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

Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Page 4 of 9 [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

25 Jun 2020, 6:16 pm

There are undoubtedly these sort of no thinking woke people that take an approach that everything fits into a good or bad designation, and could place Islam into a designation of oppressed and thus good, not taking into consideration the number of problems that exist in many of its cultures. By also by the same standard there are plenty of people the same way on the opposite of the spectrum, that put Islam into the category of bad and thus everything about it is the worst. You know, the sort of people that see a woman with a hijab on and lose their minds. I think that there were a recent case where a woman was speaking (and singing) at some sort of government thing in America and saying that she did not want to wear a mask because apparently covering your face is Muslim.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Jun 2020, 7:35 pm

Another thing I have noticed (particularly of late), is the "appropriation" of words, assigning meaning or inferences to what a person says, based on the "believer's" desired understanding, and projecting this understanding or motive onto the person who uses them.

This makes it exceedingly difficult to have a conversation with them due to their seeming desire to find "evil" where it does not exist, and their accusations of "heresy" (or shaming) for the use of certain words or phrases, rather than trying to understand the reason for the use of the specific word\phrase.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

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

25 Jun 2020, 8:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

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?

A-spec ranges from extreme disinterest in sex,to romantic but non sexual,to include demisexual and people who are aromantic the spectrums other end.

Asexual is a spectrum of people less interested in sex through total aromantic's with non sexual romantics in the middle.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,219
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

25 Jun 2020, 8:47 pm

I don't want to be "woke". I'd rather be a thinker. I've been hassled by "woke" people both online and in real life. There are a lot of issues that those people are not "woke" about. Things such as freedom of religion and the sanctity of life. There is also the need for a police force that those people aren't "woke" about. I wonder how long that word has been in use, anyways.


_________________
The Family Enigma


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 8:58 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?


Fnord has a friend? :scratch:
Fnord has more than one?! 8O

Fake news guys. 8)

I just wanted to get this in before the thread is locked. :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:03 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Another thing I have noticed (particularly of late), is the "appropriation" of words, assigning meaning or inferences to what a person says, based on the "believer's" desired understanding, and projecting this understanding or motive onto the person who uses them.

This makes it exceedingly difficult to have a conversation with them due to their seeming desire to find "evil" where it does not exist, and their accusations of "heresy" (or shaming) for the use of certain words or phrases, rather than trying to understand the reason for the use of the specific word\phrase.


A major problem with humanity.
Many people get off in finding fault.
Virtue signalling is a HUGE problem. 8O



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:06 pm

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


You go looking for a sickle?


You guys should team up as a comedy, err, team. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:12 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.

:mrgreen:

Brictoria wrote:
I've had similar experiences (even on this site, the "racist" tag is freely distributed on opinions unliked by certain members, ignoring the actual content that they were replying to), and in a similar way, I've come to the concluson that there are some people so firmly attached to seeking out the "sinners" and making them repent that there is no chance of having a meaningful discussion with them.

I would suggest, however, that your "subject" heading for this thread is a bit misleading...I would expect it takes a lot of "thinking" to be "woke", as you would always be needing to check what you were going to say in order to ensure it would not "offend" anyone (excluding the "heretics", of course).



That has been my experience, all too often. :?



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:19 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
I don't want to be "woke". I'd rather be a thinker. I've been hassled by "woke" people both online and in real life. There are a lot of issues that those people are not "woke" about. Things such as freedom of religion and the sanctity of life. There is also the need for a police force that those people aren't "woke" about. I wonder how long that word has been in use, anyways.


You mean that woke people don't like gay people being discriminated against and fired for being gay, or that they think women should have the right to say of their body over people mistaking electrical signals as a heartbeat that does not exist yet nor there be a brain yet?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:19 pm

Magna wrote:

Humans seem to have a deep seated desire "religion" in some form. If not for organized religion, then for causes with devotion that's akin to religious fervor. Bob Dylan wrote a song on the subject titled: Gotta Serve Somebody.



Apparently, this is the result of a development of the pre-frontal cortex through the evolutionary process.
Don't take it too seriously.
It is an evolutionary "Quirk",
Nothing more. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:22 pm

Fnord wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yes, that desperate need for a mytho-poetic narrative that confirms one is good, justified and... important...
"If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent Him." -- François-Marie Arouet; a.k.a., Voltaire (1694-1778)


And he/she/it was, due to the incomprehensible "need", brought on by the evolutionary process.
They don't call it "Blind Evolution" for nothin'. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:27 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
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.


That is the way it is here, in Australia. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2020, 9:31 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)?


Sanctimony "Trumps", err, 8O the facts. :wink:



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

25 Jun 2020, 10:07 pm

Pepe wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
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.


That is the way it is here, in Australia. :wink:


Like the time that Pauline Hanson wore a burqa in the senate to make an anti Islamic statement as part of her campaign against multiculturalism.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Jun 2020, 11:53 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
I don't want to be "woke". I'd rather be a thinker. I've been hassled by "woke" people both online and in real life. There are a lot of issues that those people are not "woke" about. Things such as freedom of religion and the sanctity of life. There is also the need for a police force that those people aren't "woke" about. I wonder how long that word has been in use, anyways.


You mean that woke people don't like gay people being discriminated against and fired for being gay, or that they think women should have the right to say of their body over people mistaking electrical signals as a heartbeat that does not exist yet nor there be a brain yet?


The problem is that most people prefer to discuss issues as equals, whereas "woke" culture appears to deem certain groups as being "inferior" or "sacred", in that the groups lack the capacity to present an arguement on their own behalf (or their arguement is poor) or the they feel a sense of possesion over the group, and so they need to "protect" these groups. The ownership these "woke" people feel they have over the groups ends in them needing to reinforce the "protection" they supply in order to keep that position of superiority or "ownership".

With regards to your examples:
1) I don't recall any objection to this
2) Could it be that some people may have an issue with having to pay for another person to have certain procedures where the cause requiring the procedure was entirely preventable by the person requiring the procedure (as one possible counterpoint).

Just because, in your subjective opinion, something may be "right", does not make it an objective fact, nor should it deny another person the opportunity to have a different subjective opinion, nor the right to express their opinion. Attempts to silence an opposing view will only lead to the holder of it coming to the conclusion that their argument must be correct, as otherwise someone would be able to counter it. This then reinforces their opinions, which they will likely spread, indicating how it is obviously correct because no-one has been able to disprove it.



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

26 Jun 2020, 12:04 am

Brictoria wrote:
Attempts to silence an opposing view will only lead to the holder of it coming to the conclusion that their argument must be correct, as otherwise someone would be able to counter it.


This is a good point that is worth everyone contemplating. An example of this is when a person states an inconvenient scientific fact that another person may not want to hear or may find upsetting. Moves to outright prevent people from stating certain facts ("silence" them) that are objectionable to some has the exact effect that you mention above rather than allow for debate that may be uncomfortable and may end up with one person, group, etc not getting what they want.