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.

Sorry for the length of the post! — Jeremy Murray

Me too! :razz:

Possible World Series opponents, — Jeremy Murray

Toronto? Yes indeed! Hope so for both of us!
And Schwenksville - that’s crazy! Been there myself. That’s the home of the annual Philly Folk Festival, for 60 plus years now.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - underneath it all when being honest - most adults are just people, and do share a few basic values.
But also, looking only surface deep at each other (which wokeism promotes with its focus on race and physical identity), people easily become reluctant to notice what we share in common. We all give in to fear and ignorance and tribalism too easily, and it becomes too hard to offer humility and respect (and the left chastises any show of respect for the other side). So any shared values we might identify never get a chance to help us come together.

Systems oppress, — Jeremy Murray

Yes - this is ingrained. And although systems do limit us, oppress is the wrong word. So it is irrational to reify the insight that “systems oppress” as wokeism does. For people who think simply that systems oppress, what is not admitted or dealt with is this: when systems are toppled, new systems emerge, so we can’t just say “systems, like oppression, are always bad, and must never take hold”. We need to make good systems, not no systems. There will always be systems and hierarchies, and the powerful and the weak. Period. We need to grapple with that, not imagine it doesn’t exist and shoot for toppling all systematizers. We are all adherence to system. Period. So let’s get to work on a good one, not blindly topple all of them.

This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. And I agree. The “vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough.” One man’s good vibe is another man’s vague confusion. This is the problem with consensus based conclusions generally. Reliance on a consensus to ground authority doesn’t work as soon leadership conflicts with itself ans our leaders live to do, and also as soon as the populous is split 50/50, which it is. There is no moral authority. Too often, no one even wants to identify a consensus. They just want to shout louder and see if the loudest one wins the day. And consensus changes with the wind, as it has for female athletes and gay people, thanks to the new trans consensus.

It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example. — Jeremy Murray

I agree. DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesn’t just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. Trump and his ilk are beneath reasonableness and worthy of contempt as evil doers. But as far as the positive proclamations of woke, that is now postmodern and amorphous, amenable only to posturing, confusion (often intentional confusion) and moral conflict. Total mess when the left runs things.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters. — Jeremy Murray

Don’t you think that describes the vast, vast majority of leftists? They are so certain a man like Kirk gets killed annd they are so certain they can celebrate it, and vilify any/all who show any sympathy for the dead man. It takes some kind of certainty to act they way. Celebrating victimization is supposed to be the type of oppressive behavior the left hates and seeks to redress. But they can’t see Charlie was a victim at all, despite the blood and the murder on a sunny day at a stimulus school for kids. They utterly blow the moral argument all of the time, utterly contradict any moral authority they think they have, and then, with zero self-reflection, they confidently act like the oppressors they are supposed to be resisting. Like affirmative action - it should be sour medicine at best, but instead, it is reverse racism to be celebrated for some reason.

Look, I obviously tend to be more harsh on the left than the right, because I’m conservative. (And have been brow beaten all my adult life.) But I think the conservative counter-argument to the wrongs the left have been perpetrating in the name of political correctness/wokism are much more relevant today than the more shallow fears and purported injustices the left wants to focus on. Many might not want to admit it, but the US, and really the world, is in a better place today since Trump took office. The biggest threat to the US today is the same as it has been for 20 years - Democrat policies. Conservative racism and fascism is simply put, bullshit. The left is full of too much obvious bullshit, and too many people already see it, too many have seen enough of it, and too many people are leaving the Democrat Party everyday the left does and says another stupid thing.

Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude. — Jeremy Murray

That is a problem. The left can’t tolerate true diversity. The left drops all balls they think matter, and never picks up the balls that actually do matter.

I will say, I have less fear of those who are certain. What bothers me is what such people do when their certainty is challenged. If you are certain, ok, but if someone disagrees with you, you can shut the opponent down, or you can engage and convince them of the truth you are so certain about. I just want engagement, and certainly not more shutting down and shouting down. Rational certainty is fine (and should indeed be rare). Emotionally driven certainty - makes for a terrible conversation.

It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity. — Jeremy Murray

Yes! And they have turned a blind eye towards their own self - they will not look in the mirror. The woke are now the most asleep among us. And it is a loss to all of us, and to healthy debate.

woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, but I wouldn’t say “may” - I’d just say “clearly”. How about gender, and children? How about women athletes? How about Jewish people? How about poor inner city folks? How about language - basic words are no longer supposed to have meaning. What does “woman” or “fascist” really mean anymore - when the examples they give of each are unrecognizable )or purposefully hollow)?

The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left. — Jeremy Murray

100%. Liberal thought gave us the US constitution and the modern nation-state. Liberal thought gave us more faith in science and reason. You have to have some liberal in you to be an artist, and art is vital. There is a lot more work to be done, and the creative spirit of liberalism is always going to be needed. So I fully agree here.

But the left is too greedy with power and control to risk humility and partnership with anyone who isn’t a parrot. The left would say my praise for the goods of liberalism are not enough, and so useless and shrug me off.

The left is destroying the good of liberalism, as it destroys everything it touches. In the name of sexual freedom, they promote and push chopping off body parts, and their reasoning is to “affirm gender” - so clearly irrational, or at least, chopping off adolescent body parts is valid as a debate topic. Except to a wokeist.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. — Jeremy Murray

I know you do. Which is why I appreciate your voice of reason here on the forum. And thanks for making sure I knew that - that is your good faith and honesty coming through, which I already knew (but thanks).

The media image of Maga is insane, and there are millions of idiots to choose from as examples of what is wrong with MAGA. That is a worthy analysis to undergo.

The caricature of the conservative is so deeply ingrained in western culture, it is easy to find people who appear to be just another redneck, Nazi republican. It it so clear, in the media, who the bad guys are, and they (we) are so vilified, that the constant browbeating fuels actual bad guys, the worst elements of Maga.

But if you look closer, there are tens of millions of folks like me. We are lumped in with the media boogeyman that is conservatism, and with MAGA. But most of us are slightly less ignorant, not the least bit fascist, and not interested in race or whatever adults want to do with other adults in their pants and skirts. The conservative (not MAGA) movement can think, and we see through the slogans and posturing and ridiculous ideas on both sides. (but due to the destructiveness of wokeism are focused on the left’s bad ideas). There are armies of black people, and immigrants and women who are firm, politically literate conservative thinkers. To us, MAGA is just a campaign slogan.

People just want to be proud of where they live and their country. It should be ok to want to make your country great. It shouldn’t immediate be distrusted by Americans.

Americanism and American culture (for Americans) is supposed to be a shared value. The left would never say that, and that alone is a problem. It’s not reality to think America is nearly as bad as the left says America is. It’s just not the case. Millions of immigrants understand that better than the Democrat party does.

That should give pause that the left never seems to take, even after a convicted felon who boasts about assaulting women wins election twice - that’s how wrong voters see the left and they won’t self-assess.

I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology. — Jeremy Murray

The vast majority of human beings have some conservative ideas and impulses. That doesn’t make everyone conservative. So any posters who think you are “a conservative” are not paying attention. I see you as more of a classic liberal. Like liberals were in the 1980s. Reagan was still called a Nazi then, but liberals had way more internal consistency (rationality) and way more respect and ability to debate back them.

Today’s left doesn’t tolerate debate with the right, and in the same breath they squander credibility as they shrink their tent, and leave reasonable people like you out.

There are a lot of people like you. The left has no tools or means to win you back because they don’t have to win arguments - they only have to indoctrinate youth and shout down opposition, and tear down institutions - that’s what victory is to them. Bad ideas masquerading as moral goodness defeating evil white Christian men.

But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad.

Cheers.

I am still looking for a way to actually connect on something (anything) with folks like @praxis and @Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS, while being so sure whatever I think IS NOT true, for some reason.

They want to take away all the cake from everyone, and eat it too.

But they must think I, a conservative who can actually find good things about Trump, I must like raping women, hurting trans people, and I must want to enslave all non-whites. That I am unreasonable, and willfully blind to facts. So I can’t really blame them for not actually treating me with any respect or honesty. They may not know it, but I wouldn’t debate with Hitler either, if that is what I thought about my opponent.

They may not want to admit, but we Westerners have a lot of good things in common with each other. We, and the culture that has been entrusted to us, is worth ironing out to include the left and the right.

The left needs to soul search and they are too prideful to do it.

How about this: MAGA wants to make things great again. Woke wants to make things great for the first time.

So let’s show guys like Trump and girls like AOC some respect and just make things great period. Together.

(But, I know, we are all too invested in fighting to take that shit seriously…). Such a shame.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own.
— Fire Ologist

I can understand different opinions. It’s not that difficult. — praxis

That is the closest you’ve come to just saying you are a progressive. I appreciate the openness.

You are right. What I said above was imprecise. I should say this instead: On many issues relating to political power, culture and human interaction, Progressives can’t fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism. — Jeremy Murray

Gotta admit, there are people who misjudge, and therefore abuse, the Kirk situation from both sides.

But the vast majority of people on the right see it as only tragic. But tragic for all sides. Bad for the country, and bad for liberty and peace, and for life itself. (The frickin guy bled from his neck to death for using a microphone at school.) Many on the left get the picture too. But not enough it seems.

This Kirk thing will be around for a while. This is like an MLK. The left doesn’t understand how browbeaten conservatives have been, because they are the last people to admit it.

Kirk is going to represent a new vocalization of conservative values, and a sort of last straw.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be labeled fascist, racist, sexist Hitler wannabes. Since President Nixon and the 1960s really.

I think the media will all be forced to show another side of conservatives and republicans. The media no longer can contain a more realistic image of the average conservative, hidden behind the caricature the progressive left wants to portray.

Kirk just doesn’t look like a racist sexist, person, and because the left won’t look at him, they are the only ones who can’t see that.

The irony is, it’s like the right has become woke - awoken to the need to deny being a racist, and repudiate the harmful folly of DEI, and speak the truth of proven traditions.

There are terrible things in the past, but those are all the left sees. And they make up new terrible things and boogiemen and want to talk about them as well - and all republicans always go in the same bucks the rest of th terrible things they only want to look at. At once, morally superior as they burn down everyone who is not monolithically with them.

No longer will that be the only conversation. Kimmel and Colbert, and many other screaming wokeists just don’t function like they used to.

If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no “blue wave” (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.

Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. Maybe someday…

The hand on the scale is wavering.

But the schools will have to turn around a bit, and that will be tough as that is really where leftism/ wokeism seems most comfortable, and apparently, bold and militant.

BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread. — Jeremy Murray

I didn’t think anyone was even following, so thanks for noticing the feeble effort. You are making a lot of sense to me as well.

government thing — jorndoe

Maybe, but I was talking about your average progressive Democrat. Not the government. (At least not currently.)

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave — Trump

Sounds like a tough meeting for the top brass. I’m sure our military leaders can handle tough confrontations, don’t you think? That meeting inspired and emboldened, as much as it drew any petty outrage or fear, and as much as it annoyed the media-leftist-democrat (woke) complex. More good than harm done there, if you ask me.

“Outsider” is an odd term to use. — praxis

Why is that? There are many outsiders to leftist progressives. Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. (The right also uses identity politics - it’s a shitty tactic just as well. The right could screw up this moment easily with their own othering, but I’m still trying to talk about the woke left.)

Unintentionally (with no self awareness) progressives are the kings of othering and dehumanizing and shouting down the outsider (fascist! Racist! sexist rapist, Hitler, Nazi, hater, gestapo, republican, white man, deplorable, redneck (rural-flyover country) etc…). And outside the buckets, the left makes outsiders on a case by case basis too. Plenty of progressives and democrats in the 1980s were pro life, but not any more. If you think you are left but think abortion is killing a person, are you welcome to the Democrat party? Or if you think men and women are just different, you can’t be woke or left or progressive anymore. Today we no longer know if feminists are woke enough, because they seem to conflict with trans and general cutting edge sexist analysis.

Are you an American? I always find it strange how the entire WEIRD world seems to have imported the binary of Republican / Democrat. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, I’m an American. From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. The US’s Democrat/ Repub division of the political parties does seem to be fairly universal. There are all types of people on an individual basis, but generally, the left-leaning/progressive thinkers are Democrats here, and the right-leaning/conservative thinkers are republicans. All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. So the independent folks are being trampled by the left and turned away from the left. They have no where else to go but the Republican Party, and it helps republicans win elections.

the impact of woke is to silence the centre. T
— Jeremy Murray — Fire Ologist

That is really interesting. I heard an anecdote the other day that points to this same observation of yours.

This woman said she was probably 70% liberal/progressive, and 30% conservative. But she was a registered Independent. So she mostly disagreed with the republicans, and would argue with them constantly, but on the few issues where they could agree, they would be able to connect, and even bond. So in the end they generally got along dispute mostly disagreeing. But when she was with the democrats, the Dems didn’t care how much they agreed, they would shut her down and kick her out for not conforming on all issues.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own. Any outsider on any issue must be a facist/racist/sexist, and all of those who hold any opinion that opposes them, indicates to them a person who cannot be trusted on anything. Such people are to be feared, hated and silenced.

This is the left’s biggest problem - it’s become mob rule at its worst.

Hume's anthropology/psychology is what justifies his skeptical positions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could the same point be made by saying instead “Hume uses anthropology/psychology to justify his skeptical positions.”? This leaves open the question of whether his anthropology/psychology was any good to actually justify his skepticism.

