Does anyone on this forum consider themself as being " woke "

[silvagti]

Yup, this is fundamental, in fact they're more likely to get upset by people quoting MLK. The big thing "woke" types focus on is "equity" not "equality":

This sort of image is used as an explanation of the difference but it is rather dishonest:

I've seen exactly that image and others similar to it being used. On first impressions it seems fair that the taller person should be "discriminated" against. However life is very rarely this simple. For example :-

What if there aren't enough boxes to go round and they're a finite resourse? Who makes the boxes? Shouldn't this individual have some say in how they're distributed? Presumably they should be rewarded for their work to incentivise them to create more boxes for others to stand on. Could the shorter individuals not make their own boxes if they need them in oroder to watch the game? Is it critical they get to see the game?

To use this image to suggest it's fair some people should be given more than others so they can be "made equal" is incredibly disingenous! I actually saw it in the school where my children were being taught and ended up in a disagreement with the teacher over it's use. I find it worrying our children are being indoctrinated into this kind of "equity" mindset and that government sectors are promoting it.

 

[Irish_Tom]

The biggest issue with that image is that they're blatantly cheating to watch the game — if you can afford those boxes you can afford a bloody ticket, you cheapskates.

 

[adolf hamster]

To use this image to suggest it's fair some people should be given more than others is incredibly disingenous?

I think the main issue i can see with that image is the assumption that the left-most person is not inconvenienved by the removal of his box, ie that taking his box to give to the right most person is a purely winning scenario where one person loses nothing and the other gains something.

And then of course trying to apply that logic to situations where there such an outcome is not possible.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Being Woke to me means having your heart in the right place but not having enough life experience and knowledge to actually change anything that you think is being done wrongly I suppose. The extremes will always be there with nutjobs recording themselves having childish tantrums I suppose.

Don't worry. Sit back, enjoy your coffee and watch the world burn. When it starts to burn you can hold your hand up and say "wasn't me".

 

[silvagti]

I think the main issue i can see with that image is the assumption that the left-most person is not inconvenienved by the removal of his box, ie that taking his box to give to the right most person is a purely winning scenario where one person loses nothing and the other gains something.

The biggest issue with that image is that they're blatantly cheating to watch the game — if you can afford those boxes you can afford a bloody ticket, you cheapskates.

Good point regarding the assumption that providing additional support to one group won't disadvantage another which is very rarely the case in reality!

Actually on the topic of not paying a woke individual will NEVER raise the subject of financial inequality and poverty disadvantaging people because they tend to be well heeled. Raising "wealth inequality" doesn't allow them to appear virtuous and calls into question why they're not contributing finaincially towards fixing the problem though increased taxes/charity donations/etc. They'll only ever call out inequality when it results in someone else having to give up something and not if it results in them being disadvantaged in any way. Particularly financially. The woke individual will only ever contribute if it makes them look good and they can use it to their advantage. Such is the level of their hipocrisy!

 

[Deleted member 77746]

If you talk about it then things will change itself. It's strange. The more people talk about something the more change happens.

 

[i-bert]

Shouldn't the smallest person in that pic be replaced with someone with severed legs, and a white guy stood there with a bloody chainsaw?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm genuinely curious, when have the right tried to deplatform and cancel people? Can you give some examples please as I keep hearing people say it but I've never noticed it until the past 5-6 years.

Is this really a genuine question? Lets remember of course that "cancel culture" isn't new, in the 90s and 00s it was called political correctness.

Colin Kaepernick and any footballers who took the knee with him. The right went on a campaign and are still on this campaign. They got him sacked. Various Republican politicians including Trump called on any athlete who knelt to be sacked.

Will Wilkinson made a joke on twitter after the 6th of January insurrection where Trump supporters were chanting "hang Mike Pence" that if Biden wanted to unity he should lynch Mike Pence. The right exploded and got him fired.

Ellen Degneres came "out" and the right tried to get her show cancelled and so her fired.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman got vilified by a campaign on the right for doing his duty. Trump then fired him.

The Dixie Chicks, one of its members criticised the Iraq invasion and President Bush, they were blacklisted by hundreds of US radio stations and received death threats.

