In schools, we have the state telling minor children to keep secrets from their parents,especially about things like new gender identities. Am I the only one who has a problem with that ? Evidently.
You're mixing up gender with sexuality.
And you are missing the main point. Unless you are ok with that ?
In schools, we have the state telling minor children to keep secrets from their parents, especially about things like new gender identities. Am I the only one who has a problem with that ? Evidently. Once we were told that sexuality was hard wired at birth to explain homosexuality. Now we are being told that it is fluid from the same people who first told us that it was hardwired in our DNA.
You're mixing up gender with sexuality. Disqualified.
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing “woke agenda.”
I would disagree with that. In that it includes changes to our language, there is wide scaled planning involved. Change the language and you control conversations and in turn society at large. This woke language is very similar to Ebonics, which tried very hard to change definitions and acceptable terms. Ebonics failed as should this woke language which is complete down to an unlimited amount of personal pronouns. Woke priorities are based on identity first and last. Merit and skills in school and the workplace are displaced to make way for those with the right identities. A tiny minority is trying to take over our society and dictate what is acceptable to them and make everyone else go along with it, or else. There are no compromises offered.
In schools, we have the state telling minor children to keep secrets from their parents, especially about things like new gender identities. Am I the only one who has a problem with that ? Evidently. Once we were told that sexuality was hard wired at birth to explain homosexuality. Now we are being told that it is fluid from the same people who first told us that it was hardwired in our DNA.
There is now a case with a woman power lifter suing to keep a biological male identifying as a women from competing against biological women. This lawsuit is likely to end up in the SCOTUS, whose most recent member said that she could not define what a "woman" was during her confirmation hearing. Wokeness is an attack on biological women, stripping away everything that it means to be a woman, including being a Mommy. Biological women who give birth are no more than just breeders to this agenda. This is taking children away from parents and turning them over to Hillary's "village", especially when you have the state via public schools telling children not to trust their parents; that their teachers know what is best for them. Yet the parents are liable for their children's actions until the age of 18. Well if a child kills someone, then hold their teachers liable instead of their parents. It's all or nothing. This is for all the marbles.
That was interesting. He does admit what the Russians did was not what Karl Marx had in mind, and there is a need differentiate the economic and cultural marxism, which he does, but sticking with the classical definitions is hard to apply these days, no matter that they are the origins. I pretty sure the right-wing, anti woke crowd would be shocked to learn that they are liberals.
definitions are important and language sometimes gets manipulated
for instance, the words liberal and conservative has been stigmatized by some radio/media
i think the key here is tolerance for peaceful people
if one is willing to initiate force violence or coercion against an innocent peaceful person, that is a problem
is someone for or against a position based on reason, logic, principle, etc. comes into play
or is it group think or following the crowd?
obviously there are some on right that want to impose or force peeps into their group think/ideas
there also may be some that are willing to have a conversation about issues
we all see (and occasionally use) extreme examples from time to time to make a point
and it can be hard to get a message across on a message board
peace and coffee
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing âwoke agenda.â
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing âwoke agenda.â
Yes. Thank you. Ryan Chapman tries to imply that wokeism is merely watered-down Marxism, seeking ultimately to overturn an oppressive society and impose its ideas of equality on all peopleâthrough deception and violence if necessary. But he makes no allowance for the possibility of a broad spectrum of ideas and goals associated with wokeness and fails to address the huge chasm between his take on the theoretical roots of wokeism and the reality of protest movements today.
I watched that 24 minute video that miamizsun pointed to. Why you chose Ryan Chapman, miamizsun, I don't know. For a guy who offers up very little biographical information, esp. about his education and study of political philosophy, he sure has cranked out a lot of rather polished videos.
Chapman claims that wokeism (largely lumped together with critical race theory), second-wave feminism, gay and transgender rights movements are based on the Marxist-derived assumption that society is inherently unjust and based on oppression. People are either oppressors or oppressed. Oppression can be economic, social, or political in nature. Oppressors can be property/business owners, social and entertainment elites, politicians and those holding power in government and police, men, White people, straight individuals, etc.
According to Chapman, these movements seek to raise awareness of oppression and injustice, collectively organize a critical mass of followers and then overthrow the system. He makes no mention of non-violent attempts to redress wrongs, either through peaceful protest marches, work slowdowns, petitions, mainstream political parties and legislation, unions, collective bargaining or ownership of a business.
These movements according to Chapman also reject reasonable dialogue and tolerance of opposing ideas since the movements see these things as enablers of intolerance and oppression already existing and embedded within society. Therefore these movements will seek to silence dissension or disagreement, inside a movement AND outside of it as well. Wokeism and similar movements focused on women, the working class, gay/transgenders etc. is supposedly convinced of its correctness and infallibility. It seeks to impose its ideas and goals on people, according to Chapman, despite what the majority of people or existing laws support.
Chapman observes that wokeness is "runaway idea" not really under the control of any individual. IIRC he thinks however that wokeism will try to overturn the system in order to achieve racial equality.
It's one thing to try to draw intellectual lines between Marx and the writings of people like bell hooks (Chapman barely mentions them by name and gives no summary of their work). It's quite another to show that people who marched in BLM protestsâpeople from all walks of life and of all colors, gender identities, classes, etc.âwere educated and trained in Marxist-based woke theory.
Intellectual histories are filled with discussions of various philosophical ideas. But do the everyday people marching in those protests actually know, understand, accept and swear devotion to those philosophical ideas? Do the vast majority of BLM and transgender protesters actually want to overthrow the system and forcibly re-educate people are do they just want better treatment and opportunities for people WITHIN the system?
If wokeism is so dangerous and bent on overturning society, where are the political candidates and parties seeking to take over laws and government? Where is the one true manifesto laying out the goals and methods of ending oppression within society? Where are the woke terrorists comparable to the old Weather Underground group or Symbionese Liberation Army?
Americans are deeply practical people. They are not going to lured into visions of a brave new world majickly free of oppression and injustice. Americans are also deeply materialistic. The people involved in social justice movements want better opportunities to work and live WITHIN the system.
The best practical example that Chapman could likely point to as an example of the Marxist influence on wokeism might be the laughable attempts on some campuses and in some cities to make official discussion and documents more politically correct and less hurtful.
Meanwhile, right-wing politicians are actively seeking to erase or sanitize subjects touching on people involved with protests. Don't Say Gay, Don't Say Woke, removal of discussion of political ideas in AP classes, bans on drag showsâall neatly justified in the name of protecting the children. It used to be protecting white women in the era of Jim Crow, then it was protecting law and order in the Civil Rights Era and now it's for the kids.
âRepublicans found that when they could paint trans people as deviant, nefarious, harmful people that are going to hurt you in the bathroom or groom your children as the narrative goes, they could drive votes,â Bailer said.
Heron Greenesmith, a researcher at Political Research Associates, told Right Wing Watch Saturday that âCPAC is showcasing the truth of the right.â âTrans people have become, once again, the recruitment tactic and fundraiser of the right,â Greenesmith said. âTrans-supportive conservatives have ceded the floor to those who advocate openly for anti-trans violence.â
As these ideas about the need to âprotectâ kids and women snaked their way into right-wing media, the right has expanded its messaging. Now, right-wing activists say a shadowy âgender lobbyâ preys on kids to turn them trans. Politicians portray drag queens reading books to kids as âgroomingâ children. Gay teachers are âindoctrinatingâ children, they say, as are diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings.
Such fearmongering is effectively being deployed by groups like Moms for Liberty, which is trying to ban books about the LGBTQ experience, and Moms for America, a conservative group that urges right-wing candidates to run for school boards and claims to have more than 500,000 members across the country. Kimberly Fletcher, president and founder of Moms for America, made it clear to the CPAC audience that itâs not just trans people her group is organizing against, but the honest teaching of the history of our nation, sex education, and the tolerance and acceptance of the LGBTQ community writ large.
At a Thursday CPAC panel titled âOne Tuff Mutha,â Fletcher claimed the left was coming after children, her voice quivering as she spoke. âTheyâre trying to erase us as moms,â she said. âAnd they know historically thatâs what you doâthatâs what Hitler did, thatâs what Mao did, thatâs what Stalin did. You take the children, you win the future.â
She listed a series of fears, her voice rising at each new alleged assault: âEverything that weâre facing: The CRTâthe critical race theory is racism, thatâs 101, thatâs what it is. The comprehensive sex education, which is teaching kindergartners how to stimulate themselves. The gender confusion, where theyâre having coming out parties since the first grade, and children are coming home terrified theyâre suddenly going to turn into the opposite sex.â
She called on the audience to go on âthe offensive,â asking kids to record their teachers. What we really need, she said, is âa new PPPâ: âparents, pastors, and people of faith uniting together to save this country, protect our kids, and reclaim our culture, and restore the republic.â (...)
Beneath the fearmongering about trans people as a tool to galvanize the base ahead of 2024 and to instigate a right-wing takeover of the schools is an even more dangerous ideology and agenda: a belief that trans people do not and should not exist.
On the third and final day of CPAC, The Daily Wireâs Michael Knowles made that stance explicit: âThe problem with transgenderism is not that itâs inappropriate for children under the age of 9,â Knowles said. âThe problem with transgenderism is that it isnât true.â
âThere can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism,â Knowles said. âIf it is false, then for the good of society⦠transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.â The crowd erupted in applause. (...)
this is a quick version of the intellectual groundwork for wokeness
the good thing about this video is that you can find the sources yourself
hope this helps
That was interesting. He does admit what the Russians did was not what Karl Marx had in mind, and there is a need differentiate the economic and cultural marxism, which he does, but sticking with the classical definitions is hard to apply these days, no matter that they are the origins. I pretty sure the right-wing, anti woke crowd would be shocked to learn that they are liberals.
But the word needs to be retired, quickly, in place of something that the conservative pundits can't latch onto as easily for mockery.
Maybe something that carries its own cachet already, like "humane."
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing âwoke agenda.â
this is a quick version of the intellectual groundwork for wokeness
the good thing about this video is that you can find the sources yourself
hope this helps
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing âwoke agenda.â
Woke isn't an insult, it's an aspiration.
Hey all!! Just found out Iâm woke⦠all this time
I just thought I was good at history.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 9, 2023 - 8:54am
The problem, as I see it and as I alluded to in an earlier post, is the inaccurate use of woke as an umbrella term for what, for the most part, are disparate advocacy movements. Almost always, the use of the word is as a pejorative, which speaks for itself. It is not a monolith. There is no all-encompassing âwoke agenda.â
You, mnordman, recalled that Steely_D "...had asked 'does that help create society, or fragment it into us/them?' "
(I looked but couldn't find where Steely_D asked this question, but let's move on...)
It's there. And still there. I was planning on responding to that question myself but things happened like some overblown responses to questions not asked. The only thing missing was Ronald. Kinda said to myself why bother, too much chaff flying around.
kcar wrote:
I tried to take your points quite seriously mnordman wrote:
Not really. The ratio of seriousness to personal insult was near zero.
Your reply and your summation of my previous post as "walls of condescending BS" are puzzling. Would you think I was taking you seriously if I agreed with everything you stated? Was it condescending or insulting for me to closely question your assertions and ask you for clarification? I was and am being quite honest when I wondered whether you were a ChatGPT exercise: you fail repeatedly to engage in serious discussion or develop your ideas such as "The denominator we should be looking at is "per crime-committing capita" or "per capita-interacting-with-police". ". At times your posts lose logical direction and you seem stuck on relying on 1-2 examples to draw sweeping conclusions.
Was I sarcastic? Yes. Condescending? No, I really don't think so. If condescension bothers you so much, try not to dish it out with comments like:
"Difficult for me in an obnoxious rainbow communal fart sniffing echo chamber, i just want to, but i don't want to, punch back. I can try to ignore the asshatery."
I agree with Steely_D. I'm not interested in turning this discussion into a "You're a so-and-so" back and forth. I'd like to stick to discussing wokeism and responses to it You, mnordman, recalled that Steely_D "...had asked 'does that help create society, or fragment it into us/them?' "
(I looked but couldn't find where Steely_D asked this question, but let's move on...)
The very act of pointing out unfair inequalities and injustices is disruptive and divisive IF you have a group of people who believe the status quo is fair, just or filled with opportunities to fix unfair inequalities. Civil Rights activists in the '60s were regarded as malcontents, malingerers, Communist sympathizers and troublemakers merely for marching and protesting. The FBI actively surveilled Martin Luther King, Jr. and others as a result. However, groups within a very diverse movement found common ground with LBJ and members of Congress to pass landmark legislation to redress or strike down laws that allowed for explicit segregation, political disenfranchisement, etc. I think most of us would agree that laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1965 were good things for the country in the long term, but that discrimination still exists today. Remember, however, that groups like the Black Panthers rose at the same time and were less interested in peaceful integration than they were in organized confrontation.
Don't expect social protest movements to speak with one, coherent voice and promote one constructive, wholly beneficial program. Similarly, the groups opposed to those social protest movements aren't likely to be always reasonable, fair and constructive in their opposition.
The harmful language list went viral in late December when major media outlets reported about the website, ridiculing some of the words as campus wokeness ran amok. While some observers praised the thoughtfulness behind the language initiative, others expressed concern that the website represented a banned words list, and that it could pose an affront to free speech.
At one extreme on the right, you have Governor De Santis's initiatives in Florida. Note that for all the concern that people will be punished for using politically incorrect or socially insensitive speech, right-wing legislation efforts to combat language and behavior associated with social justice movements have actual fines, vocational discipline and prison times attached to them.
âIt used to be that were kind of free traders and anti-Russia and pro-military and for entitlement reform,â Carville said. âWell, thatâs all out the window. The only thing they have that unifies them is cultural resentment â âLetâs all attack the trans kidâ or âWe shouldnât tell seventh graders there are gay people because then theyâll never know.ââ
The only way for modern-day social justice movements to succeed, I think, is to increase their political organization and ally themselves with left- and moderate-wing politicians. Street protests are not going to do much in the long run. Cancelling and/or boycotting people or companies for unjust behavior only goes so far. Demanding that people speak only in politically correct ways or avoid speech that might trigger or be hurtful to others is a sure way to provoke resentment, backlash and weariness.
@Mnordman:
You and kurtster (AFAICT) think wokeism is "very obviously divisive and doesn't help" (your words). You don't think that wokeism could be "a continuation of the liberal civil rights movement of the sixties" and state that "the illiberal woke took a shot at repealing CA Proposition 209,that's the anti-discrimination constitutional amendment, the sort of thing the civil rights movement fought hard for."
AFAICT you mischaracterize Proposition 209. When passed, it prohibited affirmative action programs in CA. From Ballotpedia:
Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.<6>
The initiative (The California Civil Rights Initiative or Proposition 209) was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum.
Background: Public entities have been barred from taking race, gender or other personal identifications into consideration during admissions, hiring and awarding of contracts since 1996. That year, voters passed Proposition 209, a measure supported by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and former University of California Regent Ward Connerly.
The law is a holdover of conservative policy in a state that has since elected a Democratic supermajority, and it has been blamed for racial enrollment disparities at the UC and California State University systems and a decline in public contracts awarded to businesses owned by women and people of color.
State lawmakers placed Prop. 16 on the ballot, believing they had a unique window of opportunity to repeal Prop. 209. A strong majority of California residents said they backed the Black Lives Matter movement after a summer of racial justice activism in response to the police killing of Floyd in Minneapolis.
Despite facing little opposition and polling that showed a significant majority of Californians believed racial and gender equality were among the most pressing issues this election, the Yes on 16 campaign failed to make significant inroads with voters. The campaign lost despite having support from the Democratic establishment and raising $31 million from liberal donors and foundations, compared to $1.6 million against.
Difficult for me in an obnoxious rainbow communal fart sniffing echo chamber, i just want to, but i don't want to, punch back. I can try to ignore the asshatery.
You had asked "does that help create society, or fragment it into us/them?" To me, it's very obviously divisive and does not help. And its bizarre how "as a black person" you must have a particular point of view otherwise "you ain't black" in the words of Joe Biden. Incredibly divisive. The LA Times calling Larry Elder the "black face of white supremacy". Elected members of government calling Clarence Thomas an "uncle tom". Black people that go counter narrative are consistently disrespected, calling Roland Fryer a "dismal scientist". How on earth is this woke crap not divisive?
Lots of supporters of the woke think it's a continuation of the liberal civil rights movement of the sixties. I don't know how to square that thought with the fact that the illiberal woke took a shot at repealing CA Proposition 209, that's the anti-discrimination constitutional amendment, the sort of thing the civil rights movement fought hard for. Good luck to anyone that tries to point this out to a snobbish prickly wokester.
sorry, I guess i was feeling a little punchy
Politics follow trends and fashions as much as the apparel industry.
The trend was woke, and even had some top democrats falling the mold of what meant...but I think/hope we are seeing a pull back from those extremes.
Yet, and again, that doesnt mean we stop addressing the problems that the "woke" group attempted to address.
We have made great strides, but we are not done with racism, bigotry...etc. (probably never will be).
How do we deal with the underlying causes for black communities being over-policed?
Homelessness, drugs, crime, mental illness...
How do schools deal with an 8 year old who wants to come to school wearing a dress?
The answer is most likely not legislation, or defunding, but improving and re-educating.
I was enjoying this discussion, but it's veering towards personal stuff and meta-analysis, which is less interesting. Is there a way to take this back to the topic of wokeness?
Difficult for me in an obnoxious rainbow communal fart sniffing echo chamber, i just want to, but i don't want to, punch back. I can try to ignore the asshatery.
You had asked "does that help create society, or fragment it into us/them?" To me, it's very obviously divisive and does not help. And its bizarre how "as a black person" you must have a particular point of view otherwise "you ain't black" in the words of Joe Biden. Incredibly divisive. The LA Times calling Larry Elder the "black face of white supremacy". Elected members of government calling Clarence Thomas an "uncle tom". Black people that go counter narrative are consistently disrespected, calling Roland Fryer a "dismal scientist". How on earth is this woke crap not divisive?
Lots of supporters of the woke think it's a continuation of the liberal civil rights movement of the sixties. I don't know how to square that thought with the fact that the illiberal woke took a shot at repealing CA Proposition 209, that's the anti-discrimination constitutional amendment, the sort of thing the civil rights movement fought hard for. Good luck to anyone that tries to point this out to a snobbish prickly wokester.
