I do view woke as a secular 'religion'. John McWhorter's "Woke Racism" is great on this issue - he refers to the leaders as "The Elect" - a self-appointed priestly class. — Jeremy Murray

It always cracks me up when people demean religion like this.

I'm sure that everyone at Fire's law firm has religious reverence for their DEI officer, and that the insurance discount they got for having a DEI officer wasn't an effort by the insurance company to lower risk but as a form of religious penance. :lol:

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

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

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

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

Compromise is the result.

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

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

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

mindlessly parroting — praxis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You and Dingo were pushing the point for some reason that I don’t get. Dingo mentioned something about injecting levity into the topic. It doesn’t seem funny to me either.

What did he [Charlie Kirk] say and do right on the surface, right before your eyes. — Fire Ologist

I liked that he openly debated people whose views were very different from his own. Many culture war grifters (both left and right) just sit behind a keyboard or mic and don’t engage.

What matters is he was killed for talking. — Fire Ologist

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

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

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

If slavery is understood as part of society’s proper organization under God’s covenant, then Kirk’s statement implies a judgment that God’s covenant itself would be “bad and evil.” — praxis

This ignores the new Testament. But I'm not particularly drawn to defending Kirk on religious grounds - that was where we parted ways. Unfortunately, that meant on most issues lmao. But his character is clearly, and inarguably, not one of malice or hatred.

So you're choosing to say that only two genotypes "count" as genotypes and anything else is an aberration? — Mijin

No. I'll quote myself:

There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. — AmadeusD

I note you also quoted this, and then charged me with saying something very much different. Again. wiping my brow.

So how is this any different to the special pleading you're doing with all other aspects of gender? (essentially: "it's binary except for the exceptions, which don't count") — Mijin

They aren't exceptions and I've not claimed they are. Intersex is not an exception. Translocation is not an exception. I would appreciate not being charged with saying things I have never said, and can quote evidence to the opposite for.

You have also just conflated gender and sex. Unsure if you've noted that. We are talking about sex. Gender is another discussion, but if one takes hte position that gender does not vary independent of sex, then that's all that person would want to argue. I agree gender is a different thing. We're not discussing it. Please take care not to conflate, as we will be talking past each other.

The facts are that your definition of gender is not scientifically accepted and therefore is worthless.
I was also pointing out that it's completely unworkable as a definition of gender in society but if you want to put that other issue to one side, then fine. — Mijin

As above. Beginning to be fairly comfortable in assuming you're doing this on purpose due to failing entirely to refute these points.

Firstly primary determinator does not mean only, secondly, once again, there are more than two genotypes for this gene. — Mijin

1. Yes it does.
2. No there aren't. We've been over this. You flat-out rejecting that translocation is not a genotype isn't my issue anymore. You are wrong.

And finally, it's farcical; you're saying if the SRY gene is male, that overrides everything else — Mijin

No. If the SRY gene is active. Truly, are you reading these responses before flying into an ideological screed?

Secondly, it doesn't 'override' anything at all. It is the determining factor for sex in humans. There's nothing to override. It is what it is. Your response makes absolutely no sense here.

it doesn't matter if the person was assigned female at birth, has breasts, a vagina, has lived as a woman and is married to a heterosexual man...this is the level people have to go to to avoid conceding that gender is more complex than we learned in high school. — Mijin

As this illustrates: We're talking about sex. It is entirely binary and there are no exceptions to that. You have provided none, and hten resiled into talking about social gender as a way to pretend I've not acknowledged the complexities of sex-related behaviour. This has become a non-debate. You are not playing the game.

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

Do you mean the Oxford debate society video where he utterly trounces everyone who speaks with him (or insults him) and has recently elected a president who celebrated the Murder? Wow. Cool.

In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. — praxis

This is perverse.

That's funny, I just had this same discussion with my wife. She said Trump cares nothing except for furthering his own ego needs. He would be a Bernie-bro open borders socialist if he thought that would give him power and narcissistic supply. I argued he has some core beliefs. If Trump had complete power, Trumplandia would be very right-wing conservative. She said that's only because right-wing authoratarianism (sp) appeals to his ego. I still don't know if she's right. I think she might be. — RogueAI

I don't think much of that is right. He is clearly a pretty egoic person, but i also imagine your wife thinks that what was squarely left wing thinking in 2010 is now far-right. Many do, it's not your wife's issue. But that will largely skew what's being said. An example is border control: Clinton, Obama and Biden were more aggressive with illegal immigration in terms of raw numbers. But a world in which we mass-deport criminals is a right-wing fantasy these days. I think thats ridiculous, myself.