Bubba Wallace, the right has been on his case for a while as he has on more than one occasion spoken out about NASSCAR and the Confederate flag. Then after the noose incident the right really went after him and when Trump tweeted about him they went after his sponsors but on this occasion it didn't work and he actually gained sponsors.

This idea that this is one sided is ridiculous. Both sides do it and have been doing it for decades, even hundreds of years, though more aimed at groups rather than individuals. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I don't think its as big of a problem as its being made out to be and it certainly isn't one side that is guilty of it.

 

[Angilion]

Sorry are you comparing "woke" to people who committed genocide? That is a reach even for you.

The underlying ideology is the same and genocide is the logical conclusion of the ideology. If <insert group here> is inferior and the cause of all problems, the logical solution is the eradication of <insert group here>. The people who committed those genocides (and many others) were "woke".

So yes, I am making that comparison. Not all "woke" people will take their ideology to its logical conclusion. Some will be OK with their target groups having inferior social status and legal rights. Some will be OK with sporadic violence that serves as a reminder to their target group to know their place. There are various positions on the spectrum from inferior social status and legal rights to the final solution to the <insert group here>. But the underlying ideology is the same and eradication is the logical conclusion of the belief that <insert group here> is inferior and the cause of all problems and in general the more power such an ideology gets the further along the line it gets towards the logical conclusion of itself. It doesn't even require the support of the majority of the followers of the ideology. The ones who seek power within the ideology with the most determiniation will be the ones most likely to get it.

 

[Angilion]

Wokeness and liberalism are not the same things though, in fact at this point they're pretty much polar opposites.

Liberal people don't oppose free speech and promote hate speech (censorship).
Liberal people don't ban, censor, shadow ban, de-monetise or use computer algorithms to suppress the spread of information they don't like.
Liberal people don't cheer on mega-corporations when they violate the rights of people under the guise of being a privately owned platform.
Liberal people don't call for people to be sacked from their jobs for having an opinion they disagree with.
Liberal people don't call for the police to defunded or abolished and then run to them whenever they need help.
Liberal people don't create words that end in phobia in an effort to shut down debate.
Liberal people don't pull down statues and ban books they dislike.
Liberal people don't deny science because it conflicts with their ideology.
Liberal people don't look at situations involving people and immediately obsess over the racial or LGBT make-up of those involved.
Liberal people don't spend 4 years obsessively bullying and opposing a democratically elected president.

I could go on but you get the idea, I think at this point in time 'woke' people have become the most authoritarian and illiberal people around.

I would say that they're the most authoritarian and illiberal people in practice in a large part of the world. There are people who would be even more authoritarian and illiberal if they could be but lack the power to do anything about it. There are people who are at least roughly on a par in terms of authoritarianism and illiberalism in some parts of the world. The Chinese government comes to mind as an example.

I'm also inclined to think that the word 'liberal' has been so effectively corrupted by the illiberal and downright anti-liberal people who have taken it over that it's probably no longer usable in its original meaning. I know some people think it can be reclaimed to its original meaning and they might be right.

 

[Angilion]

So, Hitler wasn’t an evil **** after all, he was just an early adopter of “wokeness”?

The two are far from mutually exclusive. Hitler was indeed "woke". Not a particularly early adopter though. "woke" isn't a new idea. It's a new branding for a very old idea.

 

[Angilion]

I think the main issue i can see with that image is the assumption that the left-most person is not inconvenienved by the removal of his box, ie that taking his box to give to the right most person is a purely winning scenario where one person loses nothing and the other gains something.

And then of course trying to apply that logic to situations where there such an outcome is not possible.

The main issue I have with that image is that it's a deliberate exercise in moving the goal, a bait and switch. A deception. A lie. Propaganda.

In the image the allocation of boxes is done per individual and on the basis of something directly related to the situation.

In the ideology the allocation of resources, social status, legal rights, political representation, etc, etc, is done on the basis of decreed biological group identity only and in all situations.

The two aren't even remotely similar.

 

[Graetzbridge]

What is "woke" ?

 

[adam cool dude]

To use this image to suggest it's fair some people should be given more than others so they can be "made equal" is incredibly disingenous! I actually saw it in the school where my children were being taught and ended up in a disagreement with the teacher over it's use. I find it worrying our children are being indoctrinated into this kind of "equity" mindset and that government sectors are promoting it.

You are still the parent so your child will not be "indoctrinated" unless you let it happen. My daughter is 13 so ripe for that kind of thing but so far she is on the straight and narrow.

 

[i-bert]

Is this really a genuine question? Lets remember of course that "cancel culture" isn't new, in the 90s and 00s it was called political correctness.

Colin Kaepernick and any footballers who took the knee with him. The right went on a campaign and are still on this campaign. They got him sacked. Various Republican politicians including Trump called on any athlete who knelt to be sacked.

Will Wilkinson made a joke on twitter after the 6th of January insurrection where Trump supporters were chanting "hang Mike Pence" that if Biden wanted to unity he should lynch Mike Pence. The right exploded and got him fired.
He incited violence

Ellen Degneres came "out" and the right tried to get her show cancelled and so her fired.

Her show was cancelled because of poor ratings.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman got vilified by a campaign on the right for doing his duty. Trump then fired him.

Trump fired someone, shock horror

The Dixie Chicks, one of its members criticised the Iraq invasion and President Bush, they were blacklisted by hundreds of US radio stations and received death threats.

Bubba Wallace, the right has been on his case for a while as he has on more than one occasion spoken out about NASSCAR and the Confederate flag. Then after the noose incident the right really went after him and when Trump tweeted about him they went after his sponsors but on this occasion it didn't work and he actually gained sponsors.

So wasn't cancelled then?


This idea that this is one sided is ridiculous. Both sides do it and have been doing it for decades, even hundreds of years, though more aimed at groups rather than individuals. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I don't think its as big of a problem as its being made out to be and it certainly isn't one side that is guilty of it.

I don't agree with anyone being sacked because of an opinion, unless you're saying someone should be killed of course Strange that they all happened in America. I would put all the others down to being unpatriotic, they're a strange lot. I thought you had some more recent ones though?

 

[chroniclard]

I don't agree with anyone being sacked because of an opinion, unless you're saying someone should be killed of course Strange that they all happened in America. I would put all the others down to being unpatriotic, they're a strange lot. I thought you had some more recent ones though?

Failed ex president Trump's modus operandi was to try and cancel anyone who disagrees with him, anyone who criticised him, anyone who didn't buy Into the cult. Cancel culture is in no way a lefty phenomenon.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Stephen Fry made the point during a debate on free speech that when he started his career in television, it was the right-wing who were all for censorship and cancelling (Mary Whitehouse et al). Now it’s predominantly (but not exclusively) the left but it will probably swing back again at some point.

 

[dowie]

Stephen Fry made the point during a debate on free speech that when he started his career in television, it was the right-wing who were all for censorship and cancelling (Mary Whitehouse et al). Now it’s predominantly (but not exclusively) the left but it will probably swing back again at some point.

Wasn't that long ago that the gulf war 2 and post 911 stuff was ridiculous (remember "Freedom Fries"?).... someone mentioned the Dixie Chicks above for example (though also threw in some dubious ones like Kaepernick)...

IIRC early Harry Potter Books were campaigned against by right-wing Christian groups in the US worried about children being interested in the occult, these days they're burned by "woke" people because JK Rowling is deemed to be some sort of evil transphobe (even though no one seems to be able to give a clear example of what she has done that is supposedly so hateful).

 

[i-bert]

Failed ex president Trump's modus operandi was to try and cancel anyone who disagrees with him, anyone who criticised him, anyone who didn't buy Into the cult. Cancel culture is in no way a lefty phenomenon.

That's one guy though. He is a businessman, you can't compare someone like that sacking a person because he isn't a team player to cancel culture. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with that way of doing things, but you can't compare it to cancel culture.

 

[Johno please?]

Stephen Fry made the point during a debate on free speech that when he started his career in television, it was the right-wing who were all for censorship and cancelling (Mary Whitehouse et al). Now it’s predominantly (but not exclusively) the left but it will probably swing back again at some point.

True that, I recently saw some footage from when monty python was released, triggered Christians back in the 70s xD Nothing much changes in that respect. And then lets not forget Salmon Rushdie being marked for death by a foreign state for writing a novel.