But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience.
— Fire Ologist

I don't see how this helps. In virtue of what is Hume's introspection more right than those of pre-modern thinkers or modern phenomenologists, etc. such that we should dismiss their understanding of how the mind works and accept Hume's? Consider also the idea that the act of understanding is luminous (reflexive). Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection, but why ought we believe he introspects more correctly than his opponents? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t agree with Hume’s conclusions.

When I said “experience of our own mind being different than our sense experience” I was precisely referring to the fact of reflection in the mind (luminous understanding). Sense impression as a basis for all mental reflection is a great empirically based theory, but Hume was too enamored of this theory. Knowing the mind and ideas is just different than knowing a sense object. Knowing qua knowing is not merely knowing qua sensing. What the eye and brain do when seeing is analogous to what the mind does in itself when reflecting, but it’s only an analogy. From what I can tell, one needs a completely different mechanism (epistemology that involves essences) to explain reflection, not just one involving Hume’s faded recollections.

How do you mean Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection?

Hume didn’t explain habitualness. Hume didn’t satisfactorily explain whatever might make some habit more functional than another - he just asserted we had no way to know this. It’s great how the billiard balls moved the way he predicted, but he ultimately wasn’t talking about billiard balls when he made any predictions, since their existence and behavior were experiences of his sense perceptions, not experiences of any thing in the world on which these sense impressions were verifiably (justifiably) based.

How different is the picture Hume ultimately creates than the picture Plato creates of the man chained in the cave seeing shadows of things, but not seeing things? Plato just added the possibility of breaking free of the chains. And I would say, an act of reflection itself involves some break from the pre-reflective, chained self that seeks to know.

skepticism cannot be escaped if we accept the premises. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, ironically, makes experience something of a miracle.

He cannot know the reality of how the mind works for the same reason he cannot know causes in the classical sense, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain that further?

Maybe Hume just didn’t get into it? But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience. (I guess that is what Kant did.).

what makes them legitimate if they are not justified by reason? — JuanZu

Nothing. What makes the notion of “legitimate” coherent and applicable divorced from reason? Nothing.

If you believe as Hume does that constant conjunction has little or nothing to do with necessary connection, then belief in the necessary connection between two constantly conjoined things, is fancy, or practical for now, or whatever else you want to believe about it. It’s not actually true or actually legitimate.

Ask Hume, what do vivid impressions cause? He has to say “stop asking stupid questions.” But to “impress” is to transfer something, from one, to another. Light impresses itself upon my eyeballs. Do my eyeballs and the light cause anything? Or do I just constantly connect them to my “visions” out of habit (can’t say “force of habit” because “force” sounds like a cause)? He had to say that light and eyeballs don’t cause - causation is a figment of our minds. But for some reason he allows constant conjunction and “recurrent association” to be prior to a judgment of belief - like a cause is prior to some effect. (I guess if we just avoid using the word “cause” and stand on “recurrent” we can lift up a rational “conclusion” of “legitimacy” - without sounding as naive as people who still believe and say “cause” and believe they actually know something about the world.)

I agree with Hume that “cause” itself is a metaphysical concept. But I agree with Aristotle that metaphysical concepts, formal causes, exist - minds alone can sense or grasp or discern or understand or constitute, or believe them…

What the hell — Tom Storm

I find this cloying — Tom Storm

Nazis and the Communists — Tom Storm

Well mass murder and war are also venerable — Tom Storm

I’m guessing the above isn’t quite what you were trying to inspire? :joke:

I appreciate the spirit.

I think you are reifying empathy a bit much. “Collective consciousness” and the “heartbeat of Mother Earth” sound like a new religion. Is this what you meant to conjure up?

But I feel how big it all is too.

And I like these a lot:

Active Listening: Engage with others' perspectives, without judgment, to build understanding and trust.

Small Acts of Kindness: Offer help or a kind word to strengthen community bonds. Small kindness holds the very principles of giving without needing anything in return. (Smallest lesson in life have the biggest effects when learned). — RadicalJoe

I am listening to you there. And as an act of kindness, I’ll say, keep putting out the hopeful vibes brother.

Aren’t we lucky to be alive today? It’s too late for me - I will forever be grateful. I have great hope too. Let’s take all of the shit, and show what great works we can do with it!

Peace.

It appears to me that there are no coherent, shared moral principles around which Woke states can organize themselves that do not lead to increased polarization and a rejection of the local community in favor of a shared global community of values found on screens. — Jeremy Murray

I agree.

Too often any discussion platform becomes shout down, shut out, (even duck and seek cover it seems). Everyone is too comfortable with the polarization. We just throw the opposition into their appropriate, factually incorrect, buckets of deplorables and shout at them. All tribes do this.

No one wants to apply any self-awareness about how we exacerbate what we fear. We scream “fire fire!” while reaching for the gasoline.

There is so precious little good faith left between the sides. And it is not just extremists on both sides. It’s everyone. The line between Republican and Democrat is stark (woke securely on the progressive side, and conservatives squarely republican) like a border wall.

No one even sees or hears each other anymore. Or wants to.

I agree there are some coherent moral principles shared between the two sides. Like free speech is a good one. Everyone knows free political speech is an essential right. But instead of building on that shared principle, we’ve all been too demonized to trust anything the opposition says (in both directions). The conversation about free speech is “yeah, but you cheered when Kirk was shot!” Versus “yeah, but you cheered when the FCC shut down Kimmel!”

Another is due process before the law and fairness. We all agree on that.

And if people take a breath and say “I agree with you - how to do we come together with a consistent response to attacks on free speech?” It all falls to crap with “how could you possibly agree with me because of ten other grievances - I don’t trust you at all.”

No one takes an argument from the other side at face value.

And our politicians are playing a game to score points with their bases in order to gain votes to extend their political careers. At least that is what a lot of them sound like to me. Just in another game, and not serious.

You would hope the philosophic types around here would be able to parse through the emotional knee-jerk mess a little better, identify facts, and stay logical and reasonable with the analysis and conclusions. But even here, people just overlook each other, and look through the text for dog-whistles and lies, and seek ways to avoid or downplay bad facts instead of just dealing with the best arguments. I’m sure many who read this and know I’m conservative, are thinking of all the ways to shred it for ill-intent, and to show how I am somehow being fascist (because fascism and conservatism must go hand in hand), and how I must not be a reasonable person.

No one wants to believe we really have the capability to do much better. Things are dire because leadership (Trump, JD Vance, AOC, Jeffries, etc.) cannot help themselves from fanning flames. Flames score points.

especially for young people who see our naked emperor. — Jeremy Murray

Is the naked emperor on both sides? Is wokism the naked emperor, along with conservatives’ often excessive and cold-hearted ways?

’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. — javra

I thought you wanted to separate out the politics.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I’m baffled myself.

you previously agreed the two are entwined — javra

Well, morality is entwined in every human interaction.

This would mean not separate. — javra

But we can separate things to talk about them. I thought that was what you were trying to do.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. — javra

Exactly.

hate speech is bad for society, — javra

Yes.

it is dangerous to criminalize — javra

Yes (and, to me, discussion around this point is the heart of discussion of the term “hate speech”)

and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate [hate speech]. — javra

Close enough. (We probably agree here too. I might say here that, by keeping political debate free, we protect an opportunity resolve differences. So not so reliant on the emergence of checks and balances, but just opportunity to argue it out.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that. — javra

I’ll consider it left. :up:

Two men stand beside a woman. The first man turns to the second, and says "Shoot her." The second man looks shocked, then raises a gun and shoots the woman. — Banno

I think it should be clear by now that speech isn’t always political. You can do other things besides debate using words, like giving commands to shoot.

We went through this analysis above with “incites physical violence.”
See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1014774

Speech that incites physical violence can be regulated and punished. We all agree there.

in response to assertions that utterances could not injure. You asked if Hitler injured people through his utterances. — Banno

I was so thorough about that, @javra had to tell me stop talking about it. Speech that incites violence gets regulated. Hitler did murder. No one contests that.

But we don’t need to define “hate speech” to regulate anything that incites violence, and all we need to do is look at the violence to understand how to regulate it. It can be emotionless speech (as in “shoot her”) and it becomes illegal if someone attempts or effectuates murder because of it.

But Banno, and @Tom Storm, what happens if the second man doesn’t shoot anyone? The Austin hypo is pretty stark - I mean such a cold “shoot her” - but what about something more realistic. Someone is spewing hate, stirring up a vigilante gang to go do murder, and everyone just mocks the guy and goes home. I agree the police need to check the obvious mental health and safety based on that scene, but do you want to just arrest him?

Dont you think we can regulate this without getting into the content of people’s speech? Or do we need banned words like Facebook?

Is there a forum for adults where absolutely everything and anything can legally be spoken, or do you think that is dangerous? I see more danger in NOT having a forum for all political speech.

I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I'm partly concerned about speech that dehumanizes, in and of itself. — javra

Ok, so just be sure we are eye to eye, in the former phrase “speech that dehumanizes and incites physical violence” you are more interested in addressing the “speech that dehumanizes” part, not the “incites violence” part. Which makes sense, because I think we dispensed with the “incites violence” part as a legal issue that is already addressed in the law and need have nothing to do with hate speech, which we’ve clarified has to do with “speech that dehumanizes”.

So now, this seems to me, would not be a political discussion but is a moral/ethical one. Maybe psychological or developmental. Maybe even linguistic, or aesthetic.

But all of this speech we are taking about is free - because we aren’t begging the government show up because of any violence that was incited by the speech.

physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a mass murderer shooting people on the streets ….. Both are perverse interpretations of what is ethical: — javra

Focused on ethics, got it. I stripped this down. But I don’t agree there is no such thing as ethical self-defense. Nor would I agree sniping from a roof top, unless a soldier in war, could ever be deemed self-defense.

Not sure I am following here.

The victim becomes “the victimizer” and the victimizer “the victim”. — javra

So does the victim become the victimizer, meaning circumstances change as x-victim becomes x-victimizer, or are you saying x was never really a victim? I think the former. But since you equated self defense with murder, I am not sure. So maybe I misunderstand. Can you restate your point here? How is self defense that leads to death the same as murder, if that is part of your idea here?

Something quite common in authoritarian systems and mindsets. — javra

“physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a murderer” seem common to humanity. We seem to be veering back towards who is fascist and the political again (which begs questions of law and government intervention, legal systems).

is it anyone’s belief hereabout that more hate speech will mitigate the hate speech that might otherwise occur?

Here’s an analogy that I so far don’t find faulty: one rotten apple will spoil the bunch; — javra

So one hate speaker spawns a whole bunch of hate speakers. That’s called social media these days. :joke: But the trick is to respond to hate speech with… rational speech. Then, the rotten apple either heals and becomes healthy, or it continues to rot on its own - but responsible adults need not fear being spoiled because of someone else’s speech. I don’t think we can somehow ban all rotten apples. We need to deal with them. And if they incite violence, well, we already agree there.

can you then explain how hatred toward a dehumanized other (and an increased occurrence of it in opposing directions) can bring about greater equality of rights for all within the given community? — javra

I couldn’t explain that. That sounds more like it would lead to civil war, not greater equality.

does anyone hereabout endorse the use of hate speech as beneficial? — javra

Well, no. But who gets to decide what is hateful and what is not? Free speech is beneficial. If someone uses that freedom to spew hate, that’s now open to rebuttal.

I think we have to recall there are various things people can do and can incite when they speak. Hitler used words to effect genocidal murder all across Europe. Those words were not “free speech”. He wasn’t debating, arguing, convincing, defining - he was ordering, directing action, murdering...

Free speech is sacrosanct when it is political speech - debate among policy makers and elected officials and in political campaigns, and between two adults in a lounge.

[...] I’ve heard a lot of disparaging in my life of political correctness. The tyranny of such and so forth. So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

I agree with the thrust of where you are going here - the term “political correctness” is a misused weaponized frisbee. Many disparage the term itself. People usually use the term when they disagree with what they perceive the majority is demanding they think or say. Like “it’s politically correct to say ‘women can do anything men can do’ but I disagree.” That’s when you see the term “politically correct” - when someone disagrees with what they see as the majority (polis) opinion of correctness.

But you are right. Political correctness is akin to simply being polite. If we took away all sense of political correctness, we would descend into verbal war, and likely incite violence.

That said, we just have to remember that we can’t make laws about what is politically correct or incorrect to say. And I personally don’t need any hard and fast rules. The law is that we can say anything. With that freedom we need to work out a polite society, together, hearing all opinions. And in that free process, we are going to hear some hateful shit. I believe that is unfortunately the best we can do.

[...] what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

See, you just slipped in “can easily lead”. Do you really need a check for speech, meaning a mechanism to stop speech, if that speech merely “can” possibly lead to….anything? I mean what else can a speech lead to? We’ll never know if we stop it before we hear it.

You sound to me like you are trying to find away to regulate the speech of other people. Not by government maybe, but that there are things that, if even spoken, by default, require some sort of approbation or punishment.

What I would say is, we all know that crap when we hear it (because we know how to be polite). I’d rather hear it, and deal with it with more speech, then come up with some system that states it can never be spoken.

Are there any methods, practices, or approaches that truly help a person appreciate what they already have — Astorre

I wish - sign me up.

I like @180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow.

It’s why arts education from children on up is so important - that is the gravy or icing on top that forces gratitude.

But doing good for others is the best way to experience gratitude, I think. When you show real charity, you are always humbled by how much you receive from it. You can never do enough charity, and that makes you realize how blessed you are. You might think you get guilty since you can never do enough, but if you are really open to things, you are grateful saving the whole world isn’t your responsibility.

So I think gratitude follows mostly from doing, not from learning.

And gratitude can be a basis for a relationship with God and the transcendent and the eternal - when there is no one left to thank and you still feel such great gratitude, God can show up.

So incitement is possible? Glad you came around in the end. — Michael

Totally true.

you do have some ‘splaining to do.

On the other thread you would never have said this:

…speech incites violence… — NOS4A2

You do realize “to incite” is “to cause”.

So I agree with WHAT you are concluding here on this thread, but I have a feeling I still disagree with HOW you come to this conclusion per the other thread.

hate preachers, holocaust deniers, and racists of all types are viewed as cranks in American culture. Chomsky makes this point, that anyone can publish works of holocaust denial in the US and no one really pays them much notice. If you do that in Europe, where it is often illegal, their work gets all sorts of press. — NOS4A2

:up:

That shows one of the disconnects between progressive intentions and the actual effects of progressive policy on hate speech. There are others.

Sure, no one should be denying the holocaust - it’s a horrible, painfully provable fact. So any fool who denies facts should stick to their mom’s basement and listen to people when they tell him to shut up.

But progressive outrage leading to hate speech law to silence idiotic bullshit, ends up highlighting the idiotic bullshit - dragging it through court for a full hearing, answer the media’s questions so they can do an Op Ed. And in the end, the hate speech policy intended to silence hate speech, advertises and promotes it.

If you haven’t yet caught on to what I’ve been saying in my posts, I agree that making laws against hate speech in the US can easily become utterly dystopian. — javra

I did understand that, and so I should have said in my last post “so let me put the legal status of ‘hate speech’ to bed, and show why I agree with you that this need not be a legal issue.”

I am curious if you agree that “dehumanizes” is superfluous to how a proposed hate speech law would be enforced. Or that giving the government the power to adjudicate what is hateful and what isn’t creates the dystopia you just referenced. You agree with those two things?

Should there be a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate speech which dehumanizes and incites violence against others? And, if so, what ought these checks and balances within society be? — javra

No. We don’t need a “system” for this. We need more speech. We need the same exact system that allows for all speech. Hate speech is checked by reasonable rebuttal. Haters are always unreasonable, always ignorant, easy to prove they are incoherent and self-contradictory and ignorant. We all owe each other more respect and humility than a hate speaker can muster, so hating is a breakdown within the hater. And it is only defeated by changing minds and hearts through more speech.

But you said speech “which dehumanizes and incites violence”. Why do you keep bringing up “incites violence”? If it “incites violence” it’s a legal issue again, and we already have a system to put the violence in check.

I think you are worried about this: “speech that dehumanizes and could possibly incite terrible violence”.

Is that more accurate? If you keep bringing “incites violence” into it, then yes, we need the legal system we have in place to check against such incitement. We don’t need a hate speech law, we have laws to handle anything that incites violence.

If you take out actual incitement, evidenced by actual violence, and just have someone spewing hate speech, then no new system makes any sense to me, just more speech, and common sense and rebuttal and education - maybe forgiveness and mercy are needed.

How would we systematize peaceful dialogue? The only way I see is to hear out the haters. And hear out everyone else.

The response to hate speech is rebuttal speech, it seems to me.

If you are not talking about the legal system, I don’t know what social system you imagine could effectively stop a hater from hating out loud. Besides common courtesy, education in respect, education in love and forgiveness - all basically more speech.

The only real system to defeat hate is a moral system. Society has been trying to set that system up since the first Shaman said “listen to me”.

We each get to be Shaman in a free society, so I think the only system to combat hate speech is more speech.

As soon as hate invites violence, then the government pounces. Then the issue is no longer the speech or the hate though, it’s the violence.

———

Do you think speech IS violence when it is hate speech?

I have a few questions up above, so, I appreciate your time.

the lowest class…always talking about persons. — Attributed to Henry Thomas Buckle

Interesting idea, but really, what person are you talking about? :joke:

speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them — javra

This is a great working definition for ‘hate speech.’ And it is clear enough to be an enforceable law.

But when we go to enforce this law, it looks to me like the “dehumanizes” part becomes superfluous. And the enforceable law ends up merely “speech that incites violence.”

As a test case:

In town, there is a rich white man who owns a Tesla Dealership. A woman stands on the corner and yells: “I hate all white men, those dogs need to be put down. I mean dead! Musk and Trump are murderers for cutting USAID - everyone destroy the white man’s Tesla dealership!!”
Everyone who heard the speech screams “hell yeah!!” and turns the dealership into rubble.

Silly. I’ve made some poor woman my foil.

But we are proposing as law: It shall be unlawful to make…

…speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them.

So we press charges not only against the people who sacked Tesla for destruction of property, but we charge the woman who yelled on the corner with a new Hate Speech violation.

1. The ‘white men are dogs’ speech seems to meet the ‘speech that dehumanizes others’ prong of the law;
2. The people who where incited to ‘destroy the dealership’ are brought in to satisfy the ‘incites’ prong;
3. And the actually demolished dealership meets the ‘physical violence’ prong.

It looks like, on these facts, we have a decent chance we meet all prongs of the law and we can get a conviction for hate speech.

But let’s say instead, the woman makes the same speech on the corner, and nobody gives a crap. Nothing happens, and Richie White-man goes on selling Teslas.

Can we charge the woman with the hate crime now?

Without inciting any violence, she just gave a speech. Like every other politician does. She just went into the public square and floated an idea. Nobody happened to care.

With some speeches, people are incited to cheer. With others people are incited to tune out. Others, we think about. Others incite us to respond with our own speeches and writings. Maybe argument and debate. Speeches begetting speeches… Others inspire us to do things it is legal to do.

The government should have no ability to regulate any of that activity at all. And even more emphatically than that, the government should never seek to regulate speech based on the content of the speech. We don’t want the government picking what is good to say and what is hateful, and then looking at the content of what we say and determining for us “what you said there was good, and what you said there was bad”. In the basic political forum of adults speaking with adults, government doesn’t get to judge the content of what we say. We get to say “the government is shit, and everyone needs to be thrown out of office and we need new judges and we need new policemen” and the entire government has to let me say whatever the hell we want.

But then, some speeches incite people to destroy property. Only at this point, do we allow the government step in, by making a law against ‘speech that incites violence.’

Any speech, hate speech, love speech, convincing logical argument, whatever - if speech directly leads to, or incites violence, that speech is a crime.

(And I think you can get caught inciting a crime even if the crime is thwarted mid-stream, if the “violence” itself is slight, only because it was stopped by a security guard or something... digression…)

There is no need to look at whether the woman hated anyone. We don’t need to know her motivation. Dehumanizing words may explain why all those white-men-haters were so inspired and incited to destroy the dealership, but we don’t need to know their motivations either, because the woman’s words “destroy the dealership” and the rubble, with the violent mob connecting them, we can show that speech incited violence and arrest people.

So the “that dehumanizes others” is superfluous in application of the law.

Unless you are trying to make a law that allows government to arrest and convict people for speech before it leads to actual ‘physical violence’.

That’s too minority report. Now the government gets to judge how successful your incitement was likely to be. New definition is “Dehumanizing words, that could lead to physical violence”.

Now the law is hopelessly subjective/vague around the “incites” prong, and the “physical violence against them” part is superfluous.

Instead of working with the more specific “hate” speech that incites violence, we add add an “aggravated” speech that incites violence version of the law. If someone is a vile, hateful racist, you don’t need to prove what dehumanizes, and instead just need to show generally how the hate aggravated things, and give a lot of leeway for harsh sentences - like incitement to violence is 2-12 years, and aggravated, is 10-30 years..

——

The UK is putting people in jail because they post extremely violent and dehumanizing rap lyrics on Facebook. A woman’s son died, and it was his favorite song, she posted the lyrics, and she was in jail and before the court, and back in prison for months. So wrong. That’s hate speech legislation applied.

There is no need to give the government so much power - power to screw up - and to give away our free speech rights just so that the government can take this power, and inevitably screw up application of the law, or worse, intentionally weaponize the law against political opposition.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? (e.g. the victimization of conservatives by the left and the victimization of liberals by the right) — javra

It’s a great question. I think it gets to the heart of what is wrong with hate speech legislation.

The important issue here is not the victims of hate speech. It’s that we have to protect our ability to accuse our political opposition.

Libs need to be able to say repubs are scum, and vice versa. If it “victimizes them” that is their problem. We don’t want the government to be able to take away anyone’s ability to reply and respond to an accusation with their own speech. And with this principle, allowing anything and everything be said in a political context, it becomes impossible to make laws that proscribe any political statement without shredding our ability to respond to the opposition. If the opposition is helping rapists and murderers and fostering destruction, we need to be able to call them rape lovers and murdering animals, to call them out, to muster political support to do something about the raping and the murdering.

People who support hate speech laws are trying to deal with the scenario where speech is not in a political context, but it is just say, a white supremacist on the street terrorizing people who are just trying to go to a store. He is calling them every racist, sexist nasty word and truly scaring them and hurting them emotionally, making them not be able to enter the store for fear of their lives. But this can be handled many ways and laws against words or speech are disproportionately destructive to political debate to deal with this asshole.

If we make a law that curtails speech instead of making a law that curtails behavior, we simultaneously limit the ability to argue whatever needs to be said in a political arena. And the good intentions behind hate speech laws become a practical issue. A comedian makes a joke about a murderer, and murder is funny. So maybe we can make laws that limit time and place and setting, like no F-bombs in G rated movies for instance. But for any group to tell any group what words are beyond all pale, and therefore illegal, incurring punishment - that is the end of healthy political debate.

All that said, just because it should be legal to say anything at all in a political debate, doesn’t mean the politician who demonizes the opposition is an effective politician. That is up to us to vote for such a person.

We should focus laws on regulating the behavior, not the content of the speech. If someone is yelling in my ear at the top of their lungs, who cares what they are saying - the harm to my ear can be regulated as an assault. But the only harm to me is that they are saying words that I don’t like to hear - that is not harm enough to limit free political speech.

So no, I don’t think we can address the issue of hate speech without accounting for the victims of hatred. But in my experience, the one who hates is victim of his own hatred, and the one who is victim because of words is responsible for his own victimization - so to legislate against “hate speech” is utterly misguided and needlessly, pointlessly, takes a huge chunk away from our freedom.

(And not to mention, you put a law against certain speech, it will allow corrupt politicians in power to silence their opposition who is not in power. And it will never be applied accurately and fairly. I would be amazed that the UN floated such legal concept, but the UN has lots of bad ideas, and they all know their words are meaningless and cannot be enforced.)

And the stuff I’ve heard from them regarding the left, as I previously mentioned, has often times been quite hateful in what I took to be unjust ways—sometimes a hell of a lot more than others (this without hearing anything alike in turn from the left toward the right). Shit, a small portion of these have even welcomed me into their house with a Nazi salute or else championed fascism (and Hitler) while visiting — javra

The hatefulness goes both ways, so none of that surprises me. That’s human, tribal psychology. But the Nazi salute and fascism and Hitler stuff - just vile. I never ran into that in my life. I knew of people like that, but no one I knew ever thought much of such losers. It just has nothing to do with conservatism (but I’m sure I can’t convince you or anyone of that unfortunately). It’s like saying the gulag is essential to communism. It’s been essential to the way communism has always been implemented, but it’s not an essential component to the ideology.

But here we are again, taking about how conservatives are mini-Hitlers.

the loudmouthed extremists do not represent the majority on either side, at least not by my current appraisals. — javra

See, Nazis and white supremacists are not extreme republicans or conservatives. They are just fucking mutants. It’s not conservative to give a crap about race. It just isn’t. Racists give a crap about race.

A focus on race is not conservative. Maybe it used to be for some in the 1950s. But it just isn’t the topic among regular conservative people anymore. The story you told above is an anomaly, not nearly the norm for the 70 million people who vote republican. I will say race seems important to liberals. They seem to draw attention to race often in order to discuss their priority issues.

Issues like, are all republicans racists.

- Hate speech—when interpreted in the spirit of what the UN intended, this being the spoken prelude to active genocides—is bad/immoral/wrong. — javra

I agree hate speech is morally wrong even if it isn’t spoken as a prelude to murder. But if you want to make it legally wrong, it needs to be more directly connected to things like murder and legal badness. It needs to be connected to harrassment, or obstructing the right of way, or trespassing, or fraud or libel or slander and leading to physical measurable harm. It can’t just be offiensive to my ears and heart. We have to be able to say anything we want when the adults are talking about policy and laws and priorities and what is crime, and who is good for political office. The only way to protect that type of speech is absolutely - in a political debate context, absolutely anything and everything must be allowed. If it sounds like hateful shit, great, we call it hateful shit and tell the speaker now that they are done to piss off.

And instead of regulating speech, we regulate harrassment, obstructing the right of way, trespassing, fraud or libel or slander. If hate speech is a prelude to more badness, it is conspiracy to commit a crime, it is evidence of a criminal enterprise, it is incitement to criminality. So in that case, it is not the content of what is hated in the hateful speech that should matter to the government, it is the criminality of what the speech directly leads to that should matter to the government. We don’t want the current administration judging speech for criminality. Right?

He wants to be a dictator, that's for sure, — Mijin

For sure about that? Like Descartes for sure with certainty sure? Sure about what a dictator is, for some reason? Trump is clearly a dictator wannabe. All crystal clear. What does that mean a republican is, all 70 plus million of them? Besides you and the others who hate Trump with you, all those republicans must be stupid, or must want to be a fascist with Trump.

You are sure about all that.
But a working definition, or some sort of parameters for what woke is or means, or how it works…that is just “incoherent”. Still totally stumped.

You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something? — Mijin

No. I see pretty clearly what woke is. I defined it before - I probably said something about a focus on identity based power relations played out as race, sex, religion, all to be managed under values of diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s fairly rigid and predictable. But one of its tactics is to play relativist with definitions it doesn’t want to argue about. It is very woke to avoid defending key concepts, like “woman” or “truth” or ”woke”.

But I see things more clearly than that. Not perfectly of course - there has to be room for even a paradigm shift to creep in. But for now, if someone says they are a climate activist, we immediately know about ten things they certainly believe. All woke thoughts, well-trained slogans in support of each one. Climate activist for some reason means Palestine supporter, democrat, anti-capitalist, free healthcare for all, free immigration, somewhere on the socialist-communist spectrum, etc, etc. All woke for the most part.

MAGA, that’s easy to define for the woke side. Right? MAGA is easy. So many ways to exemplify maga. All of them also exemplifying badness as well.

But wokeness - totally incoherent.
The woke coined the term “woke”. Which is ironic now that they flee from the term. It’s CRT. It’s my body my choice. It’s breaking the glass ceiling. It’s occupy Wall Street and Antifa and BLM. All sharing space with wokeness. It’s defund the police. It’s Catholic Nancy Pellosi’s stance on abortion.

It’s live and let live (except for republicans and anyone who challenges them).
It’s care for the victims (except for republicans).
It’s everyone is a victim (except white cis men).
It’s tolerate diversity (just no, it’s not, I take that back).
It’s freedom of speech (except for republicans aka “hate speakers”) (and actually, no, it used to be about free speech in the 1960s, but not anymore - too much thought police that is essential to wokeness - what’s your pronoun or should you be canceled - screw freedom.)

Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding? — Mijin

I was about to say the same thing. But yes I have. TPF is where I beg for a challenge.

I read your linked list of fascism. Pretty good. Much of the list applied to Biden and Harris and Dems too. Fascism is too state power for me to fit with the republicans or even Trump. It misses the mark. Many items on the list didn’t apply to Trump at all. But your list doesn’t argue your point for you. Trump has all the power he needs right now. He’s making moves all around the world. He’s not gonna be a dictator and neither is any republican. America is not Europe. It never was. Hitler and his socialist party is not instructive of what Trump is or what is happening today.

Have you ever considered that if you really don’t get woke, you don’t get Trump either?

I predict if more Dems don’t figure this out, they will lose even more seats in the mid terms. So far, there is no blue wave coming. Probably the opposite. If the Dems don’t take the House next year, JD Vance is likely the next president.

Repubs have been taken for granted for 30 years. That’s over now.

If anything could really expose wokeism and actually end it, it is this killing of Kirk. Conservatives always had the better arguments. Now conservatives are emboldened. Many more people will no longer be afraid to offend some new identity group, or to use the wrong pronoun, or to trigger someone in their safe space at the drag queen children’s book reading event. The spin to cover up bad ideas, the refusal to face reality (like the fact that woke really is a thing), isn’t working any more.

People are turning away from the Democrat party because of wokeism. If you believe in it you should engage with it more - provide positive substance supporting and clarifying the good woke way, and not just say “Trump is a douche” as your key platform piece and best argument for not-maga.

Maybe wokeism will actually die after all. (Doubt it - it so ingrained and well-funded, the death rattle will take years with plenty of opportunity to be resuscitated.).

The struggle to be born that is the US continues…

Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke.
— Fire Ologist

If you had meant this as a joke, I'd salute you as thread winner.
But, sadly, it seems more likely that you're being serious. — Mijin

Dead serious.

What is funny is that the same people who can’t see what wokeness is, somehow see with absolute clarity that Kirk was racist. Or Trump is a fascist dictator. Nothing vague to puzzle over about those things.

But wokeness… can’t imagine what all the fuss is about.

have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. — javra

I see where you are coming from about my tone. But it’s not resentment. It’s frustration. It’s tiresome convincing people that I don’t like Hitler, or that I don’t secretly like oppressing women or something. Because there is no way to satisfy any request for such proof. Only a confession will do. And the debate on the issues is over before it started. Conservatives have let themselves be framed as racist sexist pigs for so long it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s frustrating to deal with that in good faith.

But the actual progressive views and policies, some of them make total sense. No resentment from me when someone else has a better view. I don’t write off anyone because of their politics. I answered your question about Hitler. I try to show I am arguing in good faith, but, because I am clearly not progressive, usually political conversations stay around Hitler and Nazis and how racist I must be. Same for all conservatives. Same since the 1980’s.

Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset? — javra

So let’s be precise. Is Trump drafting legislation to make it illegal for the news to speak negatively of him? Because that would be stupid, and sounds like a dictator. The shit that comes out of his mouth sometimes. But I am sure such legislation can’t and won’t happen. Biden went so far as to set up the Disinformation Governance Board or something - much scarier to me, not because it was Biden, but because it had an enforcement structure to it, as opposed to crap Trump says.

Trump is not merely a chief executive officer enforcing laws and implementing policies. As you know I’m sure, every word he says does not cause there to be a new policy. People do resist the all powerful president when he’s an idiot. That’s how the checks and balances work. But He is still a politician, and a citizen, and gets to speak his mind, even when it is a stupid idea that goes against a free press. He has some dictatorial ideas for sure. That won’t lead to policy imposed on the public though. Obama and Biden deported a lot of illegal immigrants you know. Trump isn’t really a dictator.

There were people who said electing George W. Bush was going to be the end of democracy, that he wanted to allow women be raped, etc. But no president in my lifetime has been pilloried as badly as Trump. So if he gets overly sensitive and says “it should be illegal to make fun of me” I get it. But I’m sure we’ll see how that doesn’t go anywhere at all.

When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best — javra

Basically full agreement on all points here. You sound conservative to me, no contradiction, but like you implied, who really cares about the label - the issue is what is best. (Plus I wouldn’t wish the disparaging title “conservative” on anyone unwillingly).

So let me show you some nuances from my perspective on what we basically agree, to make a point.
Merit based hiring drawing from a pool of all worthy applicants regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. Total agreement. It makes sense for there to be laws on the books to foster fair, merit based hiring practices. Many are good laws, some are too vague and misused, some are bad - needs to evolve and continue being debated, and tested in court, but call it liberal or call it conservative — merit based hiring is good, and many entities need to be regulated to keep it that way.

But DEI in corporations through the HR department - to avoid employment law issues - that is mostly crap and counterproductive. All it does is confuse common decency and humble respect owed between all people, by favoring one group and disfavoring another group. All it does is promote reverse racism and sexism. It’s been terrible policy. It has led to so much abuse. It has little to actually do with merit. It rewards bad behavior more often than it helps anyone.

So if someone thinks I am conservative, and hears me saying DEI is crap, they will assume I am racist and sexist, and will think I’m lying about merit based hiring for all races and sexes. Usually we don’t get past whether Hitler would have been in favor of DEI or not.

I also agree with welfare and Medicare and a net for unfortunate circumstances. But It’s the same on every issue though. For me to suggest some sort of parameter for how to distribute welfare, because I’m conservative, it is really just me showing how I don’t care about all black, hispanic and disabled people. If I suggest “no welfare for that” someone will say “but that person is black, so you are just hating black people again.” You see how it works?

The policy is always secondary to identity politics, and conservatives have the same identity as Hitler.

So let’s jump to hate speech legislation. I think it’s too vague and too impossible to enforce, and will lead to drastically inequitable outcomes, and will certainly be abused by politicians to silence their opposition. So hate speech legislation is crap. But because I am a conservative, what I must really mean is that I am okay with people hating trans, or gay, or immigrants. I don’t get to pass Go on that issue. I am a Nazi for some reason again because “hate speech legislation” is bad policy.

Or, like all republican politicians have to do, I have to answer for spreading hate all of the time if I want to have a policy discussion.

if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.) — javra

So, lots to unpack. But first, I don’t see this as a political question. And that is important to understand. If it is not a political issue, then it cannot lead to any government policy. So the outcome of any debate about an authoritarian tradition like men heading the family and wives being subservient, doesn’t really matter in the public sphere. It’s for each family to figure out for themselves. The dynamics of a marriage between husband and wife is more a psychological discussion, sociology discussion, anthropology discussion, and a religious tradition conversation (Jewish, Christian, Islam all have opinions on this too). But it is not a political tradition. Not for at least 100 years.

So if you are asking me how I think government should insert itself into such a debate with policy (like a rule of thumb type law about how to beat your wife, or voting rights for women), I’d say the government has to treat all adults, men and women, equally and can make no law about the inner dynamics of a family. (And wife beating is abhorrent which should be needless to say, but again, I am a republican so I have to remind people that I don’t like wife beating). It was always wrong in the US for there to be slavery, and always wrong for women not to have the vote. We all used to be apes that had no need for governing. We’ve come a long way finally for women.

Women voting is fairly new, and one of the great contributions of progressive thinkers. It took too long for it to become policy.

But if you are just asking me, as a conservative, what do I think about “man as head of the household, and wife as subservient to her husband”? I like the way My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it: “The man is the head of the family, but the woman in the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she wants.” This was said by the wife. So I try to seek the wisdom in the traditions that brought us to today, and, in this case, the wisdom handed down from both my mother and my father, but I live in the world I live in today. Most women hear “wife to be subservient” and they think “you just keep telling yourself that.” And the family goes on just fine.

Lastly, yes that is an authoritarian tradition. It has the word subservient in the very tradition. But I am not oppressed by the rules I voluntarily submit to. Sometimes the certainty of law and authority set you free. Placing a man at the head of the family can be a burden and duty for the man, and liberation for the wife. It’s not a simple dynamic here that necessarily enslaves one while making a master of the other. And politically, the husband and wife must be treated absolutely as equals. Just like every other adult citizen.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. We resist these things in adolescence, and we should question everything, but that is before we know some realities must be humbly accepted at times. We think for ourselves to determine which authority is good and right, and when to follow, and when to resist - but we also have to make our choices and act, and we don’t get to avoid the existence of authority over us in our actions. Facts are dictators. Death is a tyrant. Taxes must be paid, or prison awaits. At times, someone has to represent the family, or someone has to be held responsible for the family, whether it be the man or the wife. Religion, not the government, provides a tradition that helps people who ask what to do determine for themselves how the family dynamics work. I would not just sua sponte tell anyone they were wrong or what to do - but if they ask, I’d say there is wisdom in picking a head to the family at times, and a wisdom to making that head the man.

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.
— javra — javra

Ok, my bad. I skimmed that part and must have missed it that you are glad we agree. I’m glad too.

But all speech is not political speech. When Hitler was campaigning and running for office and shouting at some pulpit, he was engaged in political speech and we should protect that type of free speech for all opinions. We get to debate every single idea we can think of.

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. These types of speech are heavily regulated and will always have to be. Checks and balances. That’s why “hate speech” laws are dangerous, because they give enforcement power to the government regarding anyone’s stupid opinion. And they allow the Furor to arrest those who say things he doesn’t like.

We need to let Hitler speak his mind, so we can know not to elect him and we can know what arguments to make to defeat his stupid ideology of hate (like the lefts stupid ideology of identity power struggles).

We don’t use the government to regulate political speech. That’s what Hitler did. He didn’t just speak. He did many things besides speak.

Not all speech is political. When I say “hey, watch out for that bus”. I’m not expressing a political opinion. Political opinions and debate have to be protected. When Hitler said “build that concentration camp and bomb Stalingrad” he wasn’t just speaking - he was enacting policy and committing murder like a maniac. If a cop says “drop that weapon” he isn’t offering suggestion - you better fall in line or get ready for a fight.

I find it confused for you to say that “he never did anything else but speak.” This is the best way I can address you asking me how Hitler, who you say only used speech, was culpable for so many unjust deaths. Not all speech is political. So just because he used words to command his followers, he did much more than political speech.

the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. — javra

Philly’s DA, Larry Krasner, the chief law enforcement guy, just said at a town hall how republican policies are racist and sexist. First of all, who really cares, because the left’s policies are racist and sexist too. Race a sex issues are getting so old. But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion.

A despicable man like Trump was elected anyway because too many people are fed up with such blind stupidity.

And if the repubs start attacking free speech from the left, the repubs will get smacked by the conservatives. We don’t like government. Trump is liked because he isn’t a creature of politics.

Notice I didn’t just say “I like Trump because…”. I Used the passive voice “Trump is liked because….” This is my conditioning, by our left leaning media and DEI loving culture. Saying “I like Trump” can get you shot or fired. Certainly gets you hated.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right?

It largely doesn't even make sense as a coherent concept
— Mijin
Quite so. — Banno

Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke.