Hence, discrimination based on these categories is a barrier to the freedom of individuals to individuate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and this unwittingly puts the identity category, the ideology, first and foremost, before the individual. For example, one sees discrimination based on skin color, and then, without need to ask the individual who is discriminated against, one can judge the individual must identify with that skin based category so that individual must be being oppressed - you sort of know a person’s victim status and how oppressed they have been from individuating themselves, without need to consult with the actual individual, because of the identity category.

So white people get to feel good fighting with BLM whether black people agree with BLM or not.

Ethnicity, regionalism, and even religion might be thought to be more tied to place, and the ideal liberal citizen has transcended place, — Count Timothy von Icarus

And now we get all of the calls to break up the union into smaller states based on locale.

while each place itself also becomes every other place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So in the name of the “freedom to individuate” and to distinguish something individual, each place becomes the same as the last place. More unwitting contradiction and self-defeating policy.

It's the right now that seems to more often appeal to "elitism." — Count Timothy von Icarus

But isn’t that just the right’s lame attempt to fight fire with fire, as in if you can’t beat identity politics, make up your own version? It’s still weak and sourced to leftist tactics. Or maybe I should say tyrannical tactics enjoyed on both right extremes and left center and extremes.

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

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

I don't know that jargon, but a quick google tells me it includes teaching phonics, which means it is not the whole language approach.

The whole language approach is using contextual cues, guessing, etc to learn vocab without the sound-it-out basics of phonics. And it works fine for privileged kids - books around the house, parents that read to them, etc. I was taught this way, and you were too most likely. It's only the past few years where the failure of the approach has been addressed, and only in certain sectors of ed.

Turns out poor kids generally need direct instruction. This is ancient history man. I'm surprised you don't know what I'm talking about with a partner who teaches. — Jeremy Murray

You wrote clearly but I got mixed up somehow and thought you were saying that phonics was woke. I guess because the phonics approach is a relatively recent development. Anyway, I still don't understand how either approach to teaching reading is woke. Can you explain?

Hey man,

I am stretching this term here, perhaps too much, but the philosophical approach is certainly the same, a downplaying of the role of teacher as expert / instructor, the idea that the student just needs to find themselves, to construct their own knowledge. I think it lead towards, say, the book club, and away from the 'whole class novel'. This makes direct instruction much harder. It's the naivety of it all that seems the best point of comparison.

Perhaps that's too much of a stretch? I remember, early in my career, opining to a senior colleague that we can use our 'moral authority' as teachers to help classroom discipline. He replied 'what authority'?

That stance - who are we to be experts, we represent 'the man' - was not uncommon in his generation, and in many ways remains the dominant belief system.

I think we see the impact of this in declining standards all over the place - discipline, academic honesty, falling over backwards to accommodate litigious students and parents, etc.

Of course, all sorts of great teachers, or just average ones, are doing a lot of good work. But this 'race to the bottom' in standards makes it harder for good teachers to stand out.

The child is placed on equal footing with the adults, even in matters in which the child is clearly acting out.

Too much? What do you think?

What does your wife think about the state of schools? She's worked in different environments - there might be more variance between states, say, that between provinces here in Canada.

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

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

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

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

Dead serious.

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

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

What is funny is that the same people who can’t see what wokeness is, somehow see with absolute clarity that Kirk was racist. — Fire Ologist

Yep. You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something?
No wonder you're so against it!
Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding?

Or Trump is a fascist dictator. — Fire Ologist

Definitely fascist. Once again: which of the things in this list does not fit trump?

"Dictator" though is a status, not merely an ideology. He wants to be a dictator, that's for sure, but he's not there yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The struggle to be born that is the US continues…

Many items on the list [of fascist traits] didn’t apply to Trump at all. — Fire Ologist

Like what? That was exactly the question I asked, so let's hear the one on the list that doesn't apply?
AFAICT the only one really debatable is the last on the list (launching a war of conquest) which is given as something common to fascism, not necessary. And there's still time...

And also you say that other leaders like Biden meet the items in the list. Let's hear that elaboration.

----------------------------------

In terms of the central thread topic of "wokeism" though, nobody knows what point you're trying to make, least of all you.
You write that "I see pretty clearly what woke is", and yet here's a selection of the changing, arbitrary ways you've defined it:

- Wokeism is a type of totalitarian fascism
- Woke teaches me that there is a difference between white people and everyone else, and that all white people must be reeducated about their implicit biases and privileges
- The word “woke” as a class of people is itself a bit anti-woke, elitist, oppressive
- the woke have to bring their own facts to the table, and they don’t seem to care about or need real proof
- The woke coined the term “woke”. Which is ironic now that they flee from the term. It’s CRT.
- Woke says people are doomed and chained to their biases, and have to be told by the enlightened what their real motivations are
- Wokeism makes everything political
- They want to include trans, so they exclude cis-gender. They want to include black women, so they exclude white men. It's been happening with great progressive success for 40 years. To the wokeist, I must be living in a different world
- From what I can tell, woke principles are in need of discussion (like, what does woke mean?) — Fire Ologist

And then the icing on the cake: "Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke".
So are you woke? :scream:

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

The so called ‘deplorables’ that Trump branded to were promised a return to a time when America was great; a time before their socioeconomic status shrank. The death of wokeness makes them feel a bit better, like their status has risen somewhat, though unfortunately the industrial sector remains depressed and will never return to its former glory. The future is mass automation.

