how come you can poke fun about white people in ways that are considered racist if you were to say about other races?

And the answer is that it's not symmetric because society is white majority, — Mijin

That means you completely agree with the facts. The facts are, when you are racist against white men, it is poking fun, but when you are racist against others, it true racism.

That, to me, is a problem. It’s inconsistent. It’s illogical. It’s impossible to fairly and equitably enforce and implement policy. It’s yielded popularism and Trumpism. It leads to ridiculous and destructive divisions among brothers and sisters. It allows for scapegoating and glossing over real problems. Worst of all, it ignores good white men and discounts their opinions that aren’t woke. The fact that “it’s not symmetric because (our) society is white majority” only means you have to look even more closely at individuals to see who is racist and who isn’t; it doesn’t mean white men can’t be victims of racism in America or Europe. That is bullshit that hurts the battle against racism.

I’m not saying racism is as big a problem for all races - not even close - I’m saying when I’ve heard woke people tell whites they can’t be victims of racism because they are in power, I call bullshit - you need to look deeper than skin tone to identify both perpetrators and victims of racism. And without more precision and accuracy, racism will simply keep perpetrating itself.

It is precisely the fact the poor black and brown people can be racist against rich white men, that makes racism immoral and illogical - all men are men regardless of race and it is men who are racist, not “white” men or “green” men.

So the larger point about all of the above:
Woke, which is good for fighting racism, is using racist policy and tactics to fight racism. Woke is incoherent, contradictory, self-defeating, in need of critique. Fighting racism is good. Identifying white majority status is necessary; but saying there is no racism against the ones in power is misunderstanding racism, ignoring facts, a lie, an agenda that has nothing to do with race, bad reasoning, all of the above…

My position IOW is that it's bullshit. — Mijin

Ok, but there are all different flavors of bullshit. I’m sure you can say something of what wokeness is that makes the anti-woke, anti-woke, and not some other flavor of bullshit artist. (And just the fact that you use the word “bullshit” makes me want to agree with you; it’s one of my favorite philosophic terms of art, but…)

You can’t clarify exactly how the anti-woke are living in fantasy grievance land a bit more? What do you think they see as they make their false grievances? You can’t imagine at all, after all the grievances you’ve heard?

How is “anti-woke” so clearly bullshit, but “woke” can mean nothing to you? Seems a bit superficial.

you've got this backwards. It is a boogieman of mostly manufactured and exaggerated grievances. — Mijin

Ok. Anti-woke people see a boogieman. Fine.

Do the anti-antiwoke (such as yourself) see any boogie men?

Isn’t a straight-white-man a sort of boogieman for the woke? What if he’s rich too? A capitalist white prep school nepo baby with some German/Italian/Irish in his veins. No reason not to pick on such a person, right? I can use them as a stand in for any theft, lie, rape, conspiracy, murder, war, and I am within bounds of respectable argumentation. All white men are the same on some level, because they are all white men. Right?

Now here is why you are wrong that the anti-woke are merely fabricating a boogieman: Will I ever get fired if I get caught saying any of that in this context? No way. How about if I said this about some other race? Do you think I could make any point talking about some non-white person without inviting utter condemnation and disgust? Think about it. Wokeness is very entrenched. The woke police are everywhere there are groups of people. One of us will always be willing to correct those who are micro-oppressing (regardless of the context…) DEI has altered our etiquette so much that we pay real lip service to utter bullshit and we don’t even notice.

This thread is called “the End of Woke”. THAT is bullshit. Woke is 100 years old in Europe (white men like Marx inspired it). It’s not going anywhere. It ain’t dead. Trump and MAGA could just as easily turn out to be a death rattle for the notion that some things are old for a good reason.

Could Trump be a boogieman (how dare I even suggest such a theory!)

and you can't even define it. — Mijin

:rofl: Who is leaning on “can’t define it” now? That was my line! I am happy to get started on a definition any time. What do you need? A definition of woke?
I did get a general sense of woke started for us:

“Woke” refers to being aware of social injustice, but also the hidden causes of such injustice; and it means to search deeper into how injustice has been systemically built into our institutions (like the police and justice system, capitalism, patriarchy, conservatism, Christianity). Being awake or enlightened, but to the ways our traditions have let us down. — Fire Ologist

What do you think? Where am I off on the wrong foot? What needs to be added?

it's "anti-woke" that is impinging on people's and institutional freedoms — Mijin

So you won’t say what is woke, but the anti-woke is a clear threat.

Institutional freedoms? Like the wonderful judicial system that, used to be hated for incarcerating too many victims of racism, but is now under threat from the president?

Institutional freedoms like the rule of law, which would include border immigration reform?

The reason woke thinkers won’t define “woke” is because it would reveal its incoherence and contradictions.

manufactured and exaggerated grieveances — Mijin

Enough to elect an idiot like Donald Trump? Twice?

You just don’t want to look directly at wokeness and criticize it.

European men are some of the smartest and best leaders in history.
Woman, generally, are smaller and physically weaker than men.
One man and one woman, married, as mother and father, typically provide the basis of a good family, and typically the best situation to raise a child.

Why should anyone cringe at hearing the above? Because it’s not woke.

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative? — jorndoe

Before DEI, most people that rose to their station did so by hard work. But only white men got to play that game. So the issue before DEI wasn’t that all of these incompetent nepotism babies were running everything. The issue was that no one considered anyone besides white men when looking for replacement people.

