Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Post Reply New Topic

I am sorry if "long ago" is not history or the past to you. I guess that I have a lot to learn about the tenses.

I suppose your idea is that woke people would have burned down Christianity in the past for how it could be in the present.

And Christianity is not current innocent either. You don't think the American war hawks that want war into the middle east are not religious? You don't think a lot Christianity still teaches a lot of "hate the sin, not the sinner" teachings which up to recently meant a lot of torture of gay people. That there are a pretty large amount of Christians in starting some sort of holy war.

But we are not judging a whole people by a few examples, thus you should not judge people that are part of a religion just because of what you heard on Fox news or some other sort of propaganda piece.

If they really believed in what they claim to fight for, they would be going to the countries where females\lgbtiq...... are truely discriminated against and fight for the rights of them, not whine that a person can't use the bathroom they want to.

While they make such a tantrum about small, "safe" things, and do nothing about the much more serious issues around the world, it is impossible to take their claims of "caring" as anything other than "virtue signalling" to give themselves a sense of importance.

Nice try, still fails:

When talking about the "nature" (present tense), "long ago" would refer to being the first group targetted.

It is amazing how you continue to use historical examples of one religion as a way to divert from the way the "woke" do nothing for females, lgbtiq...., etc. who live and suffer under a second religion in the present day, yet still claim to be fighting for their "rights".

And then claim to not be judging the Christianity on its past actions or on the actions of a small subset of their members, while using examples demostrating this as part of your explanation of how you aren't...

You don't think that LGBT are no longer "truly discriminated against"? Please tell me when they were no longer discriminated against in Australia.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims. They do want to claim that:
"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."
"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.

I believe things must be improved.

I just don’t care for the “woke” methods of doing this.

I’m not going to “check my white privilege.”

The fact that you are asking me to prove a negative indicates this fact.

You are the one making the claim that there is no "real" discrimination for LGBT people, the burden of proof is on you to prove that statement. But I understand how it can be difficult prove someone is no longer being discriminated against.

For starters legalised gay marriage is incredibly recent and faced some disgusting No ad campaigns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia#Transgender_rights
Boom! Sex reassignment surgery (which means forced sterilization) is required for trans gender recognition in NSW and Queensland, and non-binary gender is not recognised in Queensland and Western Australia. As a NB person that is discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia#Summary_table_2
Double boom!
South Australia has not abolished the gay panic defense. Conversion therapy is only banned in Victoria. And not protected by hate crime laws in NT, Queensland, SA, and WA.

But all of those would hardly even prove that there is no discrimination even if every state ticked every box. Australia as part of a larger context just does not like to talk about these people. If ABC does a video just talking about an LGBT person being proud for who they are, you can expect a heavier dislike ratio, where people think that someone with a gender and sexuality that is not cis straight, then it is being forced down their throats. My mother was confronted by a person coming out as transgender person a couple years ago, and as accepting as she is she kept misgendering him.

From my understanding things are better than it has been, but Australia is hardly openly accepting LGBT people, otherwise I would not have been in the closet as long as I have been.

The females being stoned to death overseas for being the victim of rape, lgbtiq.... people being thrown from building roofs, the girls forced into marriage and\or having to undergo genital mutilation, etc. all thank you for the efforts on their behalf, rather than taking the easy way out and only fighting for changes to make YOUR life easier... They can see how hard you have things compared to what they have to suffer.

3: Manipulation of Facts

Examples: Lying. Excuse making. Two faced. Blaming the victim for causing their own victimization. Deformation of the truth. Strategic disclosure or withholding of key information. Exaggeration. Understatement. One-sided bias of issue.

10. Consistently Judge and Criticize You to Make You Feel Inadequate

Distinct from the previous behavior where negative humor is used as a cover, here the manipulator outright picks on you. By constantly marginalizing, ridiculing, and dismissing you, she or he keeps you off-balance and maintains her superiority. The aggressor deliberately fosters the impression that there’s always something wrong with you, and that no matter how hard you try, you are inadequate and will never be good enough. Significantly, the manipulator focuses on the negative without providing genuine and constructive solutions, or offering meaningful ways to help.

12. Pretend Ignorance

This is the classic “playing dumb” tactic. By pretending she or he doesn’t understand what you want, or what you want her to do, the manipulator/passive-aggressive makes you take on what is her responsibility, and gets you to break a sweat. Some children use this tactic in order to delay, stall, and manipulate adults into doing for them what they don’t want to do. Some grown-ups use this tactic as well when they have something to hide, or obligation they wish to avoid.

13. Guilt-Baiting

Examples: Unreasonable blaming. Targeting recipient’s soft spot. Holding another responsible for the manipulator’s happiness and success, or unhappiness and failures.

