No.13130
File: 1713307188519.jpg (117.69 KB, 720x950, 72:95, Olivia.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
So when is it gonna end?
No.13135
File: 1713399835109.jpg (288.29 KB, 1306x1228, 653:614, Screenshot_20210412-192221….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
At this point "woke" is just a floating signifier that means whatever a right-winger needs it to mean. It mostly serves to frighten the base because it sounds like some new scary movement when from my perspective it's a euphemism for Liberalism or Progressivism mixed with a bit of strawmanning.
No.13137
File: 1713466960020.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13136"Staying Woke" is a very old slang in African American vernacular for being aware of unstated systematic discrimination, especially systemic racism. It was
briefly adopted by certain socially progressive corners of the internet. The same progressivism that right-wing political pundits called "political correctness" in the 90s. Regardless of what they're supposed to mean, both were still used as floating signifiers for any social/cultural progressivism.
It's all the same shit from disengenuous right-wing pundits to relabel what they've failed to convince anyone is actually a bad thing (like the identity politics movements of the 60s like the civil rights movement) to make it sound like a new different thing ... somehow.
Even this so-called "censorship" of both is just bad faith hyperbole. "Political Correctness" was just an experiment in etiquette to abandon words than had gained a disaffective or pejorative connotation. Despite the fact no government was legally enforcing it, right-wingers would hyperbolically conflate being criticized for their choice of words to being censorship, which are obviously not the same thing since no one was
ever preventing them from saying what they were saying, in fact many built careers off of being a "rebel" against political correctness with offensive, "politically incorrect" comedy, where they could pretend to be underdogs through big budget productions broadcasting on national and international cable and satellite TV networks with none of their fans seeing the irony of that.
Even today, censorship is a word with it's definition being really stretched to include terms and conditions set by private owners of social media platforms that the public is expected to abide by if they choose to use these platforms with federal law banning speech. It's just sophistry, playing fast and lose with definitions for the sake of building a permission structure to allow themselves to ban children's library books for "being woke" or "pushing CRT" as fair game. Like "if you're privately owned and operated platform can ban my use of slurs, then that gives us permission to violate the first ammendment on the state level". And it's extra pathetic given that private property rights that allow private platforms to set those terms of conduct for using their private property are a logical consequence of the very liberal/libertarian capitalism they uphold.
It comes off as cowardly denial of how very unpopular they are given how narrow their world view is, how unpopular their attitudes actually are, and how egocentric they are, and how
deeply hypocritical they are
No.13138
File: 1713469251097.png (417.08 KB, 1080x905, 216:181, Screenshot_20240418-152010.png) ImgOps Google
>>13137"Censorship" is not definitionally limited to government censorship. Freedom of speech is broader than the First Amendment.
I don't think systemic racism against African-Americans really exists nowadays. If anything, there is systemic racism
in favor of African-Americans. E.g., Harvard was recently found to have illegally discriminated in favor of African-Americans. (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023))
No.13139
>>13138>>13137It's funny to think that people complain about woke censorship, while legislation is put forth actually banning "woke" things in response.
It's like people praising Russia's freedom for allowing people to be anti gay, ignoring the fact that being too gay lands you in prison there.
>>13138>I don't think systemic racism against African-Americans really exists nowadays. Tough take.
It's a nasty chicken and egg situation, though.
Are black people having a higher unemployment rate because they can't get hired, or because they are just lazy?
Are black people more likely to be arrested because there is a bias, or because they are inherently more evil?
Are black people more confined to poorer neighbourhoods because they are less accepted in the housing market, or because of their natural incapability to make it?
When it comes to affirmative action, if there's a grant that is reserved for poor people to pay for part of the costs of education, to allow poorer people access to a college education, one might argue that it's unfair towards anyone else who might be able to technically afford it with ease.
It kind of reminds me of that.
No.13140
>>13135Aren't you effectively doing the exact same thing by saying "right winger"?
Yes, these are generalized terms to refer to a group. Much like left, right, liberal, conservative, and so on, and so forth...
No.13141
>>13137Being able to gain numbers on another platform after being removed from one for your speech doesn't mean you haven't been removed from that platform. And this is assuming as you posit that all of them are successful, which is obviously not the case.
Their success or lack there of is irrelevant, to whether or not it is censorship.
I would say this is the fundamental disconnect between the right and the left as a whole;
The left sees through a lens of moral outcomes, the right through moral actions.
But that's my own theory, I cast around now and again. It's not all that relevant here.
>ban children's library books Oh, hey, get to link this again;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z146klZXeOw>then that gives us permission to violate the first ammendment on the state level"The Federal Government does not get the same expectations of free expression as the citizen.
Especially when we are talking about institutions I am forced at gunpoint to support financially.
>And it's extra pathetic given that private property rights that allow private platforms to set those terms of conduct for using their private property are a logical consequence of the very liberal/libertarian capitalism they uphold. https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801Maybe it wouldn't be if the Federal Government weren't actively encouraging it...
But, this aside, I think you're doing the common thing of conflating free market capitalism with cronyism.
These big corporations, especially ones like Google, exist primarily thanks to their close relationship with the state. Ensuring they lack competition, alongside numerous kickbacks and favorable contracts.
I think Disney is the best example of this, currently, given the fuss that's been revealed about how horridly done their park pyramid scheme is, in Florida... Certainly the most open example of it, in any case.
>of how very unpopular they areIf it were truly unpopular, you wouldn't need censor it.
Besides; You've already refuted this, yourself.
You've claimed those removed from platforms somehow garner a massive following, gaining success as a 'rebel'.
You are trying to tell us these things are both popular, and unpopular, at the same time.
Is that not obviously contradictory?
Perhaps it'd be best if you do not claim others're hypocritical, given such things...
No.13142
File: 1713486233167.jpg (264.77 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, infobold 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13139>It's funny to think that people complain about woke censorshipThere is massive distinction between what I, myself, individually am allowed to say, and what the state is allowed to put forward with my money.
To be honest with you, I don't really get how the both of you struggle with this concept.
It should be incredibly obvious. Something I'd've expected anyone, especially in an American context, to understand intrinsically.
If I try to buy a beer with my money, that may well be unhealthy, but it's my choice, right? I have the right to buy that, with my own cash.
But my friend wouldn't have the right to buy that beer with my money, would he? I should have say what my money's spent on, right?
The same is true for the state. Except, of course, even more so, given that money's coerced from me through violence, besides.
There's greater moral weight to it, than to a bit of change gifted to a friend.
No.13143
I'd just like to point out that more Jewish individuals died on the October 7th terrorist attacks late last year than at any point in history since the actual Holocaust. Yes. Really.
See for yourself:
https://www.jta.org/2023/10/08/israel/was-hamas-attack-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaustSo, for me personally, when I come across those who claim that religious hatred, racial hatred, and ethnic hatred all no longer exist in the world-- with them stating that historical events such as the Holocaust are meaningless things from the distant past that shouldn't be cared about anymore-- it's rather hard for me to resist choking those people with my bare hands.
I would say, if anything, that racial hatred, religious hatred, and ethnic hatred are a trifecta of spiritual cancers that are actively destroying civilization the same way that an actual terminal disease rots a living person from the inside. Being woke is chemotherapy. We choose to embrace it, or we give up living.
At the same time, though, I've mostly accepted the fact that politics across the world and especially the U.S. has degenerated so much that people like me and people like the OP agree on absolutely nothing whatsoever, and that's just that. I don't really see how ideological factions that view Jews, black people, gay people, transgender people, and/or any other particular groups as inferior are supposed to co-exist with each other, even, let alone all of those feuding factions coexist with those who're "woke". It's a mess. I hope I can live to pass age forty. At least.
No.13145
>>13144What I'm getting from your links is that that the far left and the far right is morally the same, which is true. The term "Red Fascism" remains correct. Which has been around for decades and decades.
See for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascismThis doesn't change my point. We need woke politics. We need centrism. We need moderation. We need to end racial, religious, and ethnic hatred.
Far left and far right ideologies shouldn't exist. Communism is Red Fascism. Fascism is Brown Communism. Period.
Hitler = Putin = Stalin = Trump = Mao. Hamas = U.S. Republican Party = United Russia. And so on.
No.13146
File: 1713495274796.png (406.17 KB, 1025x1042, 1025:1042, Screenshot_20240417-090328.png) ImgOps Google
>>13143To clarify on what I said in
>>13144, of course there are still anti-Semites on the far right, but nowadays they are dwarfed by the anti-Semites on the woke left.
No.13147
>>13146The far left and far right are both antisemitic as well as fundamentally anti-human, and thus neither of them should exist.
Now, of course, I'm not saying that those people should all be prevented from having freedom of speech or otherwise actively persecuted, but they both have to be opposed through the liberal democratic process throughout the world.
No.13148
>>13145>We need centrism. We need moderation.Yes!
>We need woke politics. No! Woke politics is left-wing extremism. Don't get me wrong: racism and other forms of bigotry are all bad. But using wokism to combat them is like trying to deal with a roach infestation by burning your house down.
No.13150
>>13148You seem to be using the terms "woke" and "wokism" in a way disconnected from reality, which is rather annoying.
Centrist and moderate politics is inherently based on the idea that everybody has the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so on, so it's not acceptable to have the government persecute groups based on ethnicity, race, and religion as well as other justifications for authoritarian nationalism. This makes them "woke". This is what the word means.
In short:
>Racial, ethnic, and religious equality = woke>Racial, ethnic, and religious hatred = anti-wokeTrump = Hitler = Mao = Putin = Stalin. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Destroying freedom is destroying freedom. Period.
No.13151
>>13150I think you are seeing the woke through rose-tinted glasses.
Wokes have promoted racially discriminatory admissions to universities.
Wokes support Hamas, making excuses for the horrible things Hamas did on Oct 7.
Wokes try to suppress speech and research in politically inconvenient subjects such as intelligence and genetics.
No.13153
>>13151It seems like you're just using the word "woke" when you're describing the international political movement also known as "neo-Stalinists", "antidemocratic socialists", "tankies", etc.
Which I find annoying, but then more importantly I don't see what this means in a practical sense since you're still opposed to the same things that centrists and moderates oppose.
It would like if I used the term "chocolate" to refer to child sexual abuse, and spent my time online advocating for increased social actions against the "proliferation of chocolate on the dark web" or such.
I would admire your sincerity and honesty while supporting your cause in theory, but as long as you keep calling that horrible thing "chocolate" when that word already has a description related to a certain confectionary substance, you're not just spreading confusion but you're being counter-productive.
No.13154
File: 1713497516015.jpeg (73.7 KB, 1398x973, 1398:973, F_DtgGEWYAA-ssU.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>13152It seems we are both in the blessed middle of the political spectrum on many issues. Pic related.
No.13155
File: 1713497526340.png (163.4 KB, 860x860, 1:1, Screenshot_2024-04-18_23-2….png) ImgOps Google
>>13153Hmm, seems like we have very different understandings of the word "woke". I asked my favorite LLM, and it seems like the word's meaning has bifurcated.
No.13158
>>13138Racism in favor of black people and against black people coexisting in the same country, with both being ethically wrong, seems like something that's not a surprise to me.
It's like how male victims of rape and sexual assault as well as male perpetrators of rape and sexual assault coexist in the same country. Or how people who happen to be morbidly obese coexist alongside those suffering from malnutrition and barely getting enough to eat. And so on.
I would see morally it a matter of parallel wrongs occurring that both need to be stopped via social activism rather than two wrongs making a right or whatever.
No.13159
File: 1713558006719.png (164.47 KB, 1689x1413, 563:471, Screenshot_2024-04-19_15-2….png) ImgOps Google
>>13156>>13157Coincidentally, the ACX survey results released today have a question about social-justice/wokeness. Most respondents viewed wokeness unfavorably. And this is a left-leaning crowd.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-survey-results-2024 No.13160
>>13159I'm not sure the relevance that "favorability of social justice among Astral Codex Ten users" has towards much.
I mean, even if they were "left leaning" I don't think they'd be representative of your average non-ACX user's opinions.
No.13161
>>13160Back in
>>13153, Funny Alpaca suggested that I was using the word "woke" in a non-standard manner:
>It would like if I used the term "chocolate" to refer to child sexual abuse, and spent my time online advocating for increased social actions against the "proliferation of chocolate on the dark web" or such.And in
>>13157, in regards to a description of the meaning of the word "woke", Thoughtful Crab said:
>That description sounds a lot like it means nothing except what the speaker desires it to mean.The ACX survey results provide evidence that I'm not using the word "woke" in an idiosyncratic way; many others understand the word similarly to how I understand it. As for the fact that a left-leaning audience views wokeness negatively: this shows the word "woke"
does have some real semantic content, as opposed to "it means nothing except what the speaker desires it to mean" or just being political tribe signalling.
No.13162
>>13143There's a rather obvious different set of factors involved in the attacks by Hamas and the holocaust.
This isn't a case of one claimed 'superior' group removing the degenerate. Or at least, not by Hamas, anyway.
Their argument seems to mainly be about a perceived oppressor, and desire to reacquire lost territories.
I don't see the practical comparison between the two.
>So, for me personally, when I come across those who claim that religious hatred, racial hatred, and ethnic hatred all no longer exist in the world--I don't think anyone says that. I'm fairly sure just one look at China and its ongoing ethnic genocide of the Uyghurs would tell you that, after all.
Perhaps you're conflating a perception of the west, with one of the larger 'world'.
> Being woke is chemotherapy.An apt descrpition, in all honesty, given it poisons the body and does far greater damage than what it purports to fight against.
No.13163
>>13145>We need to end racial, religious, and ethnic hatred.>We need woke politicsThese two are diametrically opposed.
Wokeness is expressly on the side of hatred to those it deigns to label 'oppressor' purely for an identity.
>Hitler = Putin = Stalin = Trump = Mao. Hamas = U.S. Republican Party = United Russia.Ah, yes, murderous tyrants are totally the same as politicians who's views you disagree with...
I suppose I shouldn't expect much, but, really now, this is such obvious and transparent tribalism.
Hamas butchers people in the most brutal way imaginable, and you're sitting here saying "Oh, look, they're the same as Republicans!"
Really now... What am I even to do with something like this?
No.13164
>>13150>Centrist and moderate politics is inherently based on the idea that everybody has the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so on, Which is anti-woke if anything.
This is rather stinking of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
> so it's not acceptable to have the government persecute groups based on ethnicity, race, and religionWhich expressly happens under numerous 'woke' policies, which explicitly give preferential treatment to those deemed to be in "underprivilaged" minority groups, at express detriment to those outside it.
>Authoritarianism is authoritarianism.This as well is woefully laughable.
The UK is currently policing speech to the point of throwing you in prison for jokes with its 'hate speech' laws.
How is this not an open example of authoritarianism?
As you say, "destroying freedom is destroying freedom".
Are you simply ignorant of what is being done around the world?
No.13165
>>13154I wouldn't call this position "blessed" since with absolute certainty the Chinese state is going to succeed in exterminating the Taiwanese people and taking over the territories in my lifetime.
The regime is larger, stronger, wealthier, more determined, and otherwise an unstoppable force of pure evil that cannot be resisted for long, and it is also firmly aligned with deeply powerful left-wing and right-wing political parties alike internationally.
I support the Taiwanese people all the same, due to my personal codes of morality and empathy, but I'm not going to pretend that this is any different than caring for a family member with a terminal illness.
The above also applies to the Ukrainian people plus other ethnic and national minorities that're currently internationally despised. These "woke" associated groups are going to die, and have been dying, and there's nothing I or anybody else can do against the "anti-woke" governments in China, Iran, Russia, etc. I accept the inevitability of evil winning temporarily, in my lifetime, though I will still oppose it.
No.13167
File: 1713582391146.png (552.58 KB, 850x638, 425:319, 587ce1bbe0d26f2e6991cb4709….png) ImgOps Google
>>13165> succeed in exterminating the Taiwanese peopleI hate the CCP as much as anyone, but they clearly don't want to exterminate the Taiwanese people. The CCP wants to do the same thing to Taiwan as they did to Hong Kong. Yes, living under the boot of the CCP without basic human rights such as freedom of speech is terrible, but it isn't "extermination".
No.13168
>>13167This is more of a set of semantic games, honestly, since if the anti-woke CCP enacts a full invasion of hostile soil that succeeds in getting rid of anyone who's woke and tries exercising independent thought against the Party then by definition a large number of people into the tens of thousands has to die.
Similarly, what the Ottoman Empire did to Christian minorities such as the Armenians is rightly called "exterminating" and "genocide" even though that dictatorship, if I'm remembering right, genuinely intended many to most minorities to survive as second-class Imperial residents providing cheap labor and such.
No.13169
>>13159>>13160>>13161I suppose there's three distinct meanings of "woke" at this point.
The initial one, and the most common one, is that being "woke" means taking a political stance such as supporting the Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine under Putin's government. Being "woke" means having a system of ethics inherently based on the idea that everybody has the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so on. And thus it's not acceptable to have the government persecute groups based on ethnicity, race, and religion. In Ukraine right now, the "woke" position is to support the Jewish leader of a nation with equal rights for the most part w.r.t. all groups against a Russian government proliferating the inferiority of those who aren't a part of a superior state elite (which means enacting violence against ethnic Russians at a large scale too).
There's also the second meaning that has supposedly developed more recently such that "woke" refers to people in or having sympathy to political factions such as the New Black Panther Party in the U.S. Revolutionary communist ideologies. Militant left-wing activism. May involve non-white men being regarded as superior to white men. That sort of movement has the label applied to it.
This comes to mind (being a terrorist attack by a revolutionary communist killer):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officersThe third meaning is as a vapid insult. No different than saying "Bob is a loser". Or "Thomas is ugly". No actual rationality applies. This is, unfortunately, common among many people making many arguments across the political spectrum.
No.13170
File: 1713584486044.png (2.13 MB, 1206x2048, 603:1024, 93678bd99ac58b1ddd56207239….png) ImgOps Google
>>13162>> Being woke is chemotherapy.>An apt descrpition, in all honesty, given it poisons the body and does far greater damage than what it purports to fight against.Eh, I wouldn't say that chemo does greater damage to the body than the cancer that it is trying to kill. But I'd agree that chemo and woke are both poison.
>>13163>Hamas butchers people in the most brutal way imaginable, and you're sitting here saying "Oh, look, they're the same as Republicans!"Oh yeah, I must have missed that. Hamas of course is much, much worse than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
>>13164>The UK is currently policing speech to the point of throwing you in prison for jokes with its 'hate speech' laws.Sometimes I wonder if the UK can be saved... You can't even buy a *spoon* there without proof of age.
>>13168China's takeover of Hong Kong as mostly bloodless. I'm sure that they
*want* a similar outcome for Taiwan. Your wording "succeed in exterminating" implies that the CCP
*wants* to kill Taiwanese people, which I think is false.
No.13171
>>13170The CCP wants to win and doesn't care how many individuals die in this process.
This is rather akin to past actions such as Mao's "Great Leap Forward".
Mao didn't actually want to engage in murder for murder's own inherent sake, but that doesn't change him being correctly labeled by historians as a "murderer" engaged in "extermination" and "genocide". Those exact words. They apply.
No.13172
>>13170I also find it incredibly weird that you're calling being "woke" something that you see as "poison" and yet you appear to have the "woke" viewpoint about the CCP and Taiwan to a strident degree.
You even literally posted the woke argument "living under the boot of the CCP without basic human rights such as freedom of speech is terrible", which seems rather glaringly hypocritical.
Why doesn't the CCP have the right to censor free speech viewed as against public social morality and decency as well as to destroy those dissenters who undermine traditional family structures and togetherness? Why doesn't the CCP have the right to proclaim the superiority of Han civilization compared to what others have tried (when it's exactly the same as talking about the superiority of white people, of Christians, etc done by Westerners)? Why is it not okay for the CCP to target those perceived as violating national security by leaking state secrets?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the American government can have thugs beating up whistleblowers protesting the war in Afghanistan by leaking diplomatic cables, say, then the CCP can have thugs beating up protesters in Hong Kong. That's that. They're both "anti-woke" governments in that sense fighting against "the woke".
No.13173
File: 1713585650048.png (792.16 KB, 1024x638, 512:319, greap-leap-forward-sparrow….png) ImgOps Google
>>13169There's also "woke" as in how the UK is infringing freedom of speech by throwing people in jail for 'hate speech'.
>>13171Eh, I don't think the Greap Leap Forward is properly characterized as "extermination" or "genocide". Mao fucked up in killing the sparrows, leading to crop failures, famine, and millions dying of starvation, but it's an outcome that he tried to avoid but failed.
>>13172It seems I understand the word "woke" differently than you. I think the Russia-Ukraine war and the tensions between CCP and Taiwan aren't really related to wokeness.
No.13174
>>13173It still bothers me a lot that you'll say left-wing / progressive / liberal propaganda lines such as "living under the boot of the CCP without basic human rights such as freedom of speech is terrible" without understanding either that this, first, is highly emotionally charged propaganda that millions of those on the right-wing side of the political spectrum oppose you on and, second, is a matter of general principle that ought to apply everywhere and not just in two particular sets of territories.
If a Chinese policeman beating up a gay Chinese man who's wearing a rainbow shirt in public is morally wrong, or beating up a labor union activist, or beating up somebody opposing COVID-19 related policies, then why is the exact same behavior by an American policeman against an American man morally correct?
The Chinese government personifies anti-woke policies. It's a statist organization founded on the idea that all aspects of personal morality must be communal and founded on traditional values. You're not going to have, say, transgender furries in a public parade holding up pacifist banners in China. Not if the government has anything to do with it. They take family values seriously. No "woke" shit allowed.
No.13175
>>13164>This is rather stinking of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...There isn't a true scotsman. There was never a scotsman in this debate. We're still arguing past each other about what "woke" means. I don't think we're even still on the topic about "when woke culture will end", so I'm gonna go through the list.
>>13135This version of woke ends when right-wing media finds a new scary buzzword for their reactionary speeches.
>>13136Identity politics is simply unlikely to end. I don't think humanity is ever going to achieve such an egalitarian society that people do not perceive theselves as part of a group that is underprivileged and others as part of a group that is overprivileged. A lot of the time, those people will be correct, and that's before getting into actual situations of oppression.
>>13145>This doesn't change my point. We need woke politics. We need centrism. We need moderation. We need to end racial, religious, and ethnic hatred.I don't think centrism and moderation are likely to die off any time soon, either, even if they never become dominant.
>>13151>Wokes have promoted racially discriminatory admissions to universities.It is likely that the concept of a university dies before the concept of balancing admissions dies. Maybe if college becomes so large that it can simply accept everyone there will no longer be a need for admissions?
>Wokes support Hamas, making excuses for the horrible things Hamas did on Oct 7.Hamas probably won't last particularly long, but people given a bad lot in life and violently (and/or immorally) rebelling against the status quo is likely permanent, as are distant unrelated parties choosing sides in the conflict. This largely wraps into the identity politics portion from earlier.
>Wokes try to suppress speech and research in politically inconvenient subjects such as intelligence and genetics.Politics are *very* unlikely to end, so suppressing opposing sides is also unlikely to end, regardless of the exact nature or validity of the content suppressed.
>>13152>I'd also say that I'm "woke" in that I support Taiwan's independence against mainland China as well as Ukraine's independence against Russia and South Korea's independence against North Korea,I think there's a fair chance that Taiwan and North Korea may at some point end. One of them will be missed. Ukraine and Russia will likely continue, though at some point the conflict itself will filter out.
>>13169>Being "woke" means having a system of ethics inherently based on the idea that everybody has the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so on.This version of woke has never actually existed. All people and all political parties can and have named speeches, religions, and assemblies that should not be allowed to continue.
>There's also the second meaning that has supposedly developed more recently such that "woke" refers to people in or having sympathy to political factions such as the New Black Panther Party in the U.S. Revolutionary communist ideologies. Militant left-wing activism. May involve non-white men being regarded as superior to white men. That sort of movement has the label applied to it.This, again, ties back to the identity politics definitions, and will almost certainly never be solved.
>The third meaning is as a vapid insult.Insulting each other is a tradition ingrained permanently in our genes. It will not end.
No.13176
>>13142To me that's a core difference between left and right.
A left minded person sees the rsponsibility of the community to lookout for its members and it becomes the job of the government to make sure that people don't have to be destitute (as much as they can).
That's why housing programs, social programs, affordable education, healthcare, free lunches for kids at school.
I don't care if money of my paycheck goes towards those things, because I feel it's the best approach for society.
1. I may be at the short end of the stick sometimes. Life is unpredictable and if I get a bad hand dealt to me, I want to have some safety net that allows me to get back into society.
2. For society as a whole it would be a lot better not to break it up into a class of people who can manage their life and a class of people who live in ghettos/slums and are just there to die in the streets and become a nuissance to the well off people.
Now to talk about woke. I feel that things like LGBTQ, religion, heck even being a furry is everyone's own right. I hope nobody here agrees that gay people or even trans people should be punished for being gay or trans, or for simply being Muslim, or Asian or black.
That's a freedom I feel like people both on the left and the right should get behind.
That does mean that our society will reflect that as well, with people being gay / trans / muslim /black hanging around, being on equal footing with the rest of us.
At that point, I can understand why there would be books targetted at childeren that attempt to normalise LGB and even T/Q relationships and personalities. Given the issues seen in the industry with all the abuse towards women, I understand that messages will be sent out that a woman has the right to assert herself.
A movie / video game may focus on characters outside of their traditional roles.
For people who live outside of the traditional rolls it can be empowering to consume stories about characters they relate to.
For kids it helps them understand these oddities and understand that we live in a society where it is okay to step outside the traditional roles. They may grow up knowing neighbours / family members or friends who are gay or trans, or may come to realize they are gay / trans themselves.
And individual racism can still exist, so stories about people struggling against racism themselves, it can be a relief to see their feelings represented in a story they can read.
And that, to me, is an issue with the Anti-Woke movement. It is overly defensive. It is as if the message is that it is wrong to normalize deviancy from the traditional roles. It is wrong to be gay or to be trans. It is not okay if you're Asian, black in a predominantly white society. As a woman it is not your place to have any say in things and stand up against male figures. As a man it is wrong to not be manly and do man things all day.
No.13177
File: 1713610265584.jpg (43.42 KB, 648x648, 1:1, Olivia smile.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Can anyone here honestly name a single time Woke Culture has ever helped anyone out? Does anyone here have any personal stories?
Meanwhile, the only thing I've ever heard of woke culture doing is getting people canceled either for something they said 10 years ago, or some misunderstanding because they didn't say trans people or blacks are brave, or someone took it as an implication. People are too sensitive these days. To top that off for the past like 14 years woke culture has been getting crammed down everyone's throats. You'd thing these activists would know when to stop and recuperate whatever ground they got. When you attempt to violently throw out an old world, an old world is going to aggressively fight back and cling to their ideals.
No.13179
>>13177>>13178If we're talking woke foreign policy, then there's also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atlantic_Charterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American%E2%80%93Japanese%E2%80%93Korean_trilateral_pacthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Russian_invasion_of_UkraineI would much rather the U.S. government take a far stronger stance against the anti-woke regimes in the world, such as the Chinese and Russian dictatorships, but this all is at least a positive start.
No.13180
File: 1713628111432.png (447.51 KB, 1920x1209, 640:403, USA_Presidential_Elections….png) ImgOps Google
>>13177Going by the definition of "woke culture" where it's just kind of a broadly left aligned vibe, I think it's agreeable to say that left leaning movements have not been particularly effective as of late. There's certainly been some positive strides for inclusion, stuff like the legalization of gay marriage, but it's kind of just been a series of failures. Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter both pretty much came and went, and no other related movement has even been as organized as those two (which, to be clear, were very poorly organized, if at all).
There's been all sorts of "cancellations", and while some of them were effective in the sense that some people had less revenue, none of them really stopped those people from continuing their businesses, and also most of the targets weren't particularly high profile in terms of social movements. It was all random actors or YouTubers, half of which were revealed to be innocent later, if there was even compelling evidence to begin with. Meanwhile the legitimate mouthpieces for movements that generally oppose lefist idealogies have gone untouched. You can't cancel Ben Shapiro in any meaningful capacity because his entire audience is already on board with what he's saying. Any attempt to do so just gets him more air time. Protesting a public appearance doesn't prevent them from speaking, it puts them in the news, so everyone can see someone's speech being legitimately shut down, which looks bad even if the speech itself would've been a bunch of hatemongering.
"Social justice" is inherently "justice", which is conceptually the idea that some people in the world are bad and bad things should happen to those people. But, since the movements are so disorganized they cannot go after any truly bad people that might have an impact on the world at large. (And those people might simply be too powerful to assault regardless of organizational skills.) Instead, they largely go for lower hanging fruit, which often amounts to just yelling at people on Twitter or random passersby on the street, which is not an especially good look.
The problems talked about from the left I think are mostly legitimate. There's some good points that could really be addressed. I just don't think it's likely because those problems mostly affect minorities. And not minorities in the sense of racial or religious subgroups or anything, just literally too small a number of people to galvanize a movement together. The majority of the US is perfectly happy with the status quo, it's why we have so few voters. The two major parties are forced by circumstance to not shake the boat too much in either direction, with their extremist members mostly publically ridiculed even if they got successfully voted in.
So, again, is "woke culture" going to end? No, I think however we define the term, the problems that spawned it continue and likely will always continue because "woke culture" is incapable of dealing with those problems. It's firmly planted and we're stuck with it.
No.13181
>>13178That isn't woke culture at work. They also haven't made your life better. Unless you're a gay old black man who was alive during the 60s, you were born into those changes. What youre doing is the same thing as when feminist try to clump together feminism in a single stroke and act like the movement havent evoluved into different waves. Just because I disagree with 3rd wave feminism doesnt mean i disagree with 1st and second wave. We are talking about woke culture of today.
The last bit about the Ukraine is ridiculous. There's nothing woke about that. Ad for being woke, what laws are left to change? Treating people better is a cultural thing rather than a systematic one so government protest is out of the question
Also fuck Ukraine. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. And fuck Palestine. There is zero reason anyone in America should care about any of those people
No.13183
>>13181Your sociopathic insanity is noted
If it makes you feel any better, your compatriots in foreign countries such as China and North Korea and also in the U.S. here have succeeded quite a bit in killing inferior classes of people, and you'll succeed more in the future, especially since America is teetering on the brink of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship under Trump coming back to power
I suppose I can take solace somewhat in that people like you enjoy people like me suffering and dying, so some good comes out of the process
No.13186
>>13176>I don't care if money of my paycheck goes towards those things, because I feel it's the best approach for society.You are in error conflating the reality of taxation, with your own personal feelings about taxation.
You can feel however you please about taxation. You can be some bible-thumping ultranationalist, proudly paying taxes as your civic duty to the state.
That doesn't change the reality of it, though, which is that taxation is, factually, coerced through violence.
There's also a level of naivety, of course, in that you seem to assume taxation only goes to positive things, as though the federal government has not done deeply questionable things on numerous occasions with that finance.
The penchant for the US to arm terrorists who fight those we dislike, for instance, in the Middle East. It's in large part the reason for the regional instability, and certainly something I'd hope most could recognize as an irresponsible expenditure.
> It is wrong to be gay or to be trans. It is not okay if you're Asian, black in a predominantly white society. If that were actually the case, you wouldn't have so many members of those communities coming out to say "Hey, no, this is wrong."
To be frank; It seems like ideologues of the worst sort are using it as a shield.
Especially the Asians, given the rather disgusting treatment they face in education...
I find it frankly rather reprehensible that they're used so often as a shield, whilst at the same time, they must face outright discrimination in academia simply because their racial "group" happens to preform well in those environments.
No.13187
File: 1713657640160.jpg (49.93 KB, 624x401, 624:401, _79674532_024327221-1-2518….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13181>>13178Considering how ultra-nationalist Ukraine is, I always found the left-wing defense of them incredibly strange.
Even leaving aside the 'woke' angle.
I guess it's some "enemy of my enemy" shit.
>Also fuck Ukraine. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. And fuck Palestine.They're all shit and shouldn't receive funding from American taxpayers, that's for sure.
No.13188
>>13183> totalitarian dictatorship under Trump Last I checked, it wasn't him who tried to remove a rival candidate as a voting option.
It's always dreadfully laughable when people cry "dictator" to the guy who seems to get the most overt authoritarianism in response to his mere presence in politics.
But, then, I suppose I shouldn't expect better these days.
No.13190
File: 1713677937819.jpeg (32.88 KB, 450x675, 2:3, 01392-4164236449.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>13183So because I disagree with you and have strong opinions that makes me a sociopath with ties to china? Lol. Lmao even.
We need Trump back in office if it boils down to him or Biden.
No.13206
>>13196More and more Americans don't even care about their literal neighbors living in the same towns as them, to be frank, since those neighbors might be Asian or black or be in wheelchairs or be gay or whatever else, so why the hell would they care about foreigners in a foreign land speaking a foreign language?
Sure, the minority of woke people in the U.S. care, but they're not the majority really by far and sure as hell won't have power forever (even if they somewhat, partially, have power now if you assume that Biden is woke [which I can understand as an argument]) since they naturally haven't had power forever in the past.
If you want to support woke values against anti-woke regimes in North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, etc, then strengthen military forces locally without leaning on an American security umbrella.
No.13243
>>13196Which is a fine and reasonable justification, that I have no qualms about.
But calling it 'woke' is laughable.
What you're describing is territorial concerns. Frankly, rather nationalistic ones.
No.13247
>>13243Ukraine isn't about being woke. That's a big point.
It's about taking a stand and letting Russia feel that it can't just invade a neighbouring country and easily get away with it with a big thumbs up from the US.
>>13187>Considering how ultra-nationalist Ukraine is, I always found the left-wing defense of them incredibly strange.This is the point. At this point I care less about Ukrain as a country run before and more about not letting Russia run its tanks into the rest of Europe and let it take out Paris, Berlin or Brussels. When Russian tanks roll into Paris, it will not be with the sweetest intention and the promise to install the great government everyone hopes for.
I would even need some solid unbiased notes on how Ukrain was a far right nazi hellhole as Russia claims.
The part where I could argue it's a question about being woke or not is knowing that Russia has an incredible hard stance against "woke" ideals.
And the people in the West now cheering for Russia are getting a hardon thinking about a strong leadership that will clean up the LGBTQ and other deviants.
And when I say cleaning up, I am not talking about getting rid of ridiculous laws forcing fines on those critical of the LGBTQ people.
I'm talking about taking gay people to the street and putting them up for a public execution.
No.13257
File: 1713758725767.png (882.9 KB, 911x911, 1:1, Screenshot_20240422-000151.png) ImgOps Google
The "disparate impact" doctrine needs to be tossed in the trash ASAP.
No.13264
>>13257>>13258>>13259>civil rights laws are interpreted by current courts in a way that leads, with this current executive branch, into terrible outcomes>therefore kill all civil rights laws and don't allow them to existThis is basically the same mental process as my younger sister getting a broken elbow and me using a nearby hacksaw to chop her entire arm off immediately, and the fact that this sort of obvious logical fallacy is normal politics in America today is horrifying
If you apply this """logic""" consistently, then you would get rid of literally all laws applied to any form of commerce whatsoever, at the level of turning being mad about some public celebrity being falsely accused of rape (the Duke lacrosse case comes to mind) into becoming an advocate for age of consent rules not existing anymore and nothing preventing sexual abuse being on the books in order to never have false accusations ever again (4chan trolls on /b/ who actually believe that come to mind)
No.13268
File: 1713779939806.jpeg (124.96 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, GLSy0MKaIAADRsL.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>13264Most Americans (and American businesses) wouldn't discriminate against minorities even without the government pointing a gun at their heads forcing them not to. The Civil Rights Act was useful back in the 1960s to kick-start the move away from racism, but nowadays it probably fails a cost/benefit analysis. But in any case, I wasn't advocating going as far as the New Hampshire Libertarian Party. I just want to get rid of the "disparate impact" doctrine, which is truly an abomination.
>>13264>advocate for age of consent rules not existing anymoreYeah, I think if a person is going to be convicted of rape, the prosecution should prove that the alleged victim actually didn't consent. If you want it to be illegal for an 18-year-old to have sex with 15-year-old, fine, but don't pretend that it's automatically rape.
No.13277
>>13257The Libertarian Party using "criminal" and "having a criminal history" interchangeably is a pretty big tell, imo. The two aren't the same thing, and treating them as the same thing is extremely suspicious.
Having "a criminal history" is an extremely vague and broad concept and also ignores any possibility of reform. If an 18 year old man gets caught with having a bunch of marijuana, he could be given a felony just for that. How he has a "criminal history" but if years later he tried to get a job, would it be right to call him a "criminal" and that it's actually good for employers to automatically deny him?
Plus there's this weird notion that like... in America you basically have to have a job or you're just screwed. So like... once you have any sort of crime on your history, you should just be barred from any future employment? It doesn't really seem like a good system for helping reforming and reintegrating people with past crimes in their history.
I feel like the EEOC is justified in this lawsuit honestly, because just blanket denying "people with criminal histories" especially if the history isn't relevant, is probably just not a good thing in general - and especially if the outcome is discriminatory. I feel like Sheetz would need to prove the relevance (like not hiring someone with a history of petty theft to a cash register position).
No.13278
>>13277I don't see how it's a "big tell" or "extremely suspicious" when you already admit in your post here that this is pretty much the common standard practice for companies around the country.
That's what every background check is for. To see if you've done something in the past that'd make you a poor candidate for hiring.
While I do agree with you that it's a rather poor practice for a myriad of reasons, especially in respect to personal privacy, the implication of racism is completely unfounded.
There's nothing 'Suspicious" about it. There's no "big tell".
You're conflating your own personal disagreement with a standard practice to racism.
No.13279
>>13277>once you have any sort of crime on your history, you should just be barred from any future employment? It doesn't really seem like a good system for helping reforming and reintegrating people with past crimes in their history.Okay, but that is a policy issue for the legislature to address. Some states (e.g., CA) have enacted laws regarding this.
>>13277>I feel like the EEOC is justified in this lawsuit honestly, because just blanket denying "people with criminal histories" especially if the history isn't relevant, is probably just not a good thing in generalThat's a bad justification. EEOC doesn't have free reign to punish companies that do things that are bad policy. It's supposed to be limited to racial discrimination.
>especially if the outcome is discriminatoryThat doesn't make sense. Actions can discriminate, but outcomes cannot discriminate.
No.13282
>>13277>especially if the outcome is discriminatoryI disagree that a disparate impact should be grounds for anything in a legal trial.
See
https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/the-happy-birth-day-question No.13283
>>13278>don't see how it's a "big tell" or "extremely suspicious" when you already admit in your post here that this is pretty much the common standard practice for companies around the country.The thing I am suspicious of is LPNH's beliefs -- not Sheetz's. Sheetz probably just is following whatever standard protocol is, I agree
Nah what I find suspicious is that we have a case where the EEOC is filing a lawsuit where the company's standard practice of doing background checks is leading to very likely completely unintended discrimination and is going to be looked at..... but then the LPNH is framing this like "These mostly-black
criminals are weaponizing their race to attack a company, and this is why civil rights laws are bad."
>>13279>Okay, but that is a policy issue for the legislature to address.Shoulds don't really matter, because courts still are going to interpret whatever is the current law. Maybe the legislature should address it, but it doesn't suddenly become out of interpretation of the courts.
>Actions can discriminate, but outcomes cannot discriminate.An outcome can unintentionally (or intentionally in some cases) affect different types of people disproportionately.
No.13284
>>13280Yeah it may not end up holding in court, so who knows there. It is just a sort of weird societal catch-22 though. I wonder what sort of good solution there could really be?
>>13282It can be grounds for
starting the trial at least. Like to investigate further, find out what's happening, have them defend themselves, etc.
This is a lawsuit, not them being found guilty yet.
No.13285
>>13283>courts still are going to interpret whatever is the current lawThere isn't any current law against refusing to hire those with a criminal history. The fact that blacks commit proportionately more crime than whites adequately explains the racial discrepancy at issue.
>>13283>An outcome can unintentionally (or intentionally in some cases) affect different types of people disproportionately.Yes, like shorter people tend to have poorer outcomes in basketball. It's not a good reason for the govt to bully a company.
>>13284>It can be grounds for starting the trial at least.If the racial gap is suspicious, I agree it can be grounds for discovery at trial. But this particular racial gap isn't suspicious at all.
No.13291
so, "woke" culture can mean different things 2 different ppl.
for some, liberalism. for others, necessary change. still others, a tiring, flawed, overly-promoted philosophy.
...but i don't think it means very much.
wat is there, afterall, but such?
consider the triangle, a gift from the Gods.
Let us learn, then. and together, we shall oak.