So “selecting people by merit” versus selecting them by “tradition/confirmity” seems like a false dichotomy. The world pre-DEI wasn’t a monarchy. (If we were having this debate in the year 1804, you might have a point, but then no one would listen to you at all unless you were a white man.)

You need to define “conservatism” now f you want to make some point about how it’s bad. It’s not conservative to overlook merit for the sake of tradition/conformity - it’s ignorant and prejudiced. It’s a type of injustice conservative people do; but then, do you think woke people never choose fellow woke people over some republican who might actually be more competent? So you missed your mark.

Why not just define what is good about woke?

Is the only critique of anti-woke to come from the woke? — praxis

No, and you keep proving my point by dodging.

I’m anti-wokeness. But I also think resisting certain diversity/equity/inclusion initiatives was and remains ignorant and irrational and morally wrong. So, once again, the ball is in your court to make some sort of point.

I agree, race or sex has nothing to do with the best candidate for a job — Fire Ologist

I also agree, until the 1980’s, and for some still today, many people just refused to see the fact that women and all races can be just as good at many jobs as anyone else, and to just be happy for this fact. I agree much progress has been made towards this good, equitable goal since the 1980s.

Racism is irrational. Sexism is ignorant — Fire Ologist

Can you find any fault with DEI, wokeness, anti-conservatism? Anything at all good come from tradition and white father figures??

So you didn’t even try to define it. You should ask yourself why you don’t think a definition of your position is necessary. Why would you not simply say something about what woke is, what it does, what it positively means and points to?

Like this:

“Woke” refers to being aware of social injustice, but also the hidden causes of such injustice; and it means to search deeper into how injustice has been systemically built into our institutions (like the police and justice system, capitalism, patriarchy, conservatism, Christianity). Being awake or enlightened, but to the ways our traditions have let us down.

Instead you said:

the best candidate for a job might not be the white, male, able-bodied guy who looks like all the others and we should try to cast as wide a net as possible.

Thousands of companies have implemented such policies successfully. — Mijin

That was the closet to a positive, substantive promotion of wokeness given.

And I agree, race or sex has nothing to do with the best candidate for a job. (But doesn’t it depend on the what the job is, at least sometimes? Are there no jobs where a certain race or sex might be preferable? I just want us to acknowledge that possibility, so we don’t appear unreasonable or to have zero common sense - or do you honestly think there are absolutely no jobs on earth that aren’t best handled by one sex or one race over the other(s)?)

But I also agree, until the 1980’s, and for some still today, many people just refused to see the fact that women and all races can be just as good at many jobs as anyone else, and to just be happy for this fact. I agree much progress has been made towards this good, equitable goal since the 1980s.

Racism is irrational. Sexism is ignorant.

So what could possibly be wrong with the progress wokeism has promoted since the 1980s?

So you skipped 1, gave a small bit for 2. I’ve tried to show you how I am on the same page with you about certain progress. But now let’s try to answer 3 (which you skipped as well as it called for a critique of woke).

What has been harmed by all of this progress? Anything?
Is there anything illogical or incoherent or contradictory going on as this progress is being made, because if there is, don’t you think things may come crashing down as the inconsistencies rot any progress from within?

Is the only critique of woke to come from the unwoke?

If you don’t want to go there yet, can you tell me anything else besides “best candidate for a job might not be white” that has been good because of woke activism? What else is woke, and good medicine?

Why not just:
1. Define woke.
2. Construct something new, propose good woke policy and practice
3. Self-reflect from the woke side of the equation and show where woke needs improvement - be critical of “critical theory” for just a bit.

?

Or just tell me what MAGA is, avoid discussing what woke is, and demonstrate the point I made.

the former USSR and the USA were not so different states in the mentality of their citizens (which may sound like wildness now), which I cannot say about the closeness of the Chinese and American mentalities. — Astorre

Former USSR and the USA folks are both more liberal thinking (even individualistic) than average Chinese folk, in wildly broad terms.

So, it's not accurate to say that people become woke to “avoid responsibility.” Rather, wokeness often stems from unconscious motivations that are more complex than we usually admit. — Number2018

Yes, but if these motivations are unconscious, which is what you are saying, then aren’t we talking about ‘motivations’ now, and not the thing at hand, wokeness? The unconscious motivation for being woke is one thing; what makes it “woke”, head on, woke qua wokeness, is another thing.

I’m not saying we don’t have to talk about motivations and unconscious motivations, but we have to talk about how these motivate woke thinking and woke actions and woke activism, versus something else.

Woke is an activist control mechanism, not an actual philosophy.

So there is no point debating the philosophical underpinnings - the average wokist can't articulate them anyway. — Jeremy Murray

Hey Jeremy. Thanks for chiming in.

Activist control mechanism. I can picture the herding that often accompanies the woke - the control mechanics of it (and I’m interested in further thoughts about how a shepherd can use wokeness to control the activist); but I also see an essence to wokeism, a philosophical underpinning, a what it is to be woke. There is a philosophy in there. It’s basically post-modernist mental acrobatics applied to hurting those in power (really, white men) (with no concern for who is thereby helped, and no concern for why someone might have this power)

And I don’t think you are really saying there isn’t a woke philosophy at all. You may just be recognizing that the woke themselves never provide much philosophical support for what they believe and say, and do.

