Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Page 2 of 9 [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

25 Jun 2020, 1:27 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
In a sense, but in a slightly different way.

As an asexual/agender/aromantic person, I run in some pretty liberal circles of discussion. On the goofy end of that are the people who think anyone should be able to identify as anything, definitions of words mean nothing, and if you disagree with either of those two things, then you're committing the sin of not being "inclusive."

For example, I get myself into trouble in asexuality groups when I disagree that a person who loves sex and actively seeks it out is not actually "asexual."

Also, there are the people who need to have 30+ labels to describe their "identity."

"Hi, I'm Chaz. I'm a transmasc, feminine-presenting, demisexual, genderqueer, femme butch, transboi.....ect."

And I'm like, dude, give it a rest. You're not that complex, interesting, or deep, AND nobody actually cares.
You can have some limited libido and be A-spec.But yea,if there always seeking it out and proclaiming there love of it I doubt there on the asexual spectrum.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

25 Jun 2020, 1:29 pm

"Woke" reminds me of the JW's Awake slogan.Sort of a way of getting into a higher plain of consciousness.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

25 Jun 2020, 1:31 pm

Your friend is wrong though.
The biggest human rights desaster is the effect of capitalist mode of production on the poorest 90% of the globe's population.

Insofar, he's "Islamophobic", for getting the ranking of human rights violations wrong.

Other than that I agree - wokeness is not humanism, it's not measuring the world by human rights or their violations.
But neither are other belief systems, like the aforementioned capitalism, or the majour world religions, like Islam or Christianity (by those who take it seriously).

Human rights are of value as far as I know only in the belief system of humanism, which a few western governments have inscribed into their constitutions, but that's about it.
It's not really being taught in schools, there are only few communities that regularly congregate around it - namely people working at Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,299
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Jun 2020, 1:32 pm

Fnord wrote:
A friend of mine relates the following story:
One of Fnord's friends wrote:
I was having a pleasant conversation with a lesbian undergraduate, who was majoring in Gender Studies, when I included Islam amongst regressive patriarchal forces. With perfect "Woke" adamant and self-righteous certainty she stated flatly, "Islam is not regressive!"  Whereupon she instantly shut down the conversation.  Of course, from the point of view of belief conservation, she was right to do so, because given an opportunity to respond I would have pointed out that the treatment of half a billion women under Islam is by far the greatest human rights disaster on the planet with nothing even a close second; that Islam enslaved ten times more Africans than the white Europeans ever did; that according to the Hadiths and Muhammad’s Sacred Biography the prophet personally, and with avid enthusiasm, beheaded several hundred surrendered Jewish men, women and children; and that this "religion of peace" has always been a world conquest ideology. which 70 years after the Prophet's death had conquered a land mass 7 times the size of the USA and 3 times the size of the Roman Empire at its peak.

But "Woke" fundamentalist cannot hear or be told such historic facts because they will brand you an Islamaphobic racist (even though Islam is a religion, not a race) before you can speak any amount of "heretical" facts.

So, at this point, though they may have dreadlocks and tattoos, et cetera, I have come to see that a great many young "Woke" people are actually a bunch of uptight, rigid, self-righteous church ladies in disguise.
While my friend's experience happened more than a dozen years ago, I too have witnessed and been a part of many similar instances wherein someone whose outlook was not in lock-step with the "Woke" culture was branded by a member of that same culture as racist, sexist, and generally "Closed-Minded".

How horrible it must be to live in a "Closed-Minded" society that does not agree with your own narrow perspective.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with "Woke" people?




People are so uncomfortable with the truth they would rather just pretend women are not oppressed in 3rd world countries.

It's not xenophobia to be intolerant of behaviors in cultures or religion that harm other humans and violate human rights and oppress them.

I often see people using religion as an excuse to be transphobic or homophobic or to be abusive to their kids.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,299
Location: Pacific Northwest

25 Jun 2020, 1:35 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
In a sense, but in a slightly different way.

As an asexual/agender/aromantic person, I run in some pretty liberal circles of discussion. On the goofy end of that are the people who think anyone should be able to identify as anything, definitions of words mean nothing, and if you disagree with either of those two things, then you're committing the sin of not being "inclusive."

For example, I get myself into trouble in asexuality groups when I disagree that a person who loves sex and actively seeks it out is not actually "asexual."

Also, there are the people who need to have 30+ labels to describe their "identity."

"Hi, I'm Chaz. I'm a transmasc, feminine-presenting, demisexual, genderqueer, femme butch, transboi.....ect."

And I'm like, dude, give it a rest. You're not that complex, interesting, or deep, AND nobody actually cares.


Actually asexual just means lack of sexual attraction. You can very well enjoy sex and still be asexual but you are just not attracted to anyone sexually.

People also often argue that asexual does not mean low libido and that you can be asexual and have a high libido.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jun 2020, 1:43 pm

League_Girl wrote:
People are so uncomfortable with the truth they would rather just pretend women are not oppressed in 3rd-world countries.
That's likely because it somehow undermines the assertion that America is the worst country in the world for still not having settled the "Reproductive Rights" issue.  How can America be the worst when women in 3rd-world countries can be jailed and/or executed for experiencing accidental miscarriages?
League_Girl wrote:
It's not xenophobia to be intolerant of behaviors in cultures or religion that harm other humans and violate human rights and oppress them.
As long as you can say, "A woman was murdered by her uncle today for having been gang-raped by her cousins..." without mentioning where, you're doing okay; but the moment you say, "... in Saudi Arabia", then you are a xenophobic racist who isn't "woke" enough.
League_Girl wrote:
I often see people using religion as an excuse to be transphobic or homophobic or to be abusive to their kids.
Sadly, that does happen in America too; and some people wonder why I hate religion.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

25 Jun 2020, 2:00 pm

League_Girl wrote:
People are so uncomfortable with the truth they would rather just pretend women are not oppressed in 3rd world countries.


I don't think that's the issue here, though. The issue here I think is the inflexible characterisation of groups. If Muslims have been put in the "poor, oppressed victim"-box, any suggestion that is negative about muslims and/or islam is automatically punching down and is therefore just racist and evil.

Feminist and closet Islamist Linda Sarsour informed us during the 2017 Women's March that "Islam is the most Feminist religion", so I guess we're supposed to ignore Islams track-record and take her word for it. I sure hope someone told all those Yazidi women sold in the slave markets.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

25 Jun 2020, 2:11 pm

League_Girl wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
In a sense, but in a slightly different way.

As an asexual/agender/aromantic person, I run in some pretty liberal circles of discussion. On the goofy end of that are the people who think anyone should be able to identify as anything, definitions of words mean nothing, and if you disagree with either of those two things, then you're committing the sin of not being "inclusive."

For example, I get myself into trouble in asexuality groups when I disagree that a person who loves sex and actively seeks it out is not actually "asexual."

Also, there are the people who need to have 30+ labels to describe their "identity."

"Hi, I'm Chaz. I'm a transmasc, feminine-presenting, demisexual, genderqueer, femme butch, transboi.....ect."

And I'm like, dude, give it a rest. You're not that complex, interesting, or deep, AND nobody actually cares.


Actually asexual just means lack of sexual attraction. You can very well enjoy sex and still be asexual but you are just not attracted to anyone sexually.

People also often argue that asexual does not mean low libido and that you can be asexual and have a high libido.
I don't enjoy sex much but have some limited sexual attraction,not sure if you're right about A-spec's


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jun 2020, 2:12 pm

To paraphrase & expand:

Quote:
... The issue is the inflexible characterization of groups. If group "X" has been put in the "poor, oppressed victim" box, then any fact, opinion, or suggestion that is perceived as negative about "X" and/or their beliefs and customs is automatically punching down and is therefore just bigoted and evil...
I apologize for the changes and additions, but I think it is worth the effort to expand on this idea.

In this context, what makes one group "down" and another "up?  Is it the perceived "oppression" that the down-group is under?  Is it the perceived "arrogance" that the up-group exhibits?  Or is it just that the up-group may have some moral advantage that the down-group does not have, and some "woke" third party takes exception to having the down-group's disadvantage illuminated?

Or ... what?



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

25 Jun 2020, 2:13 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Your friend is wrong though.
The biggest human rights desaster is the effect of capitalist mode of production on the poorest 90% of the globe's population.

Insofar, he's "Islamophobic", for getting the ranking of human rights violations wrong.

Other than that I agree - wokeness is not humanism, it's not measuring the world by human rights or their violations.
But neither are other belief systems, like the aforementioned capitalism, or the majour world religions, like Islam or Christianity (by those who take it seriously).

Human rights are of value as far as I know only in the belief system of humanism, which a few western governments have inscribed into their constitutions, but that's about it.
It's not really being taught in schools, there are only few communities that regularly congregate around it - namely people working at Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International.


I think you're proving a point here when you label Fnord's friend as Islamophobic when Fnord's friend was stating something that likely could be backed up with actual facts. It's proving the point of "wokeness" being obtuse. What do you see in Fnord's friend's writing that proves that his friend has a fear or hatred of Islam (ie phobia)?



Last edited by Magna on 25 Jun 2020, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jun 2020, 2:14 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
I don't enjoy sex much but have some limited sexual attraction,not sure if you're right about A-spec's
Take it to the L&D subforum, please.



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

25 Jun 2020, 2:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
To paraphrase & expand:
Quote:
... The issue is the inflexible characterization of groups. If group "X" has been put in the "poor, oppressed victim" box, then any fact, opinion, or suggestion that is perceived as negative about "X" and/or their beliefs and customs is automatically punching down and is therefore just bigoted and evil...
I apologize for the changes and additions, but I think it is worth the effort to expand on this idea.

In this context, what makes one group "down" and another "up?  Is it the perceived "oppression" that the down-group is under?  Is it the perceived "arrogance" that the up-group exhibits?  Or is it just that the up-group may have some moral advantage that the down-group does not have, and some "woke" third party takes exception to having the down-group's disadvantage illuminated?

Or ... what?


These are the examples of the "third party" that make me literally cringe. In the case of the video below, I would put "illuminated" roundly in quotations.



Last edited by Magna on 25 Jun 2020, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jun 2020, 2:19 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Your friend is wrong though.
Evidence, please?
shlaifu wrote:
The biggest human rights disaster is the effect of capitalist mode of production on the poorest 90% of the globe's population.
That is a topic for another "woke" thread.
shlaifu wrote:
Insofar, he's "Islamophobic", for getting the ranking of human rights violations wrong.
By whose rules?  Yours?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

25 Jun 2020, 2:25 pm

Magna wrote:
These are the examples of the "third party" that make me literally cringe. In the case of the video below, I would put "illuminated" roundly in quotations.

[youtube]<* Youtube video link removed to conserve thread space *>
"Minority voters are less likely to have the required I.D." -- What a load of rancid, racist duck-butter.  Ascribing negative behavior to an entire group because of their mutual race is simply wrong.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

25 Jun 2020, 2:30 pm

Fnord wrote:
To paraphrase & expand:
Quote:
... The issue is the inflexible characterization of groups. If group "X" has been put in the "poor, oppressed victim" box, then any fact, opinion, or suggestion that is perceived as negative about "X" and/or their beliefs and customs is automatically punching down and is therefore just bigoted and evil...
I apologize for the changes and additions, but I think it is worth the effort to expand on this idea.

In this context, what makes one group "down" and another "up?  Is it the perceived "oppression" that the down-group is under?  Is it the perceived "arrogance" that the up-group exhibits?  Or is it just that the up-group may have some moral advantage that the down-group does not have, and some "woke" third party takes exception to having the down-group's disadvantage illuminated?

Or ... what?


Not a problem. An improvement, I'd say.

From my travels through the intertubes, the problem as I see it is this; they're applying a collectivist/intersectional framework (people as groups fighting for rights for their group, with a near infinite number of axes intersecting and determining exactly where your group is on the oppression-map) but are desperately trying to avoid the logical conclusion (individualism, equal rights for all citizens) for ideological and political reasons.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

25 Jun 2020, 2:39 pm

Fnord wrote:
Magna wrote:
These are the examples of the "third party" that make me literally cringe. In the case of the video below, I would put "illuminated" roundly in quotations.

[youtube]<* Youtube video link removed to conserve thread space *>
"Minority voters are less likely to have the required I.D." -- What a load of rancid, racist duck-butter.  Ascribing negative behavior to an entire group because of their mutual race is simply wrong.


Perhaps the white people in that video have the best of intentions, but numerous black people who responded to hearing the comments of the white people summarize the incorrect viewpoints of the white people as "ignorant" and "stupid".