Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

SJWs would consider themselves as well meaning people, even though most others wouldn.t.

I'd argue they feel that they're improving the existing order rather than destroying or infecting it.

It really depends on far they've "educated" themselves before committing themselves to their particular cause.

If you look at a lot of feminist literature (which tends to be the basis for a lot of social change, due to it's success), or race theory (consider how BLM approach the existing social systems and their desire to burn/destroy those systems), there is a lot of emphasis on the destruction of existing systems, before a newer 'better' (preferred) system can be implemented. Using what you can of what went before (to justify and reinforce your agenda), but ultimately destroying what is 'wrong' and replacing it with something better.

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar because it appears so often on various blogs, and article pieces (related to the subject). Besides, those who want to appear authoritative on a subject will refer often to the experts/"research" papers that support their viewpoints. So.. many will be exposed to that literature, and while they may not have gone in-depth on the material, they've been exposed to the main talking points, repeatedly.

Tony EH

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest. Most of these type of "activists" are interested ONLY in their immediate cause and couldn't care less about anything else beyond the issue they've latched onto. A certain "rights for so and so" voice probably wouldn't be interested in "rights for such and such". It wouldn't matter that much to them.

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong. A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest.

Actually... I'm not. I don't think I said anything in the previous post to suggest that I was...

They don't need to be active outside of their "bubble'. Social media, by it's nature, will have people who will share what they consider relatable and what supports the agenda of their bubble..

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong.

Which I haven't done. Oh! I'll use SJW as a catch-all term, in terms of the desire for social change, but someone wanting equality of outcome doesn't necessarily wants racial equality. People are far more complex than that.

A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

Sure, I get that.. although what you've read tends to affect your perceptions somewhat. I know that the material I've read, even though I disagree with the vast majority of it, has affected the way I look at certain topics. Not the way the original authors likely wished for me to be affected, but affected nonetheless.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

Depends on the situation. When looking at race issues, one could throw out the term of SJW, or again, with feminist/women's rights, or trans issues. The context is provided first.. which is usually the case, due to the circumstances leading to the use of "SJW".

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

Nope. I don't buy it. Oh, I agree that some are simply naive. Some are ignorant. Some are outright idiotic. However, I have attended Male Rights events where SJW activists campaigned against the event, and some were very clued into their reality. Not open to appreciating other realities, or dealing with facts.. but still.. very good at citing the popular research or statements which supported their viewpoints. Not terribly friendly towards anyone who argued against them, but that's just the way things are with these kind of crusaders. [Oh,... and the middle class trope... I dunno. I know a variety of people who are self-acclaimed SJW, very active on social issues, and aren't middle class. I've noticed people like to assign all this to the middle class, and while that might have been true 50 years ago, times have changed. Education, and social mobility are light years different now. The access to social media, and finding your 'bubble' means that "class" has less importance than ever before]

.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually... I'm not. I don't think I said anything in the previous post to suggest that I was...

They don't need to be active outside of their "bubble'. Social media, by it's nature, will have people who will share what they consider relatable and what supports the agenda of their bubble..

You typed

Deleted User wrote: »

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar

which suggested otherwise.

In any case, while it might be true that a certain "activist" might dip their toe into something else if there's possible overlap, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that "SJWs" are all marching in lockstep and are even remotely interested in other areas of anything at all much.

In fact, from what I have read, a lot of them seem to be woefully ignorant of a lot of things, including much of the grievances that they bleat on about and the targets they have in their sights.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I haven't done. Oh! I'll use SJW as a catch-all term, in terms of the desire for social change, but someone wanting equality of outcome doesn't necessarily wants racial equality. People are far more complex than that.

Which is the problem I'm talking about. One SJW isn't necessarily the same as another one. In fact, there could be significant disagreements and even outright aggression involved between them. Just look at the Trans rights crowd and their run ins with feminists of all hues.

But sure, people are more "complex" than that in all areas. Things just get muddied, especially when they're strawmanned by other groups with their own agendas.

And no, I'm not saying you're trying to do that here.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I don't buy it. Oh, I agree that some are simply naive. Some are ignorant. Some are outright idiotic. However, I have attended Male Rights events where SJW activists campaigned against the event, and some were very clued into their reality. Not open to appreciating other realities, or dealing with facts.. but still.. very good at citing the popular research or statements which supported their viewpoints. Not terribly friendly towards anyone who argued against them, but that's just the way things are with these kind of crusaders.

You don't have to buy it, it doesn't matter. The fact remains, however, that many of these so called "SJWs" believe, rightly or wrongly, that what they're doing is for the betterment of everyone, or at least the group they belong to, or have chosen to speak on behalf of.

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest. Most of these type of "activists" are interested ONLY in their immediate cause and couldn't care less about anything else beyond the issue they've latched onto. A certain "rights for so and so" voice probably wouldn't be interested in "rights for such and such". It wouldn't matter that much to them.

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong. A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

I'm not sure that is the case. Isn't the whole point of intersectionality that all of these issues mesh with each other to create forms of oppression?

Pick a random SJW from Twitter and they're nearly guaranteed to have the same core set of beliefs. Always pro-choice, always pro-BLM. Always feminist. Always borderline hysterical about climate change. Almost always either a hard-core atheist OR a non-Christian religion. Often a vegetarian of some shape or form. Prone to spouting the most bizarre, logically inconsistent talking points - Germaine Greer isn't a feminist and Kanye West isn't black. Abortion is healthcare but killing a chicken for the pot is murder. Western beauty standards are oppressive but the burka is a symbol of empowerment.

Most people are capable of holding nuanced opinions but the woke types seem to exist only as the most fanatical, ideologically rigid caricatures. It's likely down to a combination of too much time spent in echo chambers and living with the prospect of being cancelled for expressing one wrong opinion or liking the wrong tweet.

Agree with your last point though. The real world has a funny old way of knocking common sense into people as they get older.

Tony EH

46 Long wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case. Isn't the whole point of intersectionality that all of these issues mesh with each other to create forms of oppression?

Pick a random SJW from Twitter and they're nearly guaranteed to have the same core set of beliefs. Always pro-choice, always pro-BLM. Always feminist. Always borderline hysterical about climate change. Almost always either a hard-core atheist OR a non-Christian religion. Often a vegetarian of some shape or form. Prone to spouting the most bizarre, logically inconsistent talking points - Germaine Greer isn't a feminist and Kanye West isn't black. Abortion is healthcare but killing a chicken for the pot is murder. Western beauty standards are oppressive but the burka is a symbol of empowerment.

You've just contradicted your point there and demonstrated what I was talking about.

There's often large degrees of separation with the various types of "SJW" up to an including outright hostility.

I don't see any of these special interest people or groups to be unified in any real way, other than they have a grievance of some sort and are vocal about it, often to the point of being absurdist. They may give lip service to one another from time to time, but they are too clung onto their own little corner of the victimisation Olympics to to truly be in cahoots, as some try to make out.

At the end of the day these elements are largely diverse and in many cases worlds apart in realistic terms.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

It really depends on far they've "educated" themselves before committing themselves to their particular cause.

If you look at a lot of feminist literature (which tends to be the basis for a lot of social change, due to it's success), or race theory (consider how BLM approach the existing social systems and their desire to burn/destroy those systems), there is a lot of emphasis on the destruction of existing systems, before a newer 'better' (preferred) system can be implemented. Using what you can of what went before (to justify and reinforce your agenda), but ultimately destroying what is 'wrong' and replacing it with something better.

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar because it appears so often on various blogs, and article pieces (related to the subject). Besides, those who want to appear authoritative on a subject will refer often to the experts/"research" papers that support their viewpoints. So.. many will be exposed to that literature, and while they may not have gone in-depth on the material, they've been exposed to the main talking points, repeatedly.

Again, I said feeling like they're making the world a better place, not actually making the world a better place. That's the difference. And they'll feel like they are regardless of how educated or intelligent they are.

Regarding the bit in bold - that doesn;t nessecarily mean an entire system 0 just elements of it that they feel are injust.

What "system" are they trying to destroy? And exactly what ais there ideal repalcement (regardless of how realistic it is)?

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

You've just contradicted your point there and demonstrated what I was talking about.

The sections you highlighted in bold are not contradictory. You will never find a non-feminist SJW. And they do genuinely believe that Greer is not a feminist because she doesn't believe that men can become women.

Tony EH

46 Long wrote: »

The sections you highlighted in bold are not contradictory. You will never find a non-feminist SJW. And they do genuinely believe that Greer is not a feminist because she doesn't believe that men can become women.

You're making VERY broad statements here.

Not every "SJW" believes in every other "SJW" talking point.



BTW, you'll even find feminists that will disagree with other areas of feminism to surprising degrees too. It isn't all the same.

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

You're making VERY broad statements here.

Not every "SJW" believes in every other "SJW" talking point.

Like I said, caricatures.

Social media is infested with these wretched creatures. Spend five minutes on Twitter and you'll know what I mean.

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, I said feeling like they're making the world a better place, not actually making the world a better place. That's the difference. And they'll feel like they are regardless of how educated or intelligent they are.

Regarding the bit in bold - that doesn;t nessecarily mean an entire system 0 just elements of it that they feel are injust.

What "system" are they trying to destroy? And exactly what ais there ideal repalcement (regardless of how realistic it is)?

Pol Pot's people were educated in the Sorbonne in Paris so they picked upon all the radical lefty ideas of the time, tear it down and start from year zero is about the height of it. As you say how realistic, there is a bit of the dog chasing the car about it, if they caught it they wouldnt know what to do with it

DrPhilG

Careful with the oul science talk there!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

Pol Pot's people were educated in the Sorbonne in Paris so they picked upon all the radical lefty ideas of the time, tear it down and start from year zero is about the height of it. As you say how realistic, there is a bit of the dog chasing the car about it, if they caught it they wouldnt know what to do with it

Doesn't challenge my point or answer any of my questions - and are you trying to tell me that you think the Khmer Rouge were woke?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't challenge my point or answer any of my questions - and are you trying to tell me that you think the Khmer Rouge were woke?

They do come from the same place..

Shur trans rights probably started down that direction too..

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't challenge my point or answer any of my questions - and are you trying to tell me that you think the Khmer Rouge were woke?

pol pot was a bastard child of post modernism , woke is a future descendant, in terms of intellectual mapping anyway. what are the cool cats into now, Critical Race Theory?

kildare lad

Diversity and radicalisation training is required for people who want to administer the covid vaccine . Who thinks up of this rubbish


https://youtu.be/F7iqGO2kgFk

IAMAMORON

silverharp wrote: »

Pol Pot's people were educated in the Sorbonne in Paris so they picked upon all the radical lefty ideas of the time, tear it down and start from year zero is about the height of it. As you say how realistic, there is a bit of the dog chasing the car about it, if they caught it they wouldnt know what to do with it

When Chairman Mao was asked for his opinion on the modern consequences of the 18th century French Revolution he replied , " we don't fully know yet, it is too early to tell "

The French are bluffers. Very overrated all said. Their indifference to the Reign of Terror gives me the heebie jeebies.

silverharp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

When Chairman Mao was asked for his opinion on the modern consequences of the 18th century French Revolution he replied , " we don't fully know yet, it is too early to tell "

The French are bluffers. Very overrated all said. Their indifference to the Reign of Terror gives me the heebie jeebies.

Im guessing the more Utopian a belief system is the more radical it has to be as reality will be out of reach. The US revolution was far more moderate and was just an assertion of sovereignty. The French or Russian for that matter saw whole classes of people as the problem and had them killed rather than simply reforming the system.
Woke doesnt want reform, its about irradiating the past , you can see it symbolically in pop culture entertainment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

pol pot was a bastard child of post modernism , woke is a future descendant, in terms of intellectual mapping anyway. what are the cool cats into now, Critical Race Theory?

Right....

Anyway - again doesn't challenge my point or answer any of my questions.

I have a rule of three: if you don't answer directly after three attempts, I assume it's because you can't asnwer them and move on to someone who knows that they're talking about.

This is attempt number three.

IAMAMORON

silverharp wrote: »

Im guessing the more Utopian a belief system is the more radical it has to be as reality will be out of reach. The US revolution was far more moderate and was just an assertion of sovereignty. The French or Russian for that matter saw whole classes of people as the problem and had them killed rather than simply reforming the system.
Woke doesnt want reform, its about irradiating the past , you can see it symbolically in pop culture entertainment.

You do realise that there is not a lot going on here with this utter fabrication?

Are you even attempting to make a concerted point?

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Right....

Anyway - again doesn't challenge my point or answer any of my questions.

I have a rule of three: if you don't answer directly after three attempts, I assume it's because you can't asnwer them and move on to someone who knows that they're talking about.

This is attempt number three.

ask it again what your specific question is, i just go with the flow

IAMAMORON

silverharp wrote: »

ask it again what your specific question is, i just go with the flow

Do you think the Tamil genocide was justified?

What is the basis for your answer?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

ask it again what your specific question is, i just go with the flow

Trying to answer a question three times and then admitting not knowing what the question was in the first place is definitely a new one. You know how to find it.

Anyway, like I said, I move on.

Hector Savage

https://twitter.com/andrewlawrence/status/1348593654835908610?s=20

silverharp

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Do you think the Tamil genocide was justified?

What is the basis for your answer?

now im really lost, I dont know anything about that, all genocides are bad though, i hope their isnt an argument for any kid of genocide in the modern age

MisterAnarchy

Biden already setting out his woke and PC agenda.
This is the guy calling for unity ..

https://twitter.com/Transition46/status/1348403213200990209

Bobblehats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9gXa4A-Lc

“You is a racist-ass crackuh. Dat’s what u are”

Under this new mantra of unity..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Biden already setting out his woke and PC agenda.
This is the guy calling for unity ..

https://twitter.com/Transition46/status/1348403213200990209

You DONT think they should have equal access...?

Not much of an anarchist!

MisterAnarchy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You DONT think they should have equal access...?

Not much of an anarchist!

Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses

Priority does not mean equal, its the exact opposite

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You DONT think they should have equal access...?

Not much of an anarchist!

I think the point is that he excluded the white male business owners from the list of "equals".
It would have been more correct if he has said "All business owners!"