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.

Just because someone else (whatever a “MAGA” is??) sounds like me has nothing to do with the content of what I said. — Fire Ologist

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.

He was heavily religious. I should probably not need to elaborate. But if I do, the point is that if you are taught, and believe, that the Bible is the Big Man Word, then a word like 'abomination' is descriptive, not moral. I take your point, but this explication should make it quite clear what I'm trying to get across: a non-religious person using that phrase would be as you say. Charlie using it, generally, is not. — AmadeusD

The Bible contains numerous passages that endorse or regulate practices considered morally repugnant today, such as human ownership. Charlie Kirk has explicitly described slavery as “bad and evil,” suggesting that he does not view the Bible as a literal description of reality. 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.”

Ok.

How? — Fire Ologist

It shows in your previous post. Can you really not see it?

AI verdict: Fire Ologist’s posts repeatedly use frames and metaphors common in MAGA / right-wing anti-woke rhetoric: “mob rule”, media bias, schools as indoctrination sites, victimization of conservatives, and reduction of “woke” to a leftist ideological orthodoxy.

I'm sending in my intrepid knight again for another devistating incursion.



Your move.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler. — Fire Ologist

I just searched the topic and I haven’t mentioned Hitler even once, and I’m sure that I haven’t said that I don’t know what woke means.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive. — Fire Ologist

Honestly, to me your ideas about it seem skewed by political (basically MAGA) rhetoric. That’s fine, literally millions of Americans subscribe to the anti-woke movement.

I am fully subscribed to looking at society (politics, religion, art, morality, language, etc) through the lens of power relations. I think it’s ignorant or foolish not to. I’m not a social justice warrior though, and have become even less interested in that project since participating in this topic and being influenced by Nietzschean thought.

folks like praxis and Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS — Fire Ologist

I don’t get the fixation on this. Is it supposed to be a gotcha like asking a Democrat what a woman is or something?

Your move.

We're cooking with gas now.

I always wanted to say that so thanks for helping to provide an opportunity.



Your move.

Your move.

What are you up to. :chin:



Your move.