I mean, he was a Democrat most of his life? He changes his mind weekly? What political issues does he care deeply about? Dictator, sure, pass, that gets abused.

I imagine the man does care about his base. Is that political?

I think it's fair to say that he is anti-war. Otherwise, I see little deeply held belief. — Jeremy Murray

This is an odd thing to say. He wants a secure border, to deal with crime, reform spending and then yes, reduce war and war casualties. He also believes one law for all.

I don't know the guy personally, but these seem to have been threads through everything including criticisms of him. I'm unsure there's a good argument for him being a sort of hollow actor. Just a bad one.

But his character is clearly, and inarguably, not one of malice or hatred. — AmadeusD

It is inarguable to closed minds only.

He was a culture war grifter and deliberatly cultivated social conflict for profit. You can see how his views became more extreme over the last 10 years with his income growth.

Do you mean the Oxford debate society video where he utterly trounces everyone who speaks with him (or insults him) and has recently elected a president who celebrated the Murder? Wow. Cool. — AmadeusD

I don't remember if it was Cambridge or Oxford. And of course you're persuaded by logical fallacies.

And what is happening in the UK is unbelievable to me. — Fire Ologist

dozens of police interventions in speech daily? Yeah, mind-boggling. Pro-woke commenters here on TPF, from the UK, unaware of this? Evidence of dystopia now.

Is that the one when they are speaking about Thomas Sowell? I think I heard of Loury. — Fire Ologist

McWhorter and Loury do a monthly non-paywall chat about 'black' issues, and it's always great. They did a talk on Sowell, but you can go back years with those two for good conversations. The Glenn Show.

I agree there may have been some injustice in the firing of many of those people.

But that said, all of that firing was in the private sector, and people get fired for all kinds of reasons. — Fire Ologist

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

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

I mean, that's the problem with affirmative action, right? It sits wrong with human moral decision making. Decades of evidence of this. Yet another reason to doubt woke - psychologists told us
decades ago that it was causing cognitive dissonance for the people it was supposed to help

My free speech beliefs are protecting those nazis marching down mainstreet, protected by Jewish lawyers, back in the early 80s.

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

National paper here in Canada with a front page story on the abandonment of 'de-transitioners'. They certainly believe they were pawns. Great to see this getting covered. It's tip of the iceberg on trans issues, the primary weakness of woke.

Back before woke became a popular it was called “regressive left” by some. Fitting I always thought, given the very obvious but very ignored double standards inherent to some of the extreme left positions.
Lets see how ya”ll compare the “regressive left” with “woke” (not mine, it was created by someone else):

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

And then Id like to reference Evergreen University and the insanity of the above in operation. The incident was based on woke nonsense learned in the classes there. Woke in principal may not be problematic but there IS a version of it that is problematic and those DO have something to do with certain tenets of woke ideology. It will be very amusing to watch this reference get hand waved away. Telling. I mean it will be telling.

He also believes one law for all. — AmadeusD

Trump does not believe this.

I mean, he thinks he can shoot people in public and get away with it. He can 'grab em by the pussy' because he is famous. Pardons for the violent fringe of the Jan 6 insurrection.

He wants a secure border, to deal with crime, reform spending — AmadeusD

Okay, fine, he is consistent with expressing things that ALL PEOPLE want.

Expressed in ways inconsistent with his previous platforms and beliefs.

Things inconsistent with his own actions for the decades he has spent in the public eye.

I was rewatching old Wrestlemania's on Netflix while cleaning today. Vince McMahon loves Trump. He gives him mic time. The man's moral hypocrisy back in like, 1993, was proof of what I'm talking about.

I'm unsure there's a good argument for him being a sort of hollow actor. Just a bad one. — AmadeusD

It feels you have a problem with what other people are saying. What I am saying about Trump is accurate. Perhaps you don't know enough about this subject?

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

This is unhinged. The far right and the racist populists in the U.K. are trying their damnedest to import this anti woke narrative into the U.K. Even with the help of 95% of the U.K. press, it’s not sticking.

The lady arrested for holding a pro-life plackard near an abortion clinic was arrested for holding it within a 150m exclusion zone around all abortion clinics. If she had held it 160m away she could have continued holding it and shouting etc for as long as she wanted. The zones were introduced because emotionally vulnerable women were being intimidated by these protesters as they entered the door of the clinics.

God help us.

McWhorter and Loury do a monthly non-paywall chat about 'black' issues, and it's always great. They did a talk on Sowell, but you can go back years with those two for good conversations. The Glenn Show. — Jeremy Murray

Have to say I've listened to many of their shows. It is truly great. If only the discussion of race issues would be on this level. Actually the US needs these kind of academics who engage in public discourse.

Besides, Glenn Loury is quite an inspiring person, as he earlier in his life had fumbled up, had gone to prison, yet then did make an academic career and ended up as an professor of economics. Not bad from an black ex-convict.

Let's do these one-by-one because the longer posts are, the less likely people are to read them IME

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. — Fire Ologist

I don't see any evidence of violence, it looks like the students exercising their free speech; the same reception left wing journalists get at Trump rallies.

But let's just give you this one: let's say that those guys were physically threatened and intimidated off campus. Let's put that on one side of the ledger as evidence of the left wing shutting down speech on college campuses.

What do we have on the other side, of the right wing shutting down speech?

• $400 million of funding cut from Columbia Uni, with an additional $5 billion under review, for not "protecting Jewish students from antisemitism" i.e. not shutting down the protests against Israel.
  Anyone that doubts this interpretation, is free to look at the list of demands for restoring funding, which were about shutting down protests and introducing more conservative content and precisely nothing about prosecuting assaults or whatever.
  Columbia was also forced to expand it's definition of antisemitism to include basically anything "anti-zionist" i.e. anti-Israel.
  
  Harvard, Brown and UCLA have had funding cut for the same reason, all for over $500 million.
  
  An additional 60 universities were threatened with the same fate as Columbia if they do not comply.
  
• There have been 3,100 arrests of Palestine protestors, including many faculty members. Human rights watch has condemned this as a "campaign of draconian campus arrests".
  
• Trump's Compact for Academic Excellence requires universities to sign up to a list of demands including "Restrictions on “divisive concepts” such as systemic racism, critical race theory (CRT), and gender ideology" otherwise also face funding cuts and other sanctions.
  
• Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” (2022), expanded in 2024–2025, bans CRT-related content in both K–12 and public university curricula.
  
• Trump's executive order 14149 (2025) — “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” — directs federal agencies to audit universities accused of “Marxist indoctrination.” and again, withdraw funding from “divisive race or gender ideologies.”
  
• So far under this government over 20 states (e.g., Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, and North Dakota) have passed or proposed laws restricting how colleges teach race, privilege, and history.

BTW @Jeremy Murray do you appreciate now why the 1% figure was not a number plucked from nowhere; it was an attempt to weigh up the attacks on freedom of speech, leaning towards being generous towards the MAGA side.

No. I'll quote myself:

There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY.
— AmadeusD

I note you also quoted this, and then charged me with saying something very much different. — AmadeusD

I am not "charging you" with anything. I am pointing out that your own cite said there are more than two genotypes for this gene, and you think just asserting that there isn't is a refutation.

You have also just conflated gender and sex. Unsure if you've noted that. We are talking about sex. Gender is another discussion, but if one takes hte position that gender does not vary independent of sex, then that's all that person would want to argue. I agree gender is a different thing. We're not discussing it — AmadeusD

The only reason that we're discussing sex is because of the context of the gender discussion; your position seems to require asserting that the underlying sex is binary, and you're failing to find support for that assertion.

Secondly, it doesn't 'override' anything at all. It is the determining factor for sex in humans. — AmadeusD

Cite please: an actual biologist, not your misreading of what chat gpt told you.

funding cut — Mijin

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

3,100 arrests of Palestine protestors — Mijin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because you may be wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do you appreciate now why the 1% figure — Mijin

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

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

:up:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I think woke has some good principals. Equity is good, racism and sexism are bad, traditional values need to be updated…those all seem good in principle.

I think woke’s fetishizing of “implicit bias” is onto something good (just over reified). — Fire Ologist

Over reified? Wokeness is concerned with both implicit bias and social organization, but the modern form emphasizes structural inequality more than individual prejudice. It's more accurate to say that woke fetishizes "systemic racism".

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

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

I mentioned earlier in the topic that I read Kathleen Stock's book Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. It addresses this conflict in detail from the material feminist point of view.

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

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

Your argument commits the fallacy of division, relies on equivocation of the term “woke,” and employs a false cause to link internal disagreements to “wokeness” itself. Are you actually a lawyer?

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

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

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

“Family situation that Kirk celebrated.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

Are you actually a lawyer? — praxis

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

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

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

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

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

Woke social justice contradicts itself in theory, and in practice. — Fire Ologist

What social movements do not contradict themselves in theory and practice? Oh, and no need to think critically, just say whatever you feel.

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

Equity is good.
Racism and sexism are bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. — Fire Ologist

I am glad you are interested in the subject. I have a bookcase filled with books about education. To narrow what I know to your question, I ask you to consider Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and what federal dollars have to do with education.

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.

Those Republicans are not well-informed. You might want to check with Christians about public schools teaching children morals. Christians operate out of a belief system, not gather facts. They hated John Dewey and hate the National Education Association, and in Texas, the Republicans did all they could to prevent their schools from teaching the Higher Order Thinking Skills that are vital to making moral decisions. This struggle for children's minds and the democracy founded on the Enlightenment, has gone on long before Woke.

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.

Please try to convince me of that. I want to know what you base your belief on.

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.

This battle has gone on since the early 20th century. Led by John Dewey, Noam Chomsky, and others. It is basically a battle between Christians and those who favor the thinking of the Enlightenment.

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.

And where did you get your information about Christian Nationalism? It surely was not one of several books and the Christian Nationalism. Again, I will mention this battle between Christians and those who favor the thinking of the Enlightenment has gone on for a century, and did not begin with Woke.

Do you realize most states dropped teaching civics, along with art and music that both greatly benefit the study of science? And when it comes to US history, here is an AI fact.

Student performance in U.S. History is typically assessed by national exams like the AP U.S. History and the NAEP. In the 2022 NAEP assessment, the average score for eighth graders was lower than in 2018 and 2014, with only 13% of students reaching the "Proficient" level and 40% performing "Below Basic".

Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and it has not been defended in most states that cater to getting federal dollars since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. We taught history to transmit our culture, and it was our culture that made our liberty possible. That education was ended, and we are in a hell of a situation.

We stopped preparing the young for moral thinking, and Texas Republicans made that the priority in 2012. Those good Christian folks argued that education for thinking skills led children to go against their parents. Education for technology is not education for science. Texas teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court so they would not be forced to teach that creationism is equal to science. Christians are defending Christianity, not our democracy.

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.

Nationalism that becomes fascism is Christian. Germany was a Christian Republic and our world war enemy. That authoritarian nationalism is built on Christian mythology, not Enlightenment thinking.

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.

No one killed more Christians, than Christians. That victim story is for the Jews. :vomit: Please, this psychological BS is repulsive. It is bull shit that anyone was killed because of their relationship with a God. It is also BS to call a nation evil and invade it for imperialistic reasons. Christians are so taken advantage of by oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, sending their sons and daughters to die in immoral wars, with men like Billy Graham convincing parents that God wants them to send their young into a war.

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.

Christians may not be the enemy, but their mythology must be destroyed for the good of the earth. Oh yes, they are fascist. They believe God chooses their ruler and God is in control, God wants them to enter wars, because people are evil by nature and must have authority over them, and they must follow their leader into war. Bush made a huge mistake when he used Christianity for the New Century American Project, tying Christianity to war, just as the civil war and world wars and slutter of native Americans were all tied to Christianity and God's will.

Their stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood come from Sumerian mythology. What they believe is true is a combination of pagan mythologies, and people who disagreed were wiped off the earth.

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

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

no need to think critically — praxis

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

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

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

Looks like a good statement for those willing to defend the will of God. Hitler and Trump built their campaigns on people's fears and anger. It is psychological warfare before action is taken.

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

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

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

Hitler’s Germany was a Christian Republic?

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

Ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It can be. As I told Praxis you are using a broad brush here. Your points about problematic woke land with me (See my previous post about the regressive left) but as long as you use that broad brush you aren’t landing your points with your actual target. I know, I know…you asked for a definition. The cowardice of wokesters here in not providing one is duly noted.

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

That would be item #9 on the regressive agenda.

9. If someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.