Be Woke, It's Much Easier Than Thinking!

Post Reply New Topic

I won't deny that there are "woke" people like that, we progressives call them things like "wokescolds" for how they tend to try and boost themselves by largely demonising anyone who does not speak in a way that just pushes the narrative. But this is hardly something unique to just woke people, you have conservatives who treat gay people as inferior, while concepts like traditional family are sacred and must be protected. Or treat chastity and virginity as sacred and slut shame people who are sexually active, especially sex workers.

And of course there is the general opposite counterpart of woke which is the red pill crowd, who are obsessed with treating be politically incorrect as sacred, and all feminists are inferior. It is the exact same sort of thing where these people take ownership of topics like how culture should be and need to provide protection against feminism and other "gendas".




Saying that woke people are not woke about religious freedom is complaining that woke people are against arguments where religion is used as an excuse to fire gay people because it is against their religion. That people should get a free pass to discriminate because sky daddy said two men should not be together.

And this was not about whether people should have to pay for others' abortions, this is specifically about CockneyRebel saying that woke people are not woke about "the sanctity of life", which is saying that they don't care about those poor collection of cells that don't have a central nervous system yet. It is saying that a woman should get no say about her body and that she must become a mother after a single accident, and according to many conservatives the human life starts at conception. "Woke" people actually have answers to this preventable thing by championing comprehensive sex ed and availability of contraception, over a common conservative answer of abstinence only, which is proven to have little affect as abstinence only areas are actually more likely to have abortions.




And that is just a whole lot of virtue signalling in acting like it is a unique aspect of the woke or the Left that they try and silence others by attacking their character. Do I need to make a big list of subjects that the anti-woke people do the exact thing you are describing here? It is why you see such people doing things like calling people SJW, feminazi, or make side comments about them using things like racist or sexist as a cudgel to silence them, in turn silencing them. In turn indicating to the "woke" person that they are obviously correct because no one is able to disprove it.

Why are there so many dang snowflakes that can't take criticism and in fact use that criticism as evidence that they are being silenced? And also turn back the same sentence against you, that something to you seems like an subjective fact it does not mean that it is an objective one. It is the same sort of though where people think that something was not offensive to them, so it must not be offensive to anyone.

Okay, I will bite, what is one of these inconvenient scientific facts that people are silencing?

Man, that woman totally sounded insane.

I swear that the COVID is bringing out the true colors in people and I am seeing how insane these people really are.

So, are you claiming that CockneyRebel should not be permitted to hold those beliefs?
Or that those beliefs are objectively wrong (citing appropriate studies proving this to be the case)?
Or that a person, taking an action and being aware of possible results of doing so, should not be responsible for (and have to live with) the result of thier actions?

Where did I say that CockneyRebel was not allowed to hold those beliefs?

Does the bellow link on the economic effects of availability of access to abortion help for proving a better economic position of women and children?
https://iwpr.org/publications/economic-effects-abortion-access-report/



Perhaps a teen is not aware of the possibility and likelihood. Perhaps they were drunk and were not thinking. Perhaps they did not know the condom was faulty. Perhaps they were raped. And perhaps you should not be a judgemental 44 year old man telling women what they should do with their bodies.

For being against the idea of self important "woke" people telling others what to think, you sure are quick to tell women that they have to become mothers if someone impregnates them.

The implication in the following was that you did not endorse someone having those beliefs and that your belief was the only valid opinion:




The examples I was putting forward were possible counters to your statement, not endorsements of them. They are hypothetical examples that another person may hold, and were posted to show that just becuase one side has "the answer", it does not mean that it is objectively correct, or that others may not have beliefs that they hold to be equally valid as you hold your own to be.

Getting back to the discussion:

Being that they teach this in year 7 (12-13 years old), this is highly unlikely. (I seem to recall it was also covered in year 5 (10-11 years old), but that was a long time ago [in a town far, far away]).


Can you name any other action that a person can take when drunk, with the fact of them being drunk absolving them of the result of their action?


Can you provide any reference material\documentation which states that they are 100% effective. Even something with a 99% possibility of working still indicates a 1% chance that it may not.