By targeting the recipient’s emotional weaknesses and vulnerability, the manipulator coerces the recipient into ceding unreasonable requests and demands.

14. Victimhood

Examples: Exaggerated or imagined personal issues. Exaggerated or imagined health issues. Dependency. Co-dependency. Deliberate frailty to elicit sympathy and favor. Playing weak, powerless, or martyr.

The purpose of manipulative victimhood is often to exploit the recipient’s good will, guilty conscience, sense of duty and obligation, or protective and nurturing instinct, in order to extract unreasonable benefits and concessions.

Based on observation and personal expereince with "Cult of Wokeness" servants on more than one occasion, I have now come to the conclusion that this group is an insidious threat and potentialy irredemable.

Whilst claiming to have been the victims of Bullying, in order to try and get support for their cause, they seem in no way averse to employing bullying tactics to try and force people (or businesses) to do what this cult wants, regardless of whether what they want is good for the community (or victim of this bullying) or not.

They also seem to make significant use of "Psychological manipulation" techniques, with the following being the ones I have most recently observed:


Particularly with regards to making accusations based on their subjective view of something said\posted and trying to place the blame on the speaker\poster for how THEY choose to interpret this.



When trying to explain how their misunderstanding may have occurred, they seem to intentionally focus on what they see as having been "bad", yet intentionally go out of their way to avoid providing anything which could assist in resolving the misunderstanding in order to prevent this occurring again, instead placing the focus on the "problem" which they subjectively see and wish to focus on.



The repeated use of this to avoid providing any information other than repeating the initial accusation they make, claiming that the issue was with the speaker\poster, rather than them, and that there is nothing they can do, as their initial subjective opinion proves what they wished to see.



Here, their use of "ism"\"ist"\"bias" claims around their subjective opinion in order to try and make the person with who they are communicating feel that they have done\said something wrong, whereas the statement\action was never intended in that way comes into play, hoping to "shame" a person for what was an innocent action\statement.



This would be one of their lowest acts...targetting people for sympathy, claiming to have been victims of bullying, then using this sympathy as a way to then bully these others into supporting them, as they "need" the support to stop future bullying of their selected group, ignoring their own actions in the process.

I have been bullied in the past...I know what bullying is and how it can be used by unscrupulous people to try and bend the weak-willed to the bully's will. It hasn't worked on me in the past, doesn't work on me now, and in fact can cause the opposite reaction to that intended by the bully.


As a result of this, whereas I once had sympathy\support of varying degree for the causes they had an interest in, I now find it hard to provide support for these causes in any way, due the association they have with this cult. I feel that further actions from any member of this group towards me that could conceivably be placed within any category of "psychological manipulation" in MY subjective opinion is likely to convince me that their cause is irredemable, and so should be fought against, rather than supported, and so I can only hope I never have the misfortune to be placed into that situation again, nor anyone else subjected to these sort of actions by this cult or its members.

Hopefully this "venting"\ getting this off my chest will help alleviate the stress this issue has been causing me of late, so I can finally get a decent sleep tonight.

My wife and I were discriminated against (verbally abused) by a lesbian couple nearly twenty years ago. It was shockingly intense.

Things like "marriage equality" would likely be\have been easier to achieve, if instead of trying to force a change to the definition of "marriage" (with its historical and religious associations in many people's minds) they instead sought to have the entire "marriage" removed from the law and replaced with "civil union" covering "two consenting adults" with no mention of gender\sex\whatever term is appropriate...Churches could still function as previously, in accordance with their beliefs, and the "woke" would have achieved the equality they wanted with minimal fuss.

But the word marriage also has a certain level of credibility to its sound outside of just what the law says. No one or any religion also has no monopoly of the word marriage, otherwise they could ban atheists. Words change all the time, there is nothing sacred about what it might have meant historically, but what it means in the now. And a gay man would want to show that his partner is just as important to him.

Would it work if every gay and lesbian person said that as part of their personal religion (beliefs) that marriage can include same sex?

The point is: You want "equality"...Replace the term "marriage" in legislation with "civil union", defind as being between "two consenting adults". You then have "equality" with minimal difficulty.

Redefining a word with historical\cultural meanings to what YOU want it to be, changing legislation to redefine a word away from a traditional meaning...Suddenly you have initiated a conflict with people who do not agree with this new definition.

In the former option, you have a new term, which replaces and extends what marriage previously was with minimal fuss. In the second, you try to force a large change on the majority, for the benefit of a minority, which will trigger conflict.

Trying to gain "credibility" through the use of a term, which could as easily been replaced with a neutral alternative affecting all, seems rather antagonistic, which appears to be the "woke" (and linked entities) preferred approach, sadly: instigate a conflict, then claim to be a victim to get sympathy, rather than trying to find alternatives which minimise the possibility of conflict.