Will to power may be a metaphysical claim about the structure of existence, but for me it only carries weight if it is also experientially meaningful—can be embodied as a lifestyle. — praxis

My feeling about it is inaccurate?

Aye.

How so?

sediments of past judgements. Those past judgements being inaccurate.

I haven't determined how meaningful it is to me yet. I'm defiantly interested.

Good, and I ought to keep telling you you'll fail then to push you harder. Thats how a one up attitude works.

No. This is clearly bollocks. I gave you several reasons, which have nothing to do with being trans. Please stop putting words in my mouth. — AmadeusD

Your reasons all boil down to you just finding her appearance "uncanny" to use your word. Yes, that is just you not liking the appearance of a transperson, you have not rationalized it at all.

Right o, I'll tell that to the victims and the millions of females it makes unsafe. — AmadeusD

What victims? Let's see the cite for someone pretending to be trans to SA women in a public toilet. I'll wait here.

I think all 'being trans' is pretend in some sense: You cannot change your sex. It is utterly impossible. There is no version of 'transition' which means anything if gender is a construct/spectrum that means nothing to us as sexes (which is fine, I don't quite have an issue with tha tposition). — AmadeusD

I think your understanding here is a bit confused. There's gender and there's sex, and transpeople are quite aware that changing their gender does not change their sex. They don't believe that going from Robert to Roberta instantly gives them a uterus.

that depends on the person. Those who thrive under the compulsions of external values ought to live under a system of external values.

Those with their own strong organizing drive would find living under an external value system to be stifling.

They might find it stifling, but it does not seem to follow from this alone that it is necessarily better for those who do find it stifling to act contrary to systems of "external values" in virtue of this fact. It seems that, in at least some cases, it is better to for those who feel stifled to learn to appreciate and enjoy what at first seems stifling. For example, the music student or person learning the art of painting might find their instruction initially stifling, and yet it may help to make them more excellent, and they may learn to love what they have initialy learned under some duress.

I would imagine this is probably the main question vis-á-vis Nietzsche's positive claims: it they succeed in escaping nihilism or the charge of arbitrariness (or comporting with intuitions about the good). In virtue of what, ultimately, are new values choiceworthy? Nietzsche is a very keen diagnostician of Enlightenment ethics, but the vibrancy of the critique doesn't necessarily support any particular positive formulation to replace what has been undermined.

But, for purely descriptive readings of Nietzsche, I think there is a different sort of problem people often have, which is that a purely descriptive approach seems to fall victim to the same charges that are often leveled against advocates of "might makes right." All the value-laden language is then disconnected from the main theory, for if "the stronger (drives/wills) shall win" (indeed, is if this is how we know that they are stronger) then what more is left to say? One can hardly complain about who has turned out to be weak and who has proven strong, and to say: "but it would be better if these who have proven weaker were the stronger," requires giving some positive explanation of why this would be "better."

At any rate, I think a retreat into the purely descriptive and away from Nietzsche's aristocratic tendencies tends to do violence to the text, requires discounting as "unessential" vast segments of his corpus, and at any rate seems to obscure what is really valuable (to my mind at least) in his thought.

Or, to 's original point and 's clarification, I am not sure how the clarification points to anything desirable or good in a positive sense. It perhaps makes "putting power on a pedestal" less obviously bad (if one judges more conventional, liberal notions of power bad, or at least not desirable in themselves).

They might find it stifling, but it does not seem to follow from this alone that it is necessarily better for those who do find it stifling to act contrary to systems of "external values" in virtue of this fact. It seems that, in at least some cases, it is better to for those who feel stifled to learn to appreciate and enjoy what at first seems stifling. For example, the music student or person learning the art of painting might find their instruction initially stifling, and yet it may help to make them more excellent, and they may learn to love what they have initialy learned under some duress. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is no escaping the weight of external values, and every student at first confronts the limits of their own abilities. Yet instruction, when it accords with a person’s nature, can serve as a catalyst for self-realization rather than a constraint. What becomes stifling—perhaps in the sense that DE intends—is when a spirit is bent against its grain: when, for instance, one who is inwardly a musician is compelled to devote themselves to science, sculpture, or some discipline for which they feel no inner drive.

