all 24 comments

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It has several tenets, I think. One of them you mentioned ("intersectionality"), which basically means that it's the white, straight male against everyone else. Some might throw "Christian" in there. If you leave that part out, like Caryn Elaine Johnson did, you get a slap on the wrist but you don't lose your job... at least, not if you're black.

The other big tenet is this "systemic" accusation. In short, it's not enough to let them sit where they want and use our bathrooms. It's not enough to grant preferential admission to college or the job market. The whole damned thing is built on bigotry, and we have to tear it down.

It's starting with statues, flags, and sports team names. Look for Mt. Rushmore to get some kind of "context" soon, like a plaque about how whitey is mean and shouldn't have made this. The Electoral College is definitely on people's minds, and states like Colorado have even found ways to circumvent it locally.

How far does this go? I can certainly imagine the extinction of the white race as a discernible thing. Places like France and the USA will be ethnically more like Brazil or Mexico are. (You run into Anglo-Saxon-looking people in Mexico, who are native to that country and descend from natives, but the odds of two of these people meeting each other and, say, marrying and moving into a mestizo-free neighborhood have become extremely low.)

Another possible outcome is a white backlash that reestablishes Anglo-Saxon hegemony over the things those people are good at. Or maybe the backlash just reestablishes the right of white people to take pride in their race and its accomplishments and talents. Having to run off mobs of black people with rifles or be raped and pillaged might wake up a few white people. That's already starting to happen.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fight back, whiteys. Fight back. I need more Saami representation in my movies. More Hungarian horse riders. More Russian empires. More French people.

God forbid the white race dies. Asians will just make a very large world where karoshi is just the best course of action.

[–]pcpmasterrace 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Well said. The nibbas on the streets, the asian running a laundromat or a girl who tries her darndest to work despite her disability.

I guess it's patronizing them. That they can't do it themselves, that they can't make it unless they have help. Of course everyone needs help but not the help that hurts others.

It's easy to identify in real life but I find difficulty in identifying woke messaging in movies unless it's very obvious.

[–]GeorgeCarlin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

This kind of overly relating to "lesser" human people imho always is an ego thing.

Hallucinating for "oneself" being "better".

By pathetically trying to help or shield any group with a more visible or obvious "problem".

This is some kind of very deeply entrenched hypocrisy. Really believing to be a "better" person just from the fact that own weaknesses and shortcomings are hidden better, they "magically" are non-existent.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Ah, guess I haven't seen it enough to identify this entrenched hypocrisy. Everyone needs help, but if you act like they need help all the time then that's a problem. Is that the main premise of these wokesters?

[–]GeorgeCarlin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I believe "wokeness" and all these newer emerged professions like "gender studies" rather are a symptom of these "punished" people or parts of society getting more into focus.

Billionaire's donating to cancer foundations (or other "well-being"-charities) basically are the same thing. The same as indulgence trade in the dark ages certainly, at least to a degree, is.

Seemingly, nobody has enough time anymore to look at other human beings as real individuals. So people are put into classes according to their "problems". Economic considerations maybe led to this, but honestly, I don't know.

The emotional purpose is to soothe the own conscience, mostly. Because - knowingly or not - most wokesters live a rather privileged life.

And a real conscience always searches for some kind of "justified" balance. Of course, only inside the fences of the categories of morale, a person is able to think comfortably in.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I get the "punished" concept. Their turn to do the whacking.

I get the idea of the soothing of conscience. Peace of mind, right? I get that.

Mostly for me, wokeness is when certain privileged groups act as they are the only ones who can save a "people". Treat them like infants instead of letting the people grow up. Much like how they were raised, I reckon.

I've lived a privileged life in relation to the rest, in my country. I have more in common with the woke than I realized but one thing I know is that treating the marginalized that they don't have to do anything is not something I was taught.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but my point is that I don't see the disadvantaged as always disadvantaged. They're just lazy at best and worst.

If that makes sense. I'd gladly elaborate if you'd like.

[–]GeorgeCarlin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

With all the greenwashing and whitewashing happening in advertising for everything nowadays, most consumers that can afford it found and consider their conscience again when making decisions. This pulls through up to a point where whole mindsets change into a very hipocrital state:

This being said, I strongly believe that most people realize all the hypocrisy and lies happening around them. But doing nothing to confront them anyway.

Seemingly, it is more effortless to concentrate parts of the own focus or even work on people, who are valued even less than these themselves are.

Psychical "illnesses" aren't about laziness. It is a time and force-of-will question. You can't help anyone who doesn't want or accept this help. Which mostly is happening anyway in these "official" pink-collar-jobs because of legal requirements. To get back a driver's license or as requirement to get a job, e.g.

So both sides on this end of some replaceable stick are lying to each other:

The helper, who sometimes does help, to either hold his own position or lifestyle he affords. So rather with self-sufficiency in mind as a priority. Not to help genuinely. That is why these people listen only sometimes.

As well as the "patient".

Who either does want to change his life, but even then this kind of administered help only can be help in an advisory sense, because he has to find new ways, he actually can "own" by himself anyway.

Or the patient does the whole thing only in a pathetic way himself, so that he e.g. can keep his drug habits "better" hidden under some carpet while at the same time being regarded as a more valued member of society again.

It is the same in politics and charity work, for some parts at least, I conclude from my experiences.

My life changed, when for the first time somebody in my life started asking actual questions that I never considered relevant before.

But not because I'm lazy or a dumbass. I honestly just never thought about them before.

The same thing happens in politics and most hierarchies:

When people, without actual experience in the field in question, have to make decisions and judgements about things or other people, they don't know anything about. They even can't relate to because of completely different upbringings and mindsets.

Going full woke-mode then makes them look nice, and it ensures to not offend anyone.

But it also achieves exactly nothing.

When you want to change something, you have to accept the fact that someone will be offended by it.

Simple as that it is, in its last consequence.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

When you want to change something, you have to accept the fact that someone will be offended by it.

Simple as that it is, in its last consequence.

I guess that's Sarkeesian's mistake. She wanted to do good by her own rules then the world rebuked her and then she just went nuts, I guess.

To understand you, there will be the helper. People who boost their own ego by helping. The recipient who feels like they want to do something by themselves and the patient who is? Forgive me but I couldn't understand what the patient was about.

Then these helpers try to get into something they don't understand either partially or in full and to hide that they go woke.

Which achieves nothing. Am I correct on that front?

[–]GeorgeCarlin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Exactly. That is my point. People taking interest in and relating to stuff they just don't understand (lack of experience, mostly). But they don't want to offend anyone (on the other hand) because in their own social peer group there is pressure to be as "understanding" as possible to people "more miserable", so to say.

A total paradox.

Like people literally driving a 2t-tank to buy groceries from a store less than 3 km away, which have to be "organic" nonetheless (hence often from somewhere far away).

This kind of hypocrisy is hilarious. But seemingly few citizens want to realize it any more as long as there are amazon and netflix at home. To turn their brains into their comfortable coma.

Ignorance is bliss, quite obviously.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ignorance is bliss, if the solution is not easy. Ignorance is stupid if the solution is easy, I would reckon.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

Jesus fucking Christ. That's, that's fucking racist. NOW, THAT, THAT SHIT IS MOTHERFUCKING RACIST. HOLY SHIT!!!!

Jesus fuck me. God help us all if this shit stays any longer.

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's quite simple, all liberal words mean the opposite of their literal meaning. So "wokeness" means to be asleep, probably dreaming.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess that's been true since the 70s?

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wokeness is a new wrapper for the same age-old premise lying behind behind socialism/communism: the equality of outcomes. The various branches of wokeness (social causes - racism, sexism, genderism, etc - and political causes - poor little countries, regions or populations are better than larger more powerful countries, regions or populations) all presume that when there is a differential in power, the source of that differential is the evil manipulations of the more powerful party. In other words, according to this philosophy (which is a strain of thought probably as old as humanity itself), the "loser" in any competition became that because the winner cheated. There is no acceptance that there are inherent ingrained differences in ability among the members of humanity, and that social stratification is a natural process. Woke is thus the current version of a push toward radical egalitarianism. Because there are natural differences in ability among individuals, woke is promoting a fundamentally impossible future. The first step to understanding woke is to realize it is the same as egalitarian philosophies going back throughout history; the only difference among these philosophies is which groups they choose to label as "oppressor" and "oppressed". Beyond that, the thought process and the expectations have always been the same. I hope this helps.

In a more humorous vein, the following clip says the same thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsFzc0wAtFs

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah yeah. Ryan Chapman said the same thing. He discussed in a vein similar to how Anita Sarkeesian presents her ideas, calm and with examples.

Except that he lets you see what he means while Sarkeesian just repeats a phrase while showing an example. I recommend Chapman.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Think of those annoying kids in high school, who were continuously attending marches and made-up committees to try and save the world. Back when I was that age (in the eighties), we had jock bullies to keep them in line. They'd stick to their thing and stay in their echo chamber with their insular crowd, not really affecting the rest of the world. If they tried to impose their shit on someone outside their group, they'd get a wedgie, and balance was maintained.

Then, a concerted push to end school bullying happened in the early 2000's, and it was largely successful. But the bullying didn't really go away. It just shifted from being a physical consequence, largely doled out by boys, to a social one, where the girls had the upper hand. Not only that, but the ones with this power ended up being the world-saving people I referred to at the start of my post.

The combination of their righteous fight to save the world and their newfound bullying power (that wasn't allowed to be called bullying) was amplified by anonymous social media and they targeted anyone who wasn't on-message with their crusade. And then they grew up, but they never grew out of this high school mean-girl mentality because they never faced any consequences for their overbearing behavior.

And then they got degrees. And then they went out into the work force, taking their activist zeal to the HR departments of large companies. Some of them got advanced degrees and ended up teaching classes of 50, 100, and more, still motivated by the same fight against the system that drove them in high school.

But now, they're the system. And when you try to fight the system that is you, you eventually end up eating yourself. You seek out smaller and smaller niches of people who can pass your rigid ideological purity test, and your former allies become problematic because, although they are with you on 99% of things, you can't abide that 1% where you disagree.

And so, people build their fiefdoms, but now they're based on this weird pseudo-religion instead of groups of people who self organize because they know they can get things done together.

And this is why you cant find items at the supermarket anymore. The gears of commerce are gummed up by people who are far more concerned that you're addressing everyone by their proper pronouns, rather than filling out the paperwork that they were employed to do, that's going to allow that container ship to dock at your city's port to unload those supermarket goods.

And all this could have been avoided if they'd just been on the receiving end of a good wedgie in grade eleven.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It just shifted from being a physical consequence, largely doled out by boys, to a social one, where the girls had the upper hand.

I see. So this is where those mean girls came from.

Okay, just to reiterate, to see if I understood it.

Imagine it's those people who ask you to sign some things and expecting just signatures and people holding up signs is going to change the state of the world, in other words, people who are in way over their heads.

I have never experienced said people but I had a run-in with some religious people asking for donations. They're not too bad but a tad bit annoying.

Then they got kept in check by the jock bullies. Which, forgive me, you seem to view favorably. I do take offence at the idea that jock bullies are a "force for good". I will concede to the possibility that they kept those goody two shoes in check. There is a saying by someone that says that they'd rather be ruled by some jock bully than a goody two-shoes. A jock bully would just be mean for a while but a goody-two shoes would be unintentionally mean, forever.

But I wholly disagree with the reasoning that jock bullies are an entire force for good.

Maybe, just maybe one of them was an Arthur Fleck and that doing their goody two-shoes thing gave them purpose.

Okay, I believe I may be straying off topic.

I can't address anything about this post anymore. I get the parts where those goody two-shoes got the power and the power to bully and those goody two-shoes aided by the system have become the system that's the cause of the decline of America.

I will admit though that the last part sounded very conspiratorial.

And this is why you cant find items at the supermarket anymore. The gears of commerce are gummed up by people who are far more concerned that you're addressing everyone by their proper pronouns, rather than filling out the paperwork that they were employed to do, that's going to allow that container ship to dock at your city's port to unload those supermarket goods.

This part.

And all this could have been avoided if they'd just been on the receiving end of a good wedgie in grade eleven.

Although I do get what this means, I'd still like a much more thorough explanation on how this would be so. If it's not a bother too much.

Overall, fantastic answer.

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But I wholly disagree with the reasoning that jock bullies are an entire force for good. I agree. And though it does sound like I'm sympathetic to the jock bully types, that's not the case per se.

To delve a bit deeper, the examples I used above are a vast oversimplification of where we are today. I was using the high school analogies of activist "weirdos" vs jock bullies to make my point ("Hollywood-style", if you'll permit), so as to head off writing a novel about this.

To inform my reply a bit more, my explanation comes from the perspective of having been one of those "annoying (activist) kids" myself when I was young. I truly felt that I needed to do my bit in trying to correct the deeply felt injustices of the world around me. I still actually feel that way, but where I've fallen out with the "woke" crowd relates to something I was concerned about even back in my days of youth - the sense that any group that mandates lockstep adherence to their cause cannot at the same time be on the right side of history. Even if it is in quest for a noble goal like people being good to one another, forcing others to pay lip service to your ideology on pain of social ostracism or the loss of one's job is not worth the supposed reward of a society free from 'problematic behaviour'.

So the point of today's "woke" trend that I take issue with is that when left unchecked, any belief system, be it religion, government, 'might makes right', or 'social justice', will veer in the direction of dictatorial coercion. This isn't because these systems are inherently bad or good. Rather, it is because it is human nature for individuals to want to feel that they have the right answer for a problem. And when you find others who agree with you (which has been made massively easier with the internet and social media), it is easy to create a false feedback loop where you grow more and more confident (to the point of arrogance) about your truth being the truth. Add to that an intentional blocking of any opposing viewpoints and a lack of real-world consequences (because you can hide behind your avatar or harass someone from the other side of the country), and here we are.

It occurred to me this morning that a good analogy might be found in wildlife. When there's a die-off of wolves in the forest, we see a resulting bumper crop of deer. However, with higher numbers, this also leads to more deer affected with disease such as chronic wasting, tick borne illnesses, etc which would usually be culled by the wolves. Such things can then spread to other populations more easily, such as Lyme disease being spread as a result of more deer ticks. Also, the wolves' ability to kill off the weak deer results in the strongest, healthiest, best adapted deer being the ones to pass their genes on to the next generation.

And so it goes, in my belief, with this current wokeness. Absent the willingness to openly and vigorously debate the flaws in their ideology, the proponents get lazy and start proposing more and more bizarre rules, such as saying that trans women are the exact same thing as biological women (it's not difficult to find examples of people stating that trans are, in scientific fact, biological women). Without ridicule, shame, or consequences for such insanity, our society is held hostage by the unreality of these statements. As in the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes, I find this corrosive to society as a whole.

As a final comment, the supermarket analogy is definitely my weakest statement in the above screed. There are thousands of factors involved in the supply chain issue, and most aren't related to wokeness. However, I have experienced woke employees injecting their belief systems into corporate environments where people are just trying to do their jobs. In the same way that an employee insisting a cross be hung in the lunch room of a company with non-religious employees could be uncomfortable to them, another employee insisting that a 'progress pride' flag being hung during Pride Month might also make some employees similarly uncomfortable. In my case, that wouldn't be because I have negative opinions about gay people, but because it feels like I'm being challenged to show enthusiastic support for this cause 'or else'. This stuff ends up getting in the way of a functioning, secular work environment, and I feel that having to look over your shoulder all the time can lead to distractions from getting the job done.

[–]RichardsonDavis[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I love the deer analogy. Yes, I agree. If things are left unchecked they become over the top.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. This was a wonderful answer. You have a nice day now.