When did I not recognize it as a problem? — praxis

Umm..

Twice now I said you recognized the problem.

I don’t think you and I can communicate through a message board.

You are all over the place and don’t explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me.

I said you restated the problem (so therefore recognized it) (twice) but you didn’t address it (meaning resolve it).

Then I noted that you offered “allyship” to address it. (So I was working with you, though you don’t appreciate that.)

But I also noted how you showed that allyship was not a solution to all trans arguments. That makes sense to me.

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. — praxis

Exactly.

And, now based on these two things that you presented (namely allyship, and trans rejection of allyship), I supported my statement that woke ideology is incapable of bringing trans and feminists back together in a coherent partnership. It’s woke versus woke.

There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities.

And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you don’t want to build any bridge.

I may be wrong, but, are you just trying to win a debate with me or something?

I am trying to understand and develop the notion of “the end of woke”.

———

Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not...a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals. — praxis

Or:

the tenants of wokeism which are:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

So in the words of Roger Daltrey, who the fuck are you?

Tell me what you really think.

Sorry! — Jeremy Murray

Cool cool - good man for even saying it. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

government, representing all citizens, needs to be held to a higher standard. — Jeremy Murray

So I don’t disagree, but I think a small nit-pick will keep my position clear. Because government can have lawful authority to incarcerate people, government is held to the only standard - no laws abridging speech.

As far as some sliding scale of lower, medium higher, that standard might exist between say corporations and universities and small groups and individuals. There might be some degrees of a standard that allows for diversity opinions be expressed, but that is all outside of the one standard involving the government.

I am the one hammering on here, not you, and not out of sense of rightness or anything. More a despairing kind of hammering. — Jeremy Murray

Then I misunderstood you, and it’s my bad. And anyway, we sound a lot alike on some this stuff. I bounce up against despair on occasion and I use plenty of hammers.

Life is more complicated than this, but one issue that exists for all people with conservative ideas is this: how to align with those ideas without being maligned as a racist, facist, homophobic, hypocritical, bigoted, sexist evil doer. The woke had snuck their coolaid well into the water supply for 30 plus years, so for some reason even conservatives feel like they have to confirm whether other people on the right are baddies. It sucks. I think the second election of Trump is finally making a dent in this sense - how could there possibly be this many black, Hispanic, female voters who still vote for a man like Trump? How, because the whole world isn’t about racism, sexism, etc. Conservative ideas are NOT essentially tied to badness. It’s becoming cool to be conservative and speak your mind. More regular folks, of all races and genders and sexual orientations, are coming out of the closet that helped elect Trump the first time.

So, now I have to make clear, Trump is no angel. I held my nose biting for him. But the weakness of the woke left required me to bite against them, as it did for enough people to usher in Trump 2.

Have you seen the interaction between Trump and Carney in the Whitehouse this week? Trump gave Carney a lot of credit calling him a great man, and when asked if that is the case why isn’t there a trade deal yet, Trump said “because I want to be a great man too” and Carney loved it. I believe we are all too harsh on Trump. He is doing a lot of good, and many just refuse to see it.

Plenty of journalists / comedians / etc. are saying things that people disagree with now, but which are things that people were fine with even a few years ago. This is the problem to me. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - comedians/artists are always at the very tip of the spear, maybe even beyond journalists. I think the woke mob canceled and tried to rule them for years - only geniuses like Chapelle and Burr could mock woke and not be canceled.

But I think you are saying that formerly left leaning journalism that was acceptable a few years ago, is now under fire.

First, I agree, formulated that way, it is the same problem with a new bad taste in new mouths. That is the same problem.

However, I think sometimes what can appear to be this problem, isn’t in fact a problem. Like calling what happened to Kimmel an attack on free speech. Or better, calling what happened to Colbert, an attack on free speech. What happened to these guys is that their take on life just isn’t as popular anymore. So it’s not a problem for speech they are being fired or suspended; it’s just response to the winds of popular opinion.

Journalists need to learn how to focus on the facts, how to present all angles, how to refrain from even hinting at their own opinions and analysis, and how important it is that they rebuild credibility. Four years of unanimous conviction of Trumps “Russian collusion” and then unanimous “Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t exist and was more Russian misinformation” - the press sucks.

This doesn’t justify backlash that is partisan based. Republicans can’t push their narrative through the press like the Dems seem to always do. But the press sucks. That’s its own problem as well.

in 1992 in my psych 100 text with affirmative action. Recipients were likely to doubt themselves in the context of affirmative action. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. It took until the year 2024 for enough minorities to allow themselves to admit the truth of things like this.

It is that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars. — Jeremy Murray

I agree one hundred percent. Both sides are guilty of thinking the other side is by default bad.

Honestly, I don’t like any labels because of what they mean to other people. I am honestly a conservative thinker most often, see no need to change certain traditions…. But I don’t really consider myself “a conservative” for two reasons: 1. I do and think things that not conservative, and 2. I am sure I would disagree with how most people might define what a conservative is. So I use the label to facilitate generalizations, but what I really think is, everyone is an individual and there are no conservatives or liberals - these things should be used to help make general points, not to stereotype and dehumanize anyone.

That said, woke ideology, (not all woke people), holds that identity generalizations are really important. So I think the worst proponents of “that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars” comes more often from proponents of woke liberalism. It is just more part of wokeism to hold white republican men as all bad, full stop. Repubs can be just as bad. And it is equally bad for society no matter where is comes from. But one problem with woke is this moralizing of political issues and judging opposing political views and immoral views. I think.

missing in this discussion is the existence of these new public spaces - social media, amplified by the smart phone - that older norms are not equipped to handle.

Of course, objectively, these are 'public' spaces. But they were not conceived as such in the way they have become. Anyone can say one thing in the wrong way, on the wrong day, and have their life changed - even ruined - forever. This has a fear-generating effect, which in part explains the rise of woke. (Too big a topic to cover here, but this is Richard Hanania's argument for why corporations went woke - risk aversion).

I don't even know where to start with this topic. Screen-based existence if altering our lives more profoundly than any technology since, uhh, fire? Nobody was carrying printing-presses around in their pocket in Gutenberg's day.

And the moral systems that dominate - liberal era utilitarianism and deontology - are not flexible or fast enough to process our new world. — Jeremy Murray

Interesting stuff. I was tempted to raise “social media” in some of my posts but felt the same sense of “where to start”. I agree, Social Media is a net new monster in the world. It’s akin to posting a flyer on the street corner, but damn, it is not that at all just as well.

We need to struggle through how to deal with it, but I don’t think I will ever be convinced that government censorship or force of law should have very much place in any management of the shitstorm social media creates. I just know what the UK is doing is utter unjust. I truly can’t fathom some of the outcomes I am hearing about over there.

The internet and social media has had an equalizing effect on people - anyone can get a million likes for anything at all. This has good and bad aspects to it. No one is safe from being hated by the world. And confirmed facts are now doubtful as AI generated content or hallucination. Even fact and fiction have been levelized.

Humanity has been advancing its technology faster than its moral scruples for probably 100 years. Our inventions surpass our ability to use them to improve society. Because we still don’t agree on what needs improving and what an improvement would actually look like. But we keep inventing…

I do think it is pragmatic to consider more than just legal obligations between employer and employee. And that, ultimately, some of those fired should have been fired, and some should not have. — Jeremy Murray

Full agreement. The total discussion of adult, responsible free speech has as much if not more to do with morality as it has to do with the government and politics. The political half is the baseline and priority discussion in the world today as I see so many threats from woke police and FCC fascist types. But the real discussion is about what we do with that political freedom, what we say and how we protect each other from each other. We need to make sure everyone is free from our own governments ability to shut down any political opinion; but then we need to make sure we aren’t shouting down difficult conversations or dehumanizing people as a form of canceling legitimate debate. It will always be tricky. Mistakes will always be made. We all need to remember that.

The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it - no hate? what's hate? whose hate definition? Incitement? — Jeremy Murray

Exactly!

Permit me to add: “The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it, free speech ceases to exist.”

That is the whole political discussion in a nutshell. (Happy to relitigate it with some hate speech legislation proponent, but I doubt I will ever be convinced otherwise.).

Does choosing a 'side' not mean compromising your beliefs on specific issues? — Jeremy Murray

At times, yes. But the world is goin to keep rotating and revolving. No matter how strong one feels about any issue, someone is going to be elected representative, and make laws and spend taxes and make decisions on behalf of all people. I don’t think there is anything compromised by choosing the lesser of evils between an inevitable winner. That literally describes me in the polls every time I vote - I pick who I think might screw up and piss me off and hurt my family the least. Who might, because chances are they likely are going to hurt me. I have never voted for a candidate I thought was really good.

If you feel alone my friend, all I can say is that is a great sign of strength if you you ask me. I just sucks to feel strongly about the truth in a world of sheep who care only about consensus…with other sheep…who also identify as “sheep”.

The points need to be set up to land first. — DingoJones

I think I am being very plain and thorough in my set up. I give a lot of background and context.
In good faith, I openly admit I am a conservative thinker, so people have that factual reference point. (Like most discussions with woke people, the fact that I a conservative says it enough - it means I am only capable of inaccuracy, irrationality, and evil - so they don’t use logic.)