And in these cases most people would agree it may be appropriate (not sure how it fits under "their own actions" when it was a result of another's actions to which they did not elect to take part voluntarily).


I would appreciate it if you could cease attributing beliefs, behaviours, or opinions to myself, as it is getting both tiresome and offensive (not to mention the use of a person's age or gender to imply these factors lessen the value of something that they have said\typed). No-where have I told anyone what they should do, merely offering counterpoints to an opinion presented by yourself, which others may find to be more convincing than your own.

Please remember that it is entirely possible for a person (or at least most people) to have one opinion, and be able to put forward counter-arguments in order to test their initial beliefs, as well as to gain an understanding of the people who may share those differing beliefs.

Similarly, I believe there is a word for those who cannot accept differing views:

So you are shaming someone for not remembering something they may or may not have been taught when they were 10?




Can I name one where no one would get hurt by being entirely reversible?




You are entirely proving my point here in saying that condoms are not 100% effective that affordable access to abortion should be available, this should be all that is needed.




Rape can mean a lot of things, including taking advantage of someone while they are under the influence and similar kinds of manipulation that comes after one party says "no".




Then please, tell me what your opinion is on prolife or prochoice? Say it instead of putting up a smokescreen that you are just being impartial and playing the devil's advocate.
And things like gender are relevant in a discussion where we are not just talking about what they would do in a situation, but telling women what they can do, that they have to reap what they sow if they happened to pregnant from some guy's sperm.

And none of this am I saying that people can't have an opinion, just that I can use my own speech to say that I think it is dumb. It is the same s**t over and over again, that all these people are up for free speech, until people use their own to criticise and suddenly that is silencing them.

It must feel great to have it all figured out and to be completely morally pure(sarcasm).

I have always wondered if those who are most "aggressive" in pushing a view are perhaps pushing so hard because they see the "evil" they are fighting within themselves, and have projected this onto everyone else in order to help alleviate the "guilt" they feel.

The greater this "internal evil", the more aggressively they need to search it out in others to bully them into believing they have it as well, and the less they will listen to anyone who dissents with them.

Like a cult, pick on the weak-willed, and get them to "believe", then use your "numbers" as a bludgeon to force others to join..."All these people see the issue, why can't you? Maybe you're the cause of the problem? You don't want us to tell the world you are, do you? Thank you for seeing the error of your ways and joining with us to help save others like you."

BLM is a bunch of WOKE Reaganites...

1. Government doesn't work.
2. You cannot trust government workers.
3. Defund government.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. If it helps you to believe that everyone who speaks for social progress in ways you don't like are actually hating themselves as evil.

You know, I think the same thing could be said about most religious people who get seriously aggressive in calling people degenerates, the kind that get super angry about gay people making a choice because they themselves are actually self hating gays who see themselves as making a choice not to give in. Or the kind of people that slut shame women to have to live with the consequences if they end up pregnant.

The "woke" mentality the SJW John Lenon's Imagine sort of view of the world,which is very sort of Trotsky like.But Vladimir Lenin knew without an authoritarian backbone socialism would never survive,so came Leninism and authoritarianism.Then Stalin so intoxicated by authoritarianism found authoritarianism and ends to a means in and of it self while still believing himself a true Leninist.

In the end the "woke and millennial SJW's will go down like old soviet socialism because they either have no authoritarian backbone like Trotsky or like Lenin and Stalin,there authoritarianism will cause there own self destruction.

The question is: How many will be "cancelled" on the alter of "self-righteousness and moral vanity" before that time comes.

O/T

Someone did a forensic analysis of the song and found he was hypocritical on every one of his "Woke" imaginings.

If I could answer such question I would be teaching philosophy at Harvard and would not be here.

That's why capitalism or social democracies that mix socialism and capitalism are working best is that no ones ever figured out how to get utopian Marxism to work in a pragmatic fashion.Such answers I don't have.

I don't know much about the Beatles and don't like them much.Was just thinking of something idealist and utopian,may be wrong about the Beatles,I'm a classical music nut,my knowledge of rock and roll is limited mainly to 1990's punk and grunge when I was very young.