It perhaps makes "putting power on a pedestal" less obviously bad (if one judges more conventional, liberal notions of power bad, or at least not desirable in themselves).

To be clear, I was sort of asking if placing high value on wtp or creativity, self-overcoming, and life-affirmation has a downside or will reliably result in meaning.

I would imagine this is probably the main question vis-á-vis Nietzsche's positive claims: it they succeed in escaping nihilism or the charge of arbitrariness (or comporting with intuitions about the good). In virtue of what, ultimately, are new values choiceworthy? Nietzsche is a very keen diagnostician of Enlightenment ethics, but the vibrancy of the critique doesn't necessarily support any particular positive formulation to replace what has been undermined. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, this may constitute the central problem of Nietzsche’s project of revaluation. On one hand, nihilism marks the collapse of transcendent foundations. On the other, if anything is permitted, new values risk becoming mere matters of preference or lapsing into aestheticism. For Deleuze, the solution lies in rethinking what it means to value. There is no need to justify values by appealing to external normative foundations. Instead, values are affirmed through their capacity to open new possibilities for subjectivity. In this framework, values are not arbitrarily chosen but created through collective processes. What renders new values choiceworthy is not their adherence to an external norm, but their transformative power. “The good is the elevation of the active forces, the triumph of affirmation” (DR, p. 55). Considering this, one might ask: how would a Nietzschean evaluate wokeness? Does it primarily express ressentiment, or does it cultivate solidarity and new cultural modes of life?

Your reasons all boil down to you just finding her appearance "uncanny" to use your word. Yes, that is just you not liking the appearance of a transperson, you have not rationalized it at all. — Mijin

False. I have given you the reasons people are made uncomfortable. This occurs when anyone does it. I cannot grasp how you're missing what's being put down, unless you are so ideologically blinded that you cannot accept normal human reasoning like I've given you. Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not.

What victims? Let's see the cite for someone pretending to be trans to SA women in a public toilet. I'll wait here. — Mijin

I cannot understand what you think is going on here. The issue isn't anyone pretending to be trans. Males who are openly abusive (such as that would require) aren't botherd to pretend. The issue is trans women (whether 'legitimate' or not) abusing females. I don't care if you're pretending or not, if you're male, get out.

But here are a couple of examples anyway

One of these isn't a public bathroom, tbf. I personally know of two close friends (one is the mother of my child) who have had female-appearing males assault them in public.

We then have the multitude of problematic cases of males in female prisons, and the overwhelming concentration among those trans women who are prison, of sex crimes. IN the UK a trans women is fully four times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime than a non-trans male. We can calibrate that for non-violent crimes like exposure and sex work. Lets call it 50%. Which is utterly insane, but lets go with it. Still fully two times more likely.

I don't know why you're so hell-bent on reading genuine safety concerns as some kind of bigotry. I have no problem with people identifying a certain way, within reason, and I have no problem with people living their life as they see fit. That does not mean they are allowed to violate the norms, protocols and safety positions of wider society. You can just stop taking digs and being a dick while still vehemently disagreeing with me.

I think your understanding here is a bit confused. There's gender and there's sex, and transpeople are quite aware that changing their gender does not change their sex. They don't believe that going from Robert to Roberta instantly gives them a uterus. — Mijin

You may need to re-read, clearly, what I've said, as that distinction is quite clearly made. Gender means nothing if it is literally a random spectrum with no actual points of interest on it. However, I think one of the biggest misconceptions/misunderstandings is that the pro-trans (i hate this term, I just mean the non-critical ) crowd tends to claim that gender varies independently of sex. It doesn't, really. This is why we see the same levels of aggression and violence in trans women as other males. Trans men? Not so much. Because females tend to not be as aggressive or violent as males. Unless overtly masculine, like lesbians who tend to experience more DV than heterosexual or gay male couples.

Sex is real, and it matters. Not sure how that became controversial... Discussions about dignity and what not come after safety. I actually couldn't give a fuck about misgendering a rapist. We probably should do that, consistently, to ensure their rehabilitation is personalized (quipping here, but point should be illustrated well).

it does not seem to follow from this alone that it is necessarily better — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not about better or worse, it's just simply how one becomes who they are, by following what drives them. If one chooses to sublimate a destructive drive through the reconciliation of it's inverse drive then you're getting into Nietzsche's self overcoming... the resentful type choose the onslaught of what is different than itself through defending objective morality. There is no reconciliation, no bridge to their love. That is the problem with binding oneself to objective external values.

Instead, values are affirmed through their capacity to open new possibilities for subjectivity.

Yes, but it seems debatable if this is itself good, no? Or, in virtue of what are new possibilities good? It does not seem to be true prima facie at least. Not all possibilities seem worthy of actualization. Indeed, to elevate potency over actuality is arguably to confuse self-determining, reflexive freedom with arbitrariness. I am aware that Deleuze has responses here; I am not sure if they are adequate though.

Dante's use of Ulysses is a great example of just this concern. Ulysses says:

[Not even my family and responsibilities]

Could quench deep in myself the burning wish
to know the world and have experience
of all man's vices, of all human worth.

Inferno - Canto XXVI - 97-99

Now even if we allow Aristotle's “all men by nature desire to know” and “it is owing to their wonder that men... first began to philosophize" (i.e., to love wisdom), is it wise or choiceworthy to desire experience of “all man’s vices?”

Then, in the next circle down, we see the most brutal punishment in the poem, the schismatics being repeatedly dismembered (as they dismembered institutions during their lifetimes). At this point one of the damned offers to explain their woes to Dante, that he might "have full experience." This is clearly not the sort of potential for new forms of subjectivity we want though. (Not to go on a tangent, it's just a nice, graphic illustration.)

The point being: not all experiences are good. Potentiality does not appear, to me at least, to be self-justifying. Second, I do not seem how "being a collective process" necessarily excludes arbitrariness.

On the first point, we could ask: "shouldn't we be equally open to new capacities to pursue cruelty, disintegration, addiction, etc.?" Being able to infect others with an STD is in some sense a "power" after all; so is sadism. So too for getting to experience withdrawals or blindness.

No doubt, Deleuze would deny any appeal to novelty for novelty’s sake and pivot to what increases the power of life, or to Spinoza re the "power to act." However, my rejoinder here is that what is being identified here just are the virtues. Vices cripple these powers; they are precisely what is diminishing and mutilating. Virtue is what allows for self-determining actualization and self-governance. This is really an area of convergence as far as I can tell.

Yet there is not a convergence on justification. It seems to me that, at the very least, "power to act" must itself be presupposed a standard. And yet it doesn't seem like that will be enough to rule out vice. There might be a "joy" in being a violent neo-Nazi. Nor is it clear why active power should be necessarily preferred to a sort of "passive power" like being addicted to a drug. There is, of course, the intrinsic negative valance of suffering, yet many vices are pleasurable. Hence, it seems to me like a telos is still required to give any sort of positive structure here.

Now, if we adopt a "privation theory of evil" here, it is perhaps easier to justify virtue without equally justifying vice, but that requires a different ontology. A "privation" only makes sense in terms of a telos (we don't call rocks "blind" after all).

It's not about better or worse, it's just simply how one becomes who they are, by following what drives them.

But then it isn't any better or worse (more or less choiceworthy) to simply refuse to be what one is either, no? The same for sublimation. If that were the case though, wouldn't it be problematic? It seems to me that a choice made vis-a-vis something that cannot be "better or worse" (something indifferent to desirability) would be arbitrary.

