you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.