I have a few theories about why the philosophy of woke is never directly discussed:

1. It’s unwoke to define something clearly - definition itself is an oppression. A well articulated principle is like authoritarian law, and tyranny. So if the woke clearly define “woke” they simultaneously perform a demonstration in anti-woke behavior. The minute something becomes defined clearly, it becomes institutionalized in a sense, so if that thing is “wokeness” and wokeness is supposed to be anti-institution, then the definition itself must be incoherent. So they can’t bother with definitions. Like “what is a woman?” If you even ask that question you are probably unwoke. (They only define those they want to dominate and impose absolute changes upon, like white men, or patriarchy.)

2. Woke debate tactics are to wait for the opponent to make an assertion, and attack and deconstruct that. They don’t usually build the position or assert the claim; instead, they take down opposing claims. So for the woke to say ‘what it is to be woke’ is for them to create a target for shredding and deconstructing, because taking other things down is what they do best, not building something new, or defending it from deconstruction.

3. The woke, the masters of “critical theory” never self-reflect, because they have already decided their position is obviously superior, common sense, morally superior, rational, and most practical. Thinking woke lends itself to only sharing thoughts inside a bubble of like-minded workers. They already know that the only goal of securing the border is to keep out disfavored races. That’s it - and if you don’t understand that, you aren’t reasonable or even intelligent enough to be worth debating. There is no need to debate what is obvious to them. In short, wokeists are often (not always), among the least critical thinkers I’ve met. (This is obviously ironic - wokeism is supposed to be more aware, and it is supposed to be more aware by uncovering hidden bias - but they never ask themselves about their woke conclusions, totally sleeping on the many biases and prejudices that abound in their speech and actions.)

So I agree with you that there is no point debating. And this thread never really took off. The woke proponent is doing psychology when you ask a philosophical question, and doing epistemology when you ask an ethical question. Wokeness or any one issue is not dealt with head on. If any thread screamed for full-throated defense of wokeness, this one does; yet no one goes there.

People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present. — Tzeentch

Maybe some people, but everyone who ever uses the expression “things are getting worse” is focused on the past in comparison with a present they see as worse than the past. So a blanket condemnation as “unhealthy obsession” of all conservative thinking shoots down along with it anyone who ever sees things are getting worse.

We are all conservative at times. Just as we are all liberal progressives at other times. There is no need to demonize finding good things in the past to emulate and to bring back, before things keep getting worse. Just as, for conservatives, there is no need to demonize tearing down any institutions (some need to be torn down) or to fear anything new and untested.

in everyday life…a simple person, with ordinary views, with simple desires and good intentions. Perhaps philosophy teaches us this? — Astorre

Philosophy unteaches us this.

Right? At least that is how the philosopher is born, when he sees through something that just a moment ago was solid and opaque. When he has unlearned what he thought he knew. And then philosophy unteaches us that, and we no longer see “things” nor do we see “seeing things” the same again.

Philosophy is the rational struggle to get back to being the simple person, with a clear simple view, able to be witnessed by and shared with any ordinary person. Philosophy teaches us that is no longer likely, try as we may to make a simpler understanding.

And so on ad infinitum. As they said above - you can't put the genie back in the bottle =))) — Astorre

Exactly, trying to put the genie back.

We’ve leaned that we’ve been lost all along so the first thing we know is the question - where the hell am I?

But it’s not “ad infinitum”. It’s just one small finite step at a time. To reach, ad inifinitum you have to stand still and not move at all. But I see progress in this.

one does not “decide” to be an activist in a fully autonomous, intentional sense. — Number2018

a need …or a desire, draws one into it — Number2018

Although I don’t disagree we are drawn and pushed, I still think once in a while, we make a true choice, a fully responsible act.

The very process of trying to awaken is a stripping away of forces that draw us and push us. At some point, I believe we know enough to sit atop the wave that is society and become an individual, and even guide society for brief moments. Freedom is that goal.

So I don’t know why you are saying one never decides to be an activist. I think for some, we do decide, and it is those we need to discusss.

desire is never pre-social. It does not originate from a pure, inner core of the individual, but is always produced within and through social assemblages. — Number2018

Again, I am not disagreeing the general picture that creates/ I see what you are describing too. But in that same picture, I still see self-identifiable desire as a possibility. So I disagree “desire is NEVER pre-social.” Sometimes, desire reveals the true subject in its solitude. That’s what true desire creates - the finite, the particular, or the part that remains unlike the whole, waiting to be actualized (desire that is acted upon).

And what happens is that if a desire EVER actually is pre-social (or extra-social), than such true desires are a new animal, not what you are describing. Such desires are a true novelty and new identity, in addition to all of aspects of our identities that involve social construction.

So I think I have to disagree with Deluze. We need to recognize the space, the vacuum, created clear as day that becomes filled only by the truly novel self. Perhaps this self does not “originate from a pure, inner core”, but once it declares itself, it is claimed and staked out and becomes one’s inner core (or at least “core” becomes something to continue clarifying…)

..,one’s ideology resonates with the subject’s unconscious investments, shaped by one’s socio-aesthetic milieu. — Number2018

People in very similar social-aesthetic milieu’s can go very different directions. Are we starting to talk more about any activism, and not something particular to wokeness? “Unconscious” is not conscious intention. Likewise, one’s “milieu” is outside of and separate from the subject (woven together, but distinguishable). All of these outside forces shaping activist behavior, seems to build a lot of psychological room for a lack of responsibility and accountability. Is that what you are saying is a feature of wokeness? I don’t think I’m following you anymore. Are you saying that the drive toward woke activism (wherever it comes from) is a drive to shirk responsibility?

activism often operates as a displacement of desire. The radical energy that cannot confront capitalism — Number2018

That sounds irresponsible, or at least non- self-aware. Why can’t one confront capitalism, AND do what one desires?

activism may be both an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity. — Number2018

I’m losing sight of how this is about wokeness. Instead of becoming an activist, one could become a used car and gasoline salesman as “an expression of unconscious desire and an adaptive performative mechanism within the late capitalist subjectivity.”

[woke is] critical theory or something with fairly obvious value — Baden

I don’t see the value as obvious, or at least the harm so overshadows any value I don’t see it.

Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it.

Wisdom is always contained in a few words.
Wisdom comes upon you quickly, and completely.
Wisdom gets lost in a book or a chapter, and is more easily found in a paragraph, or a sentence, or even in a nod, or in silence.

Wisdom stands up to the rigorous interrogation of a logical analytic, as well as the practical test of the physician. (Wisdom has a practical, applicability that fits one specific circumstance, and a universality and eternity that recasts all things.)

Wisdom can come from a child, who may not know it is wisdom, though they know what the particular wisdom is about.

Wisdom is perfection, meaning, it is not only exactly what is needed, but more than what could be expected, producing fruit.

how can thoughts associate? — J

The focus of the OP seems to be how one thought leads to a subsequent second thought. That is an association between two thoughts. But another type of association may have to do with the nature of a single thought itself. Because it seems to me that thinking itself is the formation of associations. If we just think one thought like “that appears blue”, we are associating. This mindset, thinking as associating, might explain a bit of how one idea causes another.

That reminds me of the way the parts of a single sentence gain meaning relative to one another, even though it's expressed sequentially. — frank

Me too. A single sentence is like my idea of a single thought, and that single sentence contains its own, internal associations.

So associations between ideas, one idea causing another, may be a complex form of similarly creating a longer sentence, or making one complex idea filled with more and more associations. So one idea causing another is like one sentence moving towards its completion.

So maybe all I’ve done is reduced your question from one idea causing another, to one sentence subject being conjugated or predicated (albeit in a much more complicated way). I still don’t know how. Just that.

Woke is … with no real solutions besides rioting. — Fire Ologist

subjectivity emerges as the culmination of processes of aesthetic enunciation. An aesthetic reconfiguration of experience incorporates elements of the unconscious subjectivity, which operates beyond conscious intention. — Number2018

Does this operation “beyond conscious intention” serve to select the matter one is active about (environment or trans or women’s rights), or does this operation beyond conscious intention make one an activist at all, as part of one’s aesthetic reconfiguration? Are activists activists because they can’t help it; or are they activists against capitalism and not against racism because they can’t help it?

(Because they “can’t help it” may be too extreme but it’s my short form of “operates beyond conscious intention”.)

aesthetics …represents a broader mode of subjectivation that occupies a central place in the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. — Number2018

Why “capitalism”? I thought you were going to say “contemporary society.”

under capitalist conditions, where novel forms of expression and recognition are constantly negotiated. — Number2018

I’m not sure I can picture a world where the shape of one’s subjectivity did not involve some sort of social negotiation. Are you saying that capitalism has produced activists operating beyond conscious intention? If this is what you are saying, why is this peculiar to capitalism?

I have to say, there is something ironic to this subconscious motivator for behavior of the “woke”.

———-

As I’ve said before, the focus on the notion of “implicit bias” (much like “beyond conscious intention”), is one of the most positive contributions of wokeism. We do operate unconscious of our motivations, and we need to identify and face these motivations if we are to change future behaviors. That’s a positive contribution of wokeness and justifies the term “woke”.

“I think [something off target or superfluous, about what someone else thinks]” - praxis

That’s brand — praxis

Woke just is Satan. … farting woke gas all over their students. … and their rotten students melted and disintegrated. … Glory be... — Baden

Amen. :pray:

Wait... is that a whiff of irony I detect, drowning in the woke gas?

You are probably insulting Satanists, which isn’t very woke.

irony of ironies — Baden

Irony, or feature of wokeism?

There never will be an end of woke, it's the history of the fucking world... "we don't like X so fucking kill it!" — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree.

What is wrong about “woke” is calling it “woke”.

People on the left are no more awake than people on the right. The loudest of both sides are the deepest sleepers.

“Woke” is false advertising. It’s really just another package for “my way” versus “your way” shit, and no one willing to mind their own business, or willing to truly develop their own “my way” and just live it, and damn the whole rest of the world and their hatreds and failings.

Society will never be comfortable for us. Admitting that fact is the first awakening.

The woke stand for victims of racism. Right? The woke want to stamp out racism. But they are racist. So woke solutions are not even woke by their own standards.

We should all wake up, cut the crap and admit it.

Wokeism is a set of vague moral aspirations, and practices to enforce these moral judgments in oppressive and facistic ways. No different than your basic caricature of any church, or naziism, or tyranny.

No one (besides me) one this thread has been able to demonstrate something that is clearly on the side of woke that has benefited society, or just benefited yourself. Woke is mostly shallow, empty hatred of those deemed powerful with no real solutions besides rioting. It is embracing weakness for sake of staying weak. It is self-contradictory and self-defeating.

And I hope we learn something from this present anti-woke moment.

We won’t.
Wokeism may change its name, but it will stay strong.

Truly aware and enlightened people don’t blame anyone else for their problems, even the “systemic” problems. And truly aware and free people do not need laws or society to “level the playing field” for them, or for “justice and fairness”. You want a level playing field? Wait for an earthquake, tsunami and a wild fire from the volcano to level things out for everyone. You want justice? Wait for death and for God to sift the sheep from the goats. Just sit there and wait.

Or, be awake. Or, make and live your own life. Regardless of everything and everyone and all that they say and all that they throw in your way. We will always hav to learn to say “fuck it” before we might attempt freedom. “Equal opportunity” is called having lungs and breathing air. The rest is up to you.

Tolerance isn’t a virtue. It’s a tactic. Useful for the time being once in a while. But most often, tolerance is avoidance. So it’s more like a vice.
Diversity isn’t a virtue. It’s an assessment of multiple things.
There is nothing good to learn by preaching “tolerance” and goals like “diversity”.

Be more precise and specific if you want to tell other people what to do. DEI is vacuous and amorphous.

If you are truly interested in a building a better society, cultivate humility in yourself (so others may tolerate you) and respect for all others above yourself (so you can learn from their diversity), and then become a leader, and show everyone what it is like to be truly free. Serve others out of your own free choice.

I’m sure that sounds like no fun - well, that is why society is a mess. No one wants to actually do the work to get what they want; it’s more woke if the system will just hand it to you.

This is where we sleep - in between our false selves and the false others around us we blame. These moralistic problems are never about others, or politics - they are about ourselves. But we are asleep to that fact, dreaming of how others are to blame and how if we just could normalize the TQ in LGBTQ, the world will make more sense to everyone….

The woke are worse off than many.

You can’t wish away real, entrenched differences in outlook and ways of life separating one community from another by blaming them on the nefarious influence of some powerful individual. That’s insulting to persons and communities who rely on forging their own value system as a compass for guiding their life and making sense of their world. — Joshs

I get your response and I agree with you. I am not blaming leaders for causing our problems. I am blaming them for capitalizing on them, attempting to make our divisions wider.

I don’t know why that would be an insult. I am not saying we are all sheep looking for leaders to solve our problems. Not at all. I am saying our leaders call us sheep and tell us what we need, and say they can solve our problems for us, and to do so we need to hate those bad people over there….

it’s the polarized cultural environment — Joshs

Yes. I blame our leaders - in politics, in the media and in schools. And here in our discussions. Our leaders should be showing us how to respect differences and work together. Instead our leaders fan flames and show us how to divide and what to hate.

It’s urban versus rural. Rich versus poor. Religious versus secular. Man versus woman. Straight versus not straight. Black versus white. Conservative versus progressive. Immigrant versus citizen. Soon, young versus old.

Some of these things we pit against each other in fact belong together, and complement each other. But our leaders can’t and don’t want to show that.

in America rapists are treated better than trans — unenlightened

You have a lot of statistical data or anecdotal evidence - or are you just trying to launch a political campaign?

reason why it is woke other than having a transwoman in it — Mijin

You are right - I see your question now, and it’s a valid one. Here is why the ad is about wokeness.

It’s not just an ad. It’s an ad for Bud Light, previously known as a vastly, eminently, dude bro beer. Bud light goes with a beard. Or a cigar. Or NASCAR. Or football.
When bud light drinkers grab a bud light, they don’t want to expand their horizons. Or remember they have a congressman or even a political opinion. They want to close their garage door and change out the master cylinder on their classic car. That’s Bud Light. And everyone knows it. (I shoukd help them write an ad)

But like a fine red wine pairs with some stale chocolate chip cookies, they paired Bud Light with a trans person taking a bath. Hmmmm…are they trying to tell me about something I was missing, here under the hood of my car with my dude bros?? Was I asleep at the wheel for too long and times changed?? Do I need to change with the new times, and step out of my comfort zone here in my garage?? Why is that person in a dress sipping cans of beer at all?? Are they talking to me? What happened? Answer: wokeness strikes again.

So no, trans don’t have to stay off TV, there are fifty other ways to place a trans woman in an ad on TV that wouldn’t spark much of a second glance, but Bud light ain’t one of them. That is why the ad wasn’t just about Bud Light. It was teaching the ignorant what normal bud light drinking can look like. Maybe they are even right, and it’s a good lesson, but it’s a lesson in wokeness and we are not supposed to hate lesson time if the lesson is a woke one.

And the reason this is interesting is not because of advertising or because of the ad - it’s to hopefully show reasons why people are anti-woke. We disagree we need lessons about who is acceptable and who isn’t, and we disagree these lessons are appropriate in any time and place the lesson givers want to give them.

So much bad judgment involved in wokeness and in the name of wokeness.

Drag queen children’s book readings is like that. It’s not a big deal because it happens a lot and it’s a mass problem. It’s a big deal because someone thought it should happen at all, to any kid. How is that ever a thing? There is such a thing as a time and place, and there is such a thing as childhood innocence and matters for adults only. You don’t play at political and social experiments with other people’s children (or hopefully your own either).

but the culture war is fully last man standing in a puddle of piss. That I get. — praxis

I guess I’ll take your word for it. I don’t pay any attention to that bullshit. American culture is freedom, so it’s 1000 different cultures. Wokeism grades them good and bad. I don’t pay attention to that shit until the woke tell me I need to check my privilege and like certain cultures and hate the wrong ones.

This, and within my family, is the only forum I’ve really talked about wokeness. I am fighting any wars. I’m too much of a live and let live person. This is an attempt at a conversation. If it’s a debate, you need to make some points.

Why don’t you say something positive? Give me a reason for something woke that should convince me to think better of it?

“the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons."
This phrasing, which conflates ‘the woke,’ corporate advertising, and the political left more generally, collapses distinct ideas into a single caricature and reflects partisan rhetoric more than independent analysis. — praxis

So you are saying that what I said is not analysis. But you haven’t given me any of your analysis either. You just said I conflated and collapsed some things. And that I wasn’t giving you my independence analysis.
What is conflated exactly? What is better independent analysis?

Trans-Übermensch. — praxis

Gotta take the “uber” out of it - too inequitable. “Trans-uber” isn’t woke.
“Trans-ber-mensch”, is better. Maybe go “she-ber-mensch” for the female/male hybrid version.

is the solution here simply that transpeople should not be allowed on TV? — Mijin

No. Of course not. But there is a time and a place, and a wrong TV spot. The word “inappropriate” serves a valid purpose in life. The bud light marketing team learned that.

One of the most important messages from the anti-woke to the woke is: read the room.

You’ve been claiming that I haven’t reflected. — praxis

I still don’t know much about what you actually think of wokeism, anti-wokism, or many of the things I’ve said about these.

You need to say what you think woke is, and what is woke and what isn’t woke, say why it is woke, and say whether you agree with it or not. Then do the same thing for anti-woke.

I quoted you directly and analyzed the substance and phrasing, pointing out how it reflects partisan rhetoric. I’ve reflected partisan rhetoric in this thread as well. I don’t know why it would be difficult for anyone to admit doing this. — praxis

Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric says that person isn’t thinking for themselves and just parroting partisan talking points. Saying something someone says reflects partisan rhetoric isn’t analyzing the substance of what the person says.

Here is something I said again that you didn’t respond to directly or thoroughly. It would be greatly appreciated if you would break this down to show what it means to you (show me what you think this says), then analyze it to show where it is wrong, where it is right, how it misses the mar, then state what you think instead of what it says - you aim for and hit the mark.

The woke see that identity politics and victimization of certain classes are everywhere and systemic. And so the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons. To the woke, Wokeness is top of mind and systemically in front of everyone everywhere anyway. (That’s why they so quickly found issues with the AE ad too.) — Fire Ologist

It’s a simple point that I think is true about wokeness, and is at the heart of why the anti-woke dislike wokeness.

not to cherry pick the most outrageous comments that one can find and try to represent these as the common goal of that side. Because … then we fall into the trap of thinking that people are either "woke" or then "MAGA". — ssu

Ok. I agree. Identity politics makes caricatures of everyone. I hate it. Putting people in boxes and groups reduces whole human beings to much smaller creatures than they really are. We use our generalizations “progressive left” or “conservative right” to help us organize our thoughts and what we say, not to organize actual people - we can’t think any individual person actually neatly fits into any of the boxes we construct to make our points.

it's the leftist distorted caricature of the conservative right that portrays the right being against equal rights for women and against homosexuality. — ssu

I would hope so. That is probably true for many on the left, but I think most leftists think implicit biases and unconscious cultural influences lead non-woke people around by the nose, and that underneath it all, non-woke people want to oppress women and are homophobic and don’t see non-whites as equals. I think many woke people talk this way. How else does one think the AE Sweeney ad is anti-woke? You have to read into sub-text beneath the surface and find rottenness underneath. I mean, who cares, in this day and age if a white person or a black person says “I have good genes” - besides the woke? I don’t know whether the left thinks these pictures of the right are distorted caricatures or spot on.

Hence it simply is time for us to put these travesties aside and really look what in general the political sides are saying — ssu

Can you flesh that out a bit? What do you think the sides are generally saying?

How does the right want to end wokism yet still be good people?
How does the left want to impose wokeism yet welcome true diversity and tolerance and inclusion?

The caricatures of left and right make answers to these questions impossible to formulate, so how would you answer them if we put the exaggerated travesties aside?

attempt at identity politics — praxis

That is the preachy part. Maybe they were not preaching in order to help trans people, but they were playing identity politics which, if you think about it, is more like cult religion and good sheep herding.

Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism.
— Fire Ologist

I know you've said that before and I've ignored it. You have my attention now if you'd like to explain how I'm failing to reflect on Wokeism. — praxis

Can’t you tell me some things I’ve said that you might agree with? Show a little wokeism self-reflection. You’ve been engaged here like a third-party judge, not really talking to me, but talking about what I’m saying. But you are not really talking about the content of what I’m saying either, you are just saying things like I “must be influenced by MAGA.”

Tell me what you personally think. Tell me what woke is, what is good about wokeism. Tell me what is bad about MAGA, and how wokeism addresses it.

Is every woke idea good? Give me some bad ones.
Is anything I’ve said that speaks negatively of wokeism true? Say where you might agree.

Do you think wokeism truly promotes equity and inclusion? I think it promotes division better than anything else it does.

I used to think the division between white people and everyone else was the problem. There should be no division among us based on skin/race. But wokeness seems to rely on this division to be fixed and in place, not resolved. Woke teaches me that there is a difference between white people and everyone else, and that all white people must be reeducated about their implicit biases and privileges, and taken down off of their high horses. That white people today still owe for sins of white people in the past. That’s divisive. That’s impractical. And most importantly, I think it is a shallow estimation of whites AND everyone else. And that’s the sin of wokeism today - for the sake of people, they misunderstand people, and harm people. And they won’t suffer fools who disagree.

It deserves critique, or better defense.

Anheuser-Busch is in the business of selling beer to make money, not of teaching ideological lessons—casting its marketing decisions as ideologically motivated is a partisan rhetorical move, not a serious analysis. — praxis

Well I didn’t get it from anywhere - I just watched the ad for the first time this week. I heard about the ad at the time, but had no idea Kid Rock got involved until you said it. I don’t follow the anti-woke gazette.

Do you think the marketing team conversations were really all about sales? Is that your serious analysis? You think the Anheuser Team, or the Bud Light division wasn’t taking an ideological stand? You really think they were only selling beer? Of course they convinced themselves it would make them money and it would be good for the brand - but they were total idiots then. More likely they were blinded by ideological preaching and thought they were preaching to enough choir to feel good all around.

If they were only selling beer, then American Eagle is only selling jeans, so why not just laugh at blond hair and blue eyes selling good “genes”? It’s nothing but a “marketing decision” and not “ideologically motivated” - so who the hell cares if it doesn’t looks woke?

Casting what I’m saying as a “partisan rhetorical move” is a rhetorical move too. Again, you are not reflecting on wokeism.

How could the Bud Light folks possibly think those ads would work? Is that a partisan question?
Maybe they thought they would gain more than they lost??
Why would they think they would lose anyone? Why would they risk losing anyone?

I don’t know for sure (and don’t really care), but I bet most if not all of the marketing team that came up with the add were fired. And not for ideological reasons.

———

This conversation does not have to be so accusatory and antagonistic does it?

Racism is a deeper problem than white America and white Europe admits.
Homosexual people are not properly respected, ostracized from many institutions, mistreated, harmed and killed, just for being homosexual.
Women still need to fight for equal rights in many situations.

I say all of that and I mean all of that because of the vast reaching influence of wokism. And there is more. And the situation is better for most of these victims groups in part because of the woke in the world.

That said, wokeism also stinks badly and harms classss of people, sets equality and respect back, causes people to be racist and prejudiced, promotes false facts and half the story.

There are terrible people who are anti-woke. That doesn’t make wokeism good.

I wonder if Fire Ologist and others will acknowledge how much they’ve been influenced by the MAGA anti-woke movement. — praxis

How so? That’s dumb. And unobservant. I don’t really even know what MAGA stands for.

I’ve been annoyed by wokeism since before the term was popularized. Wokeism used to be called political correctness. Started in the 1980s, based on the ‘60s. I am not MAGA, and have learned nothing from them.

Will you acknowledge that you haven’t learned one thing from all that I’ve posted here?

I’ve learned that there are no good defenders of wokism here on TPF. I think that is because, it’s difficult to defend something that is so incoherent and self-defeating.

Whether the future and our plans warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective. — Paula Tozer

Whether the religion and our God warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective.

using Dylan Mulvaney’s trans identity — praxis

being preachy. — praxis

Same thing.

it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. — AmadeusD

This is the precise fault line between woke and anti-woke.

The woke see that identity politics and victimization of certain classes are everywhere and systemic. And so the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons. Wokeness is top of mind and systemically in front of everyone everywhere anyway. (That’s why they so quickly found issues with the AE ad too.)

The reaction against the Bud Light commercial wasn’t anti-trans. It was a statement against woke preaching being shoved in everyone’s faces from every direction, with every sip of beer. It was anti-woke, not anti-trans, at least primarily.

So there are usually two different conversations going on (which explains this thread). People talking past each other.

I still do not understand what you are saying. — Banno

Can’t quite capture the essence of my words?

ADDED:
So is that a problem with the words,
or with me the speaker,
or is something vague about what the words mean,
or is it a you, the interpreter, thing?

Language only involves interpreting utterances?
— Fire Ologist
No. Why did you choose to include the word "only"? Language involves interpreting utterances. — Banno

Because you won’t talk about anything else. For fuck sake! :lol:

I keep listing all of the other things language involves and you won’t talk about them. Like speakers, and what is spoken about (notice “what” or quiddity…”)

I think the undercurrent to all of this (and metaphysics generally) is indeed the search for definition, in the sense of the ability to see what is. When reduced to textbook examples for pedagogical purposes, it seems straightforward, but in real life, it's often considerably more difficult. — Wayfarer

I agree. Metaphysics is about what is. Throw out metaphysics, there is no point speaking about the world in any scientific way.

And it seems straightforward, but is considerably more difficult.

Seeking ‘what is’ is impossible (or pointless) if you think meaning is use, because if you think meaning is use, then ‘ what is’ becomes ‘what is used’ as well. We make reality up when we speak about it, so who cares about any other reality.

why do you raise the interpreter?
— Fire Ologist
Becasue language inherently involves interpreting utterances.

I'm sorry, I wasn't able to see what you were saying. — Banno

Neither do I see what you are saying.

Language only involves interpreting utterances?

How about more context for whatever you are trying to say.

Language involves utterances, a speaker who utters them, what the utterances are about.

What the utterances are about seems to be broken out into how the speaker interprets his words, and how the listener interprets her words.

So what? How does that say anything about essence?

Essence is what the utterances are as out. It’s how the speaker exchanges and idea with a listener through the language.

In essence, you are blowing me off as usual. You didn’t make your point.

I'd be happy to help reinstate essence. — Banno

Whoa. Then you want God’s essence? One step at a time.

essences are the metaphysical reality, and definitions are the signification of that reality (the signification of the quiddity). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Three things:
Speaker
Words (definitions, significations of..)
Essences (reality, what the words are about, quiddity)

I don't see what it is doing anymore. It just seems like a pointless field of study - trivial, redundant, not informative, not interesting in light of my perspective on the world. — Apustimelogist

Every time you see “what” you point to an essence.

“It just seems like a pointless field of study - trivial, redundant, not informative, not interesting in light of my perspective on the world.”

What is “it”.
What is a “field” and where are its limits? How do you limit thing thing you call “field”?
What is a “perspective” and is that different from a view or experience, and if so, what are the specifics.
What “world” - if we both have different perspectives, what gives you this notion of “the world” apart from our “perspectives on the world.”?

Essences are everywhere to study in your statement.

So if I throw a pair of dice, snake-eyes is in potential. Let's say snake-eyes shows up in actuality when the dice land. Where is an example of essence in this? — frank

It’s more like “what are dice?”
- they come in pairs
- each die is six-sided
- each side has a number 1 through 6 represented on each side.
- etc.

Dice are things in the world. These non-specific things are potentially “dice” when recognized or built by an intellect and actually dice when built according to my plans above…

Different things interact in different but reliable ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t think that anti-essentialists think this is the case.

Which is an odd way of interacting with the world.

Are you saying the essence of a my dog, Bee, is her DNA? — frank

No.

I’m sure you’d rather hear Count’s answer.

You left out the interpreter. — Banno

I know. I had a longer post discussing that and took the interpreter (communicant) out. You don’t give me much time.

Like here, why do you raise the interpreter? I have no idea of what you are thinking or how/if this addresses essence. To me, you are now taking about the essence of communication, or of a discussion between two or more people.

Speaker.
Words
What they are about, to the speaker.

Interpreter
Same Words
What they are about, to the interpreter.

The words line up, because the same words are said as are heard, so enunciating and hearing are not your issue.

But when what the words are about lines up between the speaker and the interpreter, just like the same words line up, we have a successful communication.

So what? How does this scenario eliminate essence?

We still need at least all of these three ‘speaker/interpreter - words - about world’ to have meaningful language and exchanges - these are exchanges of ideas, of essences.

And when the interpreter’s meaning of the words and the speaker’s meaning for the same words don’t line up, the missing piece is something in the world to refer to upon which the two speakers/interpreters can argue.

Like which category makes sense for which elephant. You need to point to the elephants, not to meaning as use (because you haven’t used a distinction between Savanah and forest before, and how do you ground this distinction but again by drawing DNA samples from the world…. Discovering the different elephants sub-species supports essence, not use.

I do not think that there must be a set of properties that are necessary and sufficient to set out what it is for something to be a cat. I have consistently argued, using material from both Wittgenstein and Quine, that we use such word despite there not being such a set of properties. — Banno

“We use such word despite there not being…”

That means, “the essence of the word ‘essence’ is as a placeholder for speaking.’ You, and Quine and Witt just want to misuse ‘essence’. So Witt and Quine are avoiding the issues not resolving them.

And Count is right, this is metaphysics. “Despite there not being..” is something Witt said we shoukd be silent about.

I take effective language use as granted — Banno

But you have no use for the word “essence” and when people use it anyway you don’t take their language use for granted.

Language use begs the question. It doesn’t provide the answer.

Babies use language. So what? What are they doing?

To me, essences just seems like an easy way of being over-reductive about things in the world when often we can't even characterize what we are talking about in a way that is unambiguous, precise, unique, informative enough to deserve the name "essence". The whole thing seems completely redundant. — Apustimelogist

I think that this is what is going on. But none of that means “there is no such thing as essence.”

And no one, not Aristotle, no one says defining the essence of some thing is easy. Looking for essence is an easy method of saying HOW to say what things are, but there is no need to ever say we’ve ever listed every necessary and sufficient condition essential to some thing (especially if the thing is a physical thing, subject to change). Understanding and saying what is essential is the goal. We can know something essential about some thing in the world, but we have much more to know if we want to say we know the entire essence of that thing.

We all live in the same world of muddle for the senses and use and misuse of language. Essences help us organize it and speak about it.

I take effective language use as granted — Banno

So then why argue? “Elephant” has been sloppy use for years in Africa apparently.