Of Course You Know What "Woke" Means

Absolutely no they aren't , not even remotely close.

And i don't see any problem with a lack of willingness to deviate for the anti woke. The only amount of acceptable wokism in public institution is a full 0 with no compromise. Wokism is completly illegal under the civil right act btw.

Wokism is also complete societal cancer with extreme destructive potential.

We shouldn't stop until there is absolutely no mention ever of promoting or hiring a woman or a minority person because they are a woman or a minority person in any institution that takes public money, and people who try to do that are punished harshly everywhere.

Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
Donald Trump should complete his stunning common sense dismantlement of the woke mind virus brigade by announcing he’s now identifying as a woman and will therefore become America’s first female president…
9:18 PM · Nov 6, 2024
·
1.9M
Views

While that would be funny, it wouldn't have the implied effect that Piers is putting out there. It's like the Kanye Southpark episode. Everyone else gets the joke except the target of the jab.

We just need to stop acknowledging or enabling the woke nonsense until it goes away on its own. They'll tucker themselves out eventually. It works on most 6 year-olds, so it should work on similarly immature ideals.

The problem is that elements of the anti-woke crowd refuse to acknowledge any kind of liberal ideas. Call me crazy, but Matt Walsh doesn't seem to be open-minded or opposed to canceling others. Take BLM, for example. While I'm against the woke aspects of BLM, there is some truth mixed in with their views. I doubt Walsh is willing to consider that historical conditions are partly responsible for economic disparities between black and white populations in the US. The problem with woke is that they see everything in terms of group identity and don't have reasonable solutions. Seeing only race, defunding the police and telling others they're inherently racist isn't going to help, but the anti-woke crowd is divisive can barely bring themselves to admit that racism exists. I remember when Walsh was on Rogan. Rogan asked him how many kids he thought have been given puberty blockers or hormone treatments. Walsh said it was probably millions. They fact-checked him, and it was like four thousand.

Well those people will then be bad people that happen to be right about wokism. I mean that happens all the times, but it isn't a problem of antiwokism.

Say someone is a left of center democrat who loves the state being big and powerful but wants cannabis to be legal.

He will find libertarians agreeing with him and if someone tells him "see! pro cannabis is terrible because some of those people also don't care about climate change" he would be like ????

Claiming some disparity of outcome between groups is environmentally caused isn't wokism. Those claims can be right or wrong but that's not what wokism is about.

Wokism isn't only "seeing everything in terms of group identity" either. That would be intersectionality actually (a part of wokism).

Wokism is also the absolute dismantling of everything related to western traditions and values and a deep hatred with anything that can be labelled as "white" in their models.

Wokism is intersectionalism sure but also trans activism, "decolonization", rewriting of history, cancelling historical figures, and so on and on.

But in the legal sense the main topic is wokism is an attempt to institutionalize the discrimination of men, whites, and heterosexuals.

Proposed prescriptions are either net positive or net negative. It’s one or the other.

Woke prescriptions are net negative. Just because the Woke sometimes say true things and the anti-Woke sometimes say false things doesn’t change this reality.

When did they discuss that? was the question like every year in the USA or worldwide since trans activism started?

data from 2017 to 2021 puts a floor at 17600 for the USA alone.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/spe...

The floor in the sense those are certified numbers we are certain of from uncomplete sources (and they only count insurance claims, so everything out of pocket is extra), so the number is certainly higher than that, for the USA alone, for those years, and the rate of increase was massive with like + than 20% yearly increases.

So i do suspect adding 22 and 23 and 24, adding canada, australia, uk, eu, adding people paying out of pocket, 100k would be easily surpassed.

I pretty much agree with the deBoer article. When I talk about the anti-woke crowd, I'm not talking about people who are just generally opposed to the ideology. There's a certain type of anti-woke that goes out of their away to mock others and add nothing to the conversation.

It goes without saying. Most people are unworthy of being listened to.

I’ll say again, it’s useful to figure out what truth even the misguided are attempting to grasp at.

For the Woke, it’s the idea that the valuable thing you are searching for is hidden in the margin and is being oppressed.

The interview is from November, 2022. The YouTube upload date doesn't reflect that. The section is from 53 to 55 minutes in.

Anyway, the point is that Walsh was clearly exaggerating. Anyone using common sense would intuitively know that it's not in the millions. I don't know how many people fit into the 13-17 year age demographic from 2008 (the earliest date he mentioned) until today, but I doubt it's more than 50 million. Even if it was just one million, we're talking two percent of the population which is just crazy. If the numbers you shared are correct, it was probably in the low tens of thousands when the interview took place.

Yes I can confirm Walsh grotesquely exaggerated there then.

Still, given the only acceptable number is a full net 0, he is less problematic than anyone who wants minors to get access to blockers or hormones just because they are trans.

But the estimate was redicolous and it's not useful nor necessary to lie or to exaggerate when the problem is so huge enough as it is

I agree that the number should be zero and even question the political/medical ethics when it comes to adults. The problem is that Walsh's rhetoric is inflammatory beyond his position. I actually think his deadpan humor can be pretty funny (see the first 45 seconds of the video below), but it seems like he'd rather go to war than engage in a peace process. If you compare him to another conservative Catholic commentator like Trent Horn, it's night and day.

I feel both like I don't have a complete grasp on the woke phenomenon while at the same time understanding it better than anyone I've ever read or talked to about it.

It didn't originate in humanities departments. Prove me wrong: nothing originates in elite humanities departments. These are not people who create things. These are people who criticize things. Woke comes from the civil rights movement and the civil rights movement did not, lol, originate in academia. The moment I read the assertion that woke comes academia I had to stop reading the blog post.

In it's current form, as an extension of the civil rights movement, wokeness has become a manners regime. As it turns out, power isn't totally issued through legal sanctioning. There are many ways to injure people which are imperceptible to the law as crimes. So you are black and you protest for the right to sit at the lunch counter. You win that right. Now you can sit at the lunch counter but everyone is staring daggers at you. The server gives you a dirty glass and makes you wait forever for your food that is cold now.

How do you get that last mile home to some kind of reciprocal politeness and dignity?

Manners, in my personal view, are interesting. Do we even know what they are or how they function? I've never seen any study examining them in some kind of sociological framework. Most people think they are trivial or perfunctory, almost meaningless. But you can go on YouTube and see people getting years of jailtime for failing to show the proper manners to the judge. People have been killed over manners. I don't know anything else that is considered super trivial in one context and an existential issue in another.

We say thank you. We call people Sir or Mam. We say please. We give up our seat for a pregnant woman. We tip. I've seen someone beat up over not leaving a tip after winning a poker tourney. The blog criticizes wokeness for not being concerned with the material, only with words. But there has to be some kind of countervailing opposition energy giving force to all the anti-woke measures which does think something material is at stake. People like Rogan routinely muse about a civil war instigated by wokeness. They are joking on the surface but real rage is clearly there.

So maybe you solve the problems of racism (for example), most of which cannot be legislated away, by making it rude to say things which are racially offensive. Ban the N word, not with laws but via shaming. The less prevalent the word is, the less people are likely to think it- that's just a result from linguistics. If you're not hearing the language of oppression you're not thinking it and, before you know it, there is some vague trace of a learned behavior hinting that there is something bad about sitting next to a black person. But you can't remember and so it's cool. It's just like when you were in Kindergarten before you were socialized.

But why stop there? There is no reason you can't refer to a trans person by the pronoun they request. It's no different than calling your doctor doctor or calling someone senior Sir. You call a judge judge and it isn't an overwhelming cognitive burden. You make a mental note of a pronoun and make an effort.

Woke is a grass roots manners regime aimed at changing behavior in ways which gradually undo social outcomes resulting from the past use of violence as a means of material accumulation. It's such a benign and organic effort. There is no organization, just people freely seeing the logic and morality of it and signing onto it. Is wokeness exploited by politicians to divide us? Yeah, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The elite are positioned to exploit anything social phenomena.

Of course it goes too far sometimes. I think Kramer has done his time. But I'm telling you, overall, these young kids raised on wokeness are just better people. Typically someone in middle age or approaching middle age like me would crap on the next generation. But no, I really think they are better in part because they have accepted this manners regime called woke.

^ not sure i agree with the entirety of that post but it's excellent

Just as an aside— it was a good post I agree— but I think they do study politeness in both cultural and linguistic anthropology, depending on the aspect of politeness you are interested in. Though usually it’s studied through a specific cultural framework and comparative anthropology rather than a systematic review.

Arguing against this will lead to an infinite regress.

The problems that lead to woke political ideologies emerging didn't originate in humanities departments, sure, and the catalyst for the civil rights movement was people becoming fed up with segregation and legal discrimination—and that can be traced back to slavery, and so on, and so on. Even so, the messaging comes from leaders, and sooner or later, collective movements centralize around certain people and over-simplified, often radical, ideas.

Society at large feels or becomes aware of something and strives for change. After that happens, academics take notice and formulate detailed philosophies that spread like wildfire, sometimes with the assistance of powerful people. Many of the highly influential people in history were intellectuals and philosophers. You can trace a lot of Hitler's ideology back to Nietzsche, for example, even he twisted or misinterpreted it.

Without getting that far into details, the fact that the current LGBTQIA+ flag is a terrible design and mess of colors that don't complement each other is intentional and can be traced back to some of the postmodernists. It's supposed to be ugly. The idea is that if some things are beautiful, the implication is that others things are ugly, and we can't have that because it's oppressive. Therefore, we must oppose any standard of beauty — and even objective truth. This is not something that originated during the civil rights movement. It came from academia.

Not by taking one step forward and two steps back. If you ask me, racial tensions were getting better and pretty low in the late 90s and 2000s. Instances of overt racism or people being rude aren't good reasons to turn everything on it's head. Yeah, try to improve things, but don't look to burn down anything short of Utopia.

I really like this section of your post. I would say the manners thing affects everyone, and the the problem with the woke is that they talk about racial or gender identity, or whatever group, and ignore the woes of others: people who are socially awkward, the kid who's told he has everything (even though he suffers from depression and has an alcoholic father), the unattractive lady who lacks self-esteem, and the person who's being mobbed because they made a bad joke. Woke doesn't care about these people or their concerns. Woke likes to viciously attack anyone who challenges them, and if you have problems, well, they're not that bad because you're not [insert identity]. Symbolic.

The woke want to legislate it way. They actually pretend like it's possible. Anyway, things are rude to say. We did that; we're doing that. But it got to a point where minor infractions were seen as abhorrent and no one could take a joke. There's good shaming, and there's bad shaming.

Well, the woke failed to that end... There are three more paragraphs to respond to, but I'm tired of typing. Either way, good post.

Do you think Just Stop Oil activists throwing soup on Van Gogh's Sunflowers and the Rokeby Venus was just a coincidence? Or were they trying to tear something down rather than build something up—even if they did it unconsciously?

A human being is way more complex than what the sociological lens can offer.

Why should they expect this outcome to be possible in a Darwinian world?

This is why I said earlier that Wokeness is one part Christianity. They hold a vision of a social paradise in their imagination and strongly believe in its reality.

The Epitome...

Fake and heterosexual

yeah it seems like a somewhat untapped research area, at least it doesn't seem like much has seeped into the popular culture via Malcolm Gladwell or people like that. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if, strolling through the PhD thesis section at a University library, you see a bunch of research on it collecting dust. If you came up to me on the street and asked me why we have to say please and thank you I would be hard pressed to give a good answer. Most people would say it's to show appreciation or something, but those kind of answers don't get to the bottom of it. If we were programming robots to replace us I think we could leave that out and it would have no material impact.

Not to mention how would we even code it in? You give a bunch of cyborgs different abilities and starting conditions and maybe one figures some crime is worth the risk from a material perspective. Cyborg gets caught and sentenced. How would we simulate a cyborg mouthing off to a judge and, on that basis alone, the cyborg judge gives cyborg criminal another 5 years? It's like we understand it in terms of we expect it. But we don't really understand it.

One time it occurred to me to point at a gorilla at a zoo. He went from chilling to totally ballistic. I don't know why I thought to do that or why the gorilla reacted that way.

I'm going to throw this out there for anyone who may be interested in the origins of woke. There's a lot of material and a ton of ideas to cover, but this is a good starting point. His videos mostly focused on Young Earth creationism and evolutionary theory, but a while back he shifted his attention to woke's impact on the sciences.