Instead, values are affirmed through their capacity to open new possibilities for subjectivity.

Yes, but it seems debatable if this is itself good, no? Or, in virtue of what are new possibilities good? It does not seem to be true prima facie at least. Not all possibilities seem worthy of actualization. Indeed, to elevate potency over actuality is arguably to confuse self-determining, reflexive freedom with arbitrariness. I am aware that Deleuze has responses here; I am not sure if they are adequate though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The emergence of new forms or possibilities of life should not be celebrated simply because they appear novel or transgressive. Instead, we should measure their true potential by how well they can resist absorption into dominant systems. This includes resisting commodification and turning into marketable lifestyles. Also, they should avoid recoding by systems of recognition that make them legible, or manageable. And they should oppose reincorporation into cycles of reproduction of normative social structures. To affirm difference means to cultivate ways of being that exceed the prescribed constraints without being captured and neutralized.

I couldn't determine that for others. That's all up to the individual and whatever forces drive them. What I know is that whatever is injurious to me, is injurious period.

In virtue of what would:

-resisting absorption into dominant systems
-resisting commodification and turning into marketable lifestyles
-being able to avoid recoding by systems of recognition that make them legible, or manageable.
-opposing reincorporation into cycles of reproduction of normative social structures.

be desirable? Prima facie, I am not sure why these are necessarily valuable or laudable. Being legible and manageable does not seem like a necessarily negative trait. It's often a positive one.

To be honest, these standards, particularly the last, sort of do seem to be "the celebration of the novel and transgressive for their own sake."

That's all up to the individual.

Sure, but how could their choice be non-arbitrary? The individual chooses, but if it isn't for some sort of understood reason, it would seem to be an inchoate choice, or something more akin to a muscle spasm or careless act than self-determining, reflexive freedom.

To be honest, these standards, particularly the last, sort of do seem to be "the celebration of the novel and transgressive for their own sake." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it is quite clear that what's being pushed back on is the hijacking of progressive ideals within a non-progressive social framework. The controversy is over the fact that Number and I (and others) probably view the "left wing progressive" notions as the non-progressive, semi-bigoted versions of what to do.

The very heart of the problem of Euripides that ended up in Aesthetic Socratism, which idolizes only the intelligible as "Good."

Though to be certain Joy too is inchoate. In that one cannot fully place a finger on what it is that brings someone to such a state of ecstasy.

The most decisive word, however, for this new and unprecedented esteem of knowledge and insight was spoken by Socrates when he found that he was the only one who acknowledged to himself that he knew nothing while in his critical pilgrimage through Athens, and calling on the greatest statesmen, orators, poets, and artists, he discovered everywhere the conceit of knowledge. He perceived, to his astonishment, that all these celebrities were without a proper and accurate insight, even with regard to their own callings, and practised them only by instinct. "Only by instinct": with this phrase we touch upon the heart and core of the Socratic tendency. Socratism condemns therewith existing art as well as existing ethics; wherever Socratism turns its searching eyes it beholds the lack of insight and the power of illusion; and from this lack infers the inner perversity and objectionableness of existing conditions. From this point onwards, Socrates believed that he was called upon to, correct existence; and, with an air of disregard and superiority, as the precursor of an altogether different culture, art, and morality, he enters single-handed into a world, of which, if we reverently touched the hem, we should count it our greatest happiness. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 13

False. I have given you the reasons people are made uncomfortable. This occurs when anyone does it. [...]Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. — AmadeusD

You are just trying to rationalize why you feel uncomfortable. Firstly, who cares, but secondly, this concedes the point.
I don't like the mannerisms or dress of lots of people on TV...it doesn't matter and it's not "woke". You were supposed to be explaining what's wrong with woke and are still just coming back to not liking Dylan's appearance.

But here are a couple of examples anyway — AmadeusD

OK, I'll give you one there; the peeping tom one. The others are just not relevant. A non-sexual assault that happened in a bathroom. What's the difference between that and a cismale assaulting a cisfemale, which is of course far more common?
But yeah, I'll stop saying there are zero examples.

We then have the multitude of problematic cases of males in female prisons, and the overwhelming concentration among those trans women who are prison, of sex crimes. IN the UK a trans women is fully four times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime than a non-trans male. — AmadeusD

I would agree that the prison service in the UK has got this wrong a couple of times; like the high-profile case of the the rapist who "transitioned" after being convicted. However, in general the data is that trans people are much, much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and are at great risk in prisons. It's extremely misleading to depict them as predators.

Sex is real, and it matters. Not sure how that became controversial. — AmadeusD

Among who? Sounds like a strawman to me.
What I would say though is I have, and will continue to push back against the claim that sex is binary, because intersex is a thing. But in general, no, no-one is saying sex isn't real.

However, in general the data is that trans people are much, much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators,

Nothing in your source seems to indicate what you are saying. It is silent on the rates at which trans individuals are perpetrators of violent crime. In general, groups that are more likely to be the victims of violent crime are also more likely to be perpetrators. "X is more likely to be a victim," does not entail "X is less likely to be a perpetrator." In general, it's quite the opposite. For instance, men commit most violent crimes and are also more likely to be victims.

Common Knowledge is generally a granted...

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/#:~:text=Press%20Press%20Releases-,Transgender%20people%20over%20four%20times%20more%20likely%20than%20cisgender%20people,Key%20Findings

Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, households with a transgender person had higher rates of property victimization than cisgender households. — From above.

Nothing in your source seems to indicate what you are saying. It is silent on the rates at which trans individuals are perpetrators of violent crime. In general, groups that are more likely to be the victims of violent crime are also more likely to be perpetrators. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're right that we need to separate out these two concepts.

So firstly, I guess you are accepting that trans are more likely to be victims of crime, as there's no counter-cite or rebuttal?

Secondly, in terms of frequency of committing crimes, I could only find this swedish study, that suggested that people who engaged in sex reassignment in the 1980s had a slightly higher incidence of crime than cisgender, but no difference among those who transitioned in the later (2003) group.
I couldn't find great data TBH -- police forces dont seem to keep this data -- so I'm happy to take back that part, as long as you also acknowledge that those alledging that transgender are more likely to be criminals also need to back that up.

not liking Dylan's appearance. — Mijin

Right, so what I've said is this:

Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not. — AmadeusD

You are either lying, or not reading my responses before replying. The latter is impossible, since you're quoting my comments. So you must be lying. That is a real shame. Luckily, there is evidence for what i'm claiming (in that I have been explicitly talking about traits which are not appearance).
You are utterly bereft of a sense of reality if you don't think this is an attitude people take with anything presented as such. The reason Marshall Appelwhite was so uncanny was similar: He came across uncanny, somehow performatively askance from what a human expects to see, behaviourally (not physically). He was wide-eyed, overbearing, intense and intrusive with how he presented himself. He wasn't trans, or female. Therefore, your claim is absolute bunk and an attempt to impugn reasoning you don't enjoy. I don't give a shit what you enjoy. These are reasons, and either you accept them and disagree with the conclusion, or you don't. What isn't open is lying about them. If that happens again, you will not get a response.

But yeah, I'll stop saying there are zero examples. — Mijin

You should probably just stop making claims, and asking 'gotcha' questions with sarcastic quips when you clearly are not informed on this subject. Those were links I could into that sentence. Besides this, as with preventing males from entering female spaces before this mass psychosis occurred, a single example is enough.

