Woke is a Joke

[winsor 185]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced."

~James Baldwin

Given the Law of Unintended Consequences, 'change' does not necessarily mean 'improve.'  In all too many cases, vociferous opponents of one regime or another have generated a reaction from said regime that was exactly the opposite of what was intended, and things were that much worse thereafter.

[wmw999 2,114]

24 minutes ago, winsor said:

Given the Law of Unintended Consequences, 'change' does not necessarily mean 'improve.'

For that matter, neither does "evolution" necessarily mean "improvement." And as far as the determination of improvement, sometimes that depends on who's doing the evaluating, and how they're describing it. For instance, I had a neighbor in the Houston area who said things had been doing downhill since the Voting Rights Act, because all the wrong people started voting. Others might differ with him.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,042]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Given the Law of Unintended Consequences, 'change' does not necessarily mean 'improve.' 

But, you don't know until you observe & try. Same guy who provided your quote.   

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

But, you don't know until you observe & try. Same guy who provided your quote.   

Hi Keith,

'Change' is factual.  'Improve' is subjective.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,042]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

'Change' is factual.  'Improve' is subjective.

Evening, Jerry.

I'm pretty much done with this topic. He's going to continue to defend his thread topic. Have a good week. 

Keith 

[Stumpy 254]

8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

He's going to continue to defend his thread topic.

Agreed. Dunning Kruger is in play here.

[winsor 185]

16 hours ago, BIGUN said:

But, you don't know until you observe & try. Same guy who provided your quote.   

The problem with many of the policies I find objectionable is they it's all been done before, with the outcome being rather consistent.  The old doing the same thing and expecting different results scenario.

What constitutes 'good' and 'bad' often depends on how you phrase the question.  There are some things that are (almost) universally seen as good or bad, though the details can get a bit muddled.  For example, being well-fed is largely seen as better than being hungry, though having your arteries clogged by an unlimited amount of foods likely to cause that condition has its down side.

Also, quite what constitutes a 'solution' can be problematic, the road to hell being paved with good intentions.  Some of the worst ecological and humanitarian disasters have been set in motion by people with the best of intentions.  We are given to authoring one Schlimmverbesserung (~the cure is worse than the disease) after another, since 'the greatest source of problems is solutions.'

I've read enough of Baldwin's work to appreciate his genius, though I don't fully identify with him and differ with rather a few of his conclusions.  In the context of this thread, I am much closer to Thomas Sowell's stance.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,120]

On 10/23/2021 at 6:52 AM, winsor said:

Given what I'm accused of being or thinking, I don't have a high level of confidence that those who decry my points actually understand them. Too many ten dollar words?

Ah yes, the "if you were as smart as I am, you would understand" argument. I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, but you don't want argument and discussion. You want people to agree with you.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

There are some things that are (almost) universally seen as good or bad, though the details can get a bit muddled.  For example, being well-fed is largely seen as better than being hungry, though having your arteries clogged by an unlimited amount of foods likely to cause that condition has its down side.

Nothing muddled about that. Nobody argues that being over-fed is good.

[billvon 2,379]

46 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah yes, the "if you were as smart as I am, you would understand" argument. I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, but you don't want argument and discussion. You want people to agree with you.

It is unfortunate indeed that none of us have the level of expertise he imagines himself to have.

I have noticed that on public forums there are two general types of people:

1) People who post to generate a discussion from people who may disagree with them.

2) People who post to see their own opinions reflected back at them, and become perturbed when this does not occur.

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah yes, the "if you were as smart as I am, you would understand" argument. I have said it before, and I am sure I will say it again, but you don't want argument and discussion. You want people to agree with you.

Badly phrased, I agree, but when I consider the responses I am often left wondering quite to what is being responded.  If I never said or meant what is being refuted, it is not as likely a straw man as it is that what was said was not understood in the first place.

I make no claim at being smart. I do, however, note that some people are remarkably stupid (according to some sources I fall into that category).

[winsor 185]

35 minutes ago, billvon said:

It is unfortunate indeed that none of us have the level of expertise he imagines himself to have.

I have noticed that on public forums there are two general types of people:

1) People who post to generate a discussion from people who may disagree with them.

2) People who post to see their own opinions reflected back at them, and become perturbed when this does not occur.

Gee, if I ever want to know what I'm thinking I'll be sure to ask you.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

3 minutes ago, winsor said:

If I never said or meant what is being refuted, it is not as likely a straw man as it is that what was said was not understood in the first place.

Or very poorly communicated to begin with. The problem could be on your side.

[winsor 185]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Or very poorly communicated to begin with. The problem could be on your side.

Wait!  Are you suggesting the I may have made a mistake?!!!

If I ever did, I don't know how I could live with myself.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

58 minutes ago, billvon said:

It is unfortunate indeed that none of us have the level of expertise he imagines himself to have.

I have noticed that on public forums there are two general types of people:

1) People who post to generate a discussion from people who may disagree with them.

2) People who post to see their own opinions reflected back at them, and become perturbed when this does not occur.

3) People who deliberately post controversial stuff, make untrue claims, deliberately misunderstand what people say in response (particularly those who disagree), pretend they are 'suffering abuse' when people point out their errors and generally gaslight anyone who doesn't agree with what they are claiming.

You missed one.

[winsor 185]

14 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

3) People who deliberately post controversial stuff, make untrue claims, deliberately misunderstand what people say in response (particularly those who disagree), pretend they are 'suffering abuse' when people point out their errors and generally gaslight anyone who doesn't agree with what they are claiming.

You missed one.

There are 10 kinds of people.

Those who understand binary and those who don't.

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Badly phrased, I agree, but when I consider the responses I am often left wondering quite to what is being responded.  If I never said or meant what is being refuted, it is not as likely a straw man as it is that what was said was not understood in the first place.

 

Or maybe you’re just shit at stating your position clearly?

Your penchant for superfluous elongation of discourse in order to facilitate the association of intelligence in the poster to the reader, provides no more than illusionary and self-delusionary camoflague for the lack of substance in your own posts.

Edited October 25, 2021 by yoink

[gowlerk 1,901]

11 minutes ago, yoink said:

Or maybe you’re just shit at stating your position clearly?

Your penchant for superfluous elongation of discourse in order to facilitate the association of intelligence in the poster to the reader, provides no more than illusionary and self-delusionary camoflague for the lack of substance in your own posts.

Nice try Yoink, but you are nowhere near his level of unneeded wordiness.

[olofscience 420]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Nice try Yoink, but you are nowhere near his level of unneeded wordiness.

Oh, winsor needs it alright...but not because he has an actual point.

[winsor 185]

3 hours ago, yoink said:

Or maybe you’re just shit at stating your position clearly?

Your penchant for superfluous elongation of discourse in order to facilitate the association of intelligence in the poster to the reader, provides no more than illusionary and self-delusionary camoflague for the lack of substance in your own posts.

If you have to attack the poster instead of content, you have nothing.

My point is that Woke is a confluence of stupidity and, for some reason, you insist on proving my point conclusively.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,901]

11 minutes ago, winsor said:

My point is that Woke is a confluence of stupidity

Again, there is not such ideology as "Woke". There is no actual reason to capitalize the word. It is merely another of the hatreds that you have succumbed to. Like the irrational Hilary thing.

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, winsor said:

If you have to attack the poster instead of content, you have nothing.

Winsor: posts ~1000 pages of content that he didn't write and requires that people respond to each point otherwise "they have nothing".

Also ignores actual responses to some points because he couldn't answer simple questions. Classic troll behaviour.

[winsor 185]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Again, there is not such ideology as "Woke". There is no actual reason to capitalize the word. It is merely another of the hatreds that you have succumbed to. Like the irrational Hilary thing.

You're projecting again.

[gowlerk 1,901]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

You're projecting again.

I suppose. Your use of hateful words may just rhetoric that you are using for dramatic effect. It is of course not possible for me to know your true thoughts or beliefs. I can only interpret the words you use and the ideas you express. You might call that projection.

[yoink 321]

Edited to sleep on it

Edited October 26, 2021 by yoink