Sorry, I was in an emotional frenzy.

You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis. — DingoJones

Oh yes, please. Don't hold back on my account.

You've called him [Charlie Kirk] a bigoted grifter — AmadeusD

He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million.

You are all over the place and don’t explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me. — Fire Ologist

As I said, I read Stock's book so I'm familiar with the conflict. That's why this branch of the topic interested me.

If you insist on being limited to 'woke eat woke', well then, you do you.

There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. — Fire Ologist

I haven't avoided agreement. In fact I wrote:

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities. — Fire Ologist

Why don't you point them out?

And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you don’t want to build any bridge. — Fire Ologist

This is truly hilarious. Classic Fire. :lol:

If Wokeness is a religion, who is the greater heretic, Sock or Butler? If I were to indulge the ignorant notion that wokeness is a religion, I would say that Butler is the heretic for rejecting allyship. Yet, generally speaking, Sock is regarded as the heretic within wokedom and was effectively cancelled for her heretical speech acts; resigned her position at the University of Sussex.

The punchline here is that Stock built a bridge that was rejected by the wokest of woke, and by you. You might see her as a champion of reason within the woke community, but no, all you see is 'woke eating woke'.

The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. — Fire Ologist

When did I not recognize it as a problem?

Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans can’t think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve. — Fire Ologist

:roll: If Stock were a biological essentialist she would have titled her book The Essential Girl or something. She explicitly rejects biological essentialism.

But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. — Fire Ologist

I already mentioned allyship. I guess you don't believe in it.

My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.) — Fire Ologist

For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism – physical attacks – for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what?

“Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality” - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups. — Fire Ologist

How does systemic power analysis factor into the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict?

So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with it’s factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists don’t agree). — Fire Ologist

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals.

This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. — AmadeusD

What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war?

In part two of The Magus by John Fowles.

“Beware of the waiting room.”

Yeah, but you said you addressed it.

And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.). — Fire Ologist

I clearly presented them as Stock’s thoughts and that she addressed the conflict. Are you high?

Looking into it further, apparently trans activists reject Stock’s compromise.

A couple of Judith Butler quotes…

“The category of woman can and does change, and we need it to be that way. Politically, securing greater freedoms for women requires that we rethink the category of ‘women’ to include those new possibilities.”

“The TERFs [trans-exclusionary radical feminists] and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact … in favour of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism.”

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. Well, no one’s perfect. :brow:

That defines the problem. That doesn’t address anything. — Fire Ologist

Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it.

Stock’s core proposal is epistemic — about how we think and talk about sex and gender.
She argues that feminism must continue to recognize biological sex as real and politically salient and that society can respect gender identities without pretending they replace sex. Policy, law, and medicine must be built on empirical reality first, and social identity second.

“We should acknowledge both sex and gender identity, but not conflate them.”
– Kathleen Stock

Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists. — Fire Ologist

The core woke principle to adjudicate the dispute would be allyship: support marginalized groups’ definitions of justice. Stock doesn't deny the validity of gender identity or that trans are a vulnerable group. Trans activists may also respect this principle and act accordingly.

Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks. — Fire Ologist

Don't be a whinny bitch. You're welcome. :lol:

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

Her Republican political opponent uses that line in their campaign, promoting fear and anger indeed.

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

I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. You did not comment on that other than to openly admit to relying on equivocation of the term “woke” to make poor arguments against woke.

The purpose of your feigning ignorance of what woke is wasn't clear until now, page 30. Definitive proof of how slow and dull witted I am.

But fine, all social movements are perfectly consistent in theory and practice – only woke social justice contradicts itself.

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

I am just talking.

No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. — Fire Ologist

I looked up the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be as follows:

• Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
• Systemic Power Analysis
• Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
• Language Shapes Reality
• Moral Urgency and Activism
• Intersectionality
• Historical Accountability

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.

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?

I don't see how the second image is possible from the first. — Outlander

My next move was knight to a6, forcing your king to c8. My next move after that was the other knight to d5. If your bishop were in “kill position” your queen could have zipped across the board unobstructed to checkmate. Of course I may have seen the threat, but maybe not, I’m easily distracted.

Your fatal move was here:



Not placing your queen side bishop in kill position.

Checkmate. Thanks for the game!

I am seeing my instantiated life (starting from the moment the game was initiated) flash before my eyes. Come to think of it, I won't be missing very much. — Outlander

Brick your pipi! I don't know what that means but it's fun to say.



Your move.

Your move.

Check!



Your move.

Your move.

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.

Your move.

Your move.

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.

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:

Maybe not nothing, but you certainly don’t make much of all I’m saying. — Fire Ologist

What exactly have I not made much of?

It is insulting to say I’m just parroting talking points, you know that right? — Fire Ologist

I just gave an example of you mindlessly parroting twisted political rhetoric a few posts above on this page:

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

This is a good example of how you let divisive rhetoric influence you.

Abigail Spanberger prefaced it by saying it was advice from her mother, responding to political frustration:

“Let your rage fuel you.”
“And so, Mom, I love you. I thank you for the sage advice. And to the rest of us, every time we hear a new story, we let it fuel us.”

She went on to elaborate how she meant to use it:

“Every time we turn on the news, we let it fuel us. Every time something bad is happening … we say, ‘Oh that’s motivation.’ Every time something happens in the world … we just say, ‘Boy, am I motivated today.’ We write more postcards, we knock more doors, we make more phone calls, we tell more friends about the importance of this election.”

She also said that disagreements over policy, perspectives or even worldviews should never lead to violence in the same speech.

Her Republican challenger Winsome Earle-Sears has been citing Spanberger’s “let your rage fuel you” quote in ads, alleging that Spanberger is encouraging violent rhetoric. — praxis

It was my summation of your view not a direct quote. — DingoJones

I haven’t even suggest that “there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points.” Why are you being dishonest about this?

Ive been following along. — DingoJones

In that case maybe you can show me where I said “That there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points.”

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

This is a good example of how you let divisive rhetoric influence you.

Abigail Spanberger prefaced it by saying it was advice from her mother, responding to political frustration:

“Let your rage fuel you.”
“And so, Mom, I love you. I thank you for the sage advice. And to the rest of us, every time we hear a new story, we let it fuel us.”

She went on to elaborate how she meant to use it:

“Every time we turn on the news, we let it fuel us. Every time something bad is happening … we say, ‘Oh that’s motivation.’ Every time something happens in the world … we just say, ‘Boy, am I motivated today.’ We write more postcards, we knock more doors, we make more phone calls, we tell more friends about the importance of this election.”

She also said that disagreements over policy, perspectives or even worldviews should never lead to violence in the same speech.

Her Republican challenger Winsome Earle-Sears has been citing Spanberger’s “let your rage fuel you” quote in ads, alleging that Spanberger is encouraging violent rhetoric.

If this interests you so much just read the damn thread. :roll:

The point is that you’ve been influenced by divisive political rhetoric — and are even proudly promoting it — rather than seeing things as they truly are. For example, your definition of woke is inaccurate because it essentializes “woke” into a narrow, partisan frame. It portrays wokeness as treating race, sex, and power as the most important factors in all choices, when in reality most who identify with or are labeled as “woke” simply emphasize awareness of systemic inequities alongside other concerns. It also reduces wokeness to “behavior and ideas” tied to progressive liberals and DEI initiatives, reflecting a common conservative critique rather than a neutral or self-described meaning. In practice, “woke” is a broader, contested term rooted in social awareness, not just a partisan ideology. — praxis

Do you deny the Left hates MAGA? — Fire Ologist

You can look at approval ratings on sites like this I guess: New Marquette Law School Poll National Survey

Do you deny hatred from the left is behind all of the protests and assaults and deaths and billions in property destruction these past 5 plus years in America? — Fire Ologist

Wasn't that about police brutality? If not, what exactly are you referring to?

No leftist hatred on the streets of Portland today? — Fire Ologist

Isn't that about ICE raids?

That there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points. If Im wrong about that view then apologies. — DingoJones

I've said that his views regarding what woke is are "inaccurate" and "skewed" by MAGA rhetoric.

It was a commentary on your denial — DingoJones

Which is?

Check! I don't know why they invented en passant but it's work'n for me. :grin:



Your move.

We know you are Praxis, but he’s trying very hard to get you not to be. — DingoJones

Do you also deny that MAGA used Kirk’s assassination for anti-leftist hate mongering?

Still in denial.

That the right hates leftists? I’m not denying that. What’s not to hate? — Fire Ologist

Not what I was asking.

I’ll leave you with a quote from someone who Charlie Kirk described as “awful” and “not a good person”:

“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.

anti-leftist hate mongering was monumental,
— praxis

It was? Monumental? Not enough safe spaces for you in the US? Seriously? Where did you get that - what shapes your opinion? Anything skewed or exaggerated there?

…

Yes, Forgiveness, and offers to debate and discuss. — Fire Ologist

So you’re just denying it.

Do you believe Kirk’s killer was a leftist?

none of the MAGA fascists rioted or retaliated with anything but more forgiveness — Fire Ologist

Nothing but forgiveness, aye? The anti-leftist hate mongering was monumental, and despite no public, verified ideological manifesto or affiliation having been established to date.

Once again your skewed view of reality shaped by MAGA propaganda on display.

You are talking about revising and supplementing my working definition, not tossing it. So your judgments of how wrong I am sound contradictory. — Fire Ologist

Rather, your fragile ego can’t stand being “inaccurate”.

Not sure if you're familiar so I got a video that explains passing en passant.





Your move.

Btw, I was assaulted by an ad for shoes targeting the elderly with poor ballance. Poor targeting.

Your move.