If anything could really expose wokeism and actually end it, it is this killing of Kirk. — Fire Ologist

You believe the shooter is a woke leftist?

I predict if more Dems don’t figure this out, they will lose even more seats in the mid terms. So far, there is no blue wave coming. Probably the opposite. — Fire Ologist

Trump knows how unpopular his administration is so far this term and that’s why he’s issuing orders for gerrymandering.

I am stretching this term [woke] here — Jeremy Murray

Why?

Rather, the comment shows how "woke" is used to close off a conversation. Which is, ironically, the very complaint against "woke".

I do agree with Sartre. We are all, individually, responsible for everything.

Despite nothing having any intrinsic 'meaning'. This is the source of human suffering, and also cause for hope. Maybe? — Jeremy Murray

I can think of doing things that I strongly regret, but in reflection, I know I did the best I could with what I knew at the time. Is it just to whip someone for poor judgment and hold him/her responsible when the person did not know enough to do better? In speaking with others about this, forgiving ourselves seems to be one of the hardest things for us to do. Having a forgiving god is very helpful if we don't take advantage of Him. :lol:

I don't need someone to argue with because I argue with myself. For almost everything I say, my mind immediately argues the opposite, and this is exhausting. The best I can do is lighten up and laugh at myself. I can not be as sure of myself as the great philosophers. :lol: Of all the gifts a god may give us, a sense of humor may be the most important. How else can we manage our suffering and hope?

In Sartre's day, we didn't know as much as we do today. How wonderful to walk with Socrates and Plato, discovering life's truths when there was so little to know in their day. Holding the individual responsible for everything seems to me an unrealistic expectation, given what we know today. And it may have always been an unreasonable expectation. I have been watching YouTube explanations of our evolution and history, and that we just survived is amazing. How much more should we expect of ourselves?

How about compassion and acceptance of differences? I ask that question and immediately experience fear. Out of fear, I ask who I can turn to if I get into trouble, and I am not confident anyone could help me, so how woke should I be? Maybe before we expect people to be woke, we should investigate what do they fear? Is there anything that can be done about what causes the fear?

Yep. You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something?
No wonder you're so against it!
Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding? — Mijin

What is the meaning of Woke? I read it began with a woman of color telling others of color they should not be passive about tolerating discrimination that kept their families poor. Like Mother Jones, who encouraged the miners to fight for higher wages and better working conditions. We come from a history of humans exploiting other humans until those who are exploited rebel against the system that keeps them down. As long as human rights is a power game, there will be power clashes.

The US is proud of its claim to protect human rights, but does its history of human rights justify that pride? If it does, why is Woke still an issue?

Having a forgiving god is very helpful if we don't take advantage of Him. :lol:

I don't need someone to argue with because I argue with myself. — Athena

I am tempted to borrow this and use it when I feel the argumentative urge rising...

I have wished I could believe in a God or religion my entire life - I grew up in a small city with a lot of conservative, religious people, and I saw how much meaning it brought to them.

Having lived through a lot of tragedy in the past decade+, it was this group of people that stepped up for me most, overall. People I hadn't talked to in years, casual friends who became close, etc. I do think people who practice virtues in a community setting are better at those virtues, in general. Thanks to Count Timothy for turning me on to "After Virtue".

Staunch atheist that I am, I can still find some comfort and meaning in religious thought. Christianity has been deemed toxic in some of my (former) progressive circles, and I find that painful, such a diminishment of the richness of our shared history.

Holding the individual responsible for everything seems to me an unrealistic expectation, given what we know today. And it may have always been an unreasonable expectation. — Athena

Definitely. Not realistic. But neither are many of the divine principles of the religions I am familiar with. I guess you could say I came to philosophy late in life as part of a search for meaning, or it's absence, and I don't separate the rational from the divine in the existential realm.

Plus, the whole 'philosopher condemns man to be free, joins French resistance' angle inspired me to try to learn some philosophy a few years ago. I had become tired of belief systems that seemed to inspire no action.

How about compassion and acceptance of differences? I ask that question and immediately experience fear. Out of fear, I ask who I can turn to if I get into trouble, and I am not confident anyone could help me, so how woke should I be? Maybe before we expect people to be woke, we should investigate what do they fear? Is there anything that can be done about what causes the fear? — Athena

Interesting comment.

Fear is your instant response, and I had similar automatic responses when I used to find myself in group woke environments. In certain contexts - people passing as experts, leading workshops that ignored meaningful solutions to real problems in favour of wokety blah blah - my fight or flight response would trigger. I didn't realize I had PTSD at the time, or I could have avoided that response strategically.

Woke BS would occasionally trigger my PTSD. It feels crazy to claim that, but true.

Different from fear, but the same automatic activation of strong negative emotions. Triggered by threat.

'Wokeness' is threatening, and those emotional responses should help us to deal with that threat, from an evolutionary perspective. Society is suspicious of negative emotions in general, but I certainly do better personally when I direct that heightened level of arousal with purpose rather than trying to 'subdue' it.

Easier said than done :)

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

The only 'pragmatic' solution I see is to find interest groups across political and demographic divides that unite on primary shared moral principles. I think of free speech heroes FIRE in the US, who attract conservatives and liberals.

In a world with so little coherent narrative available, I think a track record of commitment to fundamental principles should demand more attention, and should be a primary objective, especially for young people who see our naked emperor.

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I predicted the comments that would follow Kirk's assassination, as well as the lack of comments. Didn't you? — Jeremy Murray

Not quite. I am quite personally really perturbed and unsettled by the celebrations and subsequent justifications of the same. This murder and its response seems like a Rubicon moment to me. I didn't see this coming. Kirk is just so ... middling...both the event and the response are out of all proportion (which doesn't surprise) and are explicitly hateful and violent. This, to me, was not predictable.

I also apologise to everyone for double-posts that will inevitably result from three-four weeks away.

No it isn't the end of the discussion. Your own cite's exact words are:

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

Which, as I have quite clearly and distinctly laid out for you - does not have anythign to do with sex determination. Aberration doesn't change your sex. Please read this again: aberration does not change your sex. Now say it with me: aberration does not change your sex.
Either your SRY is active, or it is not. You are either male or female, and there is no in between or "not either" scenario. You could tell me, if there were, i'm sure.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

This is pure nonsense. You brought it up. You deal with it. I didn't suggest we do that and no where did I intimate it was reasonable to suggest so. Either work up something which indicates I might want to defend this, or put it down my guy.

I predicted the comments that would follow Kirk's assassination, as well as the lack of comments. Didn't you? — Jeremy Murray

I saw a few clips of transgender folks who seemed happy about it. I guess that’s understandable given that they didn’t know Kirk on a personal level and Kirk openly referred to them as abominations. Honestly, if someone publicly promoted the idea that I was an abomination merely because I was a transsexual or whatever I would be happy they were gone. You can’t argue with irrational disgust and hatred.

I couldn’t have predicted how MAGA would use the assassination for woke/leftist hate-mongering. That’s a new low.

No, its not understandable at all.

Celebrating hte political murder of someone who defended his positions on conceptual grounds, and never expressed hatred for anyone is irrational, abominable and quite clearly dangerous. It smacks of "I have never paid any attention to this person, besides clipped bollocks my hateful friends sent me because they constantly search for shit to be outraged about instead of just letting people have different views".

That one seems an axiom of that type of leftist. Anyone paying attention(to Kirk, or the climate) would understand that.

You can’t argue with irrational disgust and hatred. — praxis

But you can argue with people who are willfully dishonest about those whom they need to justify their hate. This is a prime example. Whether they are open to accepting reality (or, more properly, their ignorance) is something we content with daily.

People say awful shit about groups of people all the fucking time. We don't shoot people over it. Even partially justifying this is tantamount to misunderstanding what has happened, at all.

Which, as I have quite clearly and distinctly laid out for you - does not have anythign to do with sex determination. Aberration doesn't change your sex — AmadeusD

Right and we're talking about how we determine sex. And your idea of using the SRY gene fails for at least these 3 reasons:

1. There are more than 2 genotypes for this gene -- it's not binary
2. How would we know what gene someone has, since their genitalia and secondary characteristics may not align. Call that an "aberration" or whatever other word you like. It remains impractical, since you balked at the idea of mandatory DNA testing, so how would it work in schools, prisons, hospitals etc?
3. Biologists do not define sex this way as it's completely arbitrary. I know you're happy to handwave everything that people who actually study this topic say, but it's a critical point for those of us who are not guided by conservative talking points over science.

This is pure nonsense. You brought it up. You deal with it. I didn't suggest we do that and no where did I intimate it was reasonable to suggest so. — AmadeusD

WTF? We were talking about gender being non-binary, and you brought up the SRY gene. Don't blame me if it's an indefensible position.

defended his positions on conceptual grounds — AmadeusD

The word “abomination” generally means something regarded with extreme disgust, hatred, or loathing. How do you defend that on conceptual grounds?

No one needs to feel, much less encourage others to feel, disgust and hatred towards trans people.