order to gain votes to extend their political careers. At least that is what a lot of them sound like to me. Just in another game, and not serious.

You would hope the philosophic types around here would be able to parse through the emotional knee-jerk mess a little better, identify facts, and stay logical and reasonable with the analysis and conclusions. But even here, people just overlook each other, and look through the text for dog-whistles and lies, and seek ways to avoid or downplay bad facts instead of just dealing with the best arguments. I’m sure many who read this and know I’m conservative, are thinking of all the ways to shred it for ill-intent, and to show how I am somehow being fascist (because fascism and conservatism must go hand in hand), and how I must not be a reasonable person.

No one wants to believe we really have the capability to do much better. Things are dire because leadership (Trump, JD Vance, AOC, Jeffries, etc.) cannot help themselves from fanning flames. Flames score points.

especially for young people who see our naked emperor. — Jeremy Murray

Is the naked emperor on both sides? Is wokism the naked emperor, along with conservatives’ often excessive and cold-hearted ways?

’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. — javra

I thought you wanted to separate out the politics.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I’m baffled myself.

you previously agreed the two are entwined — javra

Well, morality is entwined in every human interaction.

This would mean not separate. — javra

But we can separate things to talk about them. I thought that was what you were trying to do.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. — javra

Exactly.

hate speech is bad for society, — javra

Yes.

it is dangerous to criminalize — javra

Yes (and, to me, discussion around this point is the heart of discussion of the term “hate speech”)

and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate [hate speech]. — javra

Close enough. (We probably agree here too. I might say here that, by keeping political debate free, we protect an opportunity resolve differences. So not so reliant on the emergence of checks and balances, but just opportunity to argue it out.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that. — javra

I’ll consider it left. :up: