• The Christian narrative
    :rofl:
  • The Christian narrative
    ↪frank

    I’m not exactly sure what you are saying to me.

    you're right where we all are. None of us have final answers. — frank

    I agree, I think?

    Final answers.

    When it comes to the Trinity, like most meaningful things, knowledge increases (for fools like me), but is never final.

    So did we just become best friends or something?
  • The Christian narrative
    End of discussion.
    — Fire Ologist
    Unfortunately not.     — Banno

    Hmmm.

    Is this a reluctant way of saying you are still mildly interested?

    You haven’t given any new effort to show me some pretenses.

    Isn’t life in general full of muddle to be sorted out? Then we try to communicate what’s been sorted tk some other person, who adds their own muddling influences.

    Muddle doesn’t raise any new critique.

    I think there is plenty unaddressed in the above pages directed to you by me - pick something if interested in proceeding.
  • The Christian narrative
    This is now the bit where you pretend that you and Leon pretend to have answered the problems raised. You haven't. — Banno

    Ok. To make one of the issues real clear (as it did for Claud), let’s put the issue as follows.

    Trinity lovers think they can say this:
    “One plus one plus one equals one.”
    And/Or maybe it should be said, “one equals three.”

    But that makes zero sense, is contradictory and incoherent.

    You want an answer to the above math problems.

    Well that answer will never come. So if the above two statements are each a key important (dare I say essential) facet of the Trinity, and there is no answer coming, then you are done. Trinity is incoherent. All you see is people papering over this basic math inconsistency with pretense.

    Right? End of discussion.

    Trinity means one plus one plus one equals one, and that’s impossible to even conceive as a coherent thought so discussion never really started. Right?
  • Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)
    ↪NOS4A2


    Michael, Amadeus, me, Mijin, others - all totally different people who take radically different approaches on other issues, and who are all able to articulate complex ideas - all of us have said the same things in response to you.

    There is something wrong with your position. You may still be right. None of us can see it. (Has anyone? It’s kind of stoic in a sense, is that what you are trying to say?). But nothing you are saying makes sense to anyone else.

    That should give you some pause.

    How can you be so obstinate and unreflective?

    You are trying integrate:
    1 personal autonomy
    2 causally determined necessity
    3 speech

    You can’t have autonomy without both your own mind (which is where words live and breathe and are understood) and a world to be autonomous over, to have causal effect in.

    Me slapping my hand across your face. That is not an effect in the world until your face resists my hand and your brain makes that slapping sound and sensation for you to enjoy as your own experience.

    You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience.

    That is what you are saying. Whether you like it or not.

    To you words are just another slap in the face.

    That is actually more coherent than what you are saying but is basically the best light Incan give your argument.

    But none of this explains human behavior towards each other, because we seek to cause specific effects in others with words and slaps everyday, and so it makes no sense to try to figure out how we are NOT doing what we seek to do, and what is done to us, all of the time, namely cause various effects in others’ minds and actions.
  • The End of Woke
    The incorporative mode ("Yes, now I see the error of my ways") requires an extended forestructure of understandings (i.e. a history which legitimates the critic's authority and judgment, and which renders the target of critique answerable).

    See, I disagree. I think this is basically treating adults like they are irresponsible children. It doesn’t require “extended forestructure” - it simply requires you make the case.

    Basically, the highest elites have to realize they are proportionately not that far from the basest deplorables. People need to start with that humility. From there require of themselves that they respect different people’s dignity as fellow people, and THEN hash out the arguments as humble respecting adults.

    The preoccupation with bias and forestructure creates a diminishing return. Forestructure building and bias recognition are important. But I’ll grant they represent 20% of a fruitful conflict resolution.

    I… am arguing that the intellectual ideas which both wokism and postmodern approaches draw from need to be assimilated in order to get to a politics beyond the wokist practices which you reject. — Joshs

    This sounds positive. Can you put some real flesh on this as a for example?
    1. A sample woke specific intellectual idea
    2. What do you mean by “assimilated to get beyond”
    3. Why beyond a wokeist practice?

    If the woke idea was so good, why do want to end up beyond a wokeist practice?

    Is this like desegregation?
    1. Diversity is good.
    2. Force diverse people together from segregated areas.
    3. Have a new society that loves diversity and there is no need to look for segregated groups anymore because they are all integrated now, thanks to woke ideas and woke solutions (that we now no longer use as no longer needed).

    Is that an example? I’d rather hear yours. I think there is a massive gap between 2 and 3 here.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪praxis


    The math according to you is:
    1. Ad shows white girl saying “my genes” meaning AE jeans.
    2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
    3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
    3.a. Woke folks sublate the whole dust-up as the right wing making something bigger than it really was, so woke needs take no blame or responsibility for 2, when they….made something bigger than it really was. (this is still possible because the woke still own the major media).
    4. The words “AE jeans” will be a household name for years.
    5. We will get rich.

    New 3.a. Points to lack of self-reflection.
  • The End of Woke
    I can’t name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it. — praxis

    So you are saying the woke’s reaction to the ad had nothing to do with the extra mileage the ad achieved for AE.

    No self-reflection.

    The math according to you is:
    1. Ad shows white girl saying “my genes” meaning AE jeans.
    2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
    3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
    4. The words “AE jeans” will be a household name for years.
    5. We will get rich.

    That’s your math. Thought the woke being played like a fiddle (2) was obvious part of it.

    No self-reflection.
  • The End of Woke
    I think this campaign shows how much the tide has turned against the woke. — praxis

    You aren’t looking at the right thing. It’s not the campaign that teaches the lesson (so you don’t get the lesson). It is how the woke reaction to the campaign has been so soundly mocked and done zero to promote woke agenda that shows how much the tide has turned. Woke needs to turn inward and reflect on how it is often full of unsound, incoherent , contradictory bullshit baby feelings. The substance of wokeness is no longer being ignored and thoughtlessly forced upon culture at large.

    They don't deserve all the credit. — praxis

    You literally quantified the credit in dollar amounts.

    Just admit it, wokeness can be easily played like fiddle.

    Don’t know how you think it’s so obvious that some marketing team could predict a positive return playing that fiddle. I’m sure there are white people who will purposely not buy AE jeans now - woke won’t support them, and anti-woke won’t want to look like they are making a political statement by wearing them (like driving a Tesla) inviting retaliation from woke kooks).

    But you do think that they predicted a positive return from looking racist. You seem to have the sleepers all figured out just like the accounting..
  • The Christian narrative
    Don't shoot the messenger.

    4. When one is offended by another person, whose fault is that feeling of offense? The hurling of insults is certainly the fault of the one hurling insults, but the feeling of offense, who is responsible for that?
    — Fire Ologist     — Banno

    Do you think I am offended?

    Or were you offended by me?

    Heated rhetoric need have no relationship to any offense or insult.

    No insult intended, and all due respect but, it may actually be the case that you might be slightly full of shit sometimes. If you really think the God who is a trinity of persons is like the person who is suffering from DID, then I take it back and apologize if any offense was taken.

    So were you full of shit? Or was your DID observation meant to advance the discussion. I hope so, because I think a discussion about how any human person (DID or not) relates to the Trinity could be instructive towards the Christian narrative, which you seem interested in to some playful extent. (I’m guessing you were just shitting me. Good one. Me and myself - we both saw the humor in it, although one of us was also a little disappointed. But haha.).
  • The Christian narrative
    Let's just leave it at this: on it's face, the Catholic Trinity appears to be contradictory. Catholics are aware of this, but deny that it's a contradiction, because the truth is beyond human comprehension. If we were enlightened, we would see that it's not a contradiction. — frank

    Trinity “appears” to include specific contradiction. Yes.

    The rest of the quote is muddled but may be accurate. It is better restated:
    Catholics see the apparent contradiction, and we see that the depths of the Trinity will proceed beyond full human understanding, but we also believe we will forever understand more and more about the Trinity because it is not a contradiction - we will learn more about God, like God knows himself.

    So you could say “if we were enlightened we would see that it’s not a contraction” because though it appears contradictory to simple logic, it still appears, so it must have some accounting, and this will take further “enlightenment”.

    I wouldn’t really say “the truth is beyond human comprehension” but if all you mean by that is the fullness of all there is to know about the Trinity is infinite and so never finite as we humans like to make things, then sure, I can leave it at that.

    The "sensus fidelium" could not exist if what is agreed upon were truly incoherent. — Leontiskos

    That should be a huge flag for those who say things like “Trinity is a contradiction” that is beyond comprehension. It can’t possibly be the case where two people independently come to the same conclusions that there is nothing coherent to the Trinity in itself for us the determine for ourselves. (Unless maybe we are both saints! :lol: )

    a "slave to sin," beset by the "civil war in the soul" of Romans 7 and The Republic is to be less a person, more a mere jumble of external causes. Indeed, to be irrational is to be less fully anything at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good stuff. This is about the old relationship between change/becoming (irrational) and permanence/substanc (fully thing). The problem of how particulars actually participate in the forms; and the ontology of these.

    ——

    Some people think it is rigorous to leave personhood undefined but analyze what persons do. When, somehow, what we do IS who/what we are, and it is impossible to analyze either one without the other. We, as persons, are more like a “Trinity” than they will allow themselves to admit. (Resorting to psychosis without realizing that is again, more apt to describing the human condition than they would like to admit. The analysis of it is too confounding and preposterous. (Like so many other things about experience and being a person, although they are less fun to mock than God and those who say they believe such things.)
  • The End of Woke
    Will you now admit — praxis

    Will you admit you are theorizing about AE marketing folks’ intentions and predictions? This whole admission doesn’t matter - you are asking the wrong person. There is no point to your question or me answering it ( :lol: which I did!).

    Here is what happened. The AE marketing team totally botched their intent, thinking they were ushering in a new era of “Beyond Good woke and Evil Woke” - a utopia where genes are now “blue” and can cover over all races and colors of skin.

    But they botched their post divisiveness delusions, by picking a white girl for the ad campaign - the world was not ready for their equitable vision…..

    Who the hell really knows. The wokesters have made it into a whole new thing completely unconnected with denim clothing marketing anyway.

    I know, admit it: you pissed AE played progressives like a fiddle. :lol: They got all this free publicity by having a great looking white girl say “genes”, because the woke are so predictably shallow and loud the words “AE jeans” would surely take on a life of their own. They probably seeded the outrage by planting some comments on the right twitter feeds.

    As usual, the woke focus on non-issues, the unimportant. And self-contradict. If woke thinks AE was evil whitey, then ignore it and be silent so that it goes nowhere. Don’t seek validation of your feeling by asking for others to make admissions for you.

    What is interesting about the ad for woke culture is that it was so clearly wrong to them to highlight the word “genes” with a white woman. If they used a white man instead of Sweeney, the ad should cause even more outrage right? AE at least checked the woke “empowered woman” box - but then there is the extra cleavage, just another patriarchal male gaze opportunity setting women’s empowerment back (because Sydney is incapable of making her own decisions and showing her own cleavage because she wants to - she only wants to because men have made her that way….)

    So many unanswerable, contradictory, layers of bullshit comprise much of the woke picture of reality.

    Where are the positives? Where are the achievements specifically tied to woke?

    You aren’t advancing any arguments.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪praxis

    Why, what color/race is Beyonce and why do you notice that first and foremost?

    Seems to me the goal of wokeness should be that absolutely anyone on earth could replace Sydney Sweeney and the ad should be viewed with equity and inclusiveness.

    But wokeness can’t help creating exclusive categories for privileged or victim members, and seeing things skin deep to form those categories. And imputing ill-intent behind anything “white” with “genes” in it.

    I know you don’t see the contradiction. You just see that I don’t see all of the ill-intent that is so obvious to you because you are not asleep. Or because you are careless and shallow in your reasoning on this issue.
  • The Christian narrative
    [Deleted]
  • The Christian narrative
    See, here it is again. This should be intriguing to an analytics first philosopher.

    When Catholics say the Father is God, they are not predicating. They aren't saying God is a category the Father belongs to. It's an identity statement. The Father is not a section of God. The Father is fully God. Whatever God is, the Father is equal to that.
    — frank

    No, this is not right. I would go back to my posts where I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We can say that the Father is God (in the Triune sense), but by that we include the Son and the Spirit with the Father, for they are never apart     — Leontiskos

    I said this:

    When Catholics say the Father is God, they are not predicating. They aren't saying God is a category ….
    — frank

    No. Actually they are both predicating and identifying. That’s part of the uniqueness of God being three persons.