It's extremely misleading to depict them as predators — Mijin

You are simply making shit up to distract from the point made (though, i appreciate that your prior comments were very level):
Compared to non-trans male, trans women are fully four times more likely to commit a sexual offence. This has nothing to do with their status as victims. It has to do with their status as predators. Two things can be true at once. In any case, the last time I did a deep dive (I am not willing to do this right now, becaus this thread is inconsequential to my life) it turned out that the claim they are more likely to be assaulted that give out was actually minimally incorrect. I've just run a small set of prompts through chaGPT and got the following, though I don't suggest this is conclusive:

"Unofficial data, such as the Trans Murder Monitoring project, notes that in Europe only 8 cases of trans and gender-diverse people murdered occurred between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024"

That's all of Europe. Not trans women murdered in that period? Well, this is too many to give an overview. Spain alone:

"Here’s a clear and sourced statistic from 2024:

In Spain, there were 48 women murdered due to gender-related violence in 2024. Additionally, 9 minors were also killed in crimes perpetrated by their fathers or their mother’s spouse, and at least 6 additional femicides were committed by individuals who were not current or former partners. This figure marks the lowest number of gender‑violence‑related murders in Spain since 2003."

Let's first acknowledge that final line - that's amazing. But you can see we're looking at probably 8x the number v trans women. Now, I am aware the comparison you're making is trans women: victim vs perpetrator. That's fine, but unfortunately, the claims that trans women are more likely be assaulted come largely from self-report as they are recorded by their identified gender. This means that no meaningful statement can be made about it. But we know that trans women are killed at a much lower rate than non-trans females, and that they commit sex crimes at a rate four times higher than non-trans male.

If this doesn't give you any pause, we're living on different planets my dude.

What I would say though is I have, and will continue to push back against the claim that sex is binary, because intersex is a thing — Mijin

But this is absolutely, objectively wrong. Every intersex person is either male or female. That is how intersex conditions work- they are categorised by which sex they affect. It is a misnomer, and misleading misinformation to claim intersex people are neither male nor female, or a third sex. That is plainly absurd.

Compared to non-trans male, trans women are fully four times more likely to commit a sexual offence. — AmadeusD

False. You're reading the stat wrong. What the stat said, was that among the prison population, of the crimes that people had been convicted of, that trans people were 4 times more likely to have been convicted of a sexual-related offense. That's not the same thing at all as saying that trans people in the general population are more likely to commit any crime, whether sexual or not.

But this is absolutely, objectively wrong. Every intersex person is either male or female. — AmadeusD

Glad to have a human biology expert here.
Go ahead then: what's someone with XXY chromosomes and a mix of internal and external genitalia?

False. You're reading the stat wrong. What the stat said, was that among the prison population, of the crimes that people had been convicted of, that trans people were 4 times more likely to have been convicted of a sexual-related offense. — Mijin

Unfortunately bud, this is the exact wrong reading.

I have posted the statistics in full elsewhere, because they are on my desktop computer at home, but suffice to say the conclusion goes like this

Of the TOTAL population, who is in prison for sex crimes

Of non-trans males: 0.04%
Of trans women: 0.16%.

This is of the entire population, what ratio of those groups are in for sex crime. This is nothing to do with comparing the different types of offense within hte trans prison population. I am happy to post the full breakdown when I get home this evening. However, your comments are exactly right, and had I presented the stats the way you describe, that's the right response. Good stuff (i am not being sarcastic).

Go ahead then: what's someone with XXY chromosomes and a mix of internal and external genitalia? — Mijin

Do the have an active SRY gene? You've asked the wrong question. And I've already given pieces of information that tell against it.

Find me a DsD which is not sex-specific.

I've been enjoying this thread, despite my lack of comments. This is applied philosophy, a major draw for a layman like myself, and pretty much all my fave posters on the forum are active in this thread.

Earlier a poster asked for examples of how 'woke' has affected real people negatively. Personal example, it takes me weeks to function these days, since I got cancelled for playing a Kendrick Lamar song in my high school English class.

You know Lamar, the first hip hop artist to win a Pulitzer for literature?

And I think of my colleague Richard Biltzsko, a retired gay principal who, like me, had returned to teaching (in his case, he'd retired) to represent kids during the pandemic. He was shamed during a woke PD session and killed himself. He had dared to challenge a presenter who claimed that Canada was more racist than the US.

Richard was a gay man, of an age that recalls the days when Canada was not yet a haven for gay people.

Yet my woke teaching colleagues wrote this off. Several told me 'there is more to the story'. They didn't know each other, but they knew the woke progpagandist answer - one of myriad examples of the 'predictability' of woke that was brought up by a previous poster. And, needless to say, there was no more to the story. There was just deflection until it could be forgotten.

Fortunately, for those of us not dogmatic on the topic, several posters have jumped in to demonstrate the predictability of wokeness in real time. Short, snide answers. Cherry picking details. Indiscriminate use of babyish emojis. Ignoring legitimate good faith questions. Weird insistence on importing binary US political positions globally, to vastly different countries.

Given that I had to read most of this thread in a couple of sessions of reasonable mental wellness, I have a different take on things than had I been in the weeds from day one.

People who are certain they are right at the least likely to be right. People who answer long, thoughtful comments with brief, snide ones are likely to be asshats.

Engaging with these people is like picking at a scab or scratching a mosquito bite. Briefly enjoyable, but ultimately toxic.

Woke is an activist control mechanism, not an actual philosophy. They aren't even trying to engage in good faith. They say this themselves. Check out any professional managerial organization, your associations of sociologists and your colleges of teaching and what not. They TELL YOU UP FRONT that they are activists, not academics.

(I can support any statement I made in this post with references, so ask me if you doubt me).

So there is no point debating the philosophical underpinnings - the average wokist can't articulate them anyway. I can outwoke these woke dimwits, despite despising woke.

And hey, snide wokist, prove me wrong! Articulate the best of woke. examples of cutting edge research, or vital insights? ANY exciting new thinkers, landmark studies, anything at all that show academic integrity in say, the past five years? Ten? This shit goes back decades, the 'long walk through the institutions'.

Nah, they won't do that. They will pick one misplaced word in my post, attack that, and pat themselves on the back while lauding their personal 'courage'.

Andrew Doyle, subject of the OP - who is a comedian and mainstream journalist, for the record - is more informed and insightful than full time woke academics - presumably, the cream of the woke crop. I read "The New Puritans" before jumping into this discussion, since it was the only book of his I had lying around. How many posters in this thread even know Doyle?

I can cross the political spectrum with references to worthwhile woke skeptics, from Marxist Adolph Reed, to heterodox black academics like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes, to right-wing bugbears like Christopher Rufo, who have published meaningful works on the topic. I could name dozens more.

And yes, I have read all the books that I am referring to. Check out my Goodreads account.

To be honest, I imagine this the easiest litmus test for whether or not one is doctrinaire, woke or anti-woke. Have you read any books on the subject?

Has anyone tried to read woke? It's intolerable garbage. Judith Butler? Robin DiAngelo? Candy-ass X?

I have a lot more to say on this subject, philosophy to reference, posters to reply to, but I simply had to take advantage of one of the few 'windows of wellness' I might have per month to jump online and share my initial thoughts.

And props to you guys keeping TPF interesting and relevant.

They will pick one misplaced word in my post, attack that, and pat themselves on the back while lauding their personal 'courage'. — Jeremy Murray

You misspelled progpagandist.

The worst I've read is a piece by a philosopher unfortunately, Andrea Long Chu. I came into it in good faith. I'd been told that this writer was particularly cutting and could offer something other writers were not really doing: Critical theory as applied to itself.

It turned out none of that was present. You can get a feel for their stuff in this .

Left Is Not Woke was pretty good though (Susan Neiman).

For pop-woke, I would never stoop so low. Just as I wouldn't read a book by Charlie Kirk.

Overall, though, I think your comment is a little... one-sided. I think people have a been mor enuanced than you're saying, and that good points have been made on both sides. Obviously, I have a relatively secure position but that doesn't mean I haven't been given pause. Its been a really robust thread and I've enjoyed it. Not as predictable as you describe, I don't think.

Haha, I like you.

delete