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

Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Page 3 of 9 [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,887
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Jun 2020, 2:42 pm

Hast. No one invited Gawd into this discussion, Blasphemers. Heretics , Hast thou created a wokeness without including some sort of Gawdhead to provide judgement on this discussion.
Piffle....!

(Written purely tongue in cheek) for those with minds to be woken . :mrgreen:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,742
Location: Calne,England

25 Jun 2020, 2:51 pm

You all live much more rarefied existences than I do .



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

25 Jun 2020, 3:11 pm

Fnord wrote:
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.



I don't think America is the worst country but I also do not believe women are oppressed in America. Does misogyny still exist here, yes but I don't think it's the same as being oppressed.

If you look back in our US history about women, you can understand why I see we are not oppressed anymore.

Even as a disabled person I do not see myself as being oppressed. Have I faced prejudice and discrimination based on my disability, yes but looking at how gays and trans people have been treated and people of color, I was not oppressed.

Even gay people don't see themselves as oppressed either because they are also looking at 3rd world countries where it's illegal to be gay and you are either jailed for it or even put to death or forced to change your sex and plus looking at our US history of how they were treated. But none of these people are saying discrimination and prejudiced on them doesn't happen. Just that they disagree this is the same as being oppressed.


_________________
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, 3:24 pm

Quote:
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.


Pretty soon saying "A woman was murdered by her uncle today for having been gang-raped by her cousins" will become a dog whistle like how saying "I am okay with if someone wants to have kids with someone who is the same nationality as them because they find their heritage important" has become a dog whistle because of white supremacists were saying it to mean "They can do that all they want just as long as they don't mix their race with whites."


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

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


Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

25 Jun 2020, 3:37 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?


It’s the glorious wonder that is “conflict theory”.
In essence it’s Marx’s “Class Struggle” stripped of it’s context (nineteenth century British factories)*... and all the qualifying factors in Capital vol. 1. (Basically how property and employment laws of that time and place created an enormous power imbalance between the owners and the workforce)
Originally bowdlerised by Lenin et al to claim that class exploitation is occurring all the time everywhere, which could be called a radical reading of the text...
...now reborn as the sole model for explaining all disagreements, tensions and animosity between groups of humans.
Most of those who use it are probably unaware of the origin of the model, let alone that they’re trying to assess the entire world as if it were one big Victorian cotton factory.
If all you’ve got is a hammer...
__________________________
*the only example of modern workplaces Marx ever attempted to analyse in depth: specifically between 1850 and 1870 give or take a year or two.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

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

25 Jun 2020, 3:42 pm

Fnord wrote:
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.
Was responding to remarks made about asexuals,a direction in the thread I did not start.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

25 Jun 2020, 3:49 pm

Karamazov wrote:
If all you’ve got is a hammer...


You go looking for a sickle?


_________________
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.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 Jun 2020, 3:55 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.




This post is the only good thing in this thread. It's hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im asexual, but I am a horney bastard! :D

And ...hey...we all now KNOW that there are fifty nine genders. So we each need something like a zip code to locate what gender we are! :lol:



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

25 Jun 2020, 3:56 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
If all you’ve got is a hammer...


You go looking for a sickle?


:lmao:

Whether you’re aware that’s what you’re doing or not. :wink:



Hollywood_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,283
Location: US

25 Jun 2020, 4:15 pm

Fnord wrote:
But where there is pushback, there is hope.

There always has been, and always will be pushback against "wokeism", because "wokeness" is the antithesis of what most rational people of all political persuasions believe.  It is a philosophy that demonizes anyone who transgresses their laws, and that has more in common with the Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries than with the neo-Socialists of today.

Most rational people understand that working to fight legitimate injustices that occur in our society is admirable.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with opposing racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry; it's a commendable endeavor.  But "wokeness" has become a social phenomenon that is now used as a form of thought-control to enforce adherence to the more extreme tenets of "Political Correctness" and "Social Justice".  It is just another tool to enforce a type of cultural totalitarianism and shame people into obedience to a small, yet very vocal minority of radicals on the furthest "left" end of the political spectrum. 

It is no surprise that resistance to "wokeness" is occurring, left, right, and center.  It is the inevitable response to any movement that seeks to force compliance through fear and humiliation.  Hopefully, the sensible crowd will win; if not, it could make our already tense social discourse even more toxic.


The demonizing people who go out of lockstep with the dogmatic "social justice" woke ideology is now normalized and it is even going down to the friendship level.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2020, 4:50 pm

naturalplastic 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.




This post is the only good thing in this thread. It's hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im asexual, but I am a horney bastard! :D

And ...hey...we all now KNOW that there are fifty nine genders. So we each need something like a zip code to locate what gender we are! :lol:


At this point, I feel "asexual" should be more of an umbrella term, kind of like "queer."

I've started using the term "non-sexual" to identify as a person who does not have sex, and does not desire sex.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

25 Jun 2020, 5:11 pm

Fnord wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Your friend is wrong though.
Evidence, please?


The rationale is what you quoted me on below

Quote:
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.

Possibly, but that's my argument - Islam isn't the *worst* if going by numbers of people suffering human rights abuses under a certain belief system. It just isn't as widespread.

Quote:
shlaifu wrote:
Insofar, he's "Islamophobic", for getting the ranking of human rights violations wrong.
By whose rules?  Yours?


By numbers of human rights violations due to belief system as argued above.
He's wrong to call it the worst.
It's, as far as I can tell, the second worst.
That's why I put "Islamophobic" in quotation marks.

Other than getting the order wrong, I agree with him.
And with you, as I explained in the rest of the post that wokeness as a belief system isn't counting human rights violations.

I'm not woke. I aspire to be a humanist, but due to an education system that's sadly lacking, I'm self taught and still reading up on things.


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


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

25 Jun 2020, 5:19 pm

Magna wrote:
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)?



Fair enough.
My post was misinterpreted twice, chances are I just expressed myself ambiguously, if not accidentally incorrectly.
English is not my native language.

Yes, wokeness is obtuse, it is a belief system that needs to be treated as religion- internal contradictions never stopped any religion.

I explained above that Fnord's friend is only insofar "islamphobic" as he's overestimating the number of human rights violations to rank it number 1, rather than number two.
Other than that I agree with him.


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


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 Jun 2020, 5:40 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
naturalplastic 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.




This post is the only good thing in this thread. It's hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im asexual, but I am a horney bastard! :D

And ...hey...we all now KNOW that there are fifty nine genders. So we each need something like a zip code to locate what gender we are! :lol:


At this point, I feel "asexual" should be more of an umbrella term, kind of like "queer."

I've started using the term "non-sexual" to identify as a person who does not have sex, and does not desire sex.



Okay, but then what is "asexual"?

I get that the term is "as opposed to" all of the other "sexuals" (hetero, homo, and bi).So you're not one of those three categories, but you still have sexual urges,so you're not non sexual. So you have sexual urges but ...what ...you prefer doing a car door to doing any kind of human? Or what?



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2020, 5:51 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
naturalplastic 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.




This post is the only good thing in this thread. It's hilarious! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im asexual, but I am a horney bastard! :D

And ...hey...we all now KNOW that there are fifty nine genders. So we each need something like a zip code to locate what gender we are! :lol:


At this point, I feel "asexual" should be more of an umbrella term, kind of like "queer."

I've started using the term "non-sexual" to identify as a person who does not have sex, and does not desire sex.



Okay, but then what is "asexual"?

I get that the term is "as opposed to" all of the other "sexuals" (hetero, homo, and bi).So you're not one of those three categories, but you still have sexual urges,so you're not non sexual. So you have sexual urges but ...what ...you prefer doing a car door to doing any kind of human? Or what?


I have no desire to have sex with anyone (or anything).

Finding the proper label for that seems to be a controversial task.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

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

25 Jun 2020, 6:02 pm

@XFG: I did not start this thread to read about other people's sex lives.

Please lock this thread.

Thank you.

Sorry. Got off on a bit of a tangent.

I'll shut up now.