    The father is a god. Predicate.
    It just so happens that there is only one god and that god is father son and spirit. Identity.

    Or, the son is a god. True statement. Predicate.
    It just so happens that there is only one god and that god is three persons. True statement of identity.

    Etc………     — Fire Ologist

    Here is the question for the analytic mind who thinks the Trinity is just an incoherent idea, and contains too many contradictions:

    How are me and Leon identifying the same flaws in @frank reasoning about the Trinity, and able to put into totally different explanations, different words, our reasoning and logic as to why and how Frank blew it? How are our separately developed explanations reflective of the same reasoning and conclusions? How did we both see franks flaw?

    That must mean there is something objective and particular about the concept of the Trinity (besides dogma and what someone else says about it.). Leon and I each separately worked out and expressed the same conclusion in our own ways. That requires logic and facts, sorted from franks illogic and wrong facts. About the Trinity.

    So @Banno and frank, how is that possible?

    The OP asked for an explanation of the Christian Narrative.
    Then Frank admitted (by his actions) he didn’t think such explanation was even possible.
    What Leon and I just did is evidence that there is a logic and reasoning going on that therefore might allow for an explanation of the Christian narrative.

    So @frank, was your OP in earnest?

    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Good to see you back.
  • The End of Woke
    with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman — praxis
  • The End of Woke
    They’re in business to make money. — praxis

    :up:
  • The Christian narrative
    in a sense, we are all “mental patients” so long as we identify with the ego and remain ignorant of the Self. — Wayfarer

    Sure, we are the metal patients maybe because of our disassociation between Atman and Brahmin.

    metaphor for the relationship between individual minds and what he calls “mind at large.” Just as each dissociated identity experiences itself as a separate person, we experience ourselves as separate individuals—when, in his view, we are all expressions of the same underlying mind manifesting in different ways. — Wayfarer

    Good stuff.
  • The Christian narrative
    Are they also full of shit? — Banno

    Im talking about you comparing God to a mental patient. And you, totally incurious about personhood and its disorders and explanations.
  • The Christian narrative
    When Catholics say the Father is God, they are not predicating. They aren't saying God is a category the Father belongs to. It's an identity statement. The Father is not a section of God. The Father is fully God. Whatever God is, the Father is equal to that. If this sounds like a mystical multiplicity, that's because it is. — frank

    No. Actually they are both predicating and identifying. That’s part of the uniqueness of God being three persons.

    I know you don’t understand.

    The father is a god. Predicate.
    It just so happens that there is only one god and that god is father son and spirit. Identity.

    Or, the son is a god. True statement. Predicate.
    It just so happens that there is only one god and that god is three persons. True statement of identity.

    Etc………

    You almost have it now? It’s actually easy to show you you are wrong about it, once you have it. It’s a “mystery” to me how you can’t see it sometimes.
  • The Christian narrative
    Banno is one of the things that is a man, so is Bob and so is Frank. Three different things that are all men.

    So Jesus is one of the things that is god, and the holy spirit is another, and the father, another. Three different things that are all god.     — Banno

    Men is plural. God isn’t.

    You must do better.
  • The Christian narrative
    Sounds not unlike Dissociative identity disorder. — Banno

    How is something like “disassocistive identity disorder” even possible to imagine as a coherent thing? What creature can make that category and what creature might live it!?

    You are so full of shit sometimes.

    And
    ↪frank
    sounds about right.

    Can’t help yourselves.

    Now you annoyed @Wayfarer enough to want out.
  • The Christian narrative
    That's not how the Trinity works. — frank

    How does the Trinity work? :lol:
  • The End of Woke
    But controversy acts as a force multiplier. Criticism over pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed celebrity spurred news coverage, reaction videos, and social media debate, generating an estimated 3× more earned media than a safe campaign — roughly $21M in extra exposure, for a total media value near $28M. Even a small conversion rate (0.1% of 500M impressions) could drive $30M in denim sales, delivering around a 4× ROI and cementing AE’s cultural relevance for months. — praxis

    Good lord - that sounds so sleazy.
  • The End of Woke
    Joshs,

    Great post. Something positive and thoughtful.

    Implicit bias, the idea that people’s perceptions and decisions can be unconsciously shaped by stereotypes, even when they consciously reject prejudice. The value here isn’t in “shutting people down” but in cultivating awareness so we can interact more fairly. — Joshs

    Implicit bias, is real, and important for people to understand about themselves. So if wokeness can take credit for that, then that is a positive contribution.

    I see “bias” as the “implicit”. It’s the prior lens through which we view. People have the ability to self-reflect and must recognize how their own upbringing will shape what the see now and tomorrow. But people have the ability to see this bias, in themselves, and honestly confront it.

    So bias is an important discussion for people to come to be able to respect each other despite biases. Since we all have biases, AND since we can all see around them if we self-reflect and try to look at things differently, we should respect each others differences and forgive their struggles with their biases as we need to be forgiven for our own.

    But honestly, what I see the woke doing with the notion of bias, is using it to control people. Woke says people are doomed and chained to their biases, and have to be told by the enlightened what their real motivations are. One day people might see their own biases, and maybe even overcome them, but I don’t see woke people treating biased people as whole human being who are more than their biases. The woke just tell you want new biases to make so you can be biased right, not free from all bias. I see the woke showing how the biases of white people create an exclusive privilege for white people, fostering more bias in white people, and whether they know it, or worse intentionally, oppressing non-white people. I see the woke manipulating from on high an otherwise bleak world to control with bias.

    Individuals are not just the sum total of all of their biases. And to the extent they are, no one is better than anyone else. That is both the starting point and the goal when it comes to bias.

    Intersectionality is another woke concept. It is a way of understanding that people’s experiences aren’t shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones. It’s not a mandate to divide everyone into rigid groups, but a reminder that context matters in how people experience opportunities or barriers. — Joshs

    Yes. People’s experiences are each unique to them and only each one. As you say “people’s experiences aren’t shaped by just one identity category (race, gender, class, etc.) but by overlapping ones.” I take this to simply mean, we are each unique.

    You say that woke is saying we are unique blends of many “overlapping categories”. I think this has it backwards. The categories come second, not first. Each unique individual can be lumped into different categories we learn about after meeting many unique individuals. We aren’t merely categorizable. We aren’t even merely unique overlapping categorizable things. Some parts of each of us defy categorization, at least not so easily and not politically useful. There are crazy combinations that make up some individuals.

    Turning individuality into intersectionality is just a new way of saying individuality, but one that, to me, downplays the individual.

    And again, if wokeism means respect for each one as a unique combination of whatever combines to make a person, then great. I think intersectionality is a smaller part of what makes people great. Mostly because we have too few categories. Race, gender, class, education, ethnicity, region, urban, rural, progressive, conservative, etc - way too small to define a person. We should add inquisitive, smiles a lot, anxious, energetic, methodical, whimsical, and so many more. Then we might be able to make boxes people could fit in.

    how laws and institutions have embedded racial disparities over time, not as an accusation against individuals, but as a way to ask, “If these patterns exist, what’s sustaining them?” — Joshs

    This is another reference to the implicit. The systemic. The predisposition of our economic and legal system and institutions.

    This is a very practical topic. You said “these patterns”. We need specifics to know where to look to ask “what is sustaining them.”

    I would start that due process under a constitution legislated and enforced by elected and later ousted representatives isn’t embedded with any disparities at the outset. And our economics - capitalism - doesn’t seem essential to any particular race. We can theoretically all agree regardless of race, to build a capitalistic world.

    There is much to debate, but it requires significant specifics and lists of fact gathering to really play out. It requires something equivalent to the constitutional congress that started before 1776 and culminated in a solid constitution by 1787.

    I think we can work more to reform what we have then we need a new system.

    But I am open to learning about what is bad about the current system and what could be better about a new one.

    So many new woke institutions seem divisive and unsustainable to me, but I’m sure there are more positive things about wokeness.

    I do believe that the heart of many woke people is with true victims of injustice. But I believe the heart of many conservative people is with true victims of injustice. So that’s a wash - good intentions pave the road to ruin - and none of that saves either side.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪praxis


    :lol:
  • The End of Woke
    Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?
    — praxis     — Fire Ologist

    I don’t think this controversy could have been predicted. — Fire Ologist

    Three times now.

    What do you think about the intentions of some people you don’t know?
  • The End of Woke
    I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda. — Tom Storm

    I don’t watch Fox News. Mostly vacuous cheerleading. CNN is smoke and mirrors. But if something big happens, I flip between them for the live stuff.

    I have to piece together facts from all over the place, left and right.

    I’m not a big fan of conspiracy and hidden governmental agenda analysis from here on the outside. My main issue is incompetence, not bad intent. We don’t need inside information to see which politicians simply stink at getting anything done, and yet we reflect them anyway.
  • Referential opacity
    More simply, “Superman” and “Clark Kent” are not different names for the same thing. The whole point of a disguise is to create a “name” that does not reference the true referent. — Leontiskos

    A judgment of equivalence is inherently a conclusion rather than a premise. Equivalence is never intuited or stipulated. — Leontiskos

    I think that says a lot.

    There are conclusions prior to the three parts of the Lois/Clark syllogism based on prior contexts that necessitate non-equivalence for “Clark” or “Superman” to then make sense enough to consider whether they are also equivalent or not. What led anyone to conclude P1? That conclusion (not premise) could only be made by someone who knew both the differences and sameness between what is a “Clark” and what is a “Superman”.

    How the heck is this case deemed so important? — Leontiskos

    What’s weird is that the person interested in this sort of thing might respond, “Okay, so Superman isn’t the best example of this.” But what is the best example? — Leontiskos

    P1: X = Y
    P2: Z is ready enough to say "X can fly."
    P3: Therefore, Z is ready enough to say "Y can fly."

    I don’t think this apparent controversy is about an apparent flaw in the notion “X = Y”, but from the insertion of the “Z is ready to say that…”. Z’s belief creates a new context in which we must redefine X and Y. So we can’t substitute the use of either X or Y from P1, in any sentence following P2; P2 has redefined X and Y according to Z’s belief.

    Lois is ready enough to say "Superman can fly"', that that sentence is not about Superman, but about something Lous says. — Banno

    Exactly. Lois isn’t talking about the Superman or the Clark Kent from the first premise.
  • The End of Woke
    a word about underlying philosophical visions — Joshs

    Yes, please. Don’t make me show the gains and benefits and progresses of wokeism. That side of the discussion is sorely missing on this thread.

    Questions about the underlying vision of wokeism:

    1. Is everything about politics? Or economics? Or race? Is anything in the public sphere simply not about these things, and if so, are those things good or bad for the community? Or should we focus on power structures?

    2. Is there anything good we should preserve from white, patriarchal, historical Europe? Sub-question: who are genetically the victims in the world, and who are genetically the privileged oppressors, if any one. (“If any one” is a clue to my own answer.)

    3. Will there ever be a dictionary that solidly supports a “correct” use of the word “he”?

    4. When one is offended by another person, whose fault is that feeling of offense? The hurling of insults is certainly the fault of the one hurling insults, but the feeling of offense, who is responsible for that?

    5. Diversity requires differences. Equity requires no differences. So which is it? Because if we are all equal, then a board of all white men is equal to a board of any races, genders. But if a board of all white men is just aesthetically repugnant, how can woke create better looking boards, and be equitable, without dividing everyone up and excluding certain groups? Seems like impossible criteria to make truly coherent, and truly just, while being truly good for the company/entity the board is supposed to run. Seems utterly pie in the sky, with no sense of flavor, just that vanilla is gross.

    Help me, help you.
  • The End of Woke
    So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world taken over by Leftist fanatics? — Tom Storm

    Would you consider someone who did think so would be welcome to discuss such opinions in the back offices and around the water coolers of 98% of the news media and educational institutions? Honestly, is expressing a positive opinion of one thing Trump did a good career boost over lunch with colleagues in those extremely powerful and influential institutions?

    Trump is doing some good. Force for good? Remains to be seen. But I will evaluate for myself, not from any ideological standpoint.

    Do I think the “world” has been taken over by leftist fanatics? No. Just the media and our educational institutions. The political takeover is an ongoing battle. The focus on the media and education didn’t work, at least not yet.

    Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences. — Tom Storm

    My cousin was fired from his job because of some stupid DEI bullshit. He’s a great guy. Period. To everyone he meets. Some petty asshole misunderstood something, and HR has no idea how to handle people anymore thanks to DEI initiatives. Nothing could be sorted out before a message had to be sent that had nothing to do with my cousin. Utterly destructive, for sake of promoting confusion and no justice. Nothing was clear except the coworker was in a “protected class” and my cousin wasn’t. (Although we are of Italian descent, which I like to think is in a class of its own, sort of like white black guys, best of all possible worlds with great cuisine, but that’s probably evil of me to say…). My cousin has plenty of support because, he’s a great guy.

    For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree.
    — Fire Ologist

    To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.     — Tom Storm

    I agree with that. Don’t particularly like hearing “MAGA” lovers speak. Unless they are speaking with the other side in a debate, as here in TPF.

    Honestly, all of politics and government is discussion of lesser or necessary evils. All strong opinions requiring political and governmental action are fraught with peril.

    My interest in woke/anti-woke is cultural. Wokeism makes everything political - it’s one of the things I disagree with about it.

    I wonder if at this point in their presidencies what the count of positive news stories and negative news stories was from Biden and for Trump (second term). I am fairly confident that regardless of what either of them actually did or are doing, and regardless of how powerful either of them seemed, there are more stories about how Trump is bad in the legacy and leading media than there were Biden is bad stories, and less Trump is good than Biden is good stories. So even with the his evil Trumpiness on the throne, not much debate and challenge is actually being shut down. Wokeism remains the king of systemic cancellation - precisely because they have the media.
  • The End of Woke
    The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness.
    — Fire Ologist

    Firstly, what?
    "Cancel culture" has been a top headline     — Mijin

    It’s not about free speech. It’s about the cancellation. The physical shutting down. No one on the right is telling the left to stop arguing and debating and talking. The feds just aren’t paying for a one-sided opinion as much anymore.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪praxis

    I said twice already. The woke should ignore it. There was nothing of import for society to respond to. It’s a stupid ad.

    Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part? — praxis

    I answered that too.

    They probably got way more than they hoped for out of this. And it probably back-fired on some fronts. But this very conversation is so small potatoes — Fire Ologist

    I don’t think this controversy could have been predicted. Wokeism is not coherent enough to allow one to predict weeks long political discussions based on an ad.

    BTW, you really rarely give your own opinions. Despite calling for them from others. Closest thing was how you feel you can’t say “white supremacy” anymore.
  • The End of Woke
    ↪Mijin


    The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness.

    It’s the physical changes to culture - men competing in women’s sports; men who choose to be called ‘women’ with outrage when not obeyed (as if ‘man’ never meant something simple); the destruction of language itself; the lack of simple protections of children; drastic child trans therapies in the name of ridiculous psychology and physiology (a grand experiment that one is a deplorable “MAGA” man if one challenges its safety or value, or even functionality towards its own ends); etc.

    You decry cancel culture, but when it's shutting down messages you don't like, you're all for it.
    And these rationalizations are, frankly, pathetic.

    What I should have done is give examples of right-wing speech being shut down, wait for the outrage     — Mijin

    You won’t get any outrage. Not a bit. That’s a done deal. The progressives rule the media, the news, and education. With an iron fist. Right wing speech was shut down long, long ago. That’s just a tiny part of it.

    They weren’t rationalizations. They were rational though.

    A positive defense of the value of woke cancellations would do better then to try to see if you could catch me in an unprincipled contradiction.
  • The End of Woke
    Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore.
    — praxis

    Who can't? It's all over the fucking place. What are you talking about?     — AmadeusD

    Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore.
    — praxis

    What are you talking about -     — Fire Ologist

    :lol:
  • The Christian narrative
    So now here’s the analytic side of it. Leontiskos does the above make sense to you? It’s not expressly dogma, or from someone else - just my attempt to speak about the Trinity and how is see it. Where is there blatant error and where is it correct?

    I think you, Leontiskos can check my math and see coherence with the basic doctrines in some of the above, see the logic of it.
    — Fire Ologist

    I think the general thrust is correct.     — Leontiskos

    The only way for me to be correct about my own interpretations/applications of the Trinity, and for you to confirm the general thrust, is if there was a coherent logic to the Trinity.

    So another person who simply concludes the Trinity is as nonsensical as a square-circle, can’t be seeing the difference between Trinity and a square-circle. And further, can’t see the logic of the Trinity that enabled you to check my math.

    I would think this would be mildly intriguing to an analytics first proponent.
    ↪Banno
    ↪frank


    What is a person?
    — Fire Ologist

    :up:

    Aquinas sees this as the preliminary question to the whole discussion.     — Leontiskos

    How did I end up analogizing the Trinity to a single human person, and it jibes with Aquinas, but I didn’t go to Aquinas? Incoherence in the notion of a ‘Trinity’ would make this an utter accident.
  • Negatives and Positives
    Or, as I just stated, a genuinely original piece that just so happens to look identical to the other piece (maybe two artists even name the painting in the same way too). — I like sushi

    You are talking about two pieces of art that are identical but each not made to mimic or fake the other.
    That would be a crazy coincidence of two “genuine” pieces of art.
  • The End of Woke
    Do you think American Eagle is innocent and had no idea that their ad would be viewed as it has been? — praxis

    I answered clearly. Yes, the woke can ignore the ad.

    But this rephrase of the question is a bit more.

    Do I think American Eagle is innocent?
    - of fostering racial tension?
    - of hinting at racial tension to foster conversations with the word “American Eagle” in them?

    Do I think they had “no idea” playing a a pun on jeans/genes would be hated with vitriol or make its way to a presidential tweet?

    I don’t think Am Eagle is actually white supremist. That’s stupid business if the world found out. So that dog whistle is ridiculous.

    Honestly I have no opinion on those other detailed marketing questions. And don’t see this as a matter of guilt or innocence. You just mean intention or not.

    They probably got way more than they hoped for out of this. And it probably back-fired on some fronts. But this very conversation is so small potatoes.

    There is nothing whatsoever offensive to me with a person of any race saying their genetic coding makes them awesome and they look good in jeans because of it - all to sell jeans. And American Eagle didn’t go that far. You have dig real deep in a pile of horse crap to pull out something offensive there.

    Everyone is allowed to be proud of their genes. And say it.

    The ad controversy was just…dumb. And it hurt proponents of woke because they have no judgment of what matters and what doesn’t.
  • Negatives and Positives
    a genuinely original piece — I like sushi

    You said it yourself. These are both genuine.
  • Negatives and Positives
    ↪I like sushi


    So your discussion is about "what is the thing in itself that is called a fake" What makes a fake a fake?

    So you have a Cactus in a pot, and separately, you have a Plastic cactus in a plastic pot.

    In one sense, the cactus is a genuine organic plant, and the plastic cactus is a genuine decoration that requires no care. Both are genuine things in themselves (as all things are in some sense genuine as things qua things.)

    In another sense, the cactus is genuine and the plastic cactus is fake.

    Fake arises because of intention, and inside the perceiver. Someone perceives one of the cacti - they think "it is a living organism," but later learn it was plastic decoration. So they would call the cactus a "fake" AND would say they were deceived or faked out.
    Someone else perceives one of the cacti and think "that is a plastic decoration, a fake cactus" and later learn they were correct. In this latter case, they were not deceived or faked out, and they could say they were looking at a genuine decoration made to look like an actual cactus.

    So now, what makes a fake, a fake? I think it must come from the perceiver, not the thing in itself. Only a perceiver could say the plastic decoration was the same thing as the organic plant, or that it was related to the organic plant at all intended to be a fake version of it. These are born in perception.

    So if you put this conversation in the world of "art" and talk about a replica that is identical to the original, you are talking about "what is art" and "what is fake art". What is "art" is way harder to say than what is a "living cactus". So you may have a bottomless pit to discuss to get an example of "genuine art" before you enter the bottomless pit of what will be an example of "fake art".

    I think the fake, fake fake, genuine subject is interesting, but it needs some constraints to keep it focused on that specific relationship.
Home » Fire Ologist