I lay out the facts I am interested in analyzing.
I provide my own analysis (which I can’t help and could care less if it sounds like MAGA), and call it my own opinion (so people aren’t confused about strawmen or arguendo.)

I lay out areas where non-conservative ideas are good ones (like forming the US Constitution, like recognizing all races and sexes are equal before the law…).

I guess Im less interested in whose right or wrong and more interested in the two sides actually communicating. — DingoJones

Me too. I’d love to dig deeper into this:

The Regressive Agenda
1. Fuck white people. White people are racists.
2. Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq
3. Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.
4. Fuck the cops
5. Fuck conservatives and Republicans
6. Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.
7. Disregard linear time. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.
8. Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.
9. It someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.
10. It someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.
11. Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible.
How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?
12. Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers. — DingoJones

But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy.

For instance, “Fuck white people. White people are racists.”. That seems to me to be a core tenet of the modern left in America.

“Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.”

Love it. That type of thing is happening to me right before our eyes, written into this thread. No one wants to define woke (except now @praxis for some reason throws out someone else’s definition, but offers no analysis.). But the problem with “all” is the problem woke has with essential definitions. Woke doesn’t stand for essence, as it wants to say all things are in flux, with the exception that all conservatives are bad always.

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. — praxis

Which reflects my point about woke eating its own.

The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. But if you look closely, allyship merely facilitates sidestepping the problem, and doesn’t address it. Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans can’t think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve.

But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.)

“Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality” - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups.

———

So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with it’s factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists don’t agree).

Maybe you don’t agree this conflict is a function of how woke slices up the world and adjudicates disputes.
Maybe you don’t agree the problem stems from woke process reliance on “Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality”. But you seem to agree now that Trans and Feminism don’t share water fountains, despite the fact that both of these sub ideologies are both woke liberalism.

Are you high? — praxis

Right now, no. But thanks for asking!

Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it. — praxis

Yeah, but you said you addressed it.

And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.).

So we could be back in the same page (regarding woke), but we’re not for some reason.

a whinny bitch — praxis

See, we’re not really making headway.

your targets are hearing “anti racism and equity are so and so” — DingoJones

You may be right. But I think it is pretty hard to say affirmative action and quotas are anti-racism. That is cognitive dissonance, in the name of good racism.

Like @Mijin saying federal money is what permits woke ideology being taught in college, so withdrawing funds impinges on free speech - that whole worldview of the situation means government is making laws (budge/funding laws) based on the content of speech. Which is always bad. I don’t want government paying for any political views in any college.

Seems to me that that I’m not hitting the target because I’m using logic, and that doesn’t seem to register.

And you'd be saying that if it was the other way round, with conservative ideas banned and liberal ideas explicitly mandated under financial penalty? — Mijin

Yes. It’s called Hillsdale College. It’s called private school.

So again, you don't care about the government impinging on free speech as long as it's your side and your ideology. — Mijin

Wrong. This isn’t government impinging on speech. It’s government saying you can say whatever the hell you want, but that they won’t pay for it anymore. And I’m fine if the government decides not to give money to any college.

Got it yet?

I keep hammering on about moral principles, and free speech absolutism is one. Don't make any justifications of abuses of that principle aligned with your 'tribe' or you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy. The spike in firings was political, even if in some individual cases it may have been justified.

It's a conservative talking point. You may believe it sincerely, you might be right substantively, but that's the danger of binary tribalism. I assume good faith, but if I believe you are compelled to 'pick a side', that taints my impression of your integrity. — Jeremy Murray

You misunderstand me. It is principled, and I seek actions consistent with that principle. My principle is in response to the infringement of free speech (and free assembly and association) by the government, through legislation and force. That’s what I find is an important issue. Protecting against the government is what allows us the freedom to fight out the rest of the issues for ourselves, as we are here. Freedom from the government is the whole ballgame to me.

You’ve said, not in so many words, “hypocrisy” as I am “hammering on about” “justifications of abuses” and tainting my own integrity.

So please, let me back up.

Jimmy Kimmel says, for example, “Kirk was killed by the right wing.” That’s an opinion. That is an example of “speech.”
The FCC hears that, and concludes Kimmel’s opinion is false and/or dangerous.
The FCC can shut down broadcasts, and it threatens ABC/Disney.
So, between ABC/Disney and the government, there is a conflict, over an opinion.

What should we allow the government to do about it?

Nothing.

Because the government shall make no law abridging speech….

So what Brendan Carr (FCC chair) did to ABC/Disney was an attack on free speech. It was akin to government making a law and seeking to enforce a shut down of what ABC was broadcasting.

Plain and simple. That was dangerous government overreach.

So what should we do, or, how should we rebuke Brendan Carr at the FCC?
I’m satisfied there was enough public outcry and rebuke from the legislature (and lack of support from his own staff) that there has at least been a lesson learned at the FCC. Carr’s bullshit didn’t get past anyone. If anything, Carr made such a stupid mistake the FCC’s speech has been chilled. The government will always have to be watched from all angles. As it was watched by our legislators here. And Kimmel is back on the air fairly quickly.

So the First amendment controls, and Carr was in violation. I would certainly hear opinions that maybe the FCC chair should be fired, for knowingly or negligently over-reaching, or for incompetence in not knowing he was over-reaching. Because the First Amendment principles are that important to freedom.

And someone can reasonably fear that this FCC move was some unprecedented power grab to institute fascism if they were so inclined, but I just don’t. It was/is a big deal, but so far it looks to be playing out towards justice. As I said, we always have to watch the FCC and Kimmel is back on the air.

Is anything truly hypocritical so far? Make your case there is more to it and that this isn’t consistent. But even if so, why are you assuming I might behave hypocritically of I was presented with more relevant facts?

Let me back up again.

So again, Kimmel says, for example “Kirk was killed by the right wing”.
His boss hears that opinion and doesn’t agree or hates it.
So we have a conflict of opinions in the private sector now between Kimmel and his boss, ANC/Disney.

First of all, a conflict of opinions in the private sector is called….speech. It’s called a debate. It’s called this TPF thread. That is exactly what we are fighting so hard to protect the government from abusing by the First Amendment. We need to keep that in mind. Free speech lives among people who also happen to be employees, bosses, studio audiences, other companies, government officials (although government officials are prohibited making chilling opinions public policy, so they have to be careful what they say, as in Brendan Carr).

Si this conflict between Kimmel and ABC is not the same conflict as between ABC and the government. It’s not governed by an amendment that says “government shall make no laws…”
Kimmel’s restrictions and freedoms from restrictions by ABC are governed by an employment agreement.

That agreement certainly has terms of employment and termination clauses, and clauses related to rights surrounding triggering events. Events that can trigger contract clauses can relate to decency and moral turpitude, public displays and these include speech. Especially for a broadcaster.

Kimmel was never free by contract to say whatever opinion he wanted and not risk violating his contract or being fired or suspended. ABC can put terms in the contract the allow them to fire Kimmel for all sorts of things. Let’s say Kimmel goes nuts and puts out a string of nonsense and foul language, insulting everyone. Two days in a row. Just awful crap about puppy abortions - no one likes him. Whether ABC can suspend or fire Kimmel only has to do with contract, and so, is not a threat to anyone else’s freedom of speech at all. Nor is it a threat to Kimmel’s freedom of speech by the government. Besides being free to say and think whatever he wants, Kimmel just also agreed with ABC to whatever he agreed to say and not say by contract.

This is true for all of the employees who were fired when their boss saw them making public statements and associating with people who are glad Kirk won’t be “spewing hate” or whatever anymore. Everyone is free from government restraint. But not free social normativity.

So permit me to back up a third time.

I don’t want this to go on forever so I’ll sum up.

1. The first amendment is the principle held relatively absolute when it comes to opinion and political debate versus gov’t power.
2. Carr violated this principle at the ABC Kimmel broadcast.
3. Enough was done for now to check Brendan Carr and FCC over-reach.
4. The contract is the principle regulator of employees and employer rights. (Along with employment law which you would have to argue is on point here, but I don’t..)
5. Employees are free to agree by contract to limit their speech in order to be paid for services performed.

So if I wanted to make a book of how this is all consistent (doesn’t taint my integrity) I’d explain in more detail how:

6. Though the government cannot legally shut people up for their opinions, employers can legally fire employees for whatever is allowed by contract (which can be for no reason at all or because they don’t like what they say). If we infringe on this right of employers, we are limiting freedom for all people, not protecting rights. Government laws to stop employers from firing regardless of contract would be the end of free speech anywhere.

7. It can still be immoral or unethical to fire someone for speech. But this problem can be handled by more speech, as long as we remain free from gov’t restraint.

If I really wanted to make this more of document, we’d talk more about the constitution, how speech can in narrow circumstances be limited by government, and contract law, and employment law, and about moral versus political/criminal law.

And we’d talk about ABC leadership, who are chickenshit (so likely immoral).

And we’d go through some more specifics for the other people fired from jobs for being pigs about a murder. Nothing the government can do for having the opinion of a pig after a murder. But since when do we want to force employers to continue to pay people whose public displays can make the company look like assholes too?

There is a lot more to talk about.

But are you going all woke on me in your tactics? Et tu? Am I a hypocrite with no integrity who parrots talking points, or just another citizen trying to think for himself?

When I said lock a side, I meant vote for your beliefs. I didn’t mean grab your protest gear and shout down the enemy like a fascist, or go shut down speech, or shoot people, or dig in and not debate, or be unreasonable.

I am open to constructive criticism.

I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. — praxis

No you didn’t. You said this:

“I’m not ‘anti-woke’ if by that you mean caring about social justice — I just don’t think justice is served by denying reality.”

Both material feminists and trans activists claim to defend vulnerable groups — but define “vulnerability” and “justice” differently when it comes to policy-level consequences (sports, prisons, language, healthcare, etc.). — praxis

That defines the problem. That doesn’t address anything.

Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists.

Ask the feminist or the trans person to point to “reality” and to “denying reality” and the problem with woke I have pointed out will be on display.

feigning ignorance of what woke is — praxis

I never feigned ignorance of what woke is. Did you think me asking people to define woke is because I don’t know what woke is? Well, in case you thought that, the reason I asked, I figured we all have an idea of what woke is, and I figured it would be helpful on a thread like this to see where people are coming from and see where we overlap and where we differ. So we could talk about those things and clarify them as well…

I mean how would you understand me saying “woke sucks” if you don’t understand anything about woke, or anything about sucks for that matter.

I am just talking — praxis

Ok. Insults are a type of talking. Addressing content is another way to “talk.”

the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

Is that what you think? Or are you just parroting something you looked up? You said these are “supposed to be” the tenets, as if you didn’t think they simply “are” the tenets.

Is this good faith? Am I being unreasonable asking you if this is good faith?

What is the overall point of your very last post? What are you trying to say to me as a response to my previous post? I don’t think I can tell the overall point of your last post from the words alone. There is something you aren’t saying to me. Something is not express that I am “supposed to” understand.

Why did you just now post this? We could have used this pages ago.

the tenants of wokeism:

Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
Systemic Power Analysis
Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
Language Shapes Reality
Moral Urgency and Activism
Intersectionality
Historical Accountability — praxis

There is some good stuff in there to incorporate into the discussion.

But why are you posting it now, so I don’t fall down the wrong rabbit hole?

Ok I’ll bite.

Language shapes reality - huge. I agree. That is a part of wokeism. It’s a part of post-modernism too. It explains a lot about how a conversation with the woke goes.

I think reality shapes language. What do you think? Not what someone else thinks or what someone else said what the tenets are supposed to be. What do you actually think? Does “language shapes reality” explain reality to you?

How do you think the feminists and the trans people would handle what language to put on the door to the bathroom? Get it? If “language shapes reality” how would the feminist and the trans person choose what language to put on the formerly “girls locker room”?

Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks.

you are using a broad brush here… …as long as you use that broad brush you aren’t landing your points with your actual target. — DingoJones

How so?

I think I’ve made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.

One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few.

And why do you think my points won’t land because of their broadness? Is it something to do with the nature of broad points, or something to do with the nature of the target? Or both in combination?

A little more detail about your broadness analysis would be appreciated. Thanks

Athena - you and me would need a week long seminar together with lots of speakers assisting us to sort through our positions and identify all of the facts we need, before we could come together. It’s all over the place.

Nationalism that becomes fascism is Christian. Germany was a Christian Republic — Athena

So someone who is a nationalist who becomes fascist can also go the church (and understand what church is) and say they are a “Christian”? Just because someone says they are “Christian” doesn’t make it so. Like just because someone says they are woman, doesn’t make it so.

Hitler’s Germany was a Christian Republic?

I get it. You don’t like Christianity and religion.

Ok.

I’ll just say that, besides all of the religious wars and oppression that you probably think were about Christianity, and not about politics, the Catholic Church brought hospitals and universities to the world before anyone else did anything close to that.

If you could for an instant just consider only the good things people have obviously done for the poor, to stop injustice, to educate and to heal - that is all Christianity is. These and love of God and all persons - these alone are Christianity.

Christianty can be used and abused for politics like anything else. Doesn’t mean those uses are Christian.

But I’m guessing the evils done by quote “Christians” are too great to find the good.

There is no “nationalism” essential to Christianity, Hitler’s Germany is the antithesis of Christianity.

But again, I get it. You don’t seem to like religion and you think it infects our politics too much.

See, I can agree with you that religion should be kept out of government policy. So we could agree on many things you might want to make policy (like maybe no teaching Bible in public school without teaching about all world religions, and no teaching Intelligent Design in science class - maybe in a philosophy class discussion about Aristotle…)

And I agree history is crap these days (but I blame wokeness for that). And I agree the education system is full of issues to work out. It would take a long history and discussion to address all you’ve raised.

But a discussion like that, with a motif and theme of all the ways Christians qua Christians have hurt the world with someone who doesn’t seem to see the vastly greater goods many people have done, in their attempts to be more like Christ - seems unproductive to do like this, or on this thread.

What social movements do not contradict themselves in theory and practice? — praxis

Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above??

no need to think critically — praxis

I’ve given 10 times more analysis to chew on here than you have. WTF is this insult for?

No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. I’ve said that ten times. So just because you don’t like my criticism, and just because you won’t critique most of what I’m saying, doesn’t mean you have any idea of my willingness to think critically.

Equity is good, racism and sexism are bad, traditional values need to be updated…those all seem good in principle. — DingoJones

Equity is good.
Racism and sexism are bad.

I, a conservative traditional person, agree.
(Of course I do.)

I also agree that liberalism is the greater teacher of us these things. Although republican conservatives fought to preserve the union when they abolished slavery of black and other people, it was another liberal idea, like the US constitution was a liberal idea. Lots of good liberal ideas.

But that isn’t woke. Woke is liberalism turned into something else.

Woke thinks equity means girls and boys are the same (just social constructs).
Woke thinks equity means we need more black Board members in corporate America.

Woke doesn’t see the different between equality before the law (fairness), and equal capability of identity groups. Just because in the pool of all Hispanics there are many great doctors, it doesn’t mean we need there to be more Hispanic doctors. Woke is all confused on the priorities. Quotas, affirmative action - these are born of woke’s idea of equity, and are actually racist and sexist (just with a reversing effect). Fine if you want to think equity means affirmative action, but don’t tell me affirmative action isn’t a kind of racism. That type of contradiction is woke.

And woke didn’t invent ‘racism is bad.’ Liberals didn’t even invent that. The Catholic (means “universal”) Church had more do with introducing to human history the notion of opposing tribalism and racism than the enlightenment did. By the time of the enlightenment and birth of modern liberalism, there were already beloved saints coming from every corner of the planet.

I know of too many black Americans and Hispanic or Asian Americans who could care less about the notion of ‘systemic racism.’ They agree with me. Racism really isn’t everywhere. Woke thinks it is…but it just isn’t.

Added: the woke are the ones keeping racism alive, along with the seven or eight actual white supremacists.

Racism is real. Don’t get me wrong. It’s bad. Don’t get me wrong. But I didn’t learn this from woke arguments. And woke solutions are even worse than their assessment of woke supposed problems, if you ask me.

Do you think concern with systemic racism is onto something good? — praxis

No.

Are you actually a lawyer? — praxis

Dude - I am not writing a brief. I am just talking. Woke social justice contradicts itself in theory, and in practice.

Either the feminists or the trans are wrong. They can’t both be right. But any definition of woke I’ve seen provides no means to adjudicate that dispute.

Your argument … relies on equivocation of the term “woke,” — praxis

We need a working definition of woke to debate equivocation between two definitions.

I have been all about “what is woke”. Show me the equivocation.

In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. Is he just crazy? Oddly, he was raised in a family situation that Kirk celebrated, and even graduated from a religious school. Did society fail him or is it biological? — praxis

Everything new comes from somewhere. The kid is responsible for what he thinks and does too.

Are we not each individuals, responsible for our own lives and actions? Or do we have to look beyond the person for whatever caused that person’s actions?

“Family situation that Kirk celebrated.”

I don’t know why it is relevant to say “that Kirk celebrated”. So if someone thinks the military needs to practice shooting accurately, and then the military loses a battle, should we rethink whether it is important that they shoot accurately?

Because the shooter came from a traditional Kirk-supported family, do we really have to wonder what is wrong with the traditional family? Or might there be something more particular to the specific kid involved?

Whatever was good about the shooter’s upbringing can still be good for people. Just certainly not good enough for a kid who thinks it is ok to murder someone like that because his disagreed with him.

I’m sure his parents are destroyed, unless they are psychotic as well. Their traditional lives are over.

Woke debaters don’t debate with conservatives. If they can’t crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot.
— Fire Ologist

Kirk disproves this claim. Shortly before his assassination I watched several videos of him debating Cambridge students. I think he used every logical fallacy known to man. — praxis

Ok. That’s fair. If that is what you found. A fallacy is a fallacy. A fallacy knows no political party or ideology. We’d have to take each debate one by one to point out the fallacies to show how the leftist out-debated Kirk. I’ve seen some of those

That said. If we broaden this to debates between any conservative and any woke liberal, there are times when the woke side can’t debate well. In many of those cases, instead of admitting they need to rethink their position, they just shrug off the whole debate, learn nothing, avoid self-reflection, do not improve their argument, go ad hominem and write off their opponent as hopelessly lost to immoral irrationality. My point is, from my experience, the woke liberals do this A LOT. And usually they don’t even need to lose the debate - they just need to be challenged and they get indignant. A lot.

Woke in principal may not be problematic but there IS a version of it that is problematic and those DO have something to do with certain tenets of woke ideology. — DingoJones

:up:

I would love it if anyone around here could make the case on behalf of the woke.

My friends, what is not problematic about woke in principle? Anyone list one thing?

I think woke’s fetishizing of “implicit bias” is onto something good (just over reified). Implicit bias needs to be dealt with. That is my best attempt at saying something positive about wokeness.

But this is why I pushed us to come ip with some sort of definition of woke for all of us. As far as I can tell everything woke touches is infected and decays. Knowledge of the notion of implicit bias is not enough to justify so much woke destruction.

A perfect example of woke’s infectious nature: The way the Trans rights folks (woke) are angry with the Feminists (also woke), and vice versa. They are both correct about themselves according to woke and yet they are both wrong about each other according to woke. And so they fight each other, decaying themselves and each other, due to wokeness.

funding cut — Mijin

That just means the taxpayers aren’t going to be forced to pay for whatever the college wants to say and promote. It has zero impact on freedom. If Columbia’s professors had balls and really believed in their fascist ways towards conservatism, they would say screw the money. And just rely on their $14 billion dollar endowment to tide them over during hard times. This is adolescent whining - the tone of the modern university.

3,100 arrests of Palestine protestors — Mijin

I’m sure you are right about some improper arrests. Point one out. Who was arrested for speech?

But do you think all 3,100 people didn’t commit any crimes and they were all just arrested for speech? Were all of them charged with crimes? Did all of them get convicted? Show me a specific case of impropriety and I agree with you. But 3100 seems like a small number to me. Why are white liberals in America concerned about Palestine anyway? Is every killing of civilians all the same, or is torturing and kidnapping civilians of any value in an assessment of who needs justice?

“divisive concepts” such as systemic racism, critical race theory (CRT), and gender ideology" — Mijin

I agree, those things are divisive, and just wrong. They are woke, and I like the idea of the End of woke. But if you like them, don’t sign up. Teach them for free if they are important to you. Funding cuts from the federal government have zero to do with free speech. I only care about the freedom from government coercion, not some sort of lack of financial support. Are the Feds telling anyone what to say or think, or what not to say or think? No. The feds are telling them what the federal government is not going to pay someone to say or think. That is a totally different issue than rights and justice and oppression. That is a teenager whining that daddy won’t pay his bus fare or give him lunch money to go play activist with his friends.

Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” (2022), expanded in 2024–2025, bans CRT-related content in both K–12 and public university curricula. — Mijin

I’d have to look into the specifics of how the law bans content.

You may be right here that this is Orwellian. I’ll let you do the homework though for now.

Because you may be wrong.

We are talking about kids K-12. These are almost entirely minors. Ok? Kids.

Does the woke act get specific enough to restrict speech about “white men are bad” and talk about penises being cut off, or that Daddy wears a dress and that is just as good as Mommy - and bullshit fantasy theories revolutionizing sexuality foisted upon little fricking kids??

The government is allowed to curtail speech based on time and place. You can say “we need to be free to have sex with anyone and everyone we want as long as we all consent” among adults - but you can’t teach that to 9 year olds. Parents need to be allowed to control the state curricula.

But if this law is not well written, it is Big Brother fascism and you are right. Look it up if you are worried Florida is up to no good. I’m not worried. Speaking to other people’s kids is different and should be regulated. And let’s see what happens with any challenges to the law in court.

audit universities accused of “Marxist indoctrination.” and again, withdraw funding from “divisive race or gender ideologies.” — Mijin

Again, so raise your own money to indoctrinate Marxism and white supremacy conspiracies and that girls can have penises or whatever. In America the government can’t stop you. Doesn’t mean the government needs to help you.

20 states (e.g., Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, and North Dakota) have passed or proposed laws restricting how colleges teach race, privilege, and history. — Mijin

State funded colleges and universities? Or all of them? If all of them, the laws are a problem. If state funded, be brave my anxious friend.

do you appreciate now why the 1% figure — Mijin

Yes because you are including acts like the above as equivalent to physically shutting down speech with force. Unless all of those 3100 people were not arrested for trespass, assault, impeding lawful process, noise violations, failure to obtain a permit, and other crimes, even that isn’t a threat to free speech.

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”. — praxis

Ok I take that back. How about all 50 other points?

mindlessly parroting — praxis

That’s is insulting, right? I mean yeah, I like parrots and yeah I’m pretty stupid, but you don’t really need to make this point here.

You think there is any hate or rage speak on the left somewhere else? You think I can’t find AOC screaming hate?

My point is - who cares about hate from the right or the left.

What is the substance of their political views and efficacy of their policy solutions?

Ignore the hate. It’s what conservatives must do to engage in a discussion with a liberal, because liberals hate racists and fascists and all conservatives are racists parrots.

Do you see? Screw the hate. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is when people stop talking for any reason. Who cares if you think Charlie Kirk was a hater. That’s psychology and hidden dog whistle bullshit. What did he say and do right on the surface, right before your eyes. What matters is he was killed for talking.

Woke debaters don’t debate with conservatives. If they can’t crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot.

Decide on whatever topics/issues; work out who to vote for accordingly; if none found, then figure out if second best is good enough, or if there are additional concerns to take into account; ... — jorndoe

That’s how I hold a discussion, how I debate.

But then we have to elect leaders. Then we have to pick a platform (pick a team) and play fair to make a final selection of elected official.

Someone (Goldwater?) once mentioned that politics involves compromise. — jorndoe

Compromise is the result.

Extremists don’t debate.
Extremists don’t compromise.
The teams are always there on election night.

And yet other woke doctrinaires think you are doing 'good work'? Sigh. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah - that is weird to me too. Out of nowhere - fist bumps, like we reached peace in the Middle East.

But if you are blind, you can't see, no matter how urgent the images.

That ten minute effort of mine represents more evidence than I've seen from you this entire thread. — Jeremy Murray

:up:

That took me ten minutes — Jeremy Murray

Those added to my examples too. Too many examples of woke stifling, or just unjustly responding to, speech.

And what is happening in the UK is unbelievable to me. The loss of free speech and incarceration of violators (who say shit the government doesn’t like) is way more real and tangible and more dangerous for more people than things like trans rights issues or even racism in the US. The average woke person has no idea of the harm they are doing.

a black man who has condemned wokeness as racist, a 'tyranny of low expectations'. I really enjoy listening to him in conversation with Glenn Loury — Jeremy Murray

Right. Is that the one when they are speaking about Thomas Sowell? I think I heard of Loury. But yes, people talking. Not as a black man or whatever identity box. Not as a victim pointing at oppression. Just as men. I will check that out, thanks.

self-appointed priestly caste. — Jeremy Murray

It may be that the woke thinks they are always right, but it’s certain that they think right wingers are always wrong. I mean a bit of both maybe.

Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech
— Fire Ologist

Loads of people got fired for social media posts that were hostile to Kirk in the wake of his murder. — Jeremy Murray

I was saying what the Government did in response to Kirk, they only arrested the one person. They got serious about antifa now, but no one rounded up (and we’ll see what comes of that).

But there was an intervening event regarding those who seemed hostile to Kirk being fired. No one was fired for being leftist or because of their political views, or even for hating Kirk. They were fired for being pigs about a murder.

Mind you, I’m sure many people just made stupid mistakes and deserved a chance to apologize and move on, so I agree there may have been some injustice in the firing of many of those people.

But that said, all of that firing was in the private sector, and people get fired for all kinds of reasons. It’s not the same free speech issue as government action against people for speech, as in the UK, soon in California (although I bet the law will be struck down, because speech laws make no sense…).

(Though the incessant us-versus-them thing is getting old.) — jorndoe

That seems to be the nature of politics. But I agree. It’s next level now.

The trick is to pick your team and then play fair, be an example, with respect for the game both sides want to play. We have to play together to play at all.

The woke team got too greedy. They assumed too much. It backfired into Trump. Trump made a new team called MAGA, made of all the people the woke team shit on, shouted down, beat up, shot at, hated, called racist, called sexist, called fascist - team Trump is full of people fed up with being called bad for basic things, like being white, or being a man, or being conservative, or being a believer in God.

Woke took advantage, and went to far with the poor Trans people (who are all pawns now).

I hope it is ending.

What needs to be saved in the demise of woke is liberalism and progressivism. And it will be saved even if woke truly ends (which I doubt).

——

Here is a weakness on the left, and evidence of how it has been hyjacked by its extreme woke elements: the left thinks working together with republicans is losing to them, because republicans are subversive (and just always bad). So woke can’t even try to cooperate with them. It’s why the only unified message of the democrats is “we must fight and resist Trump”. They never have positive ideas, just plans to subvert all things hateful by republicans (which is everything republican haters say!).

So Dems can’t just show common sense and reasonableness. If a conservative idea is a good one (like let’s not over sexualize children or chop off their body parts), the left still can’t even entertain the idea. Even if it is common sense. And unable to use republican “totalitarian”…common sense… it leaves them to have to work with nonsense so often.

And this is why delusion works to answer questions and calm woke nerves. As long as the language opposes conservative language, the argument is assumed to be sound enough and the facts are good enough. No need to question woke authority or logic or validity. And anyone who questions it can be dismissed. This is their main tactic - dismissal of debate. That is fascist, if you ask me.

I want to raise the sombrero cartoon again, because I think it is such a good way to see woke things more clearly.

The left sees the cartoon and see that a white guy like Trump and his team of evil doers is making a joke of a sombrero and Mexican stuff. The left assumes this is so racist they can be indignant, and call Trump out. That has to be racist, right? Everyone with any moral scruples will have to agree - Trump is a pig for mocking his opponents like that.

But are they really indignant for Mexicans or Mexican-American immigrants? Is anyone really so offended that the cartoon does more harm than good? Trump is always called Hitler - given a funny mustache and
all. And this image is used to smear all republicans who agree with anything Trump. So what’s the harm in giving Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer a cartoon hat so republicans can laugh at them? And make it a sombrero, because they pretend to love illegal immigrant Mexicans so much. :grin: Guaranteed the people who are laughing the most are LEGAL Mexican American immigrants, many of whom love Trump because they love America.

The woke don’t know what is important and what is not. According to the woke, the cartoon is about a white man using the poor downtrodden Mexican to make fun of someone. Well I’m sure many Mexicans hear that from the woke left and think - screw you too - “we aren’t downtrodden, and your policies suck, and why are you falling for such a silly provocation with your pretend outrage for me who isn’t outraged at all - I think it’s funny too!”?

The woke left calls a silly joke “hate speech” and wants to give the government the power to fine and/or arrest people who say things that might “offend” a “protected class”.

They are wrong about what is racist, and wrong about what to do with “racist” speech. And if such racist speech was finally stoppable by the good government policies, all we would be stopping is a few laughs. It’s not offensive enough to warrant “say it to my face” bullshit from Jeffries. He seems self-important. And too woke for the current moment.

This is an example of their weakness - they see oppression where it does not exist and their solutions for oppression stink anyway.

The Dems keep blowing opportunities to take back the narrative. Jeffries should have laughed. Dummy. He was too worried he’d further offend the seven Mexicans who were upset (3 of whom will still vote for Trump). Because he doesn’t know how to handle racism (if it was even racist to make the cartoon.)

——

I haven’t even suggest that “there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points” — praxis

Maybe not nothing, but you certainly don’t make much of all I’m saying.

@DingoJones assessment that you over simplify and to simply categorize me doesn’t seem far off to me.

It is insulting to say I’m just parroting talking points, you know that right? Dingo was just trying to help, because I think he saw this too.

It would be kinder if you would just assume I am telling you what I think in good faith, my own observations (which is all I am doing), and just talk about it, or tell me what you think.

I mean, I could say you sound like woke propaganda and misinformation too, but instead, I assume you are a thoughtful person, like me. Just wrong a lot. :razz:

The point is the left is way, way better at hate. Hate is an important ingredient to leftism.

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”. Rage isn’t hate. But the democrat candidate for attorney general in Virginia was caught fantasizing and texting about the death of republican rivals and piss on their graves.

My point is, your point about MAGA using Kirk to hate monger is just so inconsequential. Kirk was shot. I’m sure the shooter bumped into some woke hate. What about woke hate? Anything there?

Forget it…

Do you also deny — praxis

Do you deny the Left hates MAGA?

Do you deny hatred from the left is behind all of the protests and assaults and deaths and billions in property destruction these past 5 plus years in America? No leftist hatred on the streets of Portland today?

anti-leftist hate mongering — praxis

Hate mongering, like wearing a red hat (punched in the face), or a shirt with an American flag (ripped off and beaten), or holding a vigil and burning some candles (stomped on and pissed on).

MAGA “hate mongering” like that? So scary when those MAGA folks monger that hate.

During the summer of Floyd a woman was murdered for saying “all lives matter”.

What a joke.

:up:

Are you saying leftists don't hate the Maga?

Not what I was asking. — praxis

What is your point? Tell me how it really is.

I am not Maga. Never was. I had to vote for Trump because.... Biden/Harris had no ideas, not a clue.

I never used social media. Right after Kirk was murdered, I first downloaded Instagram. I don't have twitter or facebook or TikTok accounts. Barely use LinkedIn. When I watch the news, I put on CNN until I can't stand it, then I watch Fox, until I can't stand it. I get my news from all over the place. I mostly think politics is a burden. I'm pursuit of happiness focused. And that comes from engaging with those in need and building a business for all of my employees.

But now young men are getting shot for political speech, and many others are celebrating it. So I said enough with holding my tongue. I think a few million others are saying the same thing. Around the country and around the world. The left's paper thin reasoning and rhetoric just isn't going to fly anymore.

Trump putting sombrero's on Hakeem Jeffries is monumental. The only people offended by that are the ones who are losing the arguments. They aren't offended because of its racism (although they of course say that bullshit). They are offended that Trump refuses to learn from them how to behave.

Woke-type ideology has been leading Western cultural changes since the 1980's. Woke peaked under Obama and spawned the Trans rights movement. (Trans rights ironically cause the woke to begin eating its tail, as Trans people pose big problems for woke homosexual policies, and woke feminist policies, as well as for basic security for children). Wokeness became untenable. And the right finally reacted. That was 2016 with Trump's victory over Clinton.

Now, the deep trench wokness dug of our culture is full of mud. Now the left is more outraged than ever, and less rational. Now people sympathetic to the left shoot people more often than they used to.

I think the world is realizing that only half of its population even wants to be free. Only half of the population really wants to be responsible for their own lives. The rest, the lefties, want government to take care of them and protect them (even from mean words and haters!). The left has been gaslighting about their interest in equal rights for all people. They don't give a shit about all people. They only care about the half that don't want freedom.

Any evidence of the injustices and suppression of free speech and free assembly that you're saying is a significant problem on the left, right now. — Mijin

Right wingers want to talk ideas at a university (you know, a university, where ideas are talked about and minds are supposed to be challenged). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maga-debate-group-at-tennessee-state-university-escorted-off-campus-after-chaos-erupts/ar-AA1NeoqB
And the media calls it "escorted off" - meaning threatened, bullied and scared into running for their lives.

Normal left tactics. When faced with someone who wants to....talk ideas, the left screams "hate speech" when they don't like those ideas. It's the policy of at least 95% of our universities to bow to left-leaning student temper tantrums. They are too scared of the woke mob, and more to the point, they don't know what to do even if they wanted to stop such nonsense. They are incapable of saying "sit down and listen and learn" to flakey college kids. They fear such behavior is fascist and authoritarian, when screaming mobs are actually fascist and authoritarian. So my example of injustice and suppression of speech is, today's university system. Right wingers need not ask to speak. Until Kirk was shot of course, now some of them feel embarrassed, but continue to misunderstand what their policies have built at the university. Today's university is just a re-education camp to anyone who doesn't pay attention. So that is teachers using the authority of their positions to tell millions of conservative thinkers (who are children looking for guidance) to keep quiet. Don't dare to say "my pronoun is obvious to anyone with half a brain." That's hate, and bad, and must be silenced, and you should be ashamed of yourself for all of the evil thoughts that must accompany such a statement. So just shut up. Try to be conservative on a college campus today. You will know what chilling is.

California legislation to force censorship. https://cabassa.substack.com/p/newsom-to-sign-bill-that-could-censor.
The law is intended to "prohibit discrimination, violence, intimidation, or coercion based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration status." In other words - it is trying to push woke ideology and silence the right. So only discrimination based on those things? How about unprotected characteristics, like, being a white man, or having a conservative ideology? And does "Christianity" count as a religion?? Any consistency to be expected Gavin??? Who gets to be judge of what gender is, what religion is, what race means...??
It won't fly in America. Watch. Totally Orwellian. Like in the UK, where laws like this land individuals in jail for saying mean words that hurt people's feelings. Utterly weak. The left wants to give the government all of the power, but then scream its the end of freedom when conservatives win elections - how about we just keep the government out of regulating speech?
So that is spot on legislation, giving enforcement power to the government, to tell whoever they want to shut up because the current government happens to think their ideas are "dangerous". This type of legislation is the beginning of the end of freedom.

The left doesn't see government power as a threat to freedom. They just see government power in the hands of republicans as a threat to freedom. That's incoherent and illogical.
How about government power in the hands of anyone? Let's not let the government regulate our speech.

How about when the FBI investigated parents who said they didn't like woke school curriculum shoved in their kids faces? https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/whistleblowers-the-fbi-has-labeled-dozens-of-investigations-into-parents-with
Sounds pretty big brother to me.

How about when the IRS targeted conservative organizations? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-irs-policy-targeting-conservative-group/ar-AA1NKVNs
Our government isn't allowed to judge winners and losers. We get to do that at the ballot box. The IRS can stick their opinions up their ass, which is what the court said.

This is government action chilling speech, and its not right wing dude. And it's not for nothing. The UK and Europe are in real trouble when it comes to freedom of speech and assembly. The US has become the last man standing for free speech. The left in America aren't helping. At all.

______

The FCC and Jimmy Kimmel thing was bad. Really bad. That is government abuse that chills speech.

Pam Bondi saying "there is free speech, but then there is hate speech" was utterly woke bullshit. Pam was wrong there too.

Trump's free speech threats: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5519888-trump-free-speech-threats/

Most of it is rhetoric (not law), and legal battles that we will have to see how it plays out. I agree, it is chilling.
But the press needs to watch their sources and their opinions - there has to be some check on the "press" and that check is lawsuits for defamation and fraud.

I agree Trump promotes threats to free speech, and so Trump can create a danger to freedom. He needs to be closely watched and managed (like, what politician doesn't?). But I don't believe he is doing anything that our system cannot handle.

Don't worry. He won't be president in 2029.

The left wants to change the system - Newsom's law is an example of that. Mamdani's socialism is an example of that. They want to give the government too much power. Trump is abusing the power the government already has. Trump shows us the weakness of the controls we citizens have over our current governmental officials. If we give the government an inch, people like Trump (and the FBI and IRS under Biden) can take it a mile.

But the left's solution is.....give this government more power to silence people.

Like Gavin Newsome, in the name of "misinformation" and "hate speech" the answer is more power to the government and keeping right-wing voices silent. Fucking brilliant. Poor California. Such a mess.
______

that's hilarious. — Mijin

It's also true. But ok.

____

EDIT ADDED:

All of Trump's talk about the "enemy within" and the deployment of troops to handle Democrat states, and statements like he "hates democrats" - that is all seriously bad shit. But there are extremist enemies within the US (some of whom are left wing). So it is matter of how Trump applies force; it is not simply bad because he even thinks there are "enemies within" (because there always have been). "Enemies" is a strong word though. Need to watch this play out a bit more to call it "fascist" though. It might be better called "law enforcement."

You know a definition of a war zone is a place where there are 4 deaths per 100,000 people. That often describes our big cities. The Democrats aren't dealing with crime. The only cities where murder rates are down are cities where murders are not being counted the same anymore. There is danger coming from the left my friend.

Do you believe Kirk’s killer was a leftist? — praxis

I believe he thought Charlie Kirk was a fascist. So yeah, probably. But it’s not important. The shooter wasn’t playing politics anymore was he? If you think he was playing politics, then you need to know if he was leftist or not. He wasn’t a white supremacist, was he?

I believe the people who celebrated Kirk’s death were on the left. They were playing politics. Using death as a statement.
I don’t believe we should curtail their speech. I just believe they are sick or being immoral. And utterly stupid about how politics in a free society is supposed to work.

So you’re just denying it. — praxis

That the right hates leftists? I’m not denying that. What’s not to hate? I’m saying who cares? Besides children at recess on the school yard. “Stinky pants hater!”

The head of the FCC said "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" and Jimmy Kimmel was suspended. — RogueAI

1. That was wrong of the FCC and he was rebuked. (It wasn’t just Ted Cruz who rebuked him. That says it all.). So I agree it was chilling speech, but he was rebuked.
2. Kimmel was suspended for a week. (That says Kimmel wins the speech battle.)

This all happened right before our eyes - no shady government corruption, just stupidity on behalf of the FCC.

It all played out the way it should. We should keep an eye on the FCC for sure, but what else is new?

You don't think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election? — RogueAI

Steal? By sending insurrectionists off to the Capital? No, that is stupid.
By messing with state delegates? Maybe he tried to work the system with every ounce he could muster. Maybe he pushed all limits. But steal? How do you take actions in court and appeal delegates, all in public view, etc as “theft”? Any improprieties are done in the light of day. Which is why he stepped down when he had to step down. This is hardball people. Was Al Gore trying to steal the election in 2000? No he wasn’t either.

Do you think Jan 6th happens if Trump doesn't give that speech right beforehand? — RogueAI

I never heard the speech so I don’t know. I think the fact that it is a question and the answer is not plain as day speaks volumes. Maybe fools all see what they want to see, as they always are foolish - like anyone who thought Trump was hoping people would storm the Capital so they stormed the Capital, and like anyone who thinks Trump wanted to stay in office by force.

It doesn't concern you that Trump talks about running in 2028? — RogueAI

No, it concerns me (a little) that people don’t realize he’s messing with them. So silly.

I could see Trump trying to amend the constitution so he can run - but it will never happen.

So gullible.

It’s like the sombreros on Hakeem and Schumer mean Trump is racist. So silly.

Or that he wanted to suspend the Constitution to reinstate himself? — RogueAI

Trump stepped down from office in 2020.

Trump will not run in 2028. Trump will not be president after 2028. Period. If I’m right, do you think the left and the media who are currently worried about this rethink anything? And I’m definitely right about this.

There are way bigger threats to democracy in the US besides Trump messing with gullible lefties.

The hatred for Trump blinds people. And when Trump is gone, the hate will live on and breathe strong against whoever takes his place - and we’ll get more conspiracy theories about elections and white supremacy and whatever else is easiest flavor of BS the media can push. Guaranteed that whoever takes Trumps place will be worse than Trump in the eyes of the media. The media thinks Trump is stupid and just an egomaniac. So if the next person looks smart at all, now they’ll be an evil genius - worse than Trump if you can imagine that! And we’ll see all of the same threats to democracy coming from them. Such tired BS.

I have asked you multiple times, at least half a dozen times now, for evidence. — Mijin

Evidence of what woke is? Are you serious?

Or evidence of how Trump is not a fascist - you want me to prove a negative, with positive evidence? My proof Trump is not a fascist is the fact that he stepped down from office in 2020 all while he seems to have believed the election was stolen from him.

You are the one who needs to prove how woke isn’t a thing. How woke isn’t all over the university system.

Pick your pronouns - that’s of the essence of woke.

You don’t need to climb back in here. I tagged you because I didn’t want to use your name here without you knowing it. I had to reference you because @Athena didn’t see the context. That’s all.

Happy to discuss things, but we should slow down.

Evidence of what specifically do you think I haven’t addressed 12 times?

The US stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Church. Christian Nationalism is the result. Christian Nationalism and its fight against evil favors fascism. That authority over the people that is made necessary by the people's evilness, according to Christian mythology — Athena

Ok, so that sounds like woke propaganda.

Since when did Americans think the US government should control the content of the education of our children? That’s not smart. Government can be assholes, so why would we give them the power to select the curriculum for our children? Liberals want a strong Dept of Education. Repubs don’t. That way control over textbooks gets closer into the hands of the parents.

So it is not republicans who would ever say that the “US stopped educating for good moral judgment.” Republicans say that parents got lazy and trusted the government’s public schools to educate their kids and the public schools, infected by wokeness, have lost all moral authority.

No one is advocating “moral training be left up to the Church.” The Church is how parents train their own kids. But it is up to the parents.

But we see how parents do in school board meetings when they just want their kids to be left out of the delusional world of woke ideology.

I agree Church must keep its distance from the state, and the state must remain agnostic to any religion. So do most conservatives. But being a loud and proud Christian who loves his country… why not? whoop-de-do for you. I don’t see anything solid behind Christian Nationalism. Loving God and country is one thing (a good thing); but somehow incorporating Christianity into government, that’s a caliphate. That’s not republican.

Christian’s fight against evil is also called, having a heated argument. Fascism and Christ are incompatible. Just worry about regular fascism. The notion of Christian Nationalism is more woke propaganda.

It amazes me how ill people think of Christians, even though it’s always been that way since Christ was hung on a cross. America was partially formed to escape persecution for saying “Christ”. Christians have always been at the helm of the country. I don’t think Christian Nationalism is anything more than patriots who happen to be Christian.

Maybe we can chill out people. Christians aren’t a real enemy. Nor are they fascists. Any fascist is too concerned about earthly power to have any real understanding of Christian “mythology” as you put it.

I don’t see how the word “woke” would function as a “scare word”
— Fire Ologist

You don't think well-meaning Christians are alarmed by the evil spreading across the country? You don't have a problem with the government having more power to control the decisions regarding your children than the people living in your school district? — Athena

@Mijin was saying woke is just a word used to scare people. That woke is not a real thing. I disagree with that.

I’m saying if woke wasn’t a real thing, it wouldn’t function to raise fear like it does. But it is real. Obviously. I agree woke policy is some dreadful crap. Not just for Christians, but for freedom, and peace, and community. And of course for children. The school system is an utter mess because of “what is woke”.

your skewed view of reality shaped by MAGA propaganda on display — praxis

Why not just comment on what I say and not conjecture about where you think it comes from? (Probably because you think anything that even sounds like it comes from MAGA has to be wrong/evil/beneath your dignity.)

It’s an objective fact that there were no riots or protests in response to Kirk’s assassination, isn’t it? (Maybe the FCC and Trump are suppressing all those right wing fascist riot stories?)

Kirk was murdered. Leftists responded (saw the bright side, if not celebrating death). Rightists responded (mostly with prayer and inspiration to engage in more speech).
Was anyone besides the shooter rounded up because of political speech (and the shooter was not rounded up because of his views - but because of the bullet he put in a man’s neck)? Any businesses trashed and robbed? Any police stations burned to the ground? Any cities like Portland Oregon full of right wing protestors?

Any such thing as woke propaganda and a skewed view of conservatives? Is it even possible that sound bites don’t tell the whole story?

anti-leftist hate mongering was monumental, — praxis

It was? Monumental? Not enough safe spaces for you in the US? Seriously? Where did you get that - what shapes your opinion? Anything skewed or exaggerated there?

Another word for hate mongering is, speaking.

Maybe just make the better argument and be brave in the face of such monumental hate mongering.

You realize the left and progressive democrats are the ones who propose laws limiting and punishing free speech. Not the right. (Bondi was an idiot.)
And this thread is about the left, not the right - it’s about the end of woke.

The point is - who are the real fascists who openly celebrate assassination, who hate argument and dialogue with their opposition, who ironically want to control “hate speech” (which is just speech) with law and policy, who protest violently, causing damage, destruction and death…?

If there is an End of Woke, it will be because progressive liberals will not self-assess their ideology.

And they continue to misunderstand the moment.

Nothing but forgiveness, aye? — praxis

Yes, Forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss. Just not on the left’s narrow limiting terms.

Look, I know and love many leftists. Truly. That doesn’t mean I have to tell them they aren’t totally delusional and full of shit. I love them. I respect them. I make sure to be humble and respectful. I avoid politics. But if they ask me about their politics, I make sure they know the way they see things is messed up - utterly contradictory and inconsistent, full of half-truths (which are also known as lies), and just bad ideas.

Massive division sown and reaped by the left - along with politically driven assault and killing, attacks on basic institutions like the police and free speech, and utter destruction and chaos in our cities. That’s on the left. That’s, in part, due to woke ideology.

Again, there is plenty of stupidity and lies and contradiction to point out about the right. But this thread is about the End of Woke. And leftism needs to be evaluated in the open air. Enough with the cancelation of opponents to stupid leftist bullshit.

And It’s not inherent to progressive liberalism that someone else be silenced or canceled or killed, and it’s not inherent to liberalism that their solutions are unworkable; but today it often looks that way and if we keep ignoring it, we have every reason to fear more killings.

We freedom lovers, left and right, should all be able to come together in horror at Kirk’s murder, but today’s left hates the right way too much for that. The left refuses to see good in anything coming from the right. Period. And the left refuses to put partisanship aside to just console a wounded nation.

Kirk’s death should have been a unifying moment - but since 9/11 (which was a short left-right unifying moment), and these past 20 plus years, the division has metastasized, and it’s been packaged for consumption by both sides. So the possibility of the shallow but real unity we once were capable of, seems gone.

That is the real threat to democracy. All of the bad faith, clouding judgment, blinding us to basic facts.

what's happening in terms of authoritarian policies and freedom of expression — Mijin

Hmmm. :chin: Lots of things from lots of different directions. Did you see SB 771 in California? Fairly woke side fascist move. And a more concrete fascist move than anything Trump is doing. (Although it will be interesting to see if the law is enforceable or gets tossed by the courts….)

you stupid shit. — Mijin

Now that doesn’t really foster dialogue, does it.

dignified exit — Banno

:fist_bump: — Mijin

Might be too late…. But ok, bye.

I’m here if you want to talk….

As in this:

I think "woke" is a meaningless scare word.

I've already explained why in multiple posts — Mijin

You certainly said this. But I don’t think you’ve really explained why, or how.

I don’t see how the word “woke” would function as a “scare word” and galvanize the right, and elect a president, twice, without enough content to it to stir emotions. To me, that content is DEI initiatives, white college kids protesting for Palestine and for trans normativity, and against ICE and Jews and Tesla cars. That’s all democrat/woke actual stuff. Plenty of fascism and violence to go around, eh? It used to be scary. Now, as college debaters are murdered and the woke counts its blessings, and none of the MAGA fascists rioted or retaliated with anything but more forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss, we all can see the woke emporer has no clothes. Except he’s wearing a thong, and for some reason no one knows whether he was a boy or girl. (don’t worry, the wonderful media will get him/her/them a robe)

I may as well bid everyone goodday and bow out — Mijin

So “the End of Woke” brought you to the end of the conversation.

You did some nice work here. — Banno

:rofl: The bubble remains intact - shrinking though isn’t it?

what's happening in terms of authoritarian policies and freedom of expression. — Mijin

Ok.

I know Trump and Christians, and old white men are authoritarian and they hate free speech. Those arguments are loud and clear. If that is what you want to talk about, fine, but I am more interested in getting some clarity on how wokeness is authoritarian and quashes free speech.

But you don’t think wokeness is a functional term, nor do I think you care about any fascism coming from the left.

So maybe we should be done here, unless the authoritarianism that comes from the left is part of the discussion, on a thread with “woke” in the title.

the people most against "woke", have used it to mean just about anything from why we lost Vietnam to vaccine mandates. You're not interested in discussing that — Mijin

Yes I am. That discussion requires some sort of working definition of “woke” - that is how one could demonstrate how, for instance, the Vietnam thing sounds stupid. How can we say “it’s stupid to think we lost the Vietnam war because of wokeness” without some general framework for what wokeness is?

I think you want to disagree with me no matter what.

Recall @NOS4A2 on the free speech thread. You and me agreed there - Nos was not making sense. He has a strange notion of freedom and determinism as these relate to speech and choice and action.

But here on this thread, I can tell NOS has no fondness for woke ideology. I bet it is because woke ideology is so authoritarian and so destructive of freedom and free speech. So I agree with much he says here.

But you don’t seem to see any fascism coming from left/progressive/woke - you seem to be more interested in showing how “woke” is a strawman (which undercuts the entire OP) and more interested in showing how the right spreads fascism.

Nothing wrong with that. You could just say “yeah I guess that is what I’m doing” - but I’m sure you don’t think I have it right…

I’m not trying to hyjack the thread. I’m trying to take careful steps - to build, together, some agreement on what “woke” means. This sounds like a good starting point to me.

You can’t admit “woke” means anything clear at all? No boundaries at all encompassing what is woke?

I never thought it was so controversial. If I say “girls can do everything boys can do” - that aligns with woke. If I say “girls cannot do everything boys can do” - that doesn’t sound woke to me.

So an interesting discussion is how oppression might be found by the woke mob yelling at anyone who won’t confess that girls can do everything boys can do. Whether you see this or agree with this, or not, seems relevant to the thread.

A second discussion is how oppression might be found by Trump preventing girls from doing stuff because they just cant do what boys do even if they wanted to…. But this second discussion isn’t really about woke anymore is it. Unless you are arguing “lower standards for girls in the navy is woke, and keeping girls out of the SEALs is oppressive.

We should at least talk about the left along with the right (if we need to talk about the right at all). On this thread.

BTW - I can see you have real concerns about Trump and what appears to be happening in the US. Is there any way to address your concerns without hearing out the concerns of right wing thinkers?

Don’t we all need to hash this shit out?

We really can’t find anything to agree on at all? Like whether there is a such thing a wokeness? You really don’t see woke as anything other than a right wing strawman? You never hear left-leaning people use the word? I think the left coined the term around 2010. I just think that it is obviously - wokeness is a real thing influencing thought, action and governmental policy. It’s hyper liberalism, focused on power struggles involved in racial and sexual identity.

Woke ideology gives us a lot to think about. I’ve said from the beginning, analysis of implicit bias is important for one’s own free-thinking and for communities to more humbly stay together and overcome fear, ignorance and stupid hate. But woke ideology also gives us some self-defeating, crappy policies - like the incoherent and impossible to fairly implement DEI policies.

wokeness as treating race, sex, and power as the most important factors in all choices, — praxis

How about, ‘race sex and power as among the top factors’?

Seems like you are basically agreeing with me.

most who identify with or are labeled as “woke” simply emphasize awareness of systemic inequities alongside other concerns — praxis

“Systemic” - we should work that concept into the working definition. That’s a good point.

It also reduces wokeness to “behavior and ideas” tied to progressive liberals and DEI initiatives, reflecting a common conservative critique rather than a neutral or self-described meaning. — praxis

It’s not a critique if you like DEI. Woke is what it is - it is a left-leaning value system. That isn’t a critique.

in practice, “woke” is a broader, contested term rooted in social awareness, not just a partisan ideology. — praxis

How broader? Wokeness came from the left. But it stands alone as well. Its roots are not the issue. Does it have any value for all people of all partisan flavors or not? Is it good for anyone to, as you say, “emphasize awareness of systemic inequities” or not?

And come to think of it, if we add the concept of “systemic inequities” to the working definition, instead of just any inequities, that “systemic” focus might push wokeness close to being rooted in liberal leftism than even my definition. The left is always more interested in systems and groups than it is individuals and particulars.

But it doesn’t make sense for you to say to me that “been influenced by divisive rhetoric” when, 1) you have no way of knowing how I came up with my definition, and 2) you are showing signs of basically agreeing with it.

You sound like, if you wanted to help someone with a working definition of woke, you would be integrating some of the same concepts as I did. Which makes total sense to me, because I, and those spewing “divisive rhetoric,” didn’t invent woke - we just live with it.

And the term “divisive rhetoric” sounds like something you picked up “rather than seeing things as they truly are.”

You can be reluctant to agree woke has to do with systemic inequities involving race, sex and power, but you are still agreeing with me. What is so bad about just agreeing with me?

You are talking about revising and supplementing my working definition, not tossing it. So your judgments of how wrong I am sound contradictory.

a dozen pages of whining — Mijin

I’m pretty sure you are whining about me, more than I’m whining about woke. I’m not whining. If you were in the room with me, it wouldn’t sound like whining or complaining. So that’s dumb to keep saying.

the more relevant points, like all the infringements on free speech — Mijin

How is that more relevant than what I am trying to talk about on a thread call “The End of Woke”? I don’t think you are concerned about the ways the woke seek to control and limit free speech, so how is it “more relevant”?

that are orders of magnitude worse than any of the claims of what "woke" has done — Mijin

Right, you want to talk about something else. Not what woke has done. That’s some other thread. Like maybe a thread about how Trump is fascist is some other thread.

can you please address some of the more relevant points — Mijin

That is my line. You stole my line.

constantly shifting) — Mijin

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.
— Fire Ologist — Fire Ologist

Let’s start over.

"fascist" as encouraging violence — Mijin

A new topic. Avoids the issue.

It’s ok to call someone fascist. If they are fascist. But get us back on track.

You really need to deal with this:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s what people are saying when they say “woke”.

You are just wrong and delusional if you think woke is just a word. It’s modern American left ideology. It’s what I said above.

Make an argument. That is about the topic of the thread. Assume everyone knows I am a despicable person - who gives a shit?

The subject is the end of woke. So do you think that means the end of a meaningless scare word? Is that what you see going on in America?

You have said it's not clearly defined, you stupid shit. — Mijin

But is the question whether “woke” is clearly defined? That’s what you want to talk about. Without pointing to any definition at all!

I am trying to show you there is something there that exists and can take on a definition. Dummy.

I’m trying to define it.

You are saying it isn’t a thing; and, it is not a clearly defined thing. ??? That’s incoherent. Is woke a thing? If so, what is it?

Move the ball.

I am assuming it’s a thing because it convinced a country to put a felon in the presidency to beat it up and tear woke policy down. “Make America Asleep and not Woke again”. MAANWA. I am guessing that is no help to you. All while it vaguely happens before your very eyes.

You just won’t talk about it. No self-reflection or self-assessment. You are like a kid with his hands over his ears yelling “waaa waaaa - I can’t hear you when you say ‘woke’ waaaa waaaa.”

Nice strategy. It’s not like I gave you volumes of material you can use to make an actual point that might interest someone.

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

Key words you would be better served to address:

Behavior and ideas
Awareness
Inequities
Race, sex
Power
Diversity
Inclusion
Left-leaning

Those are all part of any idiot’s understanding of wokeness or appropriate use of the word “woke”.

despicable — Mijin

Don’t be a baby. Put your big boy pants on. You can always refute something I said that matters.

Woke is consistently picking the wrong priorities.
Woke is focusing on who is talking not what they are saying.
Woke is never having to say sorry.
Woke is never having to say “woke”.

If you can’t say something substantive, I will assume deep down you are convinced of the wisdom of my working definition and that you will be supporting JD Vance for president in 2028 (if Trump hasn’t set up his dictatorship in time of course - and he isn’t shot in the head).

this boogieman — Mijin

Nicely done. No such thing as woke. No way to define it. It doesn’t mean anything. Got it.

Keep losing elections, and hoping people shoot more fascists. Whatever you do, don’t talk about liberal progressive ideology with a conservative.

Does “hate has no home here” mean you hate Donald Trump? I’m pretty sure it does. So woke.

How about pick a definition and work on it with me. Let’s coin a new term “woke” right now:

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength. — Fire Ologist

That’s a start. Revise it for us. Anything to add to the conversation besides times people say “woke” that confuses you. (If you see ‘the president calling losing in Vietnam due to woke’ makes a “mess” out of woke, you must see something besides a boogieman, otherwise why didn’t you pick trans children’s book readings or affirmative action as part of the mess of woke?)

You lose over and over with me. Nothing I’ve said has been addressed let alone refuted.

The only reason the woke don’t like the word “woke” anymore is because Trump and the right use the word.

AI verdict: — praxis

Just because someone else (whatever a “MAGA” is??) sounds like me has nothing to do with the content of what I said. Maybe “maga” is right about woke! Sis yay for me for getting it right like AI said. My sense of woke seems to have impressed enough people to throw the democrats out of the presidency, the senate, the house, Florida. The best response the democrats have had to the anti-woke rhetoric is to shoot guns. And call people names. And avoid discussion. And bleed voters. And disappoint polls.

Keep up the good work.

You’ve given me a lot to think about…

Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed — praxis

Ok.

How?

woke" to mean at least a dozen different things — Mijin

What’s wrong with that? The thread must have two dozen viable senses of “woke” at this point.

Like anything else, crystal clear definitions are hard earned, if earned at all.

But isn’t it disingenuous to say that just because a definition is vague, the thing it seeks to define does not exist?

Whether you ever use the word “woke” or not, I don’t really understand denying “woke” fits certain things/actions/ideas. As if you haven’t heard the word more than enough time these past 6-plus years - from the universities to the media and into our politics “woke” is clearly some specific usage.

Is maga any easier to define than woke? It isn’t.

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Ok, I’ll try.

Before just dropping another definition, allow me to give you the context out of which I see “woke” has emerged.

I go back to the at least the 1960’s (could go further first) and point out the anti-Vietnam War western baby-boom generation - rebellion glamorized in music and for the first time the movies and then the press, but mostly in protests against government oppression, and rich man’s oppression, and then male oppression of women and white oppression of colored.

These grievances became more pointed and sharp, as feminism started to really win the conversation - Although they failed to enact an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), women like Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem represented a new place for women in political and corporate stages.

And the Civil Rights Act brought to the conversation grievances based on race, creed, and sex. Separately the Supreme Court told the states that they could not make any laws about abortion until later in the pregnancy. This becomes important later, because it cements a wedge between religion and the political left.

So having some sense of the things and happenings just mentioned above are necessary background to see “woke” emerge. The big items above are grievance (glamorized rebellion and protest), and substantive items like race (MLK, Black Panthers, Malcom), creed (abortion rights and the notion of “potential” life) and sex (highlighting equality through feminism).

Each of these items has its own contexts and much of that goes far back before the 60’s. The philosophy in the Universities was firmly post-modern, going back in all directions but mostly through Continental deconstructionists and existentialists to the enlightenment humanists…

Out this, CRT came to be in the early 1990’s (I’m sure I have the dates wrong but the dates don’t matter).

And eventually we had some slightly firm concepts like these:
- male dominated patriarchical structure of society
- white colonial geo-political hegemony
- capitalism enabling the powerful to keep their power
- systemic oppression of non-male, non-white, and just generally inequitable systemic power relations.

Based on the dominance of rich, white westerners, the oppressive systems that have been instituted must be torn down, or replaced.

The term “politically correct” is a term that was used in exactly the same way as the word “woke”. Except not all politically correct ideas were left-leaning (most were); whereas possibly all woke ideas are left-leaning.

The left clarified something more specific than just politically correct.

The “correctness” of the woke is baked right into wokeness. In this way wokeness, like political correctness, is like a soft moralizing, comfortably sounding in speeches like a sermonizing.

(None of this is necessarily bad, by the way. I haven’t gotten into anything bad about wokeness so far. Any shortcomings you might find above do not render wokeness impotent, if there are any…)

By the end of the Obama Presidency, wokeness was formally a thing.

Woke ideas addressed the above areas the right way, and such politically correct action stated to be called “woke” enough to where I first saw the word.

So we could write a book on the climate and environment out of which “woke” came to particularize something. But let’s get back to the question:

What is "woke" really? — Outlander

Woke is: behavior and ideas that treat awareness of inequities of race, sex, and power as the most important drivers for political action and individual choice. The majority of the proponents of woke behavior and woke ideas are politically left-leaning progressive liberals, espousing diversity, equity and inclusion as both goals to strive for, and sources of strength.

Is it supposed to be a gotcha — praxis

Absolutely not. That would require me to be speaking in bad faith. So thanks again for that assumption.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive.