That woman ought to brush her teeth better ...and polish her goddamn monkey-grimmace. There are coaches out there, just sayin'.
My reaction is probably rude, though.
The choice of Moody to serve as an ambassador for a gay conservative organization was rather unconventional, given that Moody is a virulent homophobe who brags that the word âf*ggotâ is part of her âeveryday vocabularyâ and wishes that the country was a more âhomophobic society.â
While Moody openly proclaims herself to be a âhomophobic bitch,â she also claims that she is ânot really homophobicâ and that all of her bigoted language and attacks on anything she deems âgayâ are nothing but a âtroll.â
The disconnect between Moodyâs various stated positions was on full display when she appeared on âThe Stew Peters Showâ Tuesday night to try to explain how an avowedly anti-LGBTQ conservative Christian such as herself can serve as an ambassador for an organization that supposedly represents âLGBT conservatives and straight allies who support fairness, freedom, and equality.â
Moodyâs efforts to explain this incongruence did not go well, as she eventually declared that the agenda promoted by Log Cabin Republicans âgrosses me out and makes me want to vomitâ and that her agreement to serve as an ambassador for the organization was nothing more than an attempt to âtroll